value truth, nor ask any man to conceal his opinions for union.

There is, I grant, danger of making denominational compacts embrace too much, and of their infringing upon the rights of churches. But there may be a denominational organization, which shall recognize the strict independence of every church of which it is composed. How is it with our own denomination? Each church chooses its own minister, and disciplines its own members. Though the fellowship given to the churches, is based upon an agreement in faith, and can be withdrawn if they depart from the faith, this does not conflict with their inde pendence; they are free to choose what course of action they please, but if they violate the terms of the compact, they lose their fellowship. Our ordaining councils cannot prevent a church from settling any man it pleases; but they may refuse to help settle one whom they deem unsound in faith and irreligious; and they may withdraw fellowship from a church which settles such a man. There is no wrong in this, for fellowship implies an ap proval of one's faith and character. Our associations give fellowship to men desiring to engage in the ministry; but this does not compel any church to employ them. They withdraw fellowship from such as prove unworthy of it; but this does not prevent a church from retaining them, though it cannot retain them and the fellowship of the Association. By these arrangements, the sphere of a minister's usefulness is greatly extended. The relation he sustains to those who are known to be sound in belief and lovers of righteousness, gives him a passport through the churches, and secures to him a ready hearing. The arrangement is also useful as a safeguard against imposters, and as a means of preserving the ordinances of religion from being administered by those who would bring them into contempt. We have, I know, been charged with bigotry and dogmatism for withdrawing fellowship from those accounted heretics, and accused of being as narrow and unjust as the most illiberal sects. The facts are these. We withdraw Christian fellowship when a man denies the divine standard. But this is quite different from withdrawing it, for denying an explanation of the standard. We also withdraw denominational fellowship, but in so

doing we never charge the person disfellowshipped, with infidelity, or refuse to him any Christian courtesy. But we cannot continue to fellowship him as one of our denomination; for he is no longer with us; he takes another view of the gospel; he works by other agencies; his preaching is not what our people wish to hear statedly; and if we allow him to retain our denominational fellowship, we give our sanction to the proclamation of his errors. A course like this would be in direct opposition to the object of a denominational organization. Our organization is a compact, formed for the purpose of propagating the great doctrines of our religion, and of leading men to worship God as an infinite Father, to love all men as brethren, and to hope in an immortal life. He who ceases to believe with us, thereby ceases to be one of us, and our withdrawal of fellowship is simply a recognition of the fact, that by his change of faith he has dissolved his connection with us. Here is no oppression-no right invaded-no injustice done. Our compact gives us mutual and equal rights; but when one breaks the compact, he thereby ceases to belong to it.

But it has been said, that there should be no such compacts; that they are unnatural, and that they lead only to profitless ecclesiastical contentions and trials. I reply, I have not so read the history of our denomination. Neither have I so read the history of the early Christians. We have had ecclesiastical councils, and they have cut off corrupt men; they have withdrawn Christian fellowship from men who had become infidels; and they have withdrawn denominational fellowship from men who had embraced Partialism. The early Christians cut off heretics: why may not we? I have yet to be convinced that this is a profitless work; that it does not help protect Christians in the enjoyment of their rights; guard them against heartless deceivers; keep the ministry pure, and produce unity of feeling and of effort. I am far from believing, that the best way to produce union, is to set aside all law and keep back every thing to which any body objects. For ecclesiastical councils, formed to decide what is truth and what is error, I have no favor; their decisions have been the chief curses of the church; and the chains which they have forged, have been among the great hindrances to the

progress of the Gospel. Human creeds as tests of Christian fellowship are at war with the whole genius of Christianity; but as a summary of the doctrines of a sect they are wholly unobjectionable. There may be evils in the most perfect organization which can be made, but unless they overbalance the advantages they are no arguments against a denominational organization.

O. A. S.

ART. IV.

Spiritual Preaching.

