ART. IV. — CHRISTIAN PEACE, OR CHRISTIAN UNION? WE rejoice in the belief that there are many hearts, in all denominations, yearning for Christian peace. And we are satisfied from indications that have fallen under our notice, that there are those, even among sects heretofore the most exclusive, who have imbibed something of the true spirit of gospel charity, who are raised above the narrowing influence of sectarian sympathy, and who are striving to cherish and to manifest the spirit of Christian love towards those who may differ from them in opinion. Nay, more. We rejoice to find from the published works that have come in our way, that there are those who are willing to put forth their most strenuous efforts to make “the divided Church one." Yet the phrase, "Christian union," which such writers usually adopt, is not a favorite one with us. And we Terms and names often exert a greater influence over the feelings of a community than we are aware. have sometimes thought, that the frequent use of the phrase, "Christian union," is exerting an injurious influence upon the feelings of the Christian community. If, as we dwell upon this subject in thought or in conversation, we should think or speak of "Christian peace and harmony," would not a very different class of feelings be awakened within us? Christian union, in the sense in which the expression is most obviously and generally used, seems to us not to be at all desirable. Christian peace and harmony we should rejoice to see becoming more and more widely prevalent. And when we use this latter phrase, we have in our mind a state of things, in which the different denominations, notwithstanding their distinctive peculiarities of opinion, worship or effort, and even in the midst of great differences in these respects, shall live together in peace and harmony, and manifest towards each other the true spirit of Christian love. It is not that we wish for an amalgamation of sects, or the abolition of all denominational distinctions. What we desire is the entire suppression of the sectarian spirit. Let there be, as there now are, different denominations, and let them retain their respective peculiarities of belief, of worship, or of religious operation. But let them recognize each other as Christians, and extend to each other the courtesies of Christian friendship. Let them rejoice in each other's peace and prosperity, and ever cherish a willingness to assist each other. Such a state of the Christian community would present a scene, upon which Christ could look with pleasure. Then would Christians be one, in their sympathy with the spirit of their Master, in their resemblance to his character, in the objects of their prayers and efforts, and in their exercise of kindness and forbearance towards each other. And such a state of the Christian Church would be adapted to impress deeply upon the minds of all, a firm conviction of the reality, the heavenly origin and the divine power of our religion. When men see Christians, differing from each other in their religious opinions, in their forms of worship, and in their modes of operation, still breathing, amid all these differences, the same spirit of devotion to the will of God, of universal, all-embracing love to man, and of charitable forbearance towards each other, they must be deeply impressed by the sight. When men see Trinitarians and Unitarians, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, Methodists and Baptists, Universalists and those who hold to the eternity of future punishment, equally conscientious in all duty, -alike scorning to take advantage of each other in order to secure additions to their own number, ever disposed to speak kindly of each other, while yet they adhere firmly to their respective peculiarities, then will they believe that there is a reality in religion, that it is not all mere profession; then will they believe that there is a divine power accompanying its operations, sufficient to control the heart and the life. Such a state of feeling and of practice would not be attributed to mere human policy. It would be regarded as the result of inward, vital, governing principle. It is not Christian union then, in the common acceptation of the term, that we desire, but Christian peace and harmony. The proposed change of terms may seem, at the first glance, to be a matter of trifling importance. But we are fully satisfied that, upon more mature reflection, it will be seen to have important practical bearings. When we speak of union, we speak of what cannot exist unless two or more agree to unite. And we are therefore led to look upon Christian union as the result of mutual agreement among Christians who differ as an organized combination. We cherish the feeling, that if those who differ from us will not unite with us, we are by that circumstance absolved from all responsibility in the matter. We do not regard this desirable state of the Christian community as dependent upon individual character, or included within the sphere of individual duty. We feel that there may be circumstances, when others treat us unkindly, in which we are under no obligation to seek for Christian union. But if we speak of Christian peace and harmony, we at once perceive that it relates to a state of the community which depends on individual effort and character. And we feel that it is our duty, as individuals, to "follow after the things which make for peace," to cherish and manifest a spirit of peace, and to labor, in our respective spheres and with our several abilities, to become peace-makers among all around us. We feel, too, that this is a duty which arises from our relation to Jesus, the Prince of Peace, and which does not depend on the circumstances in which we are placed, nor yet on the treatment which we receive from others. We may be placed among those who differ from us essentially in opinion, who