itSct in Silt; OR. CHST HE FOM ATO PREACHED SEPT. 0, 1855, AT THE DEDICATION OF A NEW MEETCING-HOUSE BELONG-IONG TO BY DAVID FOSDICK, JR. MINISTER OFr THE SOCIETY. WITH AiN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE COVENANT OF THE SOCIETY. AND THE ORDER V OF EXERCISES AT THE DEDICATION OF THE IMEETING-HOUSE. JtbibftiCeb tlb B-cqtutrt. H lbs. x. 2. T:-r - ) T ~ MeFptCratL 6 XPCTi6c; - i. Cot. I. 13. "E PLURIBUS UNUM." "JJNITED WE STAND, I)IVIDED VWE FALL." BOSTON: PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, & COMPANY, No. 13, WINTER STREET. 1855. Arct ir hin; OR, CHRIST THE FOUNDATION. A SERMO N PREACHED SEPT. 5, 1855, AT THE DEDICATION OF A NEW MEETING-HOUSE BELONGING TO W;)ge'Fout -Arotoln Of)ristian Uwlin" BY DAVID FOSDICK, JR. MINISTER OF THE SOCIETY. WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE COVENANT OF THE SOCIETY, AND THE ORDER OF EXERCISES AT THE DEDICATION OF THE MEETING-HOUSE. Vublizbeb bp 33equrzt. 1=5R _ _m57 t t7 - Hos. x. 2. T 7 T T T MieuptLrat 6O Xpt7-6f; - i. CO. I. 13. " E PLURIBUS UNUM[." "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.' BOSTON: PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, & COMPANY, No. 13, WINTER STREET. 1855. i0O GOD AND CHRIST, THIS LITTLE PAMPHLET, LIKE THE SOCIETY AND MEETING-HOUSE WHICH HAVE OCCASIONED IT, Xs 310u~recutl) Btelocateb. BOSTON: PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON AND SON, 22, SCHOOL STREET. P R E F A C E. PERHAPS the following Discourse would not have been printed, except at the urgent request of those who heard it. It seems to me that I have therein spoken for true Christian liberty; a liberty which, I think, can never be extensively possessed but through a true Christian union; a union and a liberty which, I think, are pre-requisite to the salvation of the world. To my readers, if I have any, of the different sects, I must probably, at the best, be offering " vera pro gratis," to use the words which Mr. Webster inscribed as his motto on a memorable occasion, and which Sir Robert Peel had employed before him in a similar manner. I must not speak, as from the head of any Christian column, with a tone of authority backed by the forces of a sect, but as an individual minister of Christ, wishing to depend for acceptance solely upon the truth as it is in Jesus. The Society in whose behalf the Discourse was delivered has been unjustly termed Unitarian in newspaper comments. Some of its members have heretofore borne various sectarian names, and some have never borne any whatsoever. It is, I believe, the steady intent of the society to repudiate all such designations. For myself, I am not a Unitarian, never was so, and do not admit that I ever left anybody just ground to think me so. In my particular views of Christian doctrine I have perhaps accorded as much with the so-called Orthodox as with the so-called Unitarians, judging by the best-accredlited standards among both; and I can see no good reason why the creed of either should be so generally adopted or rejected as a whole. Solicited to minister, on my own terms of conscience, to two different societies previously considered Unitarian, I have felt constrained to comply, though steadfastly avowing that I was not a Unitarian. The measure of freedom which I met with was a main inducement. Upon the same terms of conscience I think I might have ministered to a congregation of any other name or of none. But, had my particular sentiments been either Orthodox or Unitarian, I should not probably have believed them to be the proper basis of a Christian church, so long as I believed there might be Christians who were neither Orthodox nor Unitarian. I am at present a Protestant of the Protestants; all Christian sects seeming to me, from their very nature as sects, alike wrong. I wash my hands from further participation in them as such. I am resolved not in any wise to pay toll hereafter upon a sectarian turnpike, Unitarian or other. The old road of the Gospel is better. (Jer. vi. 16.) Sects insist on the privilege of sectarianism; but, if the principles of this discourse are correct, they have no right to it. Sectarianism is intolerance. The liberty which sects would have is liberty of oppression. The doctrine of equal rights goes to the destruction of sect; for the very essence of sect is tyranny. To be thoroughly tolerant, we must needs be intolerant of intolerance. Other sects besides the Roman-Catholic may well lay to heart this truth. If the religion of a sect invades the just rights of others, it is incongruous with our free institutions. The Roman papacy commits such an invasion; and so does the papacy of every other sect; for every sect has its papacy. M5r. Brownson, of the R]oman-Catholic Review, often exhibits a hardy impudence of remark which approaches the sublime, but fails of it by such a step that he amuses rather than affronts. If to the eyes of all other men a thing were incontestably white, it would probably be the most natural thing in the world for him to observe, it was very plain it was black; and, in case his correctness were questioned, he would only have to reply: " In the mind of a Catholic there is no room for doubt." (Q. It. Oct. 1855, p. 483.) But he often speaks weighty truth; e. g., when he says (p. 494) that "' Geneva is the Rome of Protestantism." Every papacy, Roman or other, is in fact a worldly, not a Christian, power. With the stanchest adherents of the Roman-Catholic sect the Clt1srcA is the Pope, and with the rest the Pope and a council of clergy; among Protestant sects the church is too often, in some form or other, confounded with the clergy. Witness the recent assumption of 3,050 ministers to speak in the name of the churches of New England. In Massachusetts, church and state have always been, even to the present day, more nearly connected than many would have it supposed. Politicians have used our sects for their own selfish ends. The division of Greece into little rival states put them at the mercy of that wily politician, Philip of Macedon; and so the division of the great Congregational denomination iv PREFACE. in Massachusetts has been fraught with important political results. There have been men, men cried up, too, as specially good men, who have aided all or most of the sects indifferently, as though they had no conscience of their own; and the issue has been, that, in helping others so impartially, they have helped themselves most liberally. Such procedure really indicates an indifference to every thing but self; I can see no good motive for it whatever. The wisdom of sect is termed devilish by James (III. 15); and to lend a hand to the devil in all his works impartially ought to be no matter of credit. If a man is honestly of one sect, he should sustain that in preference to all others; if he is no sectarian, he should sustain no sect. Men calling themselves liberal have, by this Jesuitical policy of personal aggrandizement, done much to strengthen the footing of illiberality in our land. True democracy requires the abolition of sects. Now, as ever, an increase of religious liberty will occasion an increase of civil and social liberty. There seems to be a general anticipation of some new crisis, like the crash of sects, the destruction of antichrist, that the Lord alone may be exalted. The expectation which preceded the first coming of Christ may forbode his second. It is not enough to seek a union of the sects, or a better feeling between them, as some talk. Christianity without sectarianism is far from being the same as a compromise among the sects. Those are to be considered, and they are very many, who, though Christians, have never joined any religious party. There is often an impudent assumption on the part of the sects, in town-meeting and elsewhere, that they embody all the religious feeling of the community. Men often feel much more kindliness towards those of any sect, however opposed to theirs, than towards those of none. The bitter sectarian too often stands foremost, while you must look in the background for the humble Christian. There has been talk, and some doing, in regard to a union of so-called Evangelical sects; the German De Wette and others plead for a union of all Protestant sects; but what we need is a unliOn of Christians) not as sectarians, but as individuals. Old things. in respect to sect, should pass away; all things should become new. In true Christianity there is neither one sect nor another, not even Protestant nor Roman Catholic, no, not even church-member nor parishioner, but Christ is all, and in all. It may be said, there is nothing new in this sermon. I know it