external gifts-even miracles, for instance, and certainly therefore such minor manifestations as local leadings--were not necessarily linked to righteousness or regeneration, but were bestowed on many who had finally no part or lot in the kingdom of Christ. (See Matt. 7: 22, 1 Cor. 13: 1-3, &c.)

When Paul speaks of being led by the Spirit,' and makes this the test of sonship, as in Rom. 8: 14, and Gal. 5: 18, we must not narrow down his meaning so as to make him refer merely to the specific directions which the Spirit sometimes gives men about going to certain places or doing certain things. To be led by the Spirit in the largest sense of the expression, is indeed to be a son of God; but that sense includes something far more impor tant than petty directions about traveling, speaking, &c. The sons of God are led by the Spirit, not merely as to their locomotive powers, and physical utterance, but as to their hearts and understandings. A man may sit perfectly still, not uttering a word, or in any way operating externally, and yet be led by the Spirit in that sense which is essential to regeneration. His heart may be led out of the regions of spiritual wickedness, into fellowship with the Father and the Son. His understanding, under the guidance of heavenly influence, may traverse the vast expanse of spiritual truth. He may run and not be weary, and walk and not faint,' on 'the way of holiness.' The most important leadings of the Spirit have no reference whatever to external operations. The sphere in which they act is not the physical, but the spiritual and intellectual world. Paul says as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.' In what manner are they led? What are they led to do? In the preceding verse (Rom. 8: 12) we are informed. They are led, not to do bodily deeds, but to mortify the deeds of the body;' i. e., they are led into spiritual fellowship with Christ crucified, where they get power to become spiritually minded, and to subdue their physical nature. This is a leading of the heart and spirit,—not of the external faculties. So when Paul says, 'If ye be led of the Spirit ye are not under the law,' (Gal. 5: 18,) it is manifest from what follows, that he refers to generic internal leadings. As the flesh leads to 'adultery, fornication, uncleanness,' &c., so the apostle's doctrine is that the Spirit leads (not chiefly in a physical way, as a man leads a horse from place to place, but) to 'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.' They whose hearts are led by the Spirit into these things, are born of God, whether they have any wonderful operations in their instincts of locomotion, utterance, &c., or not. And on the other hand, they who are led by the hand or the foot or the tongue, or by the instincts connected with these physical parts, and not by the heart and understanding, are not born of God, however palpable and wonderful may be the guidance to which they are subject.

It will be obvious that the leadings of the Spirit esteemed essential to regeneration in the primitive church, must have been of the internal kind which we have indicated, if we consider that the mass of believers were so situated as to their external condition of life, that the specific guidance of the Spirit, in relation to what they should do or where they should go, could not be applied to them. The apostles and other similar floating laborers, were fit subjects of occasional specific external directions. But the majority of the dis

ciples were in fixed conditions, employed in stationary business, having the ordinary routine duties of fathers, wives, children, slaves, &c., to perform. And the general order to them was Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called.' What room could there be in the case of a slave, for instance, for much external leading of the instinctive or supernatural kind ? As to his physical operations, instead of being led by the Spirit, he was bound to be led by a human master. Yet his situation was no hindrance to his being born of God, and therefore no hindrance to his being led by the Spirit, in the true sense of the expression. The essential leadings are adapted to every possible external condition. They are the necessary effects of the Spirit's possession of the heart, and manifest themselves in the general, moral and intellectual character. Any other leadings than these must not be exalted into matters of primary importance, or relied on as marks of regeneration, but must be classed with the 'gifts,' which may be present or absent without determining radical character.

