ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT, 
 
 P 
 
 IN THE .yU'*' 
 
 T 
 
 rUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION: 
 
 ** ARE THE CHRISTIANS OF A GIVEN COMMUNITY THE CHURCH OF 
 SUCH COMMUNITY ?” 
 
 MADE BY 
 
 G ERR IT SMITH, 
 
 HAMILTON, N. Y. 
 
 April 12th, 13th, 14th, 1847. 
 
 ALBANY : 
 
 S. W. GREEN, PATRIOT 
 
 1847* 
 
 OFFICE. 
 
 
Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 1847, by 
 S. W. Green, 
 
 in the Clerk’s office of the Northern District of New- York. 
 
ARGUMENT. 
 
 The question, said Mr. Smith, refers to a local church : — not 
 to what men may mean by a local church ; but to what God 
 means by it; — to what his inspired apostle meant by it, when 
 he wrote to the church of Rome, or of Corinth, or to some 
 other church. 
 
 A sectarian, or man-selected church, said Mr. Smith, is, as 
 a general fact, made up, in p$irt, of the regenerate, and, in 
 part, of the unregenerate persons of the place, where it exists. 
 But, he would attempt to prove, that a local church is, in the eye 
 of God and the Bible, made up of all the regenerate persons in 
 the given locality and of no others. Passing over, for the pre- 
 sent moment, the assumption, that they, who are not Christians 
 can belong to a church of Christ; he would ask, whether it is 
 possible, that any Christian, however weak or erring, who lives 
 within the territorial limits of a God- made and God-approved 
 local church, is, in the eye of God, left out of it? What an- 
 swer does the Bible give to this question? 
 
 All the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the most weak and 
 erring, are inexpressibly dear to his great, and generous, and 
 loving heart. Again, they all need, vitally need, the instruc- 
 tions, supports, comforts, means of increase in holiness, hap- 
 piness, and usefulness, which the Saviour, at the cost of his 
 blood, has, so freely and so fully, provided in the local church. 
 And the most weak and erring need them most. Now, in the 
 light of these facts, what answer should we naturally expect 
 the Bible to give to this question ? Most assuredly, the answer, 
 that, wherever there is a local church, every Christian there 
 belongs to it; and has right to its nourishment and to its helps 
 
4 
 
 for growing in grace; — a right too, not partial, neither condi- 
 tioned on his doing certain things; but a right, full and abso- 
 lute, simply in virtue of his being a Christian. I add, that 
 what we should so naturally expect the Bible to prove on this 
 point, it does prove. And, now, let us look into the Bible for 
 such proof. But, ere doing so, let me ask, whether we dare 
 look into it for proof to the contrary ? We dare not look into 
 it for justifications of slavery, or of the drinking of intoxicat- 
 ing liquors. Why then, dare we look into it for justifications 
 of sectarianism? — for justifications to divide Christians into 
 sects, and to confine our sympathies, as church members , to a 
 part of the Christian brotherhood ? Is not the attempt, in this 
 case, to make the Bible the minister of sin quite as guilty — 
 quite as blasphemous as in the others ? 
 
 But, to the Bible proof, thajt a local church comprises all the 
 Christians within its territorial limits. 
 
 The Bible speaks of a mystical body, and of Jesus Christ, as 
 its head. Who are its members ? Christians; none but Chris- 
 tians ; and all Christians. There is not a Christian on earth, 
 who is not a member of it. But the Bible repeatedly calls this 
 body the church. Hence, if what we have said of the mem- 
 bership of the body be true ; the church includes all Christians. 
 
 Rom. xii. 5— Eph. i. 22, 23— iv. 15, 16— v. 23, 30— Col. 
 i. 18, 24— 1st Cor. x. 17— xii. 12, &c., teach, that Christians, 
 church, body, have the same meaning. 
 
 The figure of the spiritual house in 1st Pet. ii. 4, 5, and in 
 the close of 2d chap, of Eph., and the figure of the vine and 
 branches in John xv., and the figure of the bride and bride- 
 groom in Rev. xxi. 2 — Isaiah liv. 5 — lxii. 5 — Psalm xlv. — Rom. 
 vii. 4 — all teach what is taught by the figure of the body. 
 
 Also in Heb. xii. 22, 23, we are taught, that the church 
 universal is composed of all Christians. 
 
 But, if the church universal be composed of all Christians, 
 how reasonable, nay how irresistible, is the inference, that a 
 local church is composed of all the Christians within its territo- 
 ry? — and that it differs from the church universal, only as a 
 part differs from the whole? Thanks, however, to the Bible 
 and to the God of the Bible, we are not left to mere inference, 
 in this important matter. There are many passages of the Bible, 
 
5 
 
 which teach, by express declaration, that a local church in- 
 cludes all the Christians within its territory, and none else. I 
 will quote some of them. Rom. i. 7 — 1st Cor. i. 2— Eph. 
 j, 1 — Phil. i. 1, connected with iv. 15 — Col. i. 2. See, 
 also, Acts xx. 28, and 1st Pet. v. 2. His Lord had told Peter 
 to feed the flock — the lambs, as well as the sheep — the weak, 
 as well as the strong. How natural then to suppose, that, 
 when Peter charged the elders to feed that part of the flock 
 under their care, he meant the lambs, as well as the sheep — 
 the weak, as well as the strong: and that, in correspondence 
 with his Lord’s instructions to himself, the flock, of which he 
 spoke to the elders, included none but sheep and lambs. 
 
 In addition to these testimonies, we have the Saviour’s own 
 definition of a local church in Mat. xviii. 20. He here teaches, 
 that two or three, gathered together in his name, constitute a 
 church. We learn, also, from the 18th and 19th verses of this 
 chapter, that a church has none the less power conferred upon 
 it, because it is small. By the way, the 19th verse of this 
 chapter is a perfect key to the meaning of the 19th verse of the 
 16th chapter of the same gospel. Only interpret the latter in 
 the light of the former ; and all is plain. In the former, the 
 power in question is clearly given to the church. Now, the 
 true meaning of the one verse cannot conflict with that of the 
 other : and, hence, the Roman Catholic claim for Peter is 
 groundless. I believe, that “ thee ” in Mat. xvi. 19 refers to 
 the church — and that the Saviour addressed Peter, not so much 
 as the representative of the church, as in apposition with it. 
 Nothing is more natural, or common, than thus to address an 
 individual for a multitude — than thus to make an individual 
 stand for a multitude. To illustrate — you are interested in the 
 project of a plank road to run northwardly through your vil- 
 lage. We will suppose, that Rome, as well as Utica, is spoken 
 of, as the point of its northern termination. You see your old 
 and esteemed neighbor, Judge Gridley of Utica, and say to 
 him, “ Judge, we don’t know, that we shall let you have the 
 plank road.” You also see Mr. Foster of Rome, and say to 
 him, “ We think we shall let you have the plank road.” In 
 the one address, “ you ” obviously means “ Utica,” and, in 
 the other, “Rome.” I would add, that the “rock” referred 
 
6 
 
 to is, in my judgment, the confession, that Jesus is “ the 
 Christ — the Son of the living God.” Bear in mind, that, al- 
 though “Peter” means “rock” in the original; the word 
 here translated “ rock ” is not only another word, but of an- 
 other (feminine) gender. 
 
 But, to return from this digression — the Bible teaches, not 
 only, that the Christians of Rome and Corinth composed the 
 churches in those places; but that the Christians of a single 
 family (or, if not so, that the handful of Christians accustomed 
 to meet together in a private house,) composed a church. See 
 Rom. xvi. 5 — 1st Cor. xvi. 19 — Col. iv. 15 — Philemon 2. 
 
 I referred to figures of the Bible, which prove, that all Chris- 
 tians belong to the church. These figures denote the intimacy 
 and indissolubleness of the union of the disciples of Christ with 
 himself. This union is as essential, as that of the body with 
 the head ; of the branches with the vine ; of the other stones 
 of a house with the corner stone. It follows, that no less close 
 is the union of the Saviour’s disciples with each other. If in- 
 dividuals are each bound up in Christ, then are they also bound 
 up in each other. If, in Bible language, they “ are members 
 of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones ;” then, in Bible 
 language, they are also “members one of another.” How 
 decidedly, in 1st Cor. xii. 25, 26, does Paul speak against 
 “ schism ! ” — and how touching^ of those sympathies, which, 
 with electric swiftness, fly from one Christian heart to another ! 
 One Christian may be regarded as one of the arms of the Sa- 
 viour’s mystical body, and another Christian as the other. Can 
 these arms refuse to acknowledge each other 1 Not while the 
 life-blood of the same divine heart courses through both ; — 
 not while the same divine head directs both. The making of 
 war by one member of the mystical body upon another, is a 
 greater and more abhorrent absurdity, than the making of war 
 by one member of the natural body upon another. 
 
 Surely, a relation, so endearing, so tender, as that between 
 the members of the Saviour’s mystical body; as that between 
 the members of his church ; — surely, a union, so intimate, so 
 sacred, and cemented by a love so divine — can never be broken. 
 It must be ever-during, ever strong. However else, and 
 wherever else, Christians may differ, they, at least, constitute 
 
7 
 
 one church. There, they arc brought together, and kept to- 
 gether. There, they are one. The church is the very place 
 • — the place above all others — where Christians must feel, that 
 they are to be brought together, and to be kept together. That 
 they should refuse mutual union at a point, so significant, so 
 vital, is as absurd and as monstrous, as for the feet and the 
 hands to quarrel with each other, or with the head. 
 
 But, why have I spent so much time to prove, that all Chris- 
 tians are to be recognized, as belonging to the church ; and 
 that to attempt to cast any of them out is a great sin both 
 against them and their Saviour 1 Christ and Christians are one. 
 To cast them out of his church is to cast him out of liis own 
 church. For proof of this oneness, see, in addition to the 
 scriptures already quoted, John xvii. 21, and 1st Cor. vi. 15. 
 See, also, the close of the 25th chap, of Mat. for proof of the 
 Saviour’s gracious and condescending identification of himself 
 with even the least ones. 
 