The general consent of mankind has assigned to the office of preacher of Christianity the highest rank among professions. The exalted nature of the subjects with which he deals, involving the character of God, and the exist enceand eternal culture of the human soul; the sanctions with which he is enabled to enforce the truth being nothing less than the approval or the displeasure of the Almighty; and the mode of communication exclusively set apart for him, in which the sacred associations of the Sabbath and the religious assembly are called in to increase the impression made by his own mental gifts and personal worth; all conspire to place the true minister of Jesus Christ in a position full of honor. And with this must come a deep feeling of responsibility. It is true that professional habits too often destroy this sense of duty, and ignorance and bigotry appropriate to themselves the places and rewards of a faithful stewardship; yet no reflecting man can permit the routine of a pastor's life to hide the great realities with which every Sabbath day must bring him in contact. Such a man will never be content with preaching which stops short of the regeneration of his

people. The approbation grudgingly bestowed by the critical and fastidious, and the noisy applause of those whose most exalted conception of the sanctuary is a scene of mental and religious intoxication in which the minister is only more drunken than the rest, will be equally unsatisfactory to him. He will know no sadness greater than that which comes when he receives a compliment for his eloquent sermon from a man who has not learned from it his own spiritual necessities; he will ask no higher joy than he experiences when he sees the word, spoken in faith, becoming mighty in good results. The discussion of a topic of this nature can therefore never be deemed inappropriate by good men. Preachers and people are equally interested in any idea which will impart a new power to the pulpit, and thus hasten the appearance of the kingdom of heaven upon earth.

I have therefore chosen the subject of Spiritual Preaching as the theme of a few remarks. And I wish that the term Spiritual Preaching, should be understood in its widest possible signification; not as denoting an exclusive presentation of the moral and emotional sides of Christianity, but as an expression of this religion in its completeness; with respect also to its application to all the faculties of human nature, and all the circumstances of life. I will first attempt to describe it; then speak of its various modes of manifestation, and the individual obligations it imposes upon the public teachers of Christ.

Perhaps I cannot better introduce my definition of Spiritual Preaching, than by a statement of the object to be attained by it; for much of the confusion of thought which obscures this subject is the result of indistinct notions of the purpose of public religious teaching. Until the minister of Jesus Christ knows what he is bound to do, or, at least, to attempt, we cannot blame him for an imperfect method of communicating truth.

The direct object of all religious teaching should be the formation of the religious character. Spiritual life is the end of Christian culture, and the desire to awaken it the only worthy incentive to the labors of the preacher.

But the spiritual life is not created by the exaltation of a few of the mental faculties, or moral sentiments, upon the ruins of the remainder of our nature. It is that condi

tion of the soul in which religious faith exists as the great central principle; in harmony with a cultivated intellect and a refined imagination, and whatever else may be essential to completeness of character. We degrade religion by confining it to a few emotions, and making it only our associate instructor with reason and good taste in human culture. Its province is the whole spirit of man. It is nothing less than the highest possible method of developement, communicated by a revelation from God. It demands a proportionate culture of the faculties; placing the religious emotions in the centre of the being as the heart from whence are the "issues of life;" next the highest faculties of the imagination; then the intellect, gradually shaded off from its highest philosophical aspect to its termination in the details of practical judgement. Thus disposed, the various powers will never interfere, but each labor in its appointed place, and the entire nature will be nourished by the same blood of religious faith, passing and repassing from the seat to the extremities of life. Every impulse of religious emotion will carry with it the united force of its corresponding energies, awakening piety to God, purifying the imagination, giving to the intellect a higher intuition, which in turn will appear in the more correct and graceful conduct of daily life. He who intends to become a Christian only by thinking about religion, is upon the high road to scepticism. He who would have goodness without that measure of greatness which God has made possible for him, will, according to the nature of his passions, become a pietistic sentimentalist or a raging fanatic. He who disdains to rise to his Maker otherwise than upon the wings of poetry, music and art, will see nothing greater in the Universe than an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent professor of æsthetics. All definitions of the spiritual life less comprehensive than that I have given are incomplete. It is not denied that a high degree of virtue is often found in persons who have not this perfect spiritual developement; even that state of the soul which we commonly acknowledge as religious is far removed from it. But this only proves the imperfection attendant upon the highest existing forms of human excellence, while it affords no reason for lowering the ideal standard of Christian character, which was realized in the Saviour of men.