Bellows with his theme, is due to the same influence. The Unitarian movement, through the views of human character which it favored, tended to obliterate the distinction between the converted Christian and the unconverted, and thus to submerge the church in the world. Take away the common experience of forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ, with the new and peculiar hopes and purposes resulting, and the bond of the church is dissolved. A denomination may remain, a school or type of opinion, but not a church. Hence, in our judgment, the Unitarian body had in itself, from the outset, the seeds of self-destruction. It must be dispersed as soon as these inherent tendencies to dissolution could have time to work out their results.

It follows that we cannot look with much hope to any church of the kind which Dr. Bellows sketches, as promising to cure the evils of the time. A suspense of faith, in our view, must be remedied by a revival of faith, and not by the establishment of forms of worship, let these be ever so appropriate and imposing. The weak point in this Address and in the position of the author is the want of a firm grasp upon the distinguishing principles of the gospel, as these have lived in believing minds and hearts from the Apostolic age until now. Many men who appear to be in quest of a church are in reality in quest of faith; in pursuit of more firm and satisfying convictions. We need the church, and the church will exist and flourish where there is a living faith in the Redeemer incarnate, and crucified, the just for the unjust. It is well for every kernel to have a shell, but not well to cry for the shell when the kernel is gone. A church which is not founded on truth which can be stated, and shown to be substantially coincident with the doctrines of the Reformation, is a house built on the sand. The confusion and unbelief of the age call not so much for the construction of external institutions which always grow and are never made, as for the clear apprehension of the essential principles of the gospel, and above all for a more vital and adoring faith in Him who brought us salvation.

Yet we thank Dr. Bellows for his timely plea for institutions and for his pithy rebuke of the radicals and come-outers. That a man of his standing and influence should raise his voice on the conservative side in behalf of reverence and order, is a gratifying event. While we differ from him as to the cure which the disorders of the times require, and have plainly stated the grounds of this dissent, we desire to record our appreciation of the high literary merits of the Address, and our cordial agreement with many of the reflections which it embodies.

ARTICLE VI.-DR. OSGOOD ON THE BROAD CHURCH.

1. The Religious Aspects of the Age, with a glance at the Church of the Present, and the Church of the Future; being Addresses delivered at the Anniversary of the Young Men's Christian Union, of New York. By SAMUEL OSGOOD, D. D., and others. New York: Thatcher & Hutchinson, 1858.

2. The Broad Altar Pulpit: A semi-monthly publication of Sermons by eminent clergymen of various Christian denominations. Vol. I, No. 1. The Broad Altar. By Rev. SAMUEL OSGOOD, D. D. New York. 1859.

3. The Coming Church and its Clergy. Address to the Graduating Class at the Meadville Theological Seminary, June 30, 1858. By SAMUEL OSGOOD, Minister of the Church of the Messiah, in New York. New York: Christian Inquirer Office. 1859.

DR. OSGOOD is well known as one of the most learned and cultivated ministers in the Unitarian denomination. The recent discussions in that body upon the subject of the Broad Church, began with his speech delivered before a Christian Association in May, 1858, and contained in the first of the pamphlets whose titles are given at the head of this Article. It is he, as much as any other, who set on foot this movement, to which the attention of the public has been lately drawn by the discourse of Dr. Bellows, at Cambridge. To Dr. Osgood, therefore, we naturally look for authentic information in regard to this new idea or scheme; and such information we have furnished us in several publications, the latest of which is the Address at Meadville. To this Address, as being the most recent and most mature statement of his views, we shall principally refer, deriving, however, what light we may from other sources.

It may be well to remark that this movement has no connection with that powerful party in the Church of England, to which Dr. Arnold belonged, and of which Mr. Maurice and Mr. Kingsley are distinguished leaders. In the two movements there is a similar conception of the nature and offices of the visible church, and some approach in theological belief. But the departure of the English divines who have been named, from the standards of orthodoxy, is hardly sufficient to bring them into doctrinal sympathy with the American Unitarians who are now debating the project of a Broad Church.

In reference to this new church, our readers will desire to learn its proposed basis of organization. What calls for its formation? Is it to supplant existing churches, or to be developed from them? What is to be the creed, and what the principle of fellowship? What is to be its peculiar work in distinction from the church as at present.established? Whence does it hope to gain its members? Does the plan give promise of success?

In answering these questions, we avail ourselves of Dr. Osgood's aid. After warning the Meadville students of the disappointment to which the young theologian is liable from having cherished an exaggerated confidence in speculative. doctrines and arguments, compared with the power of personal affection, and with other forces by which the world is governed, he proceeds to assert the possibility of a ministry that shall be at once enlightened and affectionate; that shall lay hold of all the elements of useful influence. This ministry is to be realized in "the Coming Church," which it is the object of the discourse to portray. First, we have the Idea of this Church of the Future. And here we fall back on the Author's own words:

"All churches or religious communions, whether Gentile, Jewish, or Christian, rest upon some real or alleged revelations of God to the souls of men; and all join to prove that the normal and rational state of our humanity requires religious associations quite as decidedly as domestic and civil associations, and brings the three into the most intimate relations. Christianity, of course, did not create, but matured the idea of such religious union; and the Christian Church fulfilled

the more or less vague and mingled hopes and promises of the Gentile and Hebrew Churches. The Christian Church owes its preeminence to the nature of the Divine manifestation upon which it is based, and to the nature of the human fellowship which it establishes. It is based upon faith in the immediate presence of God in man, in such presence especially and supernaturally in Jesus Christ, and generally in all men who receive the Holy Spirit that gave him his Divine unction or supernatural Messiahship. God in Christ, and through the Spirit with all true men,' this is the essence of the Christian faith, and the fellowship thereby established in accordance with this faith. The faith itself implied a close and exalted fellowship, since it drew all believers together around a central personality, in the unity of a powerful and all-pervading Spirit. It drew them together around the Master as the center of Divine influence or head of the communion, and associated them together as co-working members under that head; and as such united not by politic expedients or mechanical adjustments, but by vital organism. The Church of the Apostles began with the practical assertion of the truth which our profoundest modern philosophy is now most emphatically declaring the truth that the complete or Divine Humanity is not contained in the individual man, but in mankind continuously and collectively, as regenerate and nurtured under Divine influence; and thus the very nature of our humanity demands that the religion that most redeems and exalts it shall be social as well as individual, universal as well as personal, or shall unite men with each other in uniting them with God. Hence the Church Universal, with its divine faith and human fellowship, beginning with the first visible congregation, then extending its fellowship throughout the world, and lastly, as death and deepening insight exalted its associations, opening its affections to all the people of God on earth or in heaven, and embracing them all in one blessed communion."-Meadville Address, pp. 5, 6.

To this comprehensive church Dr. Osgood claims to belong, in company with all Christian believers, while he exercises the prerogative of interpreting for himself its essential idea, and finds himself on this point at variance with the theories which have heretofore prevailed:

"Using this prerogative, we are in some respects at issue with the two great divisions of the Christian Church that have figured heretofore most conspicuously upon the arena of history; and at issue also with the two tendencies in the political and philosophical world that aim to supplant the Church altogether. The prevalent Churches are distinguished by two characteristic principles. The Church calling itself Catholic, bases its communion upon an exclusive priesthood, dispensing the grace of God through Christ's incarnation, by magical sacraments to be received in implicit obedience; whilst the Church calling itself 'Evangelical,' and quite as fitly called Calvinistic, bases its communion upon a certain order of dogmatic teachers dispensing the grace of God, especially offered by Christ's death, by a magical doctrine and mystical experience. Both build the Church upon the idea of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, and both