 The Saviour teaches, in Mark iii. 23, that it is God, who 
 casts out devils. Who, then, casts out Christ'? It must be 
 Satan. And, when we are casting out Christ, we are doing 
 Satan’s work — the work of the under — not of the upper world. 
 
 I need say no more to prove, that the Christians on the earth 
 compose the church on the earth ; and that the church of a 
 given locality comprises the Christians of such locality. We 
 will now look at what is relied on to disprove these positions. 
 What, however, can be said, in the face of the great amount 
 of inferential and direct proofs, which have now been brought 
 to sustain these positions ? It would seem, that to question those 
 proofs is, well nigh, to question whether the Bible proves any 
 thing. Nevertheless, we proceed to examine the passages of 
 scripture on which sectarians depend for showing, that unre- 
 generate persons can be in the church of Christ, and regenerate 
 persons can be out of it. 
 
 1st. It is contended, that the parable of the tares and the 
 parable of the fish in 13th chap, of Mat., and also that of the 
 virgins in the 25th chap, of Mat., teach, that the church is 
 made up both of the righteous and the wicked. But, in the 
 case of the parable of the tares, the Saviour expressly says : 
 * The field is the world and it would be doing the greatest 
 
8 
 
 violence to analogy to suppose, that, in the case of the other 
 parables, the scene is laid in the church, instead of the world. 
 
 The parables of the tares and fish are employed, as I sup- 
 pose, to illustrate the endeavors to bring souls into the king- 
 dom of heaven — into a state of salvation. The net and the 
 sickle gather what is worthless along with that, which is good. 
 So too, what is gathered under the preaching and influences of 
 the gospel is not all precious. Much of it is vile. u Many are 
 called; but few are chosen.” Many seem to come into the 
 kingdom ; but do not. 
 
 2d. It is also contended, thdt the parable of the vine and 
 branches in John xv., teaches, that wicked persons are in 
 the church. In the case of the stony and thorny ground hearers 
 there is a seeming, but only a seeming growth in grace. So 
 too, in the case before us. The fruitless branches but seem to 
 be in the vine. That they are not in it is a certain inference 
 from the 4th and 5th verses. If a branch, to be fruitful, must 
 be in the vine, and will then not fail to be fruitful ; it follows, 
 that a fruitless branch is not in the vine. 
 
 3d. It is claimed, that the description of the Laodicean 
 church, in Rev. iii. 15, 16, proves, that there may be wicked 
 persons in a local church. But, does not this claim impeach 
 the veracity of the Holy Spirit? Who, after reading Rev. i, 
 4, 5, 6, 9, dares say, that there was one unregenerate person 
 in the u seven churches?” But, the Laodicean church, as is 
 universally believed, was certainly apostate and spiritually 
 dead. And is it of men, sunk in apostacy and dead in tres- 
 passes and sins, that the Saviour can say : u they are neither 
 c cold nor hot ? in religion?” Are not such men all absolutely 
 cold in religion? But, what means, it will be triumphantly 
 inquired, his threat to spew them out of his mouth ? I con- 
 fess, that I do not certainly know. My conjecture of its mean- 
 ing is, that for his disciples to become, in a great measure, in- 
 different to his truth and his cause, is as loathsome to his soul, 
 as a lukewarm liquid is to the palate of him, who drinks it. I 
 confess my ignorance. But, no man should suffer his ignorance 
 to control his knowledge. I must not surrender to my igno- 
 rance of the meaning of a part of the description of the cha- 
 racter of the Laodicean church the certain knowledge of that 
 
character, which I have derived from other parts of the des- 
 scription. This church was guilty, not of abandoning the 
 cause of Jesus Christ ; but, as we learn by the 19th verse, of 
 losing its zeal in that cause. That its members were Christians, 
 has already been proved. Cumulative proof to this end may, 
 however, be derived from the same verse : u As many as I love 
 I rebuke and chasten. 5 5 Neither this language nor the like 
 language in 12th chap, of Hebrews can be applied to the un- 
 regenerate. 
 
 4th. The 3d Epistle of John is relied on to prove, that there 
 were bad men in the New Testament churches ; and that good 
 men were cast out of them. 
 
 That Diotrephes was a bad man I admit. That he had been, 
 and was, even now, by some persons, regarded as a Christian, 
 and, therefore, a member of the church, is highly probable. 
 But, that he was a member of it, I deny. Paul says, Acts 
 xx. 29, tc For I know this, that, after my departing, shall 
 grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 55 
 Would you claim that these grievous wolves were of c£ the 
 flock? 55 They were but among it. So was Diotrephes but 
 among the members of the local church, of which he claimed 
 to be a member. The same apostle, who writes of Diotrephes, 
 informs us, in his 1st Epistle, ii. 18, 19, that there were 
 “ many, 55 who had been reckoned as belonging to the church, 
 who were <£ not of 55 it: and that their open apostacy was to 
 prove, that supposed members of the church were ££ not all 55 
 of it. 
 
 Did Diotrephes cast out from the church? — good persons? — 
 for, if he cast out any, they were good persons ; since we have 
 proved, that such a thing, as a wicked person, in God’s uni- 
 versal church, or God’s local churches, there is not. I would 
 here say, that, even if he did cast out good persons, it be- 
 comes sectarians to be sparing of their reproaches : — for why 
 should they reproach him for doing that, which they justify in 
 themselves ? Where is the sectarian (and by this name I mean 
 nothing more offensive than to designate those, who believe it 
 right to withdraw themselves from the universal Christian bro- 
 therhood, and form sects,) I say where is the sectarian, who 
 would not, in certain cases, consent to have the confessedly 
 
10 
 
 best member of his church hurled out of it? Such a member, 
 in all the sincerity of his devoutly pious heart, has come to 
 adopt the Quaker view of the “ ordinances. ” He has come to 
 believe, that they pertained to the Jewish Dispensation, and 
 expired with it. cc Ilurl him out,” would be the sentence of 
 every consistent Baptist and Presbyterian : — and this too, not- 
 withstanding the sentence would be in the very face of the Sa- 
 viour’s perfectly plain teaching, that the person we exclude 
 from our church fellowship, must, in our eyes, be as utterly 
 destitute 66 as a heathen man and a publican ” of all claims to 
 Christian character. 
 
 But did Diotrephes cast persons out of the church? And 
 will they, who believe in the congregational polity — will the 
 Baptists, for instance, who take so much complacency in the 
 democracy of their ecclesiastical arrangements, and who claim, 
 that these arrangements are after the pattern of the apostolic 
 churches — will they admit, that, even in the time and pre- 
 sence of the apostles, the government of a church could de- 
 generate into a monarchy — into a mere autocracy? But this 
 they must admit, if they allow, that Diotrephes had power to 
 cast persons out of the church. 
 
 I am opposed', not only to sectarianism, but to every form of 
 ecclesiastical government, except that, which is purely congre- 
 gational and democratic : — for, I believe, that nothing else is 
 so democratic as Christianity. Hence, I experience a two fold 
 pleasure in substituting cc assembly ” or u congregation ” or 
 “ meeting,” for the word u church,” in the 10th verse. Such 
 substitution relieves both Congregationalism and anti-sectarian- 
 ism of all the difficulties, which the universal reading of this 
 epistle clusters upon them. That these meanings of the origi- 
 nal word are as fully authorized, and as well settled, as the 
 other meaning, every Greek scholar knows : and that the trans- 
 lation, which I have preferred for it in this case harmonizes with 
 the context, with common sense, with the teachings of the 
 New Testament, and with the genius of Christianity, every per- 
 son, who does not look through the spectacles of sectarianism, 
 or Roman Catholic or Protestant popery, must, in my humble 
 opinion, readily see. I add, that it was, probably, the mis- 
 sionary brethren, instead of the members of the church, whom 
 
11 
 
 the tyrannical Diotrephes had the influence to have ejected from 
 the assembly. For the information of such, as are ignorant of 
 Greek, I would remark, that the Greek word translated u as- 
 sembly ” in Acts xix. 39 is the same which is translated 
 u church ” in the present case; and that u church” in Heb. 
 ii. 12 is also translated from the same word. But. Psalms xxii. 
 22, and xl. 9, make it certain, that u church ” in Heb. ii. 12, 
 means “ congregation.” 
 
 The sectaries claim, that the incestuous man, spoken of in 
 5th chap. 1st Cor., was a member of the church. He was, 
 however, no more such than was Diotrephes. The incestuous 
 man was among church members ; but not of them. He was 
 also “ called a brother,” (see 11th verse,) and was once believ- 
 ed to be a Christian brother ; but was no more such (certainly 
 not at that time,) than was any other of the vile persons refer- 
 red to in the verse. That, in the eye of divine inspiration, he 
 was not of the Corinthian church, is evident from 1st Cor. vi. 
 9, 10, 11. 
 
 We have, now, cleared our way to the last and most relied 
 on fortress of the sects. To the 3d chap, of 2d Thess. they 
 are wont to resort for their most valued arguments to prove, 
 that Christians can be excluded from a local church — from a Bi- 
 ble local church. The universal mis-reading of this chapter is 
 no proof, that wise and good men have not examined it. They 
 have examined it — and, that too, most learnedly and honest- 
 ly ; and that they have failed to unlock its meaning is only be- 
 cause they have not held in their hand the simple anti-sectarian 
 key. Had they, as they should have done, taken up the chap- 
 ter with no more expectation of finding authority in it for one 
 Christian to disfellowship another, than for one man to enslave 
 another, the sectarian interpretations of this chapter, if not, 
 indeed, sectarianism itself also, would, ages ago, have passed 
 away. 
 
