every subsequent period of life. And whoever faithfully traces to its source the sectarian alienation of Christians will, we think, be constrained to attribute much of it to early sectarian training.

In the religious education of children, the bible should as much as possible be used as the book of study and recitation, and such other elementary works and catechisms, as are mainly confined to the common ground of christian doctrine, that ground occupied by the publications of the American Tract and Sunday School Societies, which is certainly of sufficient latitude. The peculiarities of particular churches may indeed, and naturally will coasionally be touched on, but they ought to be represented as of inferio importance compared with the common Christianity. And when our own denomination is the special topic of instruction, children should be distinctly informed, that the other denominations are our brethren, who love and serve the same Savior, and are as since, and perhaps as pleasing to God as we are, though they differ fom us on some minor points. But how often do not many parts, in the presence of their children, exhibit their prejudices aganst other religious denominations? How much more frequently do they exalt their own denomination above all others, either directly or by comparative allusions? Are there not some parents, and alas that it should be so! some pastors, too, who strive even by direct effort, to instil a disregard for others and a preference for their own sect into the minds of children, long before they are competent to comprehend or estimate the grounds of the supposed preference? What else is this than an effort to sow the seeds of sheer prejudice in the tender minds of children? It is right that the prepossessions and antipathies of youth should be not indeed excited, but properly directed; yet, for the bleeding Savior's sake, let the former be enlisted in the favor of Christianity, not of sectarianism, and the latter be directed against the enemies of the cross, and not against those whom we profess to acknowledge as its friends!

5. The next source of alienation among Christians, is what may be termed sectarian idolatry or man-worship, inordinate veneration for distinguished theologians, such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley and others. What candid man, possessing any extensive acquaint ance with the literature of past ages, can deny that the deference awarded to the opinions and practice of these men, is altogether inordinate, entirely beyond what is due to the merits of other men, and far above the measure of their actual superiority. Protestants justly censure the Romish church for reposing such confidence in the authority of the ancient Fathers, that is, of distinguished theologians of the first four or five centuries of the christian church. Yet it may be doubted whether some Protestants have not inadvertently conce-

ded to some of these modern Fathers an influence somewhat similar, possibly in a few cases even equal in degree. The names of these good and great yet fallible men, have become identified with certain distinguishing non-fundamental doctrines, which they held, and by which they were distinguished from others. Their authority and influence, acquired by their zeal and success in behalf of the common Christianity, are thus often used as a shield of protection for these minor peculiarities. The very designation of these peculiarities by personal names, calls imro play sectarian associations, and sinister feelings, and is a kind of overt appeal to the authority of these Fa

thers.

Moreover each sect is prone to cultivate almost exclusively the literature of its own denorainaton. Enter the theological schools or the private libraries of ministers, and you will find that generally Lutherans and Calvinists and Episcopaians and Baptists and Methodists, devote most of their time to the study of authors of their own de ́nominations, and this peculiarity may ato be distinctly traced in the libraries of many lay Christians. Many of these distinguished servants of God would have grieved to think of the sectarian use, which posterity has made of their names and literary labors. Listen to the language of Luther, whose name and works were for two centuries especially thus employed in Germany for purposes of strife: "I had cherished the hope, that henceforth men would apply to the holy Scriptures themselves, and let my books alone; as they have now accomplished their end and have conducted the hearts of men to the Scriptures,, which was my design in writing them. What profit is there in the making of many books, and yet remaining ignorant of the book of books? Better far to drink out of the fountain itself, than out of the little rivulets which have conducted you to it.* Whoever now wishes to have my books, I entreat him by no means to let them be an obstacle to his studying the Scriptures themselves. But let him look upon my books, as I do on the decretals of the popes and books of the sophists, that is, though I occasionally look into them to see what they performed, and to examine the history of the times, 1 by no means study them under the impression, that I must do as they teach." Yet there is reason to fear, that some good men have by early and long continued training, become so much accustomed to test and value their views, rather as being Lutheran or Calvinistic than biblical, have so long been in the habit of dwelling on the conformity of their sentiments to those of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or some other worthy of the church, that they would feel deeply distressed and almost lost, if these names were wrested from them! In

* Luther's Deutsche Werke, B. 14, S. 422. † Luther's Deutsche Werke, B. 14, S. 490.

the spirit of such sectarianism we might commiserate the condition of the primitive disciples, whose Christianity was based on the Savior alone! We might exclaim, "Unhappy Paul, thou hadst no Luther nor Calvin nor Wesley to glory in, whose name thou couldst bear in addition to that of Christ!" But were such the feelings of Paul? He might himself have been a Luther, a Calvin, a Wesley, his name the watchword of a sect; but the noble minded Paul would glory only in Christ. He would not allow the adoption of any sectarian name in the church. Sectarian names and party divisions he denounced as carnal. "Therefore" (said he) "let no man glory in men; for they are all yours (they are all the property of the whole church,) whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas," (and we may add Luther and Calvin and Wesley): "all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's. So then (s) let a man consider us (me and Apollos, etc.) as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (but not as leaders of parties.)" He would have all believers called Christians and only Christians. All that this name implied he wished to be, and neither more nor less. Happy day! when this spirit shall return to the church! Then she may celebrate à jubilee, a glorious jubilee; and it will literally be not a centennial, but a millennial jubilee. The last thousand years will have witnessed but one!!