3. There are different kinds of external leadings of the Spirit, and some of them are more valuable than others. Those which are radical, are more to be desired than those which are superficial. By radical leadings we mean those which take effect on the rational and moral faculties, and give direction to the course by informing the understanding and exciting the deeper susceptibilities. Superficial leadings are those which take effect on the external feelings, and operate in the manner of mere instinct. It is supposable that God may persuade a man to a given course either by convincing his understanding that it is expedient, or by impelling him toward it by a blind instinct. In either case God would lead him. Now which of these kinds of leading, other things being equal, is most desirable? Unquestionably the first. It is better that a man should be led as a moral and intellectual being, than as a mere animal,-better that he should be educated to act in view of rational motives like a man, than that he should live always under the discipline of specific directions like a child. It is better that he should be able to give an acceptable reason for his course, than that he should be obliged to rely for justification before men, on his own averment that God told him to do thus and so. Paul earnestly exhorted the primitive believers to allow the understanding to take part with the Spirit in their proceedings. 1 Cor. 14. As he said, 'I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also,' so we may say, ' We will travel, speak, and in all things act, with the understanding as well as with the Spirit.' We may be sure that God is not opposed to, but entirely in favor of, the exercise and cultivation of our ra tional powers, as well as our mere animal instincts, in the service of the Spirit. 'In malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.'

Again, it is supposable that God may persuade a man to a certain purpose by his Spirit, and then allow him to work out that purpose, in its details, according to his own judgment without specific directions; or he may keep back the purpose in his own mind, and lead the man by blind instinct, operating step by step, to do what is required for its fulfilment. Which of these ways is most befitting the position of sons of God? The leading of the Spirit is equally real in both cases. The only difference is that in the first case the

Spirit works radically, implanting a purpose, out of which a series of specific acts grow spontaneously; and in the second case it works superficially, producing each specific act by a separate infusion of instinct. The last may be best for mere servants or children, but the other is certainly the true way of dealing with grown sons. The servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth,' and of course acts blindly as he is bid. The mere child must be told specifically what to do and what not to do. But as soon as God's children become capable of forming purposes, as well as of executing details, we may be sure that he will honor his own nature in them enough to direct them radically, rather than superficially.

The external leadings of the Spirit, then, considered as gifts,' may be desired; but as Paul exhorts believers to 'covet earnestly the best gifts,' so we should earnestly covet the best leadings. Instinctive directions to do certain specific things, should be regarded as discipline specially adapted to children, and of the least account. Our desire should be that our whole nature may be brought into the service of the Spirit, so that God may avail himself of our understandings, and the whole range of our susceptibilities, instead of being obliged to move us about mechanically. We should cultivate our judgments, and learn as fast as we can to form far-reaching purposes in the Spirit. We should aspire to be, not merely instruments in the hands of God, but co-workers with him, acting from the same motives as those in his mind, and partaking of his intelligence and freedom. And in order that we may not be hindered from doing this, we must not suffer ourselves to be hampered by the narrow notions which many spiritualists entertain in relation to the leadings of the Spirit. There is a theory on this subject which deserves the name of antinomianism, in its worst sense- -a theory which precludes all free, manly action, and makes the holders of it mere puppets or do-nothings. Let us seek out the 'more excellent way' of the primitive church.

§ 68. THE DOCTRINE OF DISUNITY.

THE Perfectionist school at an early period was tainted with the idea that a sort of touch-me-not' independence which precludes the possibility of unity, is the prime glory of the gospel of holiness. In the files of The Perfectionist published at New Haven in 1834-5, many traces of this idea may be found; and it becomes quite visible and prominent after about the middle of the first volume. The presiding spirit announces from time to time, not as a matter of regret and reproof, but with evident complacency, that "Perfectionists, so called, stand as independent of each other, as they do of any of the antichristian churches-they will not be taught of each other, as they are all taught of God;' they differ among themselves on almost all points, except the great distinguishing one, viz., perfection in holiness."

This idea, which we will call the doctrine of disunity, was developed and rendered popular among Perfectionists by a variety of causes, some of which we will briefly mention.

1. Perfectionism was an insurrection against the old churches; and insurrections always generate exaggerated theories of independence.