is not a new thing to preach against sectarianism. All ministers, even Roman Catholics, I suppose, preach against it. Hardly any one appears to be sectarian now-a-days in his own conceit. I have myself heard most excellent principles on this subject from the pulpits of the narrowest sects. Sects are not generally sectarian, any more than negroes are generally black. Who is foolish enough, e. g., to regard the Unitarians as a sect, distinguished by a published creed from so-called Parkerism on the one hand and so-called Orthodoxy on the other? Do we not remember with what exceeding charity Mr. Putnam was treated in regard to the unsectarian tenor of the Discourse he preached at a Boston Installation in 1846? To say nothing of other forms of cordiality, witness the article of Mr. Gannett in the Christian Examiner for May, 1846. How warm his desire for a fraternal embrace of Calvinists and other Christians! (Ibid. p. 463.) Oh no! the Unitarian sect is not a sect: it has none of the qualities of a sect. - To be serious, we must aver of the Unlitarians, as of other sects, their words are better than their deeds; they say and do not; the voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. It is matter of regret that Mr. Putnam has not done more, since 1846, to encourage an unsectarian position. There are some physicians, it is said, who will practise allopathy or homoeopathy, according to the wishes of their patients. It should not be so with the preachers of Christianity. There may be nothing new in my sermon; the main dlifference between sectarians and myself may be, that I mean something by what I say, and resolutely apply it in act. Each sect would save the world by its own creed; but the real Saviour is Christ. We should love Christ better than we love our view of Christ; else we love self better than we love Christ. One great difficulty to be obviated is, that there are so many who, in a worldly way, derive advantage fronm sectarianism. "By this craft we have our wealth." It is serviceable machinery. Its regiments require numerous officers. I-Ionors and other pay are in its gift. Most of our colleges and religious presses are controlled by sect. The clergy, colleges, and presses of sect are poor. What Goethe calls the " majesty of money " was never greater than now. The trade-winds of our own country are mighty. A Spanish proverb says, Money is always orthodox. Maintenance of the true principles of Christian union generally demands of men considerable self-sacrifice. Says Dr. John M. Mason, of New York: "Every form and particle of their depravity has an interest in counteracting it." The great religious question of the day is: Sect or Christ? "Brethren, close, close (says John Bunyan); be one as the Father and Christ are one." D. F. jr. GROTON, MASS. Nov. 9, 1855. SERMO N. Text: I. Cor, IIio 11. " OTHER FOUNDATION CAN NO MAN LAY THAN THAT IS LAID, WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST." IT was plainly the chief design of Paul in the chapter where the text occurs, and, indeed, it appears to have been one great object of the entire Epistle, to censure, and, if possible, to subvert and obliterate, the divisions which had arisen, even thus early, among the Christians of Corinth. These divisions are most distinctly pronounced unjustifiable, and those who favored them are denominated carnal, mere babes in Christ. The express ground of this reproof was, that the Corinthians had become accustomed to speak of themselves as followers of some one among the primitive teachers of Christianity in distinction from the rest. It is observable that they had not proceeded so far as to institute separate organizations, like those of the sects at the present day. They did not exclude each other from 1 6 the table of communion. United otherwise as Christians, they only began to denominate themselves variously. These denominations were as yet much less divisive than what are called now-adays denominations or sects of the Christian church. There is no difference in kind, be it observed, between denomination and sect. The essential spirit of denomination is the spirit of sect or sectarianism. Denomination must intend exclusion. He who defends denominations among Christians defends sectarianism. Paul knew better than to do so. The first and mildest symptoms of a tendency to what are now called denominations he sharply rebukes. " Now this I say (he writes, I. 12), that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul??" And, in the chapter which contains the text, his language is: "While one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? Who, then, is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed? " (IIi. 4, 5.) — He then proceeds to represent the Corinthian church under the figure of a garden. He himself, he says, had planted this gar-, den; Apollos had watered it: but it was God who gave the increase. The Corinthian Christians were God's husbandry. All the glory was due to God. He that planted and he that watered were both comparatively nothing. And yet, under the benign provisions of the Great Husbandman, each laborer would receive a reward according to his labor. -He now suddenly alters the simile, keeping in view the same general sentiment. He calls the Corinthian Christians God's building'; and says, that, according to the grace of God given to him, as a wise master-builder he had laid the foundation, and another (i. e. Apollos,) had builded thereon. Now comes the text' " For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." The next four verses are occupied in representing how important it is that every man should take heed ill what way he builds upon this foundation. Expanding the new figure into greater completeness, he then says: "' Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? " The metaphor of building, you are aware, is quite frequently applied in the Scriptures to the church of God. " Building up Zion" is a quite common expression in the Old Testament. " Building up yourselves (says Jude in the New Testament, Ep. v. 20,) on your most holy faith." Peter says to his readers (1 Peter xIo 5): "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house." Paul (1 Tim. iii. 15,) speaks of 8 *"the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The idea of edification, so often presented in Paul's epistles, has etymologically the same purport. The thing of primary consequence in regard to every edifice is plainly the foundation. However costly and precious the superstructure, indeed just in proportion to its excellence, the foundation demands paramount attention. The question, what is the proper foundation of the temple of God, the Christian Church, possesses an importance which it is not easy to exaggerate. It is momentous as respects our individual salvation. If we are on that foundation, though the work we build upon it be wood, hay, or stubble, and be ultimately consumed, yet (we are told, 1 Cor. IIi. 15,) we ourselves shall be saved, so as by fire; but, if we are not on the foundation, it is impossible we should be stones in the Christian temple. - It is momentous, too, as respects justice to others; for, if we adopt an unauthorized basis for the Christian Church, we shall probably infringe the rights of some who may look for Christian recognition and privileges at our hands. - It is momentous, too, thirdly, as respects the ascendency of genuine Christianity; for, if we build upon a false foundation, we work at a great disadvantage, a disadvantage proportioned to its unsoundness. 9 To a greater or less degree, we must labor in vain and spend our strength for nought. We have information upon this subject in the text. "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." That which is laid: God hath laid it; and this is reason enough why no better, or other good one, can be laid by man. " The foundation of God (we know,) standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (2 Tim. II. 19.) The many piles that have been reared by man's masonry, and denominated fundamental, are of but imaginary stability and consequence. The sole secure foundation is Jesus Christ. This relationship of Christ to the Christian Church is very often explicitly stated in the New Testament. Jesus himself used this very image of a foundation in the fine similitude (Matt. VII. 24 seq.) which likens him that heard and did his sayings to the wise man who built his house upon a rock, and him that heard and neglected them to the foolish man who built his house upon the sand. On another occasion, when Peter had just avowed the conviction of the disciples, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus rejoined (Matt. xvi. 18): "'And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church;" i. e., as I understand the matter, not upon the person of Peter, though this is the as 10 sumption of those called Roman Catholics, but upon the truth which Peter had just before declared, the truth of Christ's Messiahship and his Sonship to the living God. Peter himself, in one of his Epistles (1 Pet. II. 6), speaks of Christ as the corner-stone of the church: " Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious." Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians (ii. 20 seq.), employs the same figure in a still more striking manner: "Ye are built (says he,) upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth into an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." What is to be understood by the statement of the text, that Jesus Christ is the Foundation of the Christian Church? I regard it as denoting simply, that the doctrines, life, and spirit of Christ are to be the standard of belief, practice, and temper for his -followers. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews declares (xI. 6): "Without faith it is impossible to please him " (i. e. God); " for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." In order to be Christians, 11 we must acknowledge the indubitable authority of Christ's teachings. Throughout the New Testament we perceive the utmost stress to be laid upon belief in Christ. I will not test your patience by a recital of the numerous passages which might be adduced to sustain this statement; for no one will dispute it. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is called not only "I the author " but "' the finisher of our faith." This language probably intends, that he has set before the world a final revelation of religious truth. It probably denotes, that the New Testament is the last systematic dispensation of God's word to man. The old Jewish dispensation was defective. It had only the shadow of good things to come. But the volume of our faith is now adequate to the wants of the race. No direct revelation additional to the Gospel is needed to guide us in the path of truth, duty, and happiness. Moreover, Christ is to be the standard, not only of our belief, but of our practice. We are to be doers as well as hearers and believers. We are to obey his precepts, walk by the light of his truth, imitate his holy example. Yet further, we are to make Christ the standard for the temper, the dispositions, of our souls.- It is not enough that we should assent with the intellect to all his declarations; it is not enough that we 12 should in addition render some outward obedience to his commandments. Our belief must be from the heart unto righteousness, and unto a righteousness that exceedeth the outward righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. The soul must be transformed into his image. If we have not the spirit of Christ we are none of his. No one of the three things which have been specified is, alone, adequate as a foundation of Christianity. Neither Christian belief, nor Christian practice, nor the Christian spirit, is by itself sufficient to make a man a Christian. A combination of these three characteristics is requisite. An intellectual, or what is commonly termed a speculative, assent to Christianity may exist without Christian piety even of the feeblest character. There is such a thing as holding the truth in utter unrighteousness., "What doth it profit, my brethren (says James, II. 14), though a mall say he hath faith and have not works? Can faith save him? " Thrice within the compass of a few verses he reiterates the declaration, that " faith without works is dead." The most wicked being may believe and tremble. It is possible for a man to assent intellectually to all the doctrines inculcated by Jesus Christ, and still be none the better but rather the worse for his belief, because his life is so much at variance with it. "C To 13 him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin." (Jas. Iv. 17.) It is more desirable to be destitute of acquaintance with the truth, than, possessing acquaintance with it, to persist in disobedience. Nobody, probably, will maintain, that mere intellectual assent to Christianity is adequate to constitute Christian character. — Nor is mere outward practice of Christianity sufficient. Were it possible thus to practise every injunction of Christianity concerning the external life, all would be in vain without the assent of the heart. The belief and conduct of Simon the sorcerer were of this defective character. "Then Simon himself (we are told, Acts viii. 13,) believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." And yet, very shortly after (v. 21), Peter said to him: "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." God says to every man: "My son, give me thine heart " (Prov. xxIII. 26). — Nor, again, is the Christian spirit alone suficient to constitute a Christian. If it were so, then a heathen might possibly be a Christian, without ever having heard of Christianity. Socrates, for example, exhibited many Christian excellences of character, but plainly it is not on that account proper to call Socrates a Christian. The most worthy and pious 14 among the ancient Jews were not Christians. An infidel may have some measure of the Christian spirit. The knowledge, belief, practice, and spirit of Christianity are all requisite to Christian character. It is not necessary, in order to make a man a real Christian, that either his belief, his practice, or his spirit, should be in all respects accordant with the dictates of genuine Christianity. Indeed, I do not suppose that all the principles of Christianity have ever been even fully ascertained, still less appreciated, yet less embodied in the life and the heart, by a single individual upon earth except Christ himself. Such a ground of title to the Christian name could never be occupied. Pretension to occupy it would be consummate arrogance. I am not aware that such perfection was ever claimed. What may be styled, perhaps, the absolute or public knowledge of Christianity is, I think, progressive. The minds of different individual Christians also exhibit very different stages of acquaintance with it; and each, as an individual, is or should be continually advancing from strength to strength in this respect. In short, all Christians are, it is probable, ignorant of some points in Christianity, and some Christians of almost all. -Nor are the practice and spirit of all Christians by any means fully or equally suitable to their 15 religious knowledge. On the contrary, there must always exist a great deficiency and a great variety of attainment in this respect. In confirmation of these remarks, observe the character of Christ's earliest disciples. How gross was their ignorance respecting even some principal tenets of his Gospel! How inadequate their cone ception of his Messiahship itself, not only during his life, but even beyond his death and resurrection! Before his death they were expecting the establishment of a temporal kingdom; and for some time after his death they restricted the scope of his Gospel to the Jewish people, though he himself expressly enjoined that they should go and teach it to all nations. Even the doctrine of the resurrection, which seems to be represented as the chief doctrine of Christianity, was evidently not at all apprehended by them during the lifetime of their Master. For Mark (ix. 31,) says:'" He (Christ) taught his disciples and said unto them, The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Statements of this nature, signifying the ignorance of Christ's disciples, are of frequent occurrence. How obscure their notions were in regard to the purposes which Christ came to accom. 