begin to shew themselves; nor do these differences extend to things essential to salvation or godliness. But, granting all the extent to which it may be maintained that variations exist, is there not still a unity in all in spirit? And, were the evangelical churches only fitly framed together in mutual esteem and affection, would not the inner and spiritual unity which they would display in their variety of outward forms be a constitution of the universal church, whence a glorious harmony might ascend, wellpleasing to God, and which, by the most rapid movements possible, might be expected to merge, when the appointed time comes, into perfect unison over all?

But may we entertain such a view in harmony with God's Word? What says that Word on the subject? What does it lead us to expect as to the form and constitution of the expanding church? This is the grand inquiry; for the authority of the Word of God is always paramount. Now, without entering here on what will fall to be inquired into hereafter, we may merely remark, that the expected form of the church, in so far as that is revealed in Scripture, may be learned most briefly by observing the form of the objects to which Scripture likens it; for it is admitted on all hands, that there are no direct and explicit declarations on this subject, other than such as are very general and spiritual. Now, in the Word of God the church is figured by the cherubim, which, while it was “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty," was composed of three varied forms, the heads of three living creatures, various, yet not separated, but, on the contrary, all united into one of another form. It is elsewhere likened to a body with one head, yet consisting of many varied members,*-to a temple with one chief corner-stone, but built of a great variety of stones, t-to a city which is one, and surrounded by one wall, but which contains + Eph. ii. 21.

* 1 Cor. xii. 27.

many bulwarks, palaces, and towers,*-to a great sheet let down from heaven, in which were all kinds and forms of living creatures, from creeping to flying, not separated by many partitions, however, but knit only at the four corners,t-in a word, to Noah's ark, which, notwithstanding that admirable unity which kept it together while it went to and fro on the waters, was yet, in point of variety, an epitome of the whole creation. And of the same general character are the other objects by which the church is figured and represented in revelation. In short, with respect to the form of the church, every object adduced in the Word of God to illustrate it, pictures to us not an absolute uniformity over all, as fancy is ever apt to desire, as deeming it most beautiful and holy, and to view as alone compatible with true unity, but rather an unity of spirit in variety of form.

Nor are Scripture illustrations all that tend to this conclusion. The spiritual agency by which the life of the church is sustained and its form developed, is also everywhere described in the divine records as a power whose characteristic, in like manner, is not uniformity, but unity in variety. The unity of the Spirit, in the variety of his gifts and operations, is indeed one of the leading features of the gