institution and as the great hope of the world, but, besides this, a yearning for Church-fellowship. The need is felt for some bond of communion which shall connect us with God and Christ, with things not seen and eternal, while it unites us together. The suggestions which are made in the discourse at Meadville, on the importance of the pastoral function, on the demand for worship as well as instruction in the sanctuary, and on false styles of preaching, deserve to be considered by all friends of the Gospel.

Yet we must not withhold the expression of our misgivings and objections, though we have little space in which to set them forth.

1. The Broad Church, and every other Church, must have a doctrinal basis. We grant that the Church is not a theological society, that its fellowship is of the heart, that common feelings and affections towards God and Christ form its groundwork. But religious feelings, if they have any value, presuppose knowledge and cluster about truth. Where men do not believe something in common, they cannot feel alike or act together. If they are much at variance in their views of Christ, the great object of faith, and of our relations to Him, the bond of sympathy breaks and the Church is virtually dissolved. That there must be a creed, either written or unwritten, a harmony of convictions to some extent, is conceded by the friends of the Broad Church, when they found the necessity for it on the objectionable doctrines of Romanism and Calvinism, and put forward their own principles as a substitute. There is much declamation against "dogmas" in the Addresses before the Christian Union, but every one of the speakers, in the same breath, proclaims his own "dogmas," and lays them at the foundation of the new movement. We could easily show that not only the habitual consciousness, but the worship and whole life of a man, are modified by his ideas of the Redeemer and the method of salvation. On great and cardinal principles there must be a union in belief, or there can be no cordial and profitable, or enduring fellowship.

2. Dr. Osgood's definitions of the Gospel fall much below the cherished faith of the Christian denominations which are

called Evangelical. He admits that his position puts him "in virtual antagonism to the great majority of the Christian world." We have searched in vain through these discourses for a confession of faith in the Incarnation of the Saviour, or in any presence of God in Him, which is in kind at a heavenwide remove from the presence of God in the Saviour's disciples. We have searched in vain for any recognition of a direct effect of the Saviour's life and death beyond its sanctifying power; of an effect on the Divine administration; of an immediate bearing on the dispensation of pardon. But this truth of the Incarnation and Atonement, as the great manifestation of God's love to sinners, is the substance and power of the Gospel, in the view of "the great majority of the Christian world." This truth calls out faith and responsive love; awakens gratitude and the new purpose of obedience; inspires continual thanksgiving, and molds the conduct in earthly relations, as St. Paul has told us it should, in that beautiful passage where he points us to Him who being in the form of God took on Him the form of a servant, humbled Himself and became obedient unto death. We ask the question in no unkind or intolerant spirit,-can there be hearty church-fellowship between those who accept this truth and live by it, and those who either reject it or give it little practical weight?

3. But Dr. Osgood is not alone in this movement. He stands before the Young Men's Association by the side of Universalist Dr. Sawyer, Mr. T. W. Higginson, Mr. Mayo, Mr. Greeley. What do they make the principle of fellowship in the coming Church? Mr. Warren, the President of the Association, tells us that "the great central doctrine and life of Christianity is that God is the universal Father, and every human being is a child of God." The Christian world has always been under the impression that the gospel has something to do with the redemption of man from sin; but Mr. Warren is of another mind. One paragraph will answer for a specimen of Mr. Mayo's flippancy.

"The truth is, this Protestant 'Evangelical Church is in the same chronic delusion as its enemy, the Roman Catholic Church; it can propose no plan of Christian union which will include the Christians of the country. Its only idea of

union is the conspiracy of a few sects to take the kingdom of heaven by violence; monopolize its honors and rewards in this world and the world to come; and either compel the rest of mankind to come into its arrangement, or be turned into everlasting perdition—a proceeding which the American people, with due respect to the undeniable merits of this Church, begs leave respectfully to decline, and further to intimate, that it is not at all alarmed about the eternal consequences of a refusal to accede to the pretensions of an ecclesiasticism that assumes to be God's vicegerent to the United States of America."-Religious Aspects of the Age, p. 69.