16 plish, how obscure they continued to be throughout the lifetime of their Master, is apparent from what is recorded in Luke, xxIv. 45 seq. to 48, concerning an interview which Christ had with his disciples after his resurrection. "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand-the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Call to mind the stubborn unbelief of Thomas, one of the twelve. Plainly these disciples must have been but weak in the faith, and yet Christ received them. "6 Him that is weak in the faith (says Paul, Rom. xIv. 1,) receive ye;" and elsewhere (Rom. xv. 7): "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us." Moreover, what deficiencies, improprieties, yes, even gross iniquities of practice and temper are related of these same disciples! James, and the beloved disciple John, in a spirit of revenge for the inhospitable demeanor of those who inhabited a certain Samaritan village, said to Jesus:' Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down friom heaven and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." (Luke ix. 54, 55.) These 17 same disciples came to Jesus, with their mother, and, in a spirit of selfish ambition, expressly presented through her the request, that they might sit, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left, in his expected kingdom. (Matt. xx. 20 seq.) The disciples in general (we are told, Mark Ix. 33-35,) disputed among themselves, in a spirit of unholy emulation, who should be greatest in that kingdom. In the garden of Gethsemane, when the soul of Jesus began to be torn with agony, he said to Peter and James and John, whom he had taken with him: c' My soul is exceeding sorrowful, unto death: tarry ye here, and watch." But, notwithstanding this explicit injunction of their Lord, they disobediently, not to say heartlessly, fell asleep; and were accosted by him on his return with the touching appeal: C "What! could ye not watch with me one hour? " (Matt. xxvI. 36 seq. and Mark xIv. 34 seq.) When Jesus was taken prisoner by the band from the chief priests and elders of the people, the disciples, we are told (Matt. xxvI. 56), all forsook him and fled. Peter and John, however, returned and followed him afar off. (v. 50.) Still, Peter, after entering the palace of the high priest, thrice denied his Master. This was he who had so manfully protested (Matt. xxvI. 35): " Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also (we read,) said 2 18 all the disciples." - In the book of Acts we find, even after the death and resurrection of Christ, continued evidence of imperfection in the characters of even the chief disciples. For example, Paul de clares (Gal. I. 11 set.) that Peter (the first pope, according to the Roman Catholics,) and some other Jewish Christians were guilty of hypocrisy, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. And when Paul saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, he withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.- On another occasion, a contention arose between Paul and Barnabas, which was so sharp that they departed asunder, one from the other. (Acts xv. 39.) —-Such was the case in respect to those who were the foremost and best of Christ's immnediate disciples. The Epistles show that the case was sometimes much worse as to the ordinary converts. So was it in the first ages of Christianity, and so it has been, to a greater or less extent, with its most excellent disciples down to the present day. I maintain, further, that it is not for us to determine how far belief or practice or temper must coincide with real Christianity, with the truth as it is in Jesus, in order to constitute a man a Christian. We cannot properly fix upon any one unvarying standard for all in this respect. The judgment passed upon 19 us by the Most High will be adjusted according to our opportunities. He requires of a man according to that he hath, and not according to that he hath not. Unto whomsoever much is given, of him, and of him only, will much be required. It is not for us to say, though so many are ready to say, how far a man may err in regard to the teachings of Christ, and yet be really a Christian. He must acknowledge Christ as his Master, and thein to his own Master he standeth or falleth. The context of the passage I have adopted as the nucleus of this discourse explicitly represents, that a man may possibly build upon the true foundation, which is Jesus Christ, a worthless pile, of wood, or hay, or stubble, which itself will be burned up, and yet he himself be saved, though so as by fire. They who sincerely and heartily accept Christ as the sole foundation of their characters, the author and finisher of their faith, an example binding them to follow his steps and imbibe his spirit, are truly Christians, though they may be ever so mistaken and imperfect. They are in the faith, however weak; and, though they are candidates for the rewards of Christian character only in proportion to their actual insight and attainments, they will not be rejected of God, and should not be rejected on earth; for they are babes, if not men, in Christ Jesus. 20 It is not requisite to believe that Christ taught this or that doctrine, stated in other words than his own, but only to believe that his words, be their meaning what it may, are true, and to strive after conformity, in life and heart, with that meaning which in the judgment of the believer they actually possess. All that is requisite to some sort of Christian character is, that the Gospel should be accepted, from the heart, in the sense supposed to have been intended by its Author. I am of opinion, that there is no one doctrine of the Gospel whatsoever, save the mastership of Christ, which is, in itself considered, essential to the possession of some Christian faith. Do not misunderstand me. My meaning is, that there is no doctrine in the Gospel which it is absolutely necessary to believe, if an honest mind does not perceive it there. And remember, it will not do for us to assume, that every honest mind will of course perceive this or that doctrine, even though it may seem ever so plain and ever so important to us. If we make this assumption in regard to any one doctrine, why not in regard to any other or even all together? Here we may see the insuperable difficulty which exists in respect to the very common distinction between essentials and nonessentials in Christianity. What warrant is discoverable in the New Testament for any such separation 21 between some particular points as fundamental and the rest as not so? I cannot discern any plausible basis even of inference in favor of such a line of distinction. HIow, then, are we to decide what doctrines are essential and what not so? Would a matter of so great moment be left extremely indefinite? Shall each man judge for himself what is and what is not essential? But what are to be his grounds of judgment? If he were to pronounce all the doctrines of the Gospel, as he understands them, necessary to be believed by every one, he would have, I think, as good argument for his procedure as he who, at his pleasure, singles out a few of these doctrines, and sets them on thrones he himself has constructed. The basis of such doings is only quicksand. But, it is said, Christianity must be something: there must be something fundamental and necessary in it. Christianity is indeed something, something of unspeakable value; but this does not make it true that there is any one point in the particular teachings of Christianity which, in the sense intended, may be pronounced essential. In one sense all those teachings are essential, i. e. they are all component parts of Christianity. But there is, I think, no sufficient ground for the broad distinction which men have attempted to set up between them. They are of various importance, but the Gospel nowhere says, 2* 22 that some of its teachings are essential and the rest not so; and man has no authority to institute and apply such a distinction at his pleasure. The supposed analogies, to which recourse is often had by way of argument for this distinction, are in truth not at all to the purpose. It has been said, we should never think of calling a man a chemist, e. g., who either was unacquainted with or denied all the common principles of chemistry. But suppose the case, that a man calling himself a chemist were to undertake the refutation of principles commonly regarded as the main principles of chemistry, could we be quite sure that it was right for us, on that account alone, to refuse him the title of chemist? Is it absolutely impossible that a man should distrust or disown the old theories of any science, and at the same time be a proficient in it? Such a principle, fully developed and applied, would put a stop to all radical improvement. Such a principle in general philosophy would condemn Lord Bacon for rebelling against Aristotle. How, on this ground, could Bacon be justified in making inroads on the vital tenets of the Aristotelian system? Such a principle in astronomy would condemn Galileo and Newton for impugning the fundamental tenets of previous astronomers. Was Luther no Christian, because he made war on the very citadel of what is now called Roman Catholicism and was then generally considered to be Christianity? To be a Christian, in the New-Testainent sense, is to surrender the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, to the influence of what is regarded as the Gospel of Christ. He who does this may be said to be on the only sure foundation, which is laid by God himself, even Jesus Christ. To each of us that is essential which we believe the word of God to inculcate. This is the root of the matter. We may be weak in the faith, as were most, if not all, of the earliest Christians, and yet we may be on the foundation. Our imperfections, our backslidings even, may be many and great, and yet there may be Christian piety in our hearts, at least as a grain of mustardseed. In the time of Christ and the apostles, it would seem, to profess Christianity was only to acknowledge the authority of Jesus, the truth that he was the Messiah, sent of God to teach and save the world. Accordingly, we find no long forms of belief recorded in the New Testament. Peter, we read (Matt. xvI. 16), in declaration of his faith, "answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Martha said unto him (John xi. 27): "Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." When the Ethiopian inquired of Philip, 1"What cloth hinder 24 me to be baptized? Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts vIII. 36, 37.) Can you point out a single biblical example of a creed at all resembling those of modern times? The only absolute essentials to Christian character are, a desire to know the truth as it is in Jesus and an habitual subjection of the heart and life to the authority of that truth when it is disclosed. Let me now proceed to draw several conclusions from the proposition in the text, as elucidated by what has been already said. I. First — then - If there be no other proper foundation than Jesus Christ, then those who expressly exalt their own reason above the Christian revelation are not building upon the Christian foundation. There are some who lay claim to reverence for Christianity, and would think it an unwarrantable hardship to be denied the Christian name, who yet seem to ascribe to Christ no other authority than what is derivable from the intrinsic reasonableness which they find in his teachings. Plato, with them, has exactly the same sort of authority as Christ. Now, I would most certainly avoid uncharitableness; yet I would hold and uphold the truth: and I avow that I cannot discern in what respect the position which I have mentioned differs at all from the admitted infidelity of many; of Rousseau, for instance, who himself saw and acknowledged much of beauty and verity in the teachings and example of our Saviour. We nowv-a-days find men speaking of Christianity as something which the world will one day outgrow; and, indeed, we might well conclude that they look upon it as already somewhat antiquated and useless. We observe human reason placed at an almost unprecedented pitch of elevation. Instead of the Gospel of Christ we have another Gospel, that of self. Self is openly set above Christ, above every thing beside. It is made God. The truth as it is in Jesus must succumb before the truth as it is in our own reason. Now, if the text be true, those who discourse in this way are building upon a false foundation. Professing themselves to be wise, they really become fools (Rom. I. 22). They preach themselves, not Christ Jesus the Lord (2 Cor. iv. 5). " Beware, (says Paul, Col. IH. 8,) lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." The teachings and ordinances of Christ set aside as time-worn and worthless? What absurdity, that the mind of puny, ignorant, guilty man should harbor such vainglory Before any community, if any individual, has fully carried 26 out in life and character even one single precept of the Gospel, however slight, men venture to talk of dispensing with the ladder of ascent to perfection. Let us at least exhibit some present proof that Christianity is properly appreciated and employed, before we talk of discarding it. Among all the wild vagaries of the day, this seems to me as wild as any. Let the person incurably lame cast away his crutches, if he will; let the child who has hardly yet learned his alphabet arrogantly think, if he will, of dispensing with language in his intellectual progress; let us all, if we will, abandon the use of our limbs in locomotion, and conclude to rely wholly on mere spiritual energy: but let no man be so silly as to suppose that Christ's teachings are now, or can ever be, needless for the advantage of mankind at large, or even for his own. The province of reason is, to ascertain and interpret the Christian revelation, not to supersede or control it. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. If there are any eternal principles whatsoever in the universe, they are to be found, I believe, in the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ; and it is enough of happy prospect for the loftiest human or angelic intellect, that it may, throughout endless ages, approach, without ever attaining, a full comprehension of the height and depth, the length and breadth, the measureless glory, of that Revelation. 27 Again, II. — If there be no other proper foundation than Jesus Christ, then it is wrong to substitute therefor, or affix thereto, any traditions or commandments of men as fundamental. This is, in truth, substantially the same error as that which was rebuked under the last head, the substitution of self for Christ. The only difference is, that in the one case the substitution is plain and express, while in the other it is disguised. Passing by at present the explicit additions to the Gospel which have been devised by some Christians, I maintain that it is wrong to make traditions and commandments of men in respect to the interpretation of Christianity the foundation of the Christian church. It is all one, in this view, whether such human traditions and commandments be called Roman Catholic or Protestant, Calvinistic or Arminian, Presbyterian or Congregational, Trinitarian or Unitarian, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Universalist, Quaker, Shaker, Swedenborgian, or whatsoever else. It is not for us to lay the foundation of the Christian church; it is laid for us, even Jesus Christ. Not our views of Christ, observe, but Christ himself, must be the standard. The liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free is liberty of each to interpret the Master for himself. Revelation and our interpretation of Revelation are two distinct ideas, though 28 often confounded. It is sometimes said, 1 "I do not trust to myself; I look to the word of God, and that is inspired, so that I cannot err." It is not to be denied that God's word is inspired, but have we any reason to think your interpretation of that word likewise inspired? You may talk of the obvious meaning of Scripture, but perhaps you have not sufficiently considered, that what is an obvious meaning to you may not be so to another. The acceptation of phraseology depends much upon habit. Probably men miss the truth as often from arrogantly supposing that they already have it beyond possibility of mistake as from all other causes put together. Why shall one reader of the Bible assume to be more exempt from error respecting it than another? And, moreover, granting a particular interpretation to be certainly correct, it would be wrong to make that the criterion of title to the name of Christian, or to church-fellowship, which belongs of right to every Christian n; for, as we have seen, a good Christian may err on very important points. Nevertheless, differences among Christians even in respect to principles of church-government, or forms of worship, or other religious rites, such as baptism or the Lord's supper, or even rites of less consequence, have actually been often made the ground of exclusion from Christian fellowship. With equal tenacity men 29 have insisted upon their peculiar interpretation of particular doctrines not thus embodied in outward forms, as the essential foundation of Christianity. But I believe I have shown that there is no good ground for thus distinguishing certain doctrines from the rest, even could we be sure that our interpretation of Scripture is correct. It appears to me wholly unauthorized procedure to select and detach thirtynine articles, or five, or even one, from the whole body of Christian doctrine as fundamental, and still more glaringly so to base the Christian church upon things which are acknowledged not to be essential to Christian character. I have no right to make my own conscience as to the interpretation of what Scripture says on any subject the criterion of another man's duty in regard to belief. " Why is my liberty (says Paul,) judged of another man's conscience? " The proper object