 Before giving my own interpretation of this chapter, I would 
 remark, that if it be wrong, and that if the persons, from whom 
 the u brethren ” were commanded to withdraw, were, indeed, 
 Christians, then the extent and nature of the withdrawal are 
 to be judged of in the light of the fact, that they were Chris- 
 tians, Circumstances may arise, in which a Christian very pro- 
 
12 
 
 perly comes to stand in doubt of the person, whose piety her 
 has hitherto fully admitted. His confidence in his piety is now 
 suspended — is now weakened — but not overthrown. As yet, he 
 only suspects him of conduct incompatible with Christian integ- 
 rity. Nevertheless, they can no longer take “ sweet counsel 
 together and walk to the house of God in company.” The re- 
 served deportment toward the suspected one, which such cir- 
 cumstances call for, is, however, very different from the deport- 
 ment, which would be proper, were the suspicion ripened into 
 conviction. Open disfellowship would, in the latter case, be a 
 plain duty ; but, something immeasurably short of it, in the 
 former. 
 
 I proceed to my interpretation of the chapter. 
 
 1st. The “ brethren,” to whom this epistle was addressed, 
 were to withdraw themselves from certain disorderly walkers. 
 
 2d. They were to have no company with the man, who would 
 not “ obey our word by this epistle.” 
 
 Now, the question is: “ Are these disorderly w T alkers and 
 this disobedient man a part of the c brethren!’ ” — a part of the 
 Thessalonian church ? I hold that they are not. 
 
 The Thessalonian “ brethren,” as we see by 1st Thess. i. 
 4 and other passages, were eminently pure and holy. This 
 (see 2d Thess. i. 3,) was true of “ every one ” of them. But 
 it is said, that the appellation of “ brother ” is given to the 
 disorderly walkers. I doubt not that they had mingled with 
 the “brethren;” had worn the name of “brother;” and, 
 though, probably, more from the force of habit than from mis- 
 take of their true and now developed character, were still 
 wearing it. Indeed, the fact, that they w r ere still wearing it ; 
 that they had been numbered with the brethren ; and that there 
 was, therefore, special need of vindicating Christianity by 
 openly protesting against these, its false professors, was, doubt- 
 less, among the most urgent reasons for the apostolic direction 
 to withdraw from them. How much more important it is to 
 withdraw from such — “ from any man that is called a brother” 
 — than from those, who have never been identified, in the pub- 
 lic mind, with Christianity, is evident from 1st Cor. v. 9, 
 10 , 11 . 
 
 The incestuous man was “ called a brother.” So was the 
 
13 
 
 disorderly walker spoken of in the chapter under consideration. 
 But that did not make them Christian brethren any more than 
 their being- called brethren made the u false brethren,’ 5 of 
 whom Paul speaks, Christian brethren. The Saviour calls him 
 u brother,” who, in the sequel, might no more merit the name 
 of a Christian brother, than does u a heathen man and a pub- 
 lican.” Such was clearly but a nominal Christian brother. 
 
 To proceed — how carefully and continually does inspiration 
 keep up the contrast between the brethren and these wicked 
 persons, who had got among them, but who were not of them ! 
 I have already quoted proof of the excellence of the u brethren” 
 — of u every one ” of them. The 3d and 4th verses of this 
 chapter concur with that proof. The 7th verse appeals to the 
 u brethren ” in contradistinction from others. Forcibly also, 
 does u ye ” in the 13th verse contradistinguish the u brethren ” 
 from u them ” in the 12th verse. There is striking disproof 
 of the identity of the disorderly walkers with the u brethren,” 
 in the phraseology of the 11th verse. The disorderly persons, 
 instead of being of the u brethren,” walked among them. 
 Paul does not say, as he so naturally would have said, had he 
 complained of the cc brethren :” u For we hear that some of 
 you walk disorder^ ;” but he says : u For we hear that there 
 are some which walk among you (en umin) disorderly.” Surely, 
 surely, he would not have so expressed himself, had he meant 
 to charge disorderly walking on the u brethren” themselves. 
 Paul, Sylvanus and Timotheus, were not of this church, which 
 they addressed : and that they should say, that themselves also, 
 as well as the disorderly persons, were among the u brethren ” 
 is another argument, that the disorderly persons were not of 
 the church. u We,” says the epistle, u behaved not ourselves 
 disorderly among you (en umin.)” 
 
 It is noteworthy, that the original word for walking in the 
 11th verse is a participle of the very verb, which, in 1st Peter 
 v. 8, describes the devil as walking about. It is proper, how- 
 ever, to admit, that this verb, so far from being used in exclu- 
 sive connection with the wicked, is, sometimes, coupled with 
 the name even of the Saviour. 
 
 A few words respecting the 14th and 15th verses will close 
 what I have to say respecting this chapter. These verses are 
 
14 
 
 to be considered by themselves ; and not to be confounded with 
 the other p$rts of the chapter. 
 
 As he could not be a Christian, who disobeyed what he knew 
 to be a command of an inspired apostle, so the person, guilty 
 by the supposition , of the disobedience spoken of in the 14th 
 verse, could not be a Christian. But, although he was to be 
 excluded from Christian fellowship, he was to be counted, “ not 
 as an enemy, but admonished as a brother. 5 ’ Under the Jewish 
 dispensation men needed to be told not to hate their brother, 
 Lev. xix. 17 ; — and they need the same instruction under the 
 Christian dispensation. u Brother, 55 in the 15th verse, neces- 
 sarily means but a brother man, instead of a Christian brother. 
 Such, evidently, is the comprehensive meaning of the word 
 (same in the original,) in Mat. v. 22 — James ii. 15 — 1st John 
 ii. 9, 10, 11. 
 
 We will pass on to examine another of the arguments in fa- 
 vor of the position, that the friends of God can be excluded 
 from the church of God. It is said, that no Christians, who 
 rejected baptism and the Lord’s supper, would have been ac- 
 knowledged to be members of a church in the time of the apos- 
 tles. But, I deny that, on the supposition, that the apostles en- 
 joined these ordinances on their cotemporaries, there were such 
 Christians. They were not Christians, who withheld obedience 
 from what they knew to be apostolic requirements. So too, 
 the cotemporaries of the apostles, who rejected the u doctrine 
 of election,” could not have been Christians, provided the 
 apostles told them to acknowledge it. But, does it follow, that 
 the present rejecters of either of these doctrines are not Chris- 
 tians 1 By no means. And, yet, either the one or the other 
 class of them are rejecters of apostolic teachings — for such 
 teachings there doubtless were, in respect to these doctrines, 
 and as plain also, as were apostolic teachings in respect to bap- 
 tism and the Lord’s supper. They are Christians, however, 
 notwithstanding they reject apostolic instruction — for they 
 know not that they reject it. So, also, on the like ground of 
 honest ignorance, may persons at this day be Christians, not- 
 withstanding they directly oppose what the cotemporaries of the 
 apostles well knew to be apostolic teaching, respecting baptism 
 and the Lord’s supper. Were I to misapprehend the immediate 
 
16 
 
 causes and the mode of the assassination of Julius Caesar, I should 
 not be judged harshly for my misinterpretations of the histori- 
 cal accounts of that event. But a misstatement on these points 
 from the pens or lips of Brutus and Cassius, who had a hand, 
 both in the plot and execution of it, would be justly stamped 
 with guilty falsehood. To confound, however, my innocent 
 mistake in this case with the wilful misrepresentation of Brutus 
 and Cassius,* would be no more unjust and absurd, than to class 
 the good men, who in this age, misinterpret apostolic teach- 
 ings, with the wicked men, who, eighteen centuries ago, 
 heard those teachings, as they fell from the lips of the apostles, 
 and yet rejected them. 
 
 I close my remarks under this head by asking candor and 
 common sense to tell me — why, if sectarianism excludes from 
 church membership confessed Christians, who err in respect to 
 baptism and the Lord’s supper, it does not also exclude confes- 
 sed Christians, who err in respect to the “ doctrine of election,” 
 or its rival doctrine? — and by further asking how meritorious 
 that logic is, which argues, that, because it was right not to 
 number'in the first churches those, who were certainly not Chris- 
 tians ’, it is also right to refuse to number in the present churches 
 those, icho certainly are Christians? But this question associates 
 in my mind, and leads me to reply to, another and the only 
 other relied on position taken by the sectaries. 
 
 This position is, that baptism is the door of the church : and 
 that, hence, whilst church members may be guilty of errors on 
 innumerable other points, no one can be a church member 
 who errs in relation to baptism.* Even in the present age, and 
 by such truly great and good men, as Dr. Griffin and Dr. 
 Dwight, has it been contended, that water baptism is the door 
 of the church. Says Dr. G. in his letter on communion : 
 
 u Baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces into 
 the visible church. Of course, where there is no baptism, 
 there are no visible churches. We ought not to commune with 
 those, who are not baptized and who are, of course, not church 
 members, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a 
 
 * In the Debate, Mr. Smith but glanced at this position. But in writing hip 
 Argument for the press, he thought it better to be explicit upon it. 
 
16 
 
 pious Quaker so far depart from his principles, as to wish to 
 commune with me at the Lord/s table, whilst he yet refused to 
 be baptized, I could not receive him.” 
 
 Says Dr. D. in his 156th sermon : 
 
 u Baptism is made by Christ (in John iii. 5,) a condition ab- 
 solutely necessary to an authorized entrance into his visible 
 church.” 
 
