THE

Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter.

VOL. VI. JUNE, 1868. No. 6.

UNION, PEAOE AND TRUTH.

THE three words contained in our title represent three ideas, that enter largely into the subject which now engrosses the attention of the Christian community. That subject is organic, ecclesiastical oneness. To a degree beyond anything known in former times, the churches are aroused to the unseemliness of schisms in the body of Christ, and to the necessity of efforts to remove them. Reason and feeling unite in pressing the subject on the understanding and conscience of every lover of Zion. The movement is working deep in the hearts of the pious, and, gathering strength as it proceeds, it is becoming a power so mighty that no opposition can long stand before it.

All whose opinions are worthy of notice, agree that the three ideas mentioned above must be elements in the movement in order that it may be successful. But all do not agree in what proportion they are to be employed. Here is the point of divergence. Until this question be settled on scriptural ground, little progress can be made to accomplish the desired end. It will be like the building of the tower of Babel, after the confusion of tongues. The workmen, though aiming at a common object, in place of aiding, will hinder one another; what some are building others will throw down, and the result, as of old, will be dispersion and weakness, not union and strength.

There may be organic oneness without peace. This is the state of things that has produced disruption in so many ecclesiastical bodies. They were visibly one, but owing to defectiveness somewhere in the bond of unity, it failed to keep out contention and strife. The divellent were too strong for the concentrative forces, and the body was rent assunder.

There may be peace where there is not visible unity. The various denominations of evangelical Christians can live and work side by side, and have done so, with little animosity or hostility toward each other. Their members can meet on the common ground of Christian fellowship, and promote their mutual welfare. We have seen those who, in times of

39X1178

ecclesiastical strife, would scarcely speak to another, when separated by denominational lines, drop their contentions, and love as brethren. There may be both unity and peace without truth. The Church of Rome is an example of this. She boasts of her unity, and she has the power to perserve in a good degree concord among her members. There may be truth without visible oneness. This is the condition of things now in the churches constituting the Presbyterian family. They consist of several organizations, but unqestionably among them, in the aggregate, the truth is held.

From the subject presented in these different phases, we are not to infer that visible unity is a hindrance to peace; or that the church united and living in peace, cannot hold the truth. Such inferences would be wholly unwarranted. It is the normal state of the church to be united, enjoying peace, and holding the truth. Neither are we to ascribe the present unnatural condition of religious society to entire indifference to any of the three leading elements mentioned above. The pious everywhere "love the truth and the peace," and they long to see sectarianism rooted out of the church, that she may be visibly, as she is really, one. The mistake arises from giving undue preponderance to some one of these ideas, and detracting in the same proportion from the importance due to the others. We propose, in this paper, to attempt the difficult task of exhibiting them in their proper adjustment, in order to secure a united church, holding the truth and enjoying peace. I. Union. The church should be united

1. In Principle. Principles are the bonds of all associations. In human organizations the terms of agreement are prepared by those who propose to enter into them. These may be few or many, according to the pleasure of those who adopt them; but it is necessary that they should, in their number and character, conduce to the object contemplated. The church is in this respect an unique organization. Her terms of agreement are laid down by her Head, and do not admit of either increase or diminution. There are certain principles that belong to her constitution, and these must be set forth and assented to by her membership, in order to have harmony and energy, as a great spiritual power appointed by Christ. The church is "the pillar and the ground of truth." "There is one faith."

It is for this end that subordinate standards are prepared by the church. They set forth, as understood by her, the principles on which it is the will of her Head she should be constituted. They are the confession of her faith, and the bond of doctrinal unity by which her members are held together in one body. These principles clearly · understood, and cordially embraced, are the means by which "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.'

2. In Practice. Principles are the reason and rule of men's actions. They who agree in principle will act alike, because they act from the same cause and according to the same rule. It is no uncommon case, however, for the professors of the same faith to differ widely in their practice. There is far less diversity in the views of the several Presby

terian churches on the teachings of the Scriptures in regard to matters of faith, than in regard to their practical requirements. In faith they are nearly the same, but in practice they are far from harmonious. The Westminster Confession of Faith is substantially the confession of all these churches. Why then are they not one united church? The reason is, they interpret the symbol of this faith differently, and each church acts out its own interpretation.

It is just here that a mistake occurs, that has wrought injuriously to the integrity of the visible church. The sentiment is very common, that if men agree in holding substantially the same formularies of truth, they may be safely allowed a good deal of latitude in their respective modes of applying the truth held. Indeed a right to do this is claimed as essential to religious freedom. It is this right exercised that has broken up the visible oneness of the church.

It is by the application of a principle that we ascertain how it is understood and held. Take for illustration the principle that the psalms are appointed to be sung in the worship of God. Many apply this principle in the way of excluding from the matter of praise every thing but the book of Psalms. Many, on the other hand, apply it as warranting the use of uninspired hymns. This difference in practice produces diversity. Two cannot walk together except they be agreed. True ecclesiastical unity requires agreement in the application of principles as well as in the principles themselves.

3. In Discipline. Error and immorality both come under the notice of the church, as requiring the exercise of discipline. It is not every thing wrong in either principle or practice, that calls for censure. The preaching of the word is a means of correcting the mistakes that men are prone to commit in regard to both doctrine and duty. In order to preserve the church united, the lines should be clearly drawn between those offenses that are to be cured by the word, and those that require discipline. It would be an exemplification of any thing but unity, for one part of the church to apply discipline to acts, that in the other part are suffered to be done with impunity. It would be still worse for one part to hold as right that which another part censures as wrong.