of Christian faith is Christ himself, and not particular views of his doctrine. The proper basis of church-fellowship is belief in Christ, not belief in your or my notions respecting Christ. Christians have held widely different views concerning what is called the dignity of Christ's nature; some regarding him as the Deity, some as a preexistent, super-angelic being, and some as a mere man endued with special powers from on high. Neither of these views has any claim to be consid3 30 ered essential to Christianity, in such a sense as to become a basis for the Christian Church. Indeed, I cannot see that this question about the nature of Christ is one even of eminent consequence. Sups pose two men in a river, on the point of being drowned, are rescued from instant death by some one passing, who further tells them what they must do themselves to procure security from evil consequences of their exposure, giving them full assurance of his competency thus to counsel them, and then disappears from their sight. What would you think of these men if, instead of busying themselves to do that which their deliverer enjoined, they should waste their time and powers in dispute about his rank in the social scale, whether, e. g., he were a ruler or a private citizen? Is it any more reasonable for us, I ask, to spend our energies in dispute about the dignity of Christ, our deliverer from spiritual death, when we ought to be obeying his injunctions and working out our complete salvation? Again, various views have been entertained in regard to man's depravity. Some have believed that it is to a considerable extent natural, and others that it is altogether acquired. But all have agreed in regarding man as sinful; and how is it of very special consequence whether his sinfulness be innate or 31 not, if it is admitted to exist and pains are taken to eradicate it? Again, somewhat different views have been entertained respecting what is called regeneration. But all Christians agree in the main as to the result which is to be sought. All believe that the fruits of the Holy Spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; and all can pray and labor earnestly for the production of these fruits in their own souls and the souls of others. Where, then, is the heaven-wide difference? Yet again, various views have been entertained respecting the atonement. But I am unable to see why so much account is made of this difference. It is too often forgotten, that there are two distinct questions respecting the atonement, as respecting all other points of Christian doctrine; viz. 1st. Is my particular view of that doctrine correct? and 2d. Is belief in my view of the doctrine essential to salvation? Granting that such an infinite atonement has been made for sin as is believed by most Christians, I cannot see why belief in it is absolutely essential to salvation by it. If such atonement has been made, may not Socrates, e. g., be saved by it, though he never heard of it,? This is the opinion of many celebrated divines among so-called orthodox Chris 32 tians. And why, then, may not he be saved by the atonement who cannot discover that it is taught in the Scriptures? I might proceed in the same way of criticism upon other differences of sentiment among Christians, showing that they are of less moment than is often supposed. But such criticism is not necessary to my purpose. Were these differences much greater than they are, they could afford no justification for a division of the body of Christ. The church of Christ consists of all true believers in his authority, however mistaken any of them may at present be in respect to his teachings. What Protestants often call the Lutheran Reformation is usually considered to have occasioned the most important division in the body of Christ. By refusing to tolerate Luther's views of Christianity Roman Catholicism did in fact constitute itself a sect. And yet it unblushingly charges sectarianism upon Protestants, for not yielding to an infringement of their just Christian liberty. This is by no means the only instance in which the spirit of sectarianism has imputed its own vice to those who were honestly and intelligently battling against its tyranny. Protestantism broke the unity of the Christian church, because it was not a Christian unity, but was despotic where it should have been liberal. Roman 33 Catholicism had usurped the place of a true Christian Catholicism. Luther and his comrades would have done better, had they, in carrying out their protest, maintained among themselves the true unity of freedom. It is a remark of Luther, that every man has a pope within him, But he was not sufficiently on his guard against the pope, "1 the old man" of Paul, or the old Adam, as some say, in himself. It is the spirit of Popery, surviving in what is called Protestantism, that has sundered Protestantism into sects. This is the greatest disadvantage of Protestantism in its controversy with Roman Catholicism. The essential spirit of both is too much the same. Beelzebub is likely to make but a poor figure at casting out devils. The man of sin, the son of perdition, spoken of in Paul's 2d Epistle to the Thessalonians (II. 3 seq.), appears to me to be sect, Roman Catholic or other. It is the man of sect " who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself (a roaEKVVTa, i. e. making believe, pretending,) that he is God." Satan himself is transformed as an angel of light, yea, as the very God. The great weapon of Luther and his coadjutors against Popery was the right of _private judgment. This they could wield stoutly in behalf of their own freedom, but it was not so easy 3* 34 to allow its use against the opinions they themselves maintained. Men often have a sharp sight for truth which is needed in their own defence, while the same truth escapes their vision when their personal safety is achieved. The Protestants simply failed to do to others as they insisted that others should do to them. The sects assert that they grant the right of private judgment as to the meaning of the Scriptures; but then, unless your private judgment happens to accord with theirs you are excluded from their fellowship. In what does this differ from the absolutism of Popery? The pope himself will grant you as much private judgment as this, which is no private judgment at all. The great Protestant principle, which declares the right of private judgment, is that expressed by Christ himself when he said: "' One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." (Matt. xxIII. 8.) The extent and mischiefs of division among the followers of one common Lord are more and more enormous and apparent. The resources of the Christian church, its heart, its intellect, its money, its useful means of every nature, are hereby frittered away, so as to accomplish but little good compared with what might result were they united in one body with Christ truly at the head. The spirit of sect is the spirit of the world, and the spirit of the world in the church often makes it an easy prey to its enemies. The traitor within opens the gates to the besieger. The church goes into captivity to the world. Sects degenerate into baser and baser tools of worldly ambition. The science of politics, as existing in our own land, is a sufficient condemnation of sectarianism. The prejudices and strifes of sects are a disgusting spectacle to all who are not involved in them; but a worldly expediency is ready enough to make use of tools which it despises, in order to effect results which it values. The spirit of sect has put unnecessary discord, instead of blessed peace, everywhere. It has divided families, bruising, and often almost if not quite annihilating, the holy and delicate ties of natural kindred, alienating utterly the hearts that ought to have been knit together in the closest love. It has diffused jar, and rupture, and hurt through the whole framework of society. Not to dwell upon innumerable lesser instances, to this spirit I believe it is owing in great measure, that our own dear native land is at present so nigh the dreadful verge of political disunion. It is in part because the temper of the people has been so much soured, and their intellect so much perverted, by the custom of mutual animosity. Habit of contention has hindered peace, engendered and multiplied quarrel. "' This wisdom (says James,) de 36 scendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." This spirit has checked, not to say smothered, growth in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Inquiry has been discouraged and punished. Through the tactics of sectarianism mistaken tenets have been postecl and perpetuated in strong fortresses; and the truth has been shut away from its rightful province. These miserable feuds among Christians have brought reproach upon the Gospel wherever it has penetrated. 