 After saying that I regard the distinction between an earthly 
 visible and an earthly invisible church as wholly fallacious and 
 immeasurably pernicious ; and that I will speak further upon 
 it, at a future stage of this discussion, I proceed to say, that the 
 argument, that baptism is the door of the church, is simply the 
 sectarian interpretation of John iii. 5. But this interpretation, 
 inasmuch as it proves too much for the position of the sectaries, 
 proves nothing for it. 1 might, indeed, add, that it not only 
 proves nothing for it, but all that I could ask against it. If, 
 as the sectaries contend, the kingdom of God in this verse 
 means but what they call the visible church — that is, the ag- 
 gregate of righteous and unrighteous persons, , which they un- 
 derstand by the phrase u local churches ” — then is my defini- 
 tion of a local church irresistibly true — then are the local 
 churches of the world made’' up of all the Christians of the 
 world. For if the local churches make up this kingdom, then, 
 inasmuch as on the very face of this verse all the subjects of 
 this kingdom are bom of the spirit, or, in other words, are Chris- 
 tians, it follows unavoidably, that the local churches are made 
 up, neither more nor less, of all the Christians in the world : — 
 a conclusion, which crowns my argument with triumph, and ut- 
 terly demolishes sectarianism. 
 
 I might, here, take leave of this verse, having turned the in- 
 terpretation of it by the sectaries fairly and fatally against them- 
 selves. I will, however, give my own interpretation of it. 
 This interpretation will be so new and surprising to you, that 
 you will, probably, regard it as wrong. But what if it be 
 wrong I Sectarianism, which has already been proved to be 
 entirely and irredeemably wrong, will not, therefore, be right. 
 Wrong the interpretation may be — for, as in the case of my in- 
 terpretation of 2d Thess. iii., and of 3d John x., I have not a 
 particle of human authority for it. Wrong it may be, for I am 
 
17 
 
 an unlearned man, and am, therefore, obliged, in all my Bible 
 arguments, to make the Bible not only its own interpreter, but, 
 well nigh, my only interpreter of its meaning. Nevertheless, I 
 have, for many years, had a growing confidence, that it is the 
 true interpretation. Ere entering upon it, let me remark, that, 
 in my judgment, the sectarian reading of this verse, which 
 makes it say : “ Except a man be born of water he cannot en- 
 ter the visible church ; and except a man be born of the spirit 
 he cannot enter the invisible church,’ 5 is a liberty with the 
 scriptures, quite as absurd, as it is unwarranted. 
 
 There are four verses in the Bible, which, looking at their 
 bare letter, seem, in greater or less degree, to teach, that water 
 baptism contributes directly and essentially to save the soul. 
 One of them is the verse before us*. The others are Mark xvi. 
 16 — Acts ii. 38, and xxii. 16. Do these verses really teach this 
 doctrine 1 Let the Bible answer. But, whilst. I say, let the Bi- 
 ble answer, I also say, that we are not to insult the Bible and 
 common sense, and to degrade the Christian religion from the 
 glory of its spirituality to the vileness of materialism, by doubt- 
 ing, for an instant, what answer the Bible will give to this ques- 
 tion. We are to take it for granted, that the Bible will be found 
 to ascribe no power to water to cleanse the soul. 
 
 Innumerable scriptures teach, that faith, and faith alone, 
 saves the soul. Look, for instance, at John iii. 18, 36 — Acts 
 xvi. 31 — Rom. x. 9 — 2d Thess. ii. 12. Even one of the four 
 verses, which we are to examine, teaches, by irresistible impli- 
 cation, that faith saves the soul : u but, he that belie veth not 
 shall be damned.” It also teaches, in this phrase, that, though 
 one be baptized, and yet does not believe, he cannot be saved. 
 In the light of this teaching, therefore, and of the many scrip- 
 tures, which directly give salvation to faith, how utterly power- 
 less is water to save ! But, in addition to these testimonies to 
 the impotence of water, there is one verse (1st Peter iii. 21,) 
 which explicitly teaches this impotence. I will delay no longer 
 to give you my interpretation of John iii. 5. 
 
 The Jews laid a very great and a very undue stress on the 
 religious use of water. Their baptisms of their persons, ves- 
 sels, &c., were without number or end. In the language of 
 our temperance times, they were, emphatically, “ a cold water 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 people.” But, probably, never did their imaginations carry 
 them so far on this subjeft, as at the period of the interview of 
 Nicodemus and the Saviour — the period, when John was bap- 
 tizing in the wilderness, and “ there went out unto him all 
 the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap- 
 tized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” 
 What more reasonable than to suppose, that Nicodemus par- 
 took of his nation’s superstitions and extravagant opinions con- 
 cerning water ? What more reasonable than to suppose, that 
 Nicodemus came to the Saviour with the thought in his heart, 
 if not, indeed, upon his lips, that John’s baptism, to which all 
 were rushing, had possibly some, if not all, power to save the 
 soul? We know little of what Nicodemus said in this inter- 
 view. The record of the interview probably does not give one- 
 tenth paiTof what he said in it. The third verse is not an an- 
 swer to the second. But it is, as I suppose, an answer to the 
 uttered or unuttered sentiments of Nicodemus, regarding water 
 baptism. All the same, if unuttered, as uttered, to him, who, 
 as we learn, only two verses back, needed not the revelation of 
 the lips to learn what was in man. In the fourth verse Nico- 
 demus scouts the idea of a literal second birth — his heart still 
 clinging, as I suppose, to its reliance on the regenerating 
 power of water baptism. To this vain and absurd reliance the 
 Saviour replies in the fifth verse. So far is he from teaching 
 in it the efficacy of water to save the soul, that he pours con- 
 tempt on the absurd idea ; and gives to the Holy Spirit all the 
 honor of accomplishing the soul’s salvation. That he gives 
 this honor to the Holy Spirit, in other verses in this chapter, none 
 will deny. That, in no other verse, does he give any share of 
 it to water, none will deny. And that, in the verse before us, 
 he disdains to give any share of it to water baptism will be 
 manifest in what the way is now prepared for me to say. 
 
 He, who, with a dull imagination, reads narratives — especially 
 of oriental writers, as are the narratives of the scriptures — will, 
 to a great extent, fail to catch the spirit, and comprehend and 
 feel the force of their instructions. To read them without the 
 called-for pictures in our minds of scenery and circumstances, 
 is to expose ourselves to great misconception of what they teach. 
 Imagination has aided us — I trust not misled us — thus far in our 
 
19 
 
 examination of this verse. Continuing to invoke her help, as 
 well as every other help, which we need, we will proceed in 
 the examination. 
 
 Suppose a man says to me : “ I will attend church and there- 
 by be saved and I reply: “Except you attend church, and 
 be born of the spirit , you will not he saved ” — would it be rea- 
 sonable and natural to infer, that my object, in repeating his 
 words, was to admit, that attending church is essential to salva- 
 tion ? Certainly not. But the reasonable and natural inference 
 would be, that I repeated them for the directly opposite purpose 
 of testifying, that it is the divine influences, and not attending 
 church, which saves the soul. “ I will talk to the boys in the 
 apple tree, and they will come down.” “Except you talk, and 
 throw stones too , they will not come down.” “ I will threaten 
 the robbers, and they will run.” “ Except you threaten, and 
 shoot too , they will not run.” His repetition of the words “ talk ” 
 and “ threaten ” manifestly argues the repeater’s sense of the 
 ineffectualness, instead of the effectualness, of the talking and 
 threatening. Now, in the case before us, the Saviour catches up 
 the word “water” from the lips or thoughts of Nicodemus, 
 and repeats it for the purpose of declaring the utter vanity of 
 water to revovate the heart. He says to him : — “ Except a man 
 be born of water and the spirit , &c.” 
 
 How well does this interpretation of the verse harmonize with 
 the contrasts in Mat. iii. 11, and Acts i. 5, between water bap- 
 tism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit ! 
 
 I pass on to the examination of another of the four verses, 
 viz. Mark xvi. 16. You will remember, that, when adverting to 
 this verse a few minutes since, I showed, that no argument for 
 the power of water baptism to save the soul could be derived 
 from it. It remains to explain, why it is, that water baptism is 
 referred to in it : and this reference I will explain in a way not 
 very dissimilar to that which I took in explaining the like refer- 
 ence in the fifth verse of the 3d chapter of John. 
 
 Read the last five verses of Matthew’s gospel, and the 13th 
 to 18th verses in the last chapter of Mark, and .hold them all 
 clearly, steadily, strongly, in your minds, until I have done with 
 this branch of my subject. The Saviour had no need to urge his 
 eleven disciples to baptize : for, whether as Jews or Chris- 
 
20 
 
 tians, they felt no indisposition to this service. But,^there was 
 one thing, of which the beloved and adorable, and oh ! how 
 patient God-man had t need, even to the very last : — and that 
 was to convince those eleven disciples of his Messiahship, and 
 of his equal title with his Father to be worshipped. To pro- 
 duce this conviction, he did ce many signs, ” after his resurrec- 
 tion. See John xx. 30, 31. Even after his resurrection, they 
 were still full of unbelief. Even after his resurrection, their 
 worship of him was mingled with doubts and misgivings. It 
 was faith, that he had need to inculcate upon his disciples. And 
 because of their own too little sensibility to its vital importance, 
 he had need to spend his last earthly moments in enjoining on 
 them to require those to be exercised with a right faith, who 
 should present their claim to be numbered with his followers. 
 It was, as if he had said : u Tell men, that it is faith — faith in 
 me, as the Messiah and the equal of the Father — not baptism, 
 which saves the soul. Tell them, c He that believeth shall be 
 saved. 5 55 See also the promises, which are here made to faith: 
 to u them that believe” — whilst, here, are none made to bap- 
 tism. But, I maybe asked, how I can reconcile this construed 
 insignificance of baptism in this connection with the great stress 
 laid on it in the commission to “ go and teach all nations, bap- 
 tizing them. 55 I reply, that neither great stress, nor any stress, 
 is laid on it in that commission. It was not to inculcate the 
 maintenance of the rite of baptism, that he refers to it in the 
 commission. This rite, which God instituted — this rite of 
 which Christ approved, even to the extent of submitting his 
 own person to it, was, already, well established, and would 
 continue to the end of time. The Saviour here mentions it, not 
 for the superfluous re-inculcation of it ; but to explain and en- 
 join the new 'purpose of its future observance. He here men- 
 tions it to teach his disciples, who, even now, worshipped him 
 hesitatingly — who, even now, needed to be assured, that u all 
 power was given unto him in heaven and in earth ;” — that, 
 henceforth, they must exact faith in him as God, and the wor- 
 ship of him as God, and the observance of all things, whatso- 
 ever he had commanded — in a word, that, henceforth — that be- 
 cause of his £C all power” — that u therefore,” to use the Bible 
 word — they must baptize in the name of himself , as well as of 
 
 
21 
 
 the Father, and of the Holy Ghost. In this wise, they had never 
 yet baptized. 
 