It is plain from these views, that the rule of disposing of the psalmody question, that is now recommended by so many conventions, will fail of accomplishing its object. So long as it is held, that it is an innovation on divine institutions to sing anything in the worship of God but what is contained in the book of Psalms, consistency requires that everything else be excluded by the discipline of the church. An innovation on a divine institution is too grave an offense to be tolerated as a matter of forbearance. But where would be the unity in a church, in which the same practice would be both censured and commended? It would bring discipline into contempt, and make the church the scene of strife and every evil work.

Let us then have, in order to a united church, these three points definitely settled. What are the principles that enter into our public professions? How are these principles to be applied? And to what extent and how is discipline to be exercised, in order to exemplify and

preserve true ecclesiastical unity? These questions being settled, the church is in a condition to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

II. Peace. The church longs for peace. It is indispensable to her prosperity. It is the gift of Christ her Head to her, and her ultimate possession of it is secured by promise. "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you.' "They shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.' For this blessing we are commanded to pray and to labor. "6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem." "Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

What it is that constitutes true peace in the church, is a question now of great practical importance. We have already shown that it is not inseparable from visible unity. There might be organic oneness, and yet the church be torn with internal dissensions; and on the other hand, the church may be visibly in a lukewarm condition, and yet a high degree of peace be enjoyed by her members. Still the ideal of the church living in peace can never be fully realized until she become visibly one. Aware of the importance and difficulty of this question, we propose to give it a careful and candid examination. It will facilitate our object to present it first in its negative aspect.

The absence of judicial trials and censures is not certain evidence that the church enjoys true peace. Where there is this peace there will be, of course, no censures, because there will be no need of them; but it is easy to conceive of a state of things where censures are omitted through unfaithfulness in the rulers. And in the present low state of religion, it is generally the case. that the omission arises from this cause. Now where no one is called to account for error or immorality, there is a state of quiet; but where there are causes why the censures of the church should be applied, and yet this is not done, that quiet is far enough from the peace that Christ has promised. "O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments; then had thy peace been as a river."

Again: This peace does not consist in an agreement to differ amicably on some points on which there is a diversity of views. This statement is in direct opposition to the measures that are now generally adopted to unite the church. There is no doubt that by such agreement outward unity might be effected. The several bodies consenting beforehand to make all points of difference matters of forbearance, they would be relieved from the application of discipline, and even fierce, angry disputation with one another, in regard to these points. But this would not be the peace that is promised to the church. Paul found a state of things like this in the church at Corinth, and he severely reproves it. "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done to edifying." 1 Cor. 14: 26. Suppose the psalmody difficulty was compromised in this way, would peace follow union? In the same congregation there might be some of both views. To suit both parties they might agree to sing psalms one part of the day in public worship, and hymns the other part. Acting from principle, the psalm-singing part would remain si

lent while the other part would be singing hymns. In such a state of things, could the church be said to enjoy peace?

Take another case. Suppose that Covenanters would for the sake of union agree to make the subject of voting a matter of forbearance. They believe that it is a practical denial of Christ's kingly office to vote under the present constitution. But they consent, for the sake of union, to hold fellowship and sit at the Lord's table with those who thus persistently deny Christ. Could this be called peace? Whatever it might seem to be on the surface, underneath are the elements of strife and discord.

Three things are necessary in order to secure permanent peace. A knowledge of the truth and its right application-love to the truth, both in principle and practice, for its own intrinsic excellence-and fidelity to Christ and his cause. Those who know the truth and feel, its power, will love it; and loving it they will love all who embrace it; and in acting faithfully to Christ, they will receive his Spirit in the spirit of peace. "Love the truth and the peace." "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then, peaceable; and the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

III. Truth. The truth is a sacred trust committed to the church. "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." "Hold that fast which thou hast." "Strive together for the faith of the gospel. By no warrantable process can these terms be made to mean only a part of what Christ has revealed in his word. It is a rashness that savors of impiety, to attempt it. Who will dare to say that Christ as the Prophet, has revealed doctrines to the church that she may leave out of the profession of her faith? For whatever end the truth is given, it is all given, and all necessary, for that end. Our Lord means the whole truth, when he prays to the Father to sanctify his people through the truth. He tells them that they "shall know the truth, and the truth"-not a part, but the whole truth-"shall make them free."

We make a distinction between an ignorant and an intentional exclusion of truth from the church's standards. Beyond all question, the latter is the more inexcusable. We cannot well conceive how greater dishonor could be done to Christ, than by sacrificing any truth that he has revealed in his word, for any good end, not excepting the outward oneness of the church. The interpretation of such an act would be, that we know better than Christ what is necessary in order that the church may be visibly one. It would be a reflection on his wisdom, as though he had erred in excess-revealing some doctrines that tend to divide rather than to unite the church. Can efforts, however well meant, that slight the teachings of the great Prophet, secure his peace and blessing?

It is of no weight in reply to this, that all do not agree as to what is the truth; for we are dealing with the consent of those who profess to believe the truth they propose to give up for the sake of union. And it is just in this quarter that there is now the greatest danger. Truth let fall from the church's creed, is truth denied; and not unfrequently becomes truth opposed and scorned. "It had been better for them