religion], but no church," then it follows that they mean that the
religion of Christ can be separated from the church of Christ. Then
there follows upon this the absurd conclusion that there can be–a
church of Christ with no religion, and a religion with no
representatives! But if the religion of Christ have no representatives in
the world, then there is no religion of Christ in the world. If it be
claimed that this is so as far as our nation is at present concerned;
and that now our nation must adopt this religion, and by constitutional
amendment embody in the nation's fundamental law the doctrine of
God and of Christ, and enforce its observance; that will be simply for
the State to create for itself the Christian religion, and so will be
nothing else but a union of church and State. It is plain, therefore, that
by their own proposition, whatever they may claim under it, there is
literally no escape from a union of church and State.
If this reasoning is, by the National Reform party, considered
unsound, if the deduction which we make from their premise is not
logical, then we verily wish that that party would show us where the
line shall be drawn between the Christian religion and the Christian
church. Will they show us where the line shall be drawn which will
shut the Christian religion in the State, and shut the Christian church
out? They will never show it. They know just as well as we do, and
we just as well as they, that practically they never intend to make any
such distinction. And their claim of such distinction is nothing but a
piece of Jesuitical casuistry by which they would hide their real
intention.
Further, it is a fact that what used to be the Presbyterian Church is
now only the Presbyterian branch of the Christian church. That which
once was the Methodist or Baptist Church is now merely the
Methodist or the Baptist branch of the church of Christ, or the one
true church. And it is a subject of constant rejoicing to them that all
the differences that once made them antagonists, are being
accommodated, and that the one grand object of the "unity of the
church" and its work, is about to be realized. And even the Catholic
Church is not excluded, but is recognized by some of the leading
religious papers of our land as a part of the true church, and is
recognized by the Reform Association in its work (not in its theory) as
an efficient helper. That this is the position of the National Reform
party the following is proof:–
"But these divisions are a fact, and they have been overruled so
that they are not inconsistent with the unity of the church. All upon 
whom the name of Christ is named have their calling. The
Methodists have their vocation in the history of the church to arouse
Christian life; the Presbyterians their vocation to conserve
Calvinistic principles; and the Reformed Presbyterians their
vocation to keep unfurled the blue banner for Christ's crown and
covenant.' We are different divisions of Immanuel's army. The
Methodists are the charging cavalry, the Presbyterians the fighting
infantry, the Covenanters the batteries upon the heights. We have
one Commander-in-chief; and under him we go forward, one united
phalanx against the common enemy. And when the victory is
gained, the army will be one as the Leader is one."–Christian
Statesman, Feb. 7, 1884, page 6.
So then, if, as they claim, all these are but branches of the one
church, of course it requires all of them to make up the church. And if
it
20
 requires all of them to make up the Christian church, and the
representative of Christianity in the earth, when they all unite, as they
are doing, and all work to the one point of securing this religious
amendment to the Constitution, and under it enforcing their united
views, what is that but church and State?
But as they insist that their movement does not tend "in the least
degree to a union of church and State," it may be well to lay before
our readers the National Reform idea of what is union of church and
State. In the Pittsburg convention, in 1874, Professor Blanchard gave