 How manifest, also, from Luke xxiv. 47, and Acts i. 8 — x.42,43, 
 that the Saviour’s object in the “ commission” was not to teach 
 his disciples the duty of the rite of baptism — a duty, in which 
 they had been already abundantly instructed: — but to teach them 
 to go “ unto the people,” and “ among all nations,” and to re- 
 quire faith in himself as the Messiah, and in his power to for- 
 give sins. And how delightful the record, that, scarcely had 
 Peter given this explanation of the “ commission,” ere the Holy 
 Ghost, as if to seal the truth of it, u fell on all them which 
 heard” it — Acts x. 44. 
 
 To illustrate and justify my interpretation of the “ commis- 
 sion,” I will suppose, that it is, already, the established prac- 
 tice for all the subjects of Great Britain to swear allegiance to 
 their sovereign : — but that, now, Parliament enacts a law, which 
 modifies this practice, and requires allegiance to be sworn to 
 the sovereign’s conjugal partner also — to Prince Albert, as well 
 as to Queen Victoria. What news would this law send through 
 the world? — the news, that the British Government required its 
 subjects to swear allegiance? — oh no! — for such is an old re- 
 quirement. It would send the news, that, now , it is required to 
 swear allegiance to Prince Albert also. So, likewise, in 
 the case of the “ commission. ” It declares something 
 new. The news of the “ commission,” was not, that it re- 
 quired baptism: but that it required baptism, in the name of the 
 Son also. 
 
 Pardon the remark, that never was I so deeply convinced of 
 the divine dignity and Godship of Jesus Christ, as, when seek- 
 ing, and (as I firmly believe,) finding also, the true, great, and 
 precious meaning of Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 Another object, also, the Saviour may have had in the “ com- 
 mission.” His language is strong evidence, that he had it. In 
 the former cc commission ” to his disciples, he had required 
 them to confine their labors to the Jews — to “ go not into the 
 way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Sama- 
 ritans.” Henceforth, however, they were to “ go into all the 
 world.” No longer were they to shut up their sympathies 
 within the limits of their own nation. The time of such ex- 
 
22 
 
 elusiveness — of such partiality — they were now to regard as? 
 forever past. Oh that it had been forever past ! Then, would 
 the world have no more been cursed with sectarianism. Secta- 
 rian and national prejudices die together. They are sprouts 
 from the same root; — and are characterized by a common 
 littleness and a common intolerance. 
 
 Another of the four verses, which we proposed to examine, 
 is Acts ii. 38. Let scripture explain scripture, and let Peter 
 explain Peter. Acts iii. 19, shows that Peter’s reliance for the 
 remission, or blotting out, of sins is not on baptism, but on re- 
 pentance and conversion. Moreover, the inculcation of bap- 
 tism in this case, as in Mat. xxviii. 19, had, for its prime object, 
 the inculcation of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The com- 
 mand in this case to be baptized — a command, remember, ad- 
 dressed to those, who had hitherto been ignorant of Christian 
 baptism, was a command to swear allegiance to King Jesus. 
 
 The remaining one of the four verses is Acts xxii. 16. And, 
 here, the requirement of Ananias is evidently, that Paul should 
 not content himself with the sign, but should realize the thing 
 signified ; that, in other words, he should wash his heart, as 
 well as his body. This passage makes nothing for the efficacy 
 of water to cleanse the heart. I think, however, that it favors 
 a more copious use of water in the rite of baptism, than some 
 Christians approve of. Wash your heart, as well as wash your 
 body, is as congruous, as wash your heart, as well as sprinkle 
 your body, is incongruous. 
 
 I have, now, finished the examination of the four verses, the 
 letter of which has a show of argument for the power of water 
 to renovate the heart. Is it said, that my train of thought, in 
 this examination, goes to call in question the duty of Christian 
 baptism ? I reply, that I intended no such thing : and, I add, 
 that, not to speak of other authority for Christian baptism, it has, 
 in the practice of it by the apostles, not only the full authority 
 of the apostles, but of Christ himself. I said, that the disciples 
 had not hitherto baptized, as the Saviour, now, directed them to 
 baptize. I add that Christian baptism was never practiced, until 
 after the ascension of the Saviour. The time, from the begin- 
 ning of John’s ministry until the Saviour’s death, was a dispen- 
 sation by itself — a connecting link between the Jewish and 
 
23 
 
 Christian dispensations — the evening twilight of the one, and 
 the morning twilight of the other. 
 
 The Saviour’s parents made an offering for him. He bade the 
 leper offer to the priest. He ate the passover. All this was 
 according to the Jewish economy. Not, until “ the veil of the 
 temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom,” did the 
 old dispensation pass entirely away. 
 
 John’s baptism was not Christian baptism ; and, when secta- 
 rianism shall have ceased, and, with it, all temptation to identify 
 the one with the other, it will be, universally, seen and acknowl- 
 edged, that the one is distinct from the other. John did not 
 receive his commission from Christ. The Saviour refers (John 
 v. 31, 32, 33,) to the fact, that John witnessed of him. But 
 this reference he would not have made, had he himself com- 
 missioned John. John’s witnessing of Christ had its great 
 value in the fact, that he was commissioned and sent by the 
 Father, and could, therefore, testify disinterestedly of the Son. 
 
 John baptized into the belief of one to come. John did not 
 know certainly, that Jesus was the Christ — see Luke vii. 19. 
 In the 28 th verse of this chapter, we see, how dark is John’s 
 dispensation, compared with Christ’s ; — for we, here, learn, that 
 even the least of those disciples, who enjoy the light and teach- 
 ings of the Christian dispensation, is greater than John. The 
 dispensation of John was not illuminated by that blessed Spirit, 
 who teaches all things ; and for whose coming it was needful, 
 that the Saviour should go away. I do not believe, that even 
 Apollos knew, that Jesus was the Christ, until after Aquila and 
 Priscilla “ had expounded unto him the way of the Lord more 
 perfectly.” Acts xviii. 24 to 28. 
 
 The 19th chap, of Acts shows conclusively, that John’s bap- 
 tism is not identical with Christian baptism. 
 
 In the light of these facts and also of the facts, which show 
 how ignorant of the Saviour were both the world and even His 
 own disciples ; how unreasonable to suppose, that John baptized 
 into the belief of Jesus, as the Messiah and the sovereign God ! 
 
 Baptism was, also, practiced by the disciples of Christ during 
 his life. That, however, did not make it Christian baptism. 
 They were, well nigh, as ignorant of the true and essential cha- 
 racter of Jesus, as was John the Baptist. To keep the world 
 
24 
 
 in ignorance of that character, was, manifestly, the Savour’s pol 
 icy. To dispel such ignorance, only very gradually, from the 
 minds even of his disciples, was, also, his policy. On the mount 
 of transfiguration, he charged three of his disciples to u tell nc- 
 man what things they had seen, till the Son of Man were risen 
 from the dead. And they kept it close and told no man.” 
 So too, when, Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ, he charged 
 his disciples not to tell, that he was the Christ. Indeed, it was 
 never until his arraignment before the high priest, that he, pub- 
 licly, acknowledged himself to be the Christ. How irrecon- 
 cilable with his studied concealment from the world of his 
 Messiahship, and with the great ignorance on this subject, in 
 which he kept even his disciples, is the supposition, that he au- 
 thorized them to baptize into thfc belief of himself, as the Mes- 
 siah, and the Lord of heaven and earth. 
 
 Christian baptism is into the belief of Christ’s death — Rom. 
 vi. 3, 4. But, his disciples could not endure the idea of his death,. 
 Mat. xvi. 22. It is also a baptism into the belief of Christ’s 
 resurrection — 1st Peter, iii. 21. But, his disciples did not 
 know u what the rising from the dead could mean’* — Mark 
 ix. 10. 
 
 The Christian sacraments belong to the kingdom of God. 
 But, all the time, the Saviour was on the earth, that kingdom was 
 represented to be future. He himself so represents it, even 
 after John’s imprisonment. u The kingdom of God is at hand,”* 
 (Mark i. 15,) that is — near by — but, not yet. Evidently, John 
 himself was not in that kingdom. And one of the petitions, 
 which the Saviour bade his disciples offer is, 6C Thy kingdom 
 come.” 
 
 Under the promptings of these additional testimonies, I must, 
 again, say, that it is utterly vain to contend, that John ever did, 
 or that the Saviour’s disciples, during their Lord’s stay on the 
 earth, ever did baptize in the name of the Father and the Son 
 and the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In concluding this part of my argument, let me remaft, that, 
 although Christian baptism differs in its objects from the baptism 
 practiced before the Saviour’s death ; I see not one reason to 
 doubt, but, on the contrary, many reasons to believe, that the 
 mode, in both cases, was the same. If immersion were the 
 mode before his death, it was the mode after his death also. 
 