Mr. Frothingham talks of "the unspiritual stage in which the Hebrews lingered, fascinated by the barbaric splendors of an Oriental Deity," and gives his hand to Priestley, Parker, Garrison, and to Shelley, "who believed so much in God that he was fain to call himself an atheist." Can Dr. Osgood suppose it possible for any considerable number of sober-minded Christians to be frightened by the taunt of bigotry into a fellowship with these orators who stand at his side? Does he think that a Church, distinct from the world, can subsist on their principles? Is not reckless laxity as great an evil as narrowness? Is not the truth a sacred and invaluable possession, and indifference to the truth at the root of all sin?

4. We regret that Dr. Osgood himself so far lets go his own essential doctrines that he would open the door of the Broad Church to men who disbelieve in revealed religion. We are sorry to be obliged to present to our readers the following extract from his Address before the Association at New York. After pointing to Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson as the type of what may be called the no-Church, he says:

"But this no-Church is to be respected. We are to remember that in all ages there has been a humanity not in church relations, and which has had, moreover, some essentially Christian elements. There has been a great deal of humanity that was Christ-like before Christ came. I suppose there are speakers in this city to-day—although I hope there are not a great many of them—who believe that all the heathen, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Confucius, and all their peers, are doomed to everlasting woe because they did not believe in Christ, and were naturally depraved. We entertain no such damnable doctrine, believing that every man who is true to his best light is justified before God, and that there have been true men in all ages. And as there is, and always has been, a large humanity outside the Christian Church, embodying in itself important elements of religion, and as we are to carry every worthy element of life into the Church of the Future, we are to accept that form of humanity that appears in strong in

dividuality, and to take the 'no-Church' into our keeping. If we were to ask ourselves, where is the truest humanity, inside of exclusive churches or outside, the answer would be quite difficult. If we were asked where we would place our chance of salvation, with the great body of honest, unpretending worldlings who are outside of the Pharasaic Churches, or with the Sanhedrims of exclusives who shut themselves up in their self-righteousness, and call themselves the elect saints of God, our chance might be as good with the worldlings, although we much prefer a place in the true, free, and universal Church of God."-Religious Aspects of the Age, pp. 22, 23.

We have yet to learn from anything that Mr. Emerson has written that he believes in personal immortality. He certainly disbelieves in a personal God, and of course in the supernatural origin of Christianity. Yet the new Church, if we do not misunderstand the paragraph cited above, is to be broad enough to let him in. The whole paragraph is in contrast with the drift and general spirit of the Meadville Address; and we would fain hope that the latter is a truer expression of the Author's real feeling. If not, he is either little in earnest in this movement, or is cherishing a visionary plan wholly at war with common sense.

Our readers will gather from the foregoing remarks that we do not anticipate important results from the Broad Church movement. Neither the relative strength nor the internal organization, nor the peculiar character of the various denominations, is likely to be much affected by it. But certain great questions are involved in the discussion of the subject, which deserve to be earnestly pondered by all Christians. One of these questions has reference to the essential principles of the Gospel. What has been taught and accomplished by Christ? How shall the distinguishing truth of Christianity be most clearly and briefly, and, at the same time, fully stated? Here is a theological problem of the highest interest, and the con flict with the many forms of skepticism ought to yield a better solution of it than could, in former times, be rendered. Another question, in a practical regard of greater importance still, relates to the proper terms of admission into the visible Church. What doctrinal belief shall be declared indispensable? What error shall be deemed sufficient to exclude a man from membership, and what to exclude a man

from Christian fellowship at the Lord's Table? This subject, in view of the diversity of opinion and practice in our Churches in respect to it, and the crude or unsettled views of many, should be thoroughly considered, and an effort be made to bring about a greater uniformity. If the matter could have a deliberate and enlightened discussion, a great source of error and uncertainty and inconsistency in the administration of our churches might be removed. Still another topic brought forward in these Addresses, is the best mode of making our Sabbath services more edifying and of drawing into the sanctuary those who do not attend upon them. We hope that there are many of our readers who are feeling the importance of these questions and are disposed to consider them in a candid spirit.