*

Nor would we pass in silence a collateral evil, resulting from the most exclusive cultivation of sectarian literature. As this literature is all of a date subsequent to the Reformation, its perusal impresses the Protestant laity with the modern origin of our churches; and leaves hem in almost total darkness as to our real identity with the church of the earlier ages. Hence our people are unduly impressed by the Romish claim to superior antiquity, and an advantage is conceded to poists of which they cunningly avail themselves: If Protestants seleted their literature promiscuously from among the different sects acording to the intrinsic merits of the writers, it would tend much to pomote actual unity and mutual' esteem among themselves; and if, both in their literature and creeds, they gave greater prominence to ther identity with the primitive church, they would make the laity feel 'heir connexion with the christians of the earlier centuries, and thus aullify the most popular argument by which papists proselyte Protes ant members.

6. Another source of sectarian discord, is ecclesiastical pride. As Tong as man is sanctified but in part, this element of native depravity will more or less influence the disciples of Christ; will seek and often find fuel even in the sanctuary of God. Each sect is naturally disposed to regard its institutions and its ministers as the most learn

*1 Cor. 3: 21-4: 1.

ed and able, or its members as most genteel, or its rites most fashiona-ble, its churches most splendid, or its members the most pious, its pales as far the best road to heaven. Ministers are tempted to be influenced by the fact, that they regard their churches as presenting, the most conspicuous theatre for the display of their talents, or holding out the fairest prospects of advancement; their audiences as the most intelligent, their support as the most liberal, or as best secured against contingencies. Hence they are in danger of looking on their less favored neighbors with secret disrespect; of cherishing ecclesiastical pride, and having their judgment warped by it. We do not assert that all ministers or laymen yield to the influence of this temptation, yet happy is that man, who, on an impartial examination of his feelings as in the presence of God, stands fully acquitted by his own conscience! That caution here is not superfluous, was evidently the opinion of the great apostle of the gentiles, who having himself repelled all sectarian honors, gives double force to his admonition : "These things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred (applied) to myself and to Apollos, for your sakes, that ye might learn by us not to esteem ministers (see v.. 1.) above what is written (in v. 1. and ch. 3: 5-9, 21.) that no one of you may, on account of one (minister), be puffed up against another! !"

7. The last source of sectarian discord to be noticed is conflict of pecuniary interest between neighboring ministers and churches. This principle applies to the feelings of the minister in regard to his sala y, which depends in some measure on the increase of his church In reference to laymen, it applies to their raising funds for all ecaesiastical purposes. The more their church prospers and receivs additions, the more will their pecuniary liabilities be divided, he more easily will the burden rest on their shoulders. Hence pth pastors and people are tempted to envy and jealousy towards their christian neighbors of other denominations, because the successof either party, is more or less at the expense of the other. The sccess of either, diminishes the amount of materials for the others to act on, and this is a matter of serious moment to the parties epecially in smaller towns and villages, where often twice as many ministers are station-ed as are needed, or can be supported..

From this difficulty the primitive church was almost entirely exempt. In the earlier ages it was customary to appoint, that is, ordain several elders, or as we now term them ministers, in every church, who divided the labor between them, and generally continued to prosecute their secular business, thus in a great measure supporting themselves; whilst it was customary from the beginning to provide for those who went abroad as missionaries, and travelled from place

to place. The only fund of the church, was that which arose from the voluntary offerings of the members on each Lord's day. This fund however was considerable; and it was probably as a stimulus to liberality, that the custom of reading off the names of the contributors was introduced; though its professed design was to commend them to the special prayers of the church. In the third century, when the duties of ministers had become so greatly multiplied as to require their entire time, they were in some countries prohibited from following their secular profession, as we learn from Cyprian,‡ and other sources. The sixth of the Apostolic Canons reads thus:

Canon 6. Neither a bishop, presbyter nor deacon shall engage in secular employment, on pain of being deposed from office.

THE LAST OF THE HUGUENOTS.

Departed this life, in Charleston, S. C., on the 17th ult. Mr. STEPHEN THOMAS, in the 89th year of his age. Mr. T. was born in the village of Eymet, department La Dordogne, France, on the 19th of August, A. P. 1750, and fled with an elder maiden sister, to London, in 1764, to join the Rev. Mr. Gibert, who, with his congregation, had also been compelled to seek an asylum from the persecutions which they endured in their native land. This congregation of exiles consisted of nearly one hundred individuals; and by a kind Providence, they arrived here in safety, on the 12th of April, 1764, where the subject of this notice has ever since resided. At an early period of the revolutionary struggle, Mr. T. returned, to his native country on business, where he suffered a painful detention from his family for about three years. On his return, he was captured by the British fleet in the Chesapeake, where he remained some time a prisoner. At length being exchanged, he returned to Charleston, and immediately joined the troops in defence of his adopted country: was at the battle of Fort Moultrie, and afterwards was with Gen. Marion to the close of the war.

At what age Mr. Thomas became a professor of religion, we have not ascertained; but from some circumstances, it is presumed that, like Obadiah, he was one who "feared God from his youth." For many years he was a Ruling Elder of the French Protestant Church in this city-a church strictly Calvinistic in its creed, and Presbyterian in its model. The blowing up of the church edifice, in the great Fuchs' Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. I. p. 72,.73.

† Ibid. Vol. I. p. 72.

Cypriani ep. 66. to the church at Furnae. Neander, sup. cit. p. 305.