25 
 
 The Bible argument against sectarianism and the Bible argu- 
 ment for it are now both before you. The former you find im- 
 pregnable — the latter but a bundle of misapprehensions and 
 misinterpretations. Here, I might stop. The objections to re- 
 ducing to practice the Bible theory of a local church, I am not 
 bound to reply to. Nevertheless, I consent to reply to them, 
 notwithstanding, I might fairly excuse myself from the task of 
 replying to objections to a theory, after I have, so fully, shown 
 it to be from Heaven. 
 
 The objectors say : (t But how can we consent to receive all 
 sorts of Christians — Christians of all sorts of notions — into the 
 church ?” To these objectors my soul indignant replies : “ Who 
 are you, that you should make the entrance of your fellow-men 
 into the church of Jesus Christ turn on your consent ? Has 
 he given to you this power? No — neither to you nor to St. 
 Peter. He keeps it in his own hand, and ever will.” Con- 
 soling assurance to the poor sinner, that it is so ; — that not men, 
 but Jesus Christ alone, can shut out of his church. Consoling 
 assurance too, that he has made the door of his church on earth 
 no narrower than the door of his church in heaven. The Sa- 
 viour has not given one set of rules for entering his church 
 above ; and another and essentially different set, for entering 
 his church below. Heaven is open to every Christian, — and, 
 surely, then, there is no enclosure on earth, however sacred, that 
 may be shut against any Christian. The church of Christ on 
 earth is the family of Christ on earth; — and are not its members 
 to feel themselves as closely, as indissolubly, bound together, as 
 the members of the natural family 1 So intimate is the rela- 
 tion of husband and wife, that, whilst it exists, 66 they twain are 
 one flesh,” and inseparable. But, closer far is the relation be- 
 tween Christians, and far more abhorrent, therefore, should be 
 the idea of their disunion from each other. 
 
 Alas, that men should regard the church as of human, instead 
 of divine constitution ! Alas, that they should claim the right 
 of voting in and voting out of it ! Alas the folly, the madness, 
 which claims, that a member of Christ’s family may not, can- 
 not, come into Christ’s family — into Christ’s church — unless he 
 be voted in by men ! A child, born into the world, last night, 
 in one of the families of this village, becomes, by the very fact 
 
26 
 
 of his birth, a member of it. It is not necessary to take the 
 vote, and obtain the consent of the family, ere he can become 
 a member of it. Moreover, he is entitled to the provisions of 
 his father’s house, simply because it is his father’s house. So 
 too, when a little child is born into the Saviour’s family (and 
 every one born into it is a little child, Lukexviii. 17,) the new- 
 comer is not obliged to ask his fellows, whether he may be 
 reckoned as a member of the Saviour’s family. The Christian 
 claims his place among God’s children for the sole reason, that 
 he is a Christian : and he has no right to consent, that it should 
 turn on the votes of his fellow-men, whether he get his place. 
 His title-deed to the privileges and blessings of Christ’s church 
 —of Christ’s family — comes not from man ; but from Christ 
 himself. 
 
 But, it is asked : “ Are we to welcome into the family and 
 church of Christ all Christians — even the weakest and most 
 erring!” “ Yes — even the weakest and most erring; — and, this 
 too, for the sufficient reason, that Christ welcomes them.” We 
 are not to have a higher standard than Jesus Christ has. We 
 are not to be more select in our associations, than he is. 
 We are to obey the apostle, when he says, u Him that is 
 weak in the faith receive ye.” The weakness, here imputed 
 to some of the Roman Christians, is, as the original language 
 and the subject matter teach, one with the weakness spoken of 
 in the 8th chap. 1st Cor. — and, in that chapter, it evidently 
 means, not only weakness , but error of faith — not only a slender 
 hold of truth) but a hold of error , also. The weakness, spoken 
 of in that chapter, is a conscientious regard for. idols — is, in 
 short, as the 6th and 7th verses make indisputable, the, as yet, 
 unextinguished remains of idolatry. We are to obey the 
 apostle, when he says : “ Wherefore receive ye one another, as 
 Christ also received us.” Christ receives every Christian into 
 his heart, and rejects him for no error. So the Christian is to 
 receive his fellow Christian into his heart, and to reject him for 
 no error. Do you ask, whether Christ receives every Christian 
 into his church 1 Then, do I ask, whether you think his church 
 is a holier place than his heart! How foolish, how absurd, in 
 view of my question, appears the sectarian distinction between 
 Christian and church fellowship ! — between Christian fellowship 
 
27 
 
 and eating and drinking at the Lord’s table ! What can be 
 more foolish and absurd than the attempt to exalt an expression 
 of that communion, whose seat is in the heart, above the com- 
 munion itself! 
 
 I said, that we are to welcome into the church the most weak 
 and erring Christians. I add, that we are to be especially eager 
 to extend the offices of church fellowship to such ; for it is such, 
 who most need them. Church fellowship is adapted both to 
 correct the errors of Christians, and to make them strong. This 
 is one of its heaven-designed objects. If there be in the village 
 of Hamilton a Christian more weak and erring than any other 
 Christian in it, I claim, that he is, for this reason, the very Chris- 
 tian, whom all other Christians here should be most glad to wel- 
 come to the nourishment and benefits of church fellowship. 
 He should be regarded, as the very cosset of the whole spiritual 
 flock of Hamilton. As parents, who have a weak and deformed 
 child, make it the especial object of their tenderness and solici- 
 tude, so should Christians look especially after the weakest and 
 most wandering of the flock; — carry them in their arms; — bathe 
 them in the tears of pity and love ; — and, if need be, exhaust 
 upon their cure every medicine of the soul, which the Saviour 
 has put at the disposal of his church. 
 
 I have been asked, in the course of this debate, how a church 
 can be formed on the principles I am commending ; and how 
 discipline can be observed in it. But, if these principles are, 
 manifestly, the gospel foundation of a church, then the inability 
 of myself, or of any, or of all other persons, to answer this 
 question, should not be suffered to cast doubt or disparagement 
 on such principles. But, I will attempt to answer the question. 
 I will suppose, that, simultaneously, and from different parts of 
 the world, a hundred families remove to a new western town- 
 ship. They name it Newtown. Among them are fifty indi- 
 viduals, who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. These fifty are, 
 therefore, the church of Newtown. Their mere faith makes 
 them such — just as mere faith made the church in Jerusalem and 
 the church in Antioch. What person, not greatly perverted by 
 a sectarian education, can read the following scriptures, and 
 hold them together in his mind, and not be convinced, that per- 
 sons became members of the church in Jerusalem and in An- 
 tioch, simply by believing in Jesus ? 
 
28 
 
 “ And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be 
 saved,” Acts ii. 47. 
 
 “And believers were the more added to the Lord,” Acts v. 14. 
 
 “ And a great number believed and turned unto the Lord,” 
 Acts xi. 21. 
 
 Who can read these scriptures and others of like import, and 
 doubt, that to believe is to join the church l — that to believe 
 is to open the door to the earthly, as well as to the heavenly 
 church ? Is it not manifest from these scriptures, that to turn 
 unto the Lord, and to be added unto the Lord, are the same, not 
 only as believing in the Lord, but as being added to the church ? 
 
 We now have, and know what is, the church of Newtown. 
 In the next place, they, who compose it, do, by the very law of 
 their regenerate nature, and' by reason of the mutual recogni- 
 tions of spiritual kindred, give the hand of church fellowship 
 to each other. They proceed to do the duties of a church — to 
 come together for worship, for honoring the ordinances of bap- 
 tism and the Lord’s supper, and for the other services, to which 
 Christians are called in their church capacity. I would here 
 speak of that exceedingly pernicious and almost universal error 
 of confounding the duties of a church with its formation . The 
 great mass of Christians regard the 66 ordinances ” — especially 
 baptism — as constituents in the formation of a church. They 
 are, however, simply duties of a church. It is true, that there 
 are acts of social interest and social worship, which, in the na- 
 ture of things, and of fixed necessity, result from the constitution 
 of a church : but these acts are no more elements in that constitu- 
 tion than my walking is an element of my physical organization: 
 or than the water, which has flowed from a fou ntain, is the fountain. 
 
 But, it is asked, what the church of Newtown will do, in case 
 one part of them recognises as a Christian the person, who comes 
 to cast in his lot with them, and the other part does not. I 
 answer, in the first place, that, whilst I deny, that such disagree- 
 ment is fraught with very serious, much less, with fatal conse- 
 quences, to the church, I, nevertheless, admit, that it is to be la- 
 mented. I answer, in the second place, that I readily confess 
 that I know not, where the preventive of such disagreement can 
 be found, unless in that increase of holiness, which is accom- 
 
29 
 
 panied by a corresponding increase of spiritual discernment, and 
 by a corresponding ability to judge of Christian character. It 
 is, now, my turn to put a question : and, I ask, what advantage, 
 in this respect, has a sectarian church over the church of New- 
 town? True, the voice of the majority in a sectarian church 
 merges in itself the voice of the minority ; and determines 
 with whom the minority shall, and with whom it shall not, have 
 external or apparent fellowship. But, as this controlling voice 
 has no power to determine the question of fellowship, or non- 
 fellowship, in the heart, so its coercion is put forth, not only in 
 vain, but infinitely worse than in vain. 
 
 We pass to the point of discipline. The church of New- 
 town follows the Saviour’s directions in Mat. xviii. A sectarian 
 church, from the fact, that it is a sectarian church, cannot follow 
 them. The moment it practically admits, as this chapter clearly 
 requires it to admit, that every person, who is not as utterly des- 
 titute, as u a heathen man and a publican,’’ of all claims to the 
 character of a Christian, is entitled to church membership, it 
 ceases to be a sectarian church. I would here remark, that one 
 of the numerous conclusive arguments against sectarian churches 
 is their absolute incapacity to discipline for sectarianism, not- 
 withstanding sectarianism is the great sin of schism. The 
 u church of Peterboro ” is, so far as I know, the only church, 
 which disciplines for sectarianism. It has, now, under discipline 
 for this sin, a deacon of the Baptist sect, who is an exemplary 
 and beloved Christian. 
 
