communion an impossibility. Under these circumstances the Church of England, with her Episcopal succession, practically excludes-from her pulpit, and from the Lord's Table, men like Chalmers; while the Church of Scotland, with her stern adhesion to Presbytery, looks with coldness and suspicion upon an administration based upon Prelacy. And, thus, in a descending series each sect, however little in point of spirit, or, adherents, draws a cordon round its ramparts, and proclaims itself at war with the rest of the religious world! There is, undoubtedly, variety enough in all this; but, alas! there is but little unity. It is not the spirit of the Master. His test for Church membership was simple, and decisive. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another." All that is contended for in these pages, is, distinctness of denomination, according to the analogy of Nature, but the diffusive spirit of Christian love, and brotherhood, according to the analogy of Grace. In other words, the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Inter-communion, among these who "call themselves Christians," regardless of artificial barriers which outwardly divide the Churches of Christ, ought not to be so very difficult for those who profess to be "led by the Spirit." In the Church of England we pray for this whenever we meet in public worship. And, if prayer have any meaning at all, it must be accompanied with a sincere desire, and effort on the part of those who pray, to carry out to the utmost of their power the actual object for which they seek the Divine assistance. Otherwise the whole ceremony becomes no better than the clashing of "sounding brass, or, of tinkling cymbals." Different administrations, divided from each other by external barriers, yet united in brotherly kindness and charity, are not necessarily hostile. We are forced, however, to confess, that such cordiality apparently does not at present exist, and, therefore, it may be urged that the views here put forward, are incompatible with the existing condition of our fallen world. They might be thought more suitable to a period of Millenial happiness, when the present "tempestuous state of human things" shall have rocked themselves to rest. But, that, in the meantime, such unity must be regarded as Utopian! It is admitted, that, unless the love of the Father be implanted, however feebly, in the children, there can be no real unity among the Churches. And anything like mechanical union would terminate, probably, in disappointment. There are obstacles, no doubt, to a system of spiritual union among Christians. But, they do not arise, from any shock which might be given, to the really honest advocates of a decent and orderly public worship. No. They spring mainly from that inherent selfishness, and exclusive dealing which is, unhappily, a marked feature in the history of human nature, especially as it appears in the combination of parties for any purposes whatever. We should always keep clearly before our minds the essential difference between Unity in Variety, and Unity in Divinity. The former is a Divine law, but as matter of fact, the diversity of opinion on the fundamental principles of the Gospel produces, and, we are sorry to add, confirms discord and mutual ill will. Now, such a unity is neither a Divine law, nor consistent with common sense. The apostolic greeting and benediction was addressed to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."* St. Paul, in this passage, (says Dr. Bloomfield, in his Notes on the Greek Testament) (6 means to represent Christians everywhere as on the same level, and having one common Master-not only in Corinth, but everywhere." Another Apostle, who is pre-eminently styled "the Apostle of Charity," while laying down the most comprehensive views with regard to Christian unity, is very careful to draw the line between a true and a spurious liberality. St. John says, that "whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ," whom he calls "the True God and Eternal Life," was not to be received into the house, "neither bid him God speed.”† * 1 Cor. i. 2. ↑ 1 John v. 20.; 2 John x. If we were to take our notion of liberality from common observation, or, common conduct, we should be apt to imagine, that it was by no means restricted in the sphere of its operations. The term "liberality," as it is used in the world, is, generally speaking, a term of doubtful meaning-confused and loose in its signification. It conveys an indistinct idea. And, as each man is in the habit of intrepreting it, with an eye to his own peculiar character, or, doctrine, the idea which it does convey is perpetually varying. In short, where the Word of God is not referred to as a standard, this term lies at the mercy of private judgment. Every man is at liberty to interpret liberality just as he pleases, and, accordingly, he draws the circle so as to include himself. By this means, the word becomes so variable, and confused in its meaning, that it is very seldom admitted in its true sense, and when it is admitted, the world has many soft names, and many plausible excuses for it. An indifference to the honour and authority of God, acting under the sacred name of Christian Charity, has many methods of palliating and defending it. This false liberalism, is, at one time, so completely muffled, and at another, exhibited in a dress. so artful and attractive, that if we had no other way of judging of its real nature but common conversation, and conduct, we must inevitably come to a very false conclusion on the subject. How different, how totally different is the representation of the Word of Truth. Here, Unity and Liberality have a determinate meaning. Here no man is at liberty to draw the circle as he pleases. Here we are plainly instructed in their nature, and we are fairly warned of the consequences of a latitudinarian compromise with opposite, and contradictory religious principles. In one place, we are directed to regard “even an angel from heaven" as accursed, if he should presume to preach any other doctrine than that laid down by St. Paul. In another place, above referred to, we are called upon by St. John, not to extend the ordinary rites of hospitality to any man, who "does not bring this doctrine." It It may be said, that this sounds harshly, and grates upon the ear. That may be so, but we are concerned only with the fact. And, so long as the writings canonical, and inspired, there of St. John are received as is no way of removing the apparent harshness, but by explaining it away, so as to get rid of the true drift and meaning of the injunction. The evident intention of St. John was, to warn the Christian lady, to whom he writes, about receiving into her house any teachers such as those to whom he alludes, and of addressing them with the customary salutation expressive of friendly feelings. For, if she did this, it would imply that she gave some degree of countenance and approbation to their doctrine. This protest was not to be made, out of |