deny our right to the Christian name, and who pronounce our opinions the latest delusion of the Devil; or among those who seem to us to deny the very foundations of the Gospel. In such circumstances, it would be idle to talk of Christian union, as that term is generally understood. But we may speak of Christian peace, even under such circumstances, as an object at which we as individuals may aim. We may feel that we have a duty to perform to God, to our Saviour, and to our own souls, a duty which consists in cherishing and manifesting a spirit of peace ourselves towards all around us. If treated unkindly by others, our spirit of peace will take the form of forbearance and forgiveness, and will prompt us to return good for evil-benevolent wishes, kind offices and fervent prayers, for bitterness, censure and reproach. If we are placed among those who reject what seem to us the foundations of all piety and virtue, our spirit of peace will be manifested in a readiness to allow them all the right of forming and publishing opinions which we claim for ourselves, in acknowledging that there may be sincere and honest devotion to what is regarded as truth, even in the midst of what we deem error, and in giving them due credit for all of good there is in their dispositions or characters. The duty of cherishing this spirit of peace devolves upon every minister of the Gospel, upon all who claim to be ambassadors of the Prince of Peace. It is the spirit they should breathe, the spirit they should inculcate. It is a duty devolving upon every individual Christian. Each in his sphere, whether that sphere be more or less extended, should breathe the spirit, and seek to promote the prevalence of peace. There are two important considerations, in favor of this view. If, as individual Christians, we have ever cherished and manifested the kind and forbearing spirit of gospel peace, have ever inculcated upon all within the sphere of our influence the importance of "following after the things which make for peace," and have ever, where it was possible, acted the part of peace-makers, we must have the satisfaction arising from the consciousness that we have done what we could to bring the Christian community into the state contemplated by the Saviour. We may console ourselves under the divisions and contentions, the bitterness and animosity, prevalent in the Christian community, with the thought, that this state of things arises from no fault of ours, that we have done all in our power to prevent so painful a spectacle. Again; this course, of cherishing and breathing the spirit of peace ourselves, is the most effectual way of promoting peace around us. The spirit of love can never be excited by strength of argument. It is love only that begets love. It is the manifestation of the spirit of peace, on the part of individuals, that begets a similar spirit in those with whom they associate. We may employ the ablest and most convincing arguments with our neighbors, to show that it is their duty to cherish love for us. But if we do not at the same time manifest the spirit of love ourselves, our arguments will fall powerless upon their ears. We may prove to them that it is their duty to live in peace with us, and yet, if we ourselves manifest a contentious disposition, we shall have no reason to expect that we shall induce them to act in accordance with our arguments and our conclusions. But if we breathe the spirit of love, if we manifest all the kindness and forbearance of true Christian peace, it will not be long before the most obstinate bitterness, in those who differ from us, will melt in the warmth of affectionate regard which flows from our hearts. So in regard to religious denominations. We may frame an argument which is sound in all its parts, and which conducts to a conclusion that cannot be set aside, showing that it is the solemn duty of denominations differing from us to cherish towards us a spirit of love, and to live in the exercise of Christian peace and harmony with us. But if at the same time we are treating their opinions or practices with severity or with sarcasm, we have no reason to expect that our arguments will be of any avail. If, on the contrary, we, as a denomination, manifest towards those who differ from us a spirit of love and forbearance, it will eventually soften their feelings and bring about a more desirable state of the Christian community. But communities are composed of individuals. If then the individual members of any denomination cherish and manifest the spirit of peace, their course may exert an influence upon others of their own denomination with whom they daily associate. It may also influence those of differing denominations with whom they often meet. In this way, by individual effort in cherishing in their own hearts and breathing everywhere around them the spirit of peace, denominations may be purified from all unchristian bitterness towards each other, and the whole Christian Church may be brought into a desirable state of harmony. But if the cultivation of the spirit of peace be an individual duty, devolving upon each one of us at all times, we should seek to understand the nature of the duty and the right mode of performing it. We have sometimes feared, that the circumstance of speaking so much upon this subject has led us to look at it as separated from its true relation to other parts of the Christian character. We are prone to regard the peaceful spirit as a trait of Christian. character to be cultivated by itself, and aside from other traits, or, at least, as only an equal associate with other traits. But, if we are not much mistaken, it is the result of progress in all the Christian graces. We see many around us differing from us in opinion upon points which we deem essential. We are ready to censure and condemn them. But, as our faith in the wisdom and justice of God's |