 The church of Newtown, when convinced, that the offender is 
 not a Christian, disfellowships him. It does not vote him out of 
 the church — forit claims no power to vote, either in, or out of, the 
 church. It simply says, that, in its judgment, he is not in the 
 church. 
 
 Such is the church of Newtown. We will, now, see what 
 would have been the ecclesiastical doings in that town, had 
 they, who emigrated to it, been sectarians. The church, as God 
 gave it to them, they would have rejected. The duties, which 
 they owed, as its members, they would have refused to do. The 
 God-made church they would have displaced, or supplanted, with 
 a man-made church — with, perhaps, half a dozen man-made 
 churches. I would, here, say, that if men will take it upon ther 
 
30 
 
 selves to make churches, they should, at least, follow the heaven- 
 ly pattern, so far, as to aim to include in them all the Christians 
 within their respective territories. But, however much the men, 
 who make churches, may love the God-made church ; they do 
 not love it, as a pattern, for the man-made church. Its terms of 
 membership are not at all to their taste. Its platform is quite 
 too broad for those, who are even more select in their spiritual 
 companionship, than the infinitely pure and holy God is in 
 his. 
 
 cc God forbid,” said those tribes of Israel, whom their brethren 
 accused of schism — u God forbid, that we should rebel against 
 the Lard and turn this day from following the Lord, to build 
 an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God, that is before his 
 tabernacle,” Josh. xxii. 29. Alas ! that Christians should not 
 be content with the church, as it comes from the hand of God ! 
 Alas ! that they should build one “ beside ” it ! If the idea 
 schism — of the building of a schismatic or sectarian altar — an 
 altar to come in competition with the one altar of the universal 
 brotherhood — were so deeply abhorrent under the old dispensa- 
 tion, how amazing, that the like idea should be welcome under 
 the new ! 
 
 But the sectaries will say : £C If we do not collect and organize 
 our church by voting in members, how shall we know, who are 
 its members 1 If our church records do not show, who are its 
 members, how shall we know, who they are?” I answer, that 
 the Saviour has given a rule whereby to distinguish the mem- 
 bers of his church from the men of the world — a rule too, which 
 is far better — a guide which is far safer, than that on which you 
 rely. It is this : u Ye shall know them by their fruits.” I am 
 not of the number of those, who think it important to know, 
 who are Baptists, and who are Methodists, and who are Presby- 
 terians, &c. Such poor knowledge is not worth going one step 
 after. I readily admit, if it be indispensable to know, who are 
 Baptists, and who are Methodists, and who are Presbyterians, 
 &c., that, in such case, it is indispensable to have church rolls 
 of names : — but, I insist, that, for the purpose of ascertaining who 
 are members of the church of Jesus Christ, such rolls are not 
 only worthless, but unspeakably worse than worthless. None 
 are members of his church, but those, whose hearts and lives bear 
 
31 
 
 witness, that they are: and if your church rolls say, that any others 
 are, and, also imply that some, who are Christians, are not mem- 
 bers of his church, then do these rolls say and imply falsehoods. 
 Who would act so absurdly, as to go to the records of the tem- 
 perance society, to learn, who of his neighbors are sober men, and 
 who are drunkards ? But, would not he act as absurdly, who 
 should go to the church records to ascertain who of his neigh- 
 bors are Christians and who are not? The sectaries, neverthe- 
 less, contend, that the visibility of the church consists more de- 
 finitely and more extensively than in any thing else, in the 
 technical profession of religion, and in the roll of church names. 
 In neither of these, however, does it consist, at all — but, alone, in 
 the purity and holiness of the church. A worldly and gay gen- 
 tleman once told me, that Mr. , and Mr. , were 
 
 his favorite ministers. u Fine fellows, ” said he, u you might 
 be with them a fortnight, without once suspecting that they are 
 ministers !” The enrolment of their names, as ministers of Jesus 
 Christ, could afford no evidence, that they were such, whilst 
 their lives contradicted it. This distinction of a visible and an 
 invisible earthly church, which is so universally taken, is as per- 
 nicious, as false. What is more directly and powerfully adapted 
 to lower the standard of piety, and, indeed, to efface all piety, 
 than the prevailing delusion, that there may be a church on 
 earth, which is a true church of Jesus Christ, and which, never- 
 theless, has no visibility, unless it be that, which is claimed, 
 unjustly claimed, for it, in virtue of its forms, and records, and 
 rolls ? An earthly church, which is invisible, is not a church of 
 Jesus Christ. It is recorded of the Saviour, Mark vii. 24, that 
 a he could not be hid.” No more can the purity and holiness 
 of a church of Christ. His disciples are, as he himself teaches 
 —not are to be — but are , “ the light of the world ” and “ the 
 salt of the earth :” and, so necessarily conspicuous is their 
 moral excellence, that he likens them to the city, which crowns 
 a hill, and which, therefore, cannot be hid. “ Among whom,” 
 says Paul to the Philippian church, “ ye shine as lights in the 
 world.” 
 
 Ere closing my remarks under this head, I would say, that 
 the New Testament makes no mention of voting persons into its 
 churches ; nor of those churches having creeds in any such sense, 
 
32 
 
 as modern churches have creeds. I need not say, that the ban- 
 ishment of human creeds, and the substitution of the Bible for 
 them, would withdraw from sectarianism its chief prop. Men 
 will soon stop making - churches, and accept churches, as God 
 presents them, after they have stopped making creeds, and taken 
 the Bible for their creed. Why should we be content with an 
 abstract of the Bible for our creed? and, this too, what fallible 
 men are pleased to call an abstract of it? It is in the light, and 
 by the standard, of the whole Bible — not of a part of it — of a 
 divine — not of a human creed — that we are to judge ourselves 
 and our fellow-men. Again, a human creed we may out-grow. 
 What answered our convictions, and met our approbation a year 
 ago, may not now. But the Bible, we can never out-grow. 
 There can be no increase of our piety, which will rise above its 
 perfect holiness. There can be no increase of our wisdom, to 
 which its infinite wisdom cannot make additions. The Bible 
 then — the whole Bible — and nothing but the Bible — should be 
 the creed of every church. Dr. Chalmers says, a time will 
 come, when u God’s own truth, expressed in God’s own lan- 
 guage, will form the universal creed of intelligent, and harmo- 
 nized, and happy Christendom. When men’s faith and their 
 affections will come into more direct contact with heaven’s 
 original revelation : and the spirit of good will to man, which 
 prompted heaven’s message, will be felt in all its freshness and 
 power : — when the uproar of controversy is stilled, and its harsh 
 and jarring discords have died away into everlasting silence.” 
 
 But, again, the sectarians say : u If we do not have church 
 records and rolls of church members, how shall we be able to pro- 
 tect the Lord’s table?” I answer, that, even with your records 
 and rolls, countless numbers of unworthy ones come to it. Sup- 
 pose, that I deeply desire, that, persons guilty of Sabbath-break- 
 ing, or rum-drinking; of using profane, or obscene language; 
 should not visit my family. I go so far, as to hang up, in each 
 of the rooms of my house, a copy of my printed testimony 
 against these sins. Of how little avail would all this be to keep 
 away the unwelcome visiters, provided I and my family were 
 living in the practice of these same sins ! But, our exemption 
 from these sins — our pure and heavenly walk — how effectual 
 would not that be ! I know of no protection, which a church 
 
33 
 
 can give to the Lord’s table, other than that of its own holy 
 living. Such living, if it rise to the gospel standard, will, as ef- 
 fectually, guard the Lord’s table from intruders, as did the flam- 
 ing sword the gates of paradise. Not only is the proposition, 
 that light has no affinity with darkness, true : but the converse, 
 that darkness has no affinity with light, is, also, true. The 
 atmosphere of the Lord’s table would be quite too heavenly for 
 the wicked to breathe, were the men and women, who gather 
 around it, as holy, as they should be. Such holiness would ef- 
 fectually repel the wicked. u Resist the devil, and he will flee 
 from you.” But, it is only by holiness, that he can be resisted. 
 
 One means of contributing to keep back impenitent and pre- 
 sumptuous persons from the Lord’s table is to invite to it, not 
 u those, who are in good standing in their respective churches,” 
 but those, who are conscious, that they love Jesus Christ and be- 
 lieve that they are saved by him. There is not a little danger, 
 that, under the ordinary form of invitation in many of the 
 churches, the invited may be emboldened by thoughts of the 
 enrolment of their names in the church ; of the certificates of 
 their good standing in it ; and of their good Christian reputa- 
 tion. On the other hand, the terms of the invitation, which I 
 am commending, are happily and powerfully adapted to put 
 the invited upon the examination of their hearts. Alas, how 
 ruinous, how wicked, is it to invite to the Lord’s table u all, 
 who are in good standing in their respective churches !” Who 
 does not know, that the unrighteous, as well as the righteous, 
 come within the wide sweep of such invitation? — quite as 
 many too of the unrighteous, as of the righteous ? And who 
 does not know, that it is a high crime to invite unrighteous 
 men to the Lord’s table ? How preposterous, that they, who 
 invite persons to the Lord’s table, whom they know to be not 
 Christians, should charge those with leaving it unprotected, 
 who invite to it none but Christians ! 
 
 But the sectarians are not yet satisfied on this point. They 
 inquire : “ And would you, really, have all sorts of Christians 
 come to the Lord’s table?” I answer, that we would — and 
 for the sufficient reason, that the Saviour would. He loves all 
 sorts of Christians. Alas, that the Lord’s supper, adapted, far 
 above all other ceremonies, to promote the union of Christians, 
 
34 
 
 should be perverted into the chief occasion of dividing them ! 
 Alas, that they, who expect to unite in eating 66 the same spirit- 
 ual meat” and in drinking a the same spiritual drink” in 
 heaven, should refuse such union on earth ! 
 