1" Agree among yourselves (say the heathen,) before attempting to make proselytes of us."9 In nominally Christian lands, hardly any, if any, obstacle has impeded the progress of true religion more than the quarrels among its professed adherents. Why should men be alert to believe that a religion which seemingly occasions so immense malignity and mischief was sent from above? It was unionz which Christ prayed for his disciples,'1 that the world may know (says he,) that thou hast sent me." (John xvIr. 23.) A great change is necessary; a greater change than sects, or their leaders, (which is much the same thing,) are quite ready to believe. Through the deceitfulness of worldly ambition the leaders of the people very often cause them to err. Sect is sin; 37 sin for which, as for all sin, there is no good excuse but ignorance. "; To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." It is not enough to invoke the spirit of peace to control the mutual relations of the sects: these sects themselves must be done away. Their foundation is intrinsically wrong. The spirit of sect is necessarily that of quarrel. It is easy to cry peace, peace, (Jer. VI. 14, vIii. 11,) but there is no peace, and never will be, till these divisions are at an end. Even mere denominations, in the strictest sense of the term, (excepting local ones,) have an alienating influence. Paul thought so, or he would not have condemned the Corinthians for simply classifying themselves by distinct names, when they had not otherwise broken the unity of the church. The names in use at the present day are no better. Names are from their very nature exclusive. They make separate arrays of those who should form one body. The Christian church was not meant to be a paltry stalking-horse for petty differences. Simple belief in Christ is the only test; and all believers in Christ should be one. Every man must be put upon his own individual responsibility. To his own master every one standeth or falleth. Men will differ; Christians will differ; but yet they may keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. There may be the spirit of unity in the midst of difference. " Unity in what? do you say? Unity in heart, as conscientious, though differing, disciples of Christ. The very discipleship to Jesus is sufficient ground of unity in the midst of diversity. The bond of peace, that is of itself bond enough for unity. The spirit of peace is a strong tie of fraternity between all conscientious men. Peace does not debar discussion, though it does debar contention. The unity of the spirit in the bond of peace is the most momentous blessing yet to be secured by the Christian church, except its complete sanctification. Now men make more account of party than of peace.'"What hast thou to do with peace? " a man says often to his fellow; "Turn thee behind me." (2 Kgs. ix. 18.) ~When the blessing of peace is shed abroad among Christians, there will be -realized a Christian Catholic Church) enjoying a more than Protestant fieedom, along with a more than Roman-Catholic unity -a freedom and unity which will best insure perpetual progress in a more particular and pervasive unity of sentiment and of act. III. l\Iy third, and last, conclusion friom the proposition in the text is this: If there be no other proper foundation than Jesus Christ, then those who are called preachers of the Gospel, and all Christians, ought to make it clearly manifest that they do lay principal stress upon Jesus Christ. Under God we ought to make every thing of Jesus Christ. In hilm are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Hie is the radiating centre of all the influences which Christianity embodies. The unsearchable riches of Christ's character constitute the Gospel. It is frequently said of one called a Christian minister, "' tHe does not preach Jesus Christ enough." Now this, I know, sometimes means only that he does not preach Christ precisely as he is regarded by others; but when Jesus Christ is not held up as, under God, the one absorbing object of contemplation in the New Testament, there is good ground for censure. We find the cross of Christ dwelt upon with especial emphasis by the writers of the New Testament, particularly by the Apostle Paul. Christianity is called the preaching of the cross. "' For the preaching of the cross (says Paul, 1 Cor. I. 18,) is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." We preach (says he again, v. 23, 24,) Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "I determined (says he, II. 2,) not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." "cBut God forbid (says he to the Galatians, vi. 14,) that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, 40 by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."9 We cannot now realize to ourselves the ignominy which was associated with the cross in the days of the Apostle. The gallows is probably but a weak emblem of the estimation in which it was then held. Death upon it was the punishment only of the most ignoble among criminals. No imagination of the present time, I suppose, is vigorous enough to strip the cross altogether of that splendor which has gathered about it for ages. To the Jews it was indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. But Paul gloried in it as the great nucleus and source of Christian energy. In the cross is to be seen the essence of Christianity. There is the most glorious manifestation of Christ's character. Christianity may be pithily summed up in the expression, the power of the cross. Well may the cross be called the wisdom of God. ian's wisdom would have made a very different choice of influences. By God's method weakness is made strong. He hath destroyed the wisdom of the wise, and brought to nothing the understanding of the prudent. He hath made foolish the wisdom of this world. The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. The principle of power and wisdom in the cross of Christ is love. " Greater love hath no man than 41 this, (says Christ,) that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John xv. 13.) "Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." (John xiii. lo) What an end was that! It is the love shown by Christ which constraineth us. "6 We love him because he first loved us." (1 John iv. 19.) The preaching of the cross is the only fashion of address which will accomplish the salvation of mankind. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev. I. 5, 6.) I have thus avowed my convictions with freedom, though, I believe, with a kindly temper towards all my fellow-Christians. If there should be any present, whose opinions on the subject differ from my own, and should they ask why, making such a profession of liberality, I do not leave them unmolested in the enjoyment and practice of their own convictions, I answer: It is my very liberality which makes this impossible. How can liberality justify or allow illiberality? Just as little as two bodies can occupy the same space. It is because certain practices seem to me to trench upon the rights of others, that I have spoken out against them. You have a perfect 4 42 right to give your own interpretation to the Scriptures; but I solemnly deny your right to make that interpretation the ground of exclusion from Christian privileges. This discussion has not aimed to demolish any views of Christian doctrine which are commonly entertained, save that which makes Christianity favor sectarian exclusiveness. I have sought to advocate charity and union among Christians. " Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Every one has a right to go his own way, but he can have none to jostle another from the path. I do not ask any man to disobey his conscience; but I tell him that he has no right to a conscience which does not leave the utmost possible freedom to the consciences of others. Paul verily thought he was doing God service when he was persecuting the followers of Christ: but he was wrong: and so are you when you forget that to his own M1aster, not to you, every one standeth or falleth; that the Head of the church is Christ, not you. I have only condemned the spirit of encroachment. I would myself stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ mlakes his people free, and vindicate that same liberty for others. I ask no privileges but those which I grant. And I would not cherish any undue anxiety that every one should