2. A general and undiscriminating reaction against the principles of the churches, carried many into prejudices against things which are good, as well as those which are evil. The tendency and strife was to keep clear of every thing that smelt of the old systems. Confounding the eternal and invaluable principle of organization, which pervades all things that have life and growth, with the bondage and hatefulness of 'sectarianism,' which were seen and had been experienced in the churches, the cry was raised and re-echoed'Away with all thoughts of organization, mutual dependence, and subordination! Touch not, taste not, handle not these abominations of Babylon!'

6

3. Crude notions of the liberty of the gospel' and of the teachings of the Spirit,' and an idea that these privileges are incompatible with union and discipline, contributed to the growth of the doctrine of disunity.

4. Some doubtless joined the standard of Perfectionism, not because they loved holiness, but because they were weary of the restraints of the duty-doing churches. Perfectionism presented them a fine opportunity of giving full swing to carnality, and at the same time, of glorying over the servants' under law. Persons of this class are the natural friends of anarchy.

6

5. Private jealousies in relation to leadership, made some Perfectionist leaders very fierce against every thing tending to consolidation.

6. All these causes were quickened into increased activity, by the partial alliance which took place between Perfectionism and Abolitionism.

The result was what might have been expected, viz., coufusion like that of Babel-enmity like that of Ishmael. Men who expect to scatter, who set no value on unity, who despise the precepts and example of the primitive church in relation to organization and mutual dependence, who nourish their hearts with nothing but centrifugal, insurrectionary principles, who prize individuality and self-will infinitely more than the unity of the body of Christ, and the

attractions of brotherly love, will necessarily rush into isolation and anarchy, and stand, each man like a porcupine, with quills of jealousy sticking out in every direction.

Such, to a great extent, was the state of Perfectionists, at one time; and though a change for the better has evidently taken place within a few years, the leaven of the doctrine of disunity is by no means yet purged out. We have still many among us who are more afraid of gathering together than of scattering abroad; who, in all their communications are more careful to put in a caveat against the idea of whole-hearted agreement with a brother, than to utter an aspiration after oneness of heart and mind; who seem to think that Christ's new commandment-the glory of the new covenant-instead of being 'Love one another,' should be, Take care that you do not lean on one another; beware of knitting together; especially beware of nourishing, and being nourished by, one another;'-as if the members of a living body did not lean, nay, depend on one another, and were not knit together in inextricable unity, and did not nourish, and receive nourishment from, one another!

Unity cannot be forced, but it may be favored by correct views; and on the other hand, it may be hindered by false notions. In spiritual things men do not attain what they do not expect. Hence the importance of correct theories. The doctrine that men may be saved from sin in this world, is impor tant, because without it, salvation from sin is not expected; and if it is not expected, it is not sought; and if it is not sought, it is not attained. So a true idea of the possibility and value of unity is important, because, without it, unity will not be expected or sought, and of course will not be attained. A man who makes it the post in the middle' of his religion-the cream of his creed that every one is to stand by himself, and that unity is not to be expected or desired, is in no condition to enter into unity. His theory is a wall round about him, repulsing the overtures of brotherly love as invasions of his individuality. On these grounds we shall take the liberty to enter our protest against the doctrine of disunity, and to show that it is not a vital part or natural accompaniment of Perfectionism, but an incongruous and hostile parasite, attached to it by the enemy of all righteousness, for the purpose of drawing off its life.

We aver that every branch of the doctrine of holiness tends to unity.

I. Faith, which is the root of holiness, is an act of union. It joins the life of the believer to the life of Christ. It draws a man out of his individuality, and merges self in fellowship with another. It is directly opposed to isolation. And that which draws a man out of self into partnership with God, necessarily establishes in his spirit a social principle which draws him toward unity with his brother. It may safely be affirmed that a solitary, self-absorbed spirit has not and cannot have true faith.

II. Holiness itself is essentially a uniting principle. Men may indeed profess holiness, and talk and argue for the doctrine of holiness, and yet be Ishmaelites. But such persons either attach no definite idea to the word holiness, using it only as a party shibboleth, or mean by it merely the negation of sin. A true definition of the word exposes their emptiness. Holiness is not