 Whence, however, is all this anxiety to protect the Lord’s 
 church and the Lord’s table? He will himself protect them. 
 Let us trust in him and in the sufficient guards, which he has 
 placed around them. It is not for us, in our unbelief and offi- 
 ciousness, to multiply or change these guards. It is not for us 
 to mend God’s plan. No impertinent and unbelieving concern 
 for the interests of the church led Peter to deny to the Gentile 
 converts their right to a place in it, and to the benefit of its 
 institutions. He well knew, that the true light had but just 
 begun to scatter the great moral darkness, which enveloped 
 them : and that, as yet, their apprehensions of Christian duty 
 were extremely crude and erroneous. But, nevertheless, they 
 were professors of the Christian faith (God had purified their 
 hearts by faith, Acts xv. 9 ;) and, as such, they had a full title 
 to the Christian privileges — a title, which he had no heart to 
 question — to question which, would, in his esteem, be to u with- 
 stand God.” Peter, very probably, feared, that the Gentiles, 
 in coming into the church, were bringing with them pollution, 
 discord, dishonor. But, he saw, that God himself opened the 
 door to them : and, therefore, that it was not for man to repel 
 them. He saw, that God was willing to risk the safety, purity, 
 and reputation, of his church, by admitting u unclean” Gen- 
 tiles into it : and that was reason enough with Peter, why he 
 also should risk it. The manifestation of saving faith, how- 
 ever great or numerous the errors, which accompany it, is, at 
 once, the proof of church-membership, and of an absolute title 
 to all the rights of church-membership. The very chapter, 
 from which we have just quoted, teaches us, that there were 
 members of the church of Jerusalem (members of the church, 
 because they believed, Acts xv. 5,) who took the ground, u that 
 it was needful to circumcise.” Theirs was a great error. Was 
 it not full as great, as that, which the Baptist charges upon the 
 Psedobaptist ? — as that which the Paedobaptist charges upon 
 the Baptist? And, yet, great as it was, even Apostles did not 
 deny the rights of church-membership to the Christians, who 
 
35 
 
 were guilty of it. How quick the light of revelation exposes 
 the falsity of sectarianism ! — and what a pity, therefore, that 
 the sectarians, instead of bringing forth their dirty idol into this 
 light, should keep it in the dark places of their prejudice and 
 bigotry ! 
 
 I will, now, glance at a few, though only a few, of the bene- 
 fits, which would result from the universal abandonment of 
 sectarianism, and from the universal adoption of the gospel 
 theory of church formation. The honest heart, however, sees 
 so much benefit in the mere fact of obeying God, that it needs 
 no assurance of the other benefits of such obedience. 
 
 1st. Hundreds of millions of dollars, now wasted annually 
 in the employment of superfluous preachers, and in the erection 
 of superfluous houses of worship, many of which are as costly, 
 as the highest degree of sectarian rivalry can make them, would 
 then be saved for heaven-approved and earth-blessing uses. 
 But for such rivalry, there would not be, in almost every one 
 of our villages, several times as many preachers and houses of 
 worship, as are needed. But for it, there would not be, in my 
 own litttle village of sixty families, four preachers and four 
 places of worship. But for this sectarian rivalry, Trinity church 
 in New-York, which cost several hundred thousand dollars, 
 and St. Peter’s in Rome, which cost millions of dollars, would 
 either not have been built ; or would be such simple and low- 
 priced structures, as the simplicity and modesty of the Christian 
 religion call for. 
 
 2d. By far the greatest obstacle in the way of promoting 
 moral reforms will disappear with the disappearance of secta- 
 rianism. Men care more for parties than for truth. The esprit 
 du corps rises above the claims of God. Every religious sect, 
 
 WHATEVER THE MEASURE OF ITS PURITY AND HOLINESS, IS A RIVAL 
 OF, RATHER THAN IDENTICAL WITH CHRISTIANITY. What a Strik- 
 ing instance of this we have in the fact, that the General As- 
 sembly of the Presbyterian church of this nation has, repeat- 
 edly, refused to declare slavery sin ! Men of controlling in- 
 fluence in that body opposed the declaration ; and were frank 
 enough to oppose it on the ground, that it would drive away 
 the Southern Presbyterians, and destroy the nationality and 
 power of the Presbyterian sect. The voice of Christianity 
 
36 
 
 shouted in the ears of that Assembly : “ Call slavery sin — call 
 it sin ; — if the system, which forbids marriage, and forbids the 
 reading of the Bible, and markets men as beasts, is not sin, 
 then nothing is sin, and the religion, which you dishonestly 
 profess, is a falsehood.” Sectarianism, upon its knees, begged 
 to be spared : and it was spared. A tenderer regard for it than 
 for truth, spared sect, and sacrificed Christianity. 
 
 3d. Christians would, then, labor effectually for the salvation 
 of their fellow men. Until they receive each other ; and, 
 heartily and practically, recognize themselves to be u members 
 one of another,” they will not be capable of highly successful 
 social activity in the cause of their Master. Go into a manu- 
 factory, and look at one of the operatives — into a work-shop, 
 and look at one of the artizans. How comes it, that they are 
 able to accomplish their work so successfully ? The secret of 
 the success of each lies in this — that his hands work in harmo- 
 ny with each other — that his feet do likewise; — that his feet 
 and hands co-operate ; — and that his handle, feet, body, all, are 
 obedient to the directions of his head. So mu >t it be with the 
 church — such must be the co-operation of the mystical body 
 and its members — ere the disciples of Jesus Christ can do what 
 they are required to do, and what they are able to do, for the 
 success of his cause. 
 
 4th. The abolition of sectarianism would fulfil the Saviour’s 
 prayer for the unity of the church — John xvii. 21. In his 
 last hours on the earth, his holy soul was absorbed with the 
 desire, that his disciples might “ all be one.” This oneness 
 would, as He himself teaches, convince the world, that he is 
 the sent of God — that his religion is from Heaven. Alas, that 
 this universal conviction, resulting, as it would, in universal 
 salvation, should have been withheld so long ! Alas, that 
 Christians should, by their unholy divisions and sectarianism, 
 have hung so long, and, as to countless generations of men, 
 so fatally, on the chariot wheels of salvation ! 
 
 But, I must close ; and return to the bed, which I left for the 
 purpose of attending this discussion. That, under my bodily 
 infirmities, I should have come here to attend it, is evidence of 
 the importance which I attach to it. I hope, that I have suc- 
 ceeded in making myself intelligible. But, perhaps, I have 
 
37 
 
 no t ; — for, often, during the last eight or ten years, when I have 
 seen how vain were my endeavors to make men understand me 
 on this subject, and be interested in it, I have felt, that, to 
 speak the words of anti-sectarianism is to speak in an unknown 
 tongue. Sectarianism is so much a matter of course — the edu- 
 cation into it is so incessant, and deep, and universal — that men 
 can hardly conceive of the possibility, much less understand the 
 merits, of “ a more excellent way.” Again, they shrink from 
 yielding themselves up to a catholic spirit, lest they will there- 
 by have to give up their cherished party spirit. Sectarianism 
 is a bewitching thing ; and the hearts of men are so bound up 
 in it, as to give way to the greatest alarms, when threatened 
 with the loss of it. To lose it, if they could do so, without, at 
 the same time, losing their idolatrous regard for it, would be to 
 leave them to the feeling, that they are poor, indeed. Under 
 the pressure of this feeling, they would cry out, as did the 
 snivelling Micah to the Danites : u Ye have taken away my 
 gods.” 
 
 Whichever of my deductions you may have failed to per- 
 ceive, I most earnestly hope, that the following may not have 
 escaped you. 
 
 1st. The terms of salvation are the terms of church 
 
 MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 2d. The terms of salvation are the terms of admittance 
 to the Lord’s table. 
 
 3d. We are to recognize no one, as a church member, 
 who does not give us evidence, that he is a Christian. 
 
 4th. We are to recognize every one, as a church mem- 
 ber, WHO GIVES US EVIDENCE, THAT HE IS A CHRISTIAN. 
 
 I do not expect, that sectarianism will die in a day. It is a 
 monster of great age, and of as great strength. It raised its 
 snaky head, even in the presence of an apostle. 6C Is Christ 
 divided I” was the terrible and triumphant rebuke it then en- 
 countered. It had the effrontery to seek a friendship with Jesus 
 Christ himself. But, it was, instantly, repelled by the declara- 
 tion, that all, who work in the Saviour’s name, are the Sa- 
 viour’s, and that all, who are not against him, are for him. In 
 the vastness of its strength, this monster has been able to set 
 church against church, nation against nation, and the world 
 
38 
 
 f 
 
 against God. But, old as sectarianism is, it will not live al- 
 ways ; and strong as it is, it wilL not “ devour forever.” For 
 a while longer, the spirit of sectarianism will continue to pol- 
 lute the church. But, the Spirit of God will yet exorcise that 
 foul spirit, and cleanse the church of all the defilements, which 
 so unclean a spirit leaves behind him. For a while longer, the 
 spirit of sectarianism will maintain ihose divisions in the church 
 of Christ, which prejudice the men of this world against the 
 truth, and put into their hands the most plausible and effective 
 weapons against it. But, the Spirit of God will yet drive out 
 this demon of discord and division, and present the church, in 
 all the irresistible might of its oneness and indivisibility. Has- 
 ten, O God ! the day, which shall witness this blessed change 
 — this glory of thy church — this triumph of thy truth ! 
 


 6 , 
 
 ■: : A;. 
 
 :: 
 
 
 <*#; c 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 ■ '•- 
 
/ 
 
 it 
 
 / 
 
 t