grant me these. To be acknowledged by our fellow-Christians is not a matter of so much impor 43 tance as some seem to suppose. We ought to rate the praise of God immeasurably above the praise of men. It is comparatively a small thing to be judged of man's judgment. He who judgeth all, according to the principles of eternal truth, which will very often reverse the most confident human judgment, is the Lord. My friends of this Christian society, let your minister, in conclusion, address to you a few more particular words of kindly exhortation. Unless this edifice in which, through the blessing of God, we expect to worship Him, is but a feeble symbol of a spiritual edifice, in which we ourselves are lively stones, and of which Jesus Christ is the foundation, its services will be worthless. This house is dedicated to God and Christ. It is itself, literally, in an unusual manner, founded upon a rock: and we mean that it shall be spiritually founded on the Rock Christ Jesus, on the faith of which Jesus said to Peter: "Upon this Rock I will build my church," the faith: "c Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Let us exhibit to the view of our fellowmen such a dedication of our hearts as well as of our house. We stand upon the solid foundation of Christ himself; not upon parts and parcels of Christianity, but upon the entire Christianity of the 44 Bible. We rear aloft no petty banner of peculiar Christian sentiment. We have no stripes and stars, of human device, to be borne in the thick fight of sectarianism. No stripes but the cross of Christ, no stars but the Sun of Righteousness, for the Christian flag. We are bound together by no creed but this, that Christ is the Head. It is hardly to be expected that the views of true Christians will be, in this world, if ever, identically the same. Our minds are, properly, no more alike than our countenances. Perhaps it would be possible to effect an unnatural resemblance of features among men by the use of skilful apparatus; but such a result could be effected only at a great expense of health, vigor, and comeliness. To secure unanimity in religious opinion, means have often been employed, from which have arisen immense loss and misuse of material, mental, and spiritual energy. We mean to leave every man to his own conscience before God. We mean that all, by whatever name they have been heretofore called, shall have the utmost possible freedom of opinion and practice. We mean to carry out the doctrine of equal rights for all believers in Jesus. We mean that each, striving to obey his own conscience, shall allow and help the rest to obey theirs. We may be charged with being just as sectarian as other people; but the charge will not 4,5 make us so. WVe must be told in what respects we are sectarian, and if we find truth in the allegations we will heed them. There is such a thing to be attained as a Christian church without a sectarian basis. Sectarianism is not a necessity. If there must be sects and denominations, Paul would not have condemned them. We disclaim responsibility for one another's errors, except so far as we fail to use proper means of persuasion. The notion of such responsibility is a wretched fallacy, though it has had so wide-spread and mischievous efficiency. We do not countenance what is wrong by joining with anybody in doing right. Did Christ countenance sin by eating with publicans and sinners? Does God countenance our follies and imperfections by condescending to grant us the blessed privilege of communion with Him? Let us seek, my friends, to raise a durable, eternal superstructure, not one of wood, hay, or stubble, but one of gold, silver, precious stones, upon that foundation which the AlIost High God, our heavenly Father, hath laid for us, even Jesus Christ. Let us follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. Watch ye; stand fast in the faith; quit ye like men; be strong. Let all your things be done with charity. 46 Above all things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Having a good conscience, that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil-doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. Live wholly in a manner that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.a And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. APPENDIX. I. COVENANT OF THE ",SOUTH-GROTON CHRISTIAN UNION." ADOPTED AUG. 12, 1855. ART. I. This Society shall be called the "6 oSuttI):(jroaton I)Erifiianl ~ti;tO;'" and its object shall be to promote the kingdom of God in our hearts and the hearts of others, through THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. ART. II. Any person may become a member of this Society, who shall express a desire thus to cooperate with us in our object, and such person's name shall be enrolled accordingly. ART. III. The permanent officers of this Society shall be, a minister, two deacons, a clerk, a treasurer, a collector. and a standing committee of three persons; which officers shall be elected annually by ballot at the first regular meeting of the year, and may be instructed, or displaced and their places supplied, by a majority of votes at any meeting regularly called and held for the purpose. ART. IV. It shall be the duty of the MJliister andl Deacots to make provision for the public religious exercises of the Sabbath or other days, for the orderly management of the Sunday School when one is instituted, for the observance of the rites of the Lord's Supper and of Baptism, and for the help of the poor and needy whose wants may become known to them. ART. V. It shall be the duty of the Clerkt to keep a fair list of the names of members, which list shall be appended to a copy of this Covenant; and also to make a full Record of business done by the Society, so that such Record may be read, upon request, at any subsequent meeting. ART. YI. It shall be the duty of the Treasturer to hold, in the name of the Society, all the property of the Society, and to keep a plain account of all money received into or paid out of the treasury; it being hereby directed that no money shall be paid out except upon order of a majority of the Standing Committee, or upon express vote of the Society. ART. VII. It shall be the duty of the Collector to collect all money which may be due to the Society, and to pay it over speedily to the Treasurer; who, however, is not hereby prohibited from receiving directly any money payable into the treasury. 48 ART. VIII. It shall be the duty of the StandiTg Committee to make all necessary arrangements, not intrusted to and executed by other officers, for the proper fulfilment of the purposes of the Society - such as, to issue warrants for meetings, to provide for proper care of the meeting-house, to attend to the concerns of the choir of singers, to furnish fuel, lights, and other comforts and conveniences for our gatherings - said Committee being of course subject to direction in all these matters by vote of the Society. ART. IX. Besides meetings upon the Sabbath for public worship, and such other voluntary gatherings as may be instituted for religious improvement, there shall be regular meetings of the Society for business once in three months, viz. on the first Monday in January, April, July, and October; and a meeting may be called at any other time by the Standing Committee, when in their judgment it shall be advisable; and such a meeting shall be called upon request in writing from any five members of the Society; and, in regard to all such meetings, the call issued by the Standing Committee (which call shall be publicly posted at least two Sabbaths before the meeting,) shall state distinctly the time and place of such meetings and the object or objects for which they are to be held. ART. X. This Covenant may be altered in any of its parts by vote of a majority at any meeting of the Society; provided, that such alteration shall be postponed for further consideration during at least one week after it shall have been proposed by any member in a public meeting. II. ORDER OF SERVICES AT THE DEDICATION OF A NEW MIEETING-HOUSE 3Y THE SOCIETY CALLED THE " SOUTE-GROTON CHRISTIAN UNION,") SEPT. 5TH, 1855. I. ANTHEM. II. INTRODUCTORY PRAYER, BY REV. TIMOThIY ATKINSON, OF BROOKLYN, N.Y. III. HYMN 223, METhODIST COLLECTION. IV. READING OF THE SCRIPTURES (JOIIN XVII.), BY REV. WASHINGTON GILBERT, OF HARVARD, MASS. V. DEDICATORY PRAYER, BY THE MINISTER OF THIE SOCIETY. VI. HYMN 969, METH. COLL. VII. SERMON, BY THE MINISTER OF THE SOCIETY. VIII. PRAYER, BY REV. CHARLES BABBIDGE, OF PEPPERELL, MASS. IX. HYMN 967, METH. COLL. X. BENEDICTION, BY THE MINISTER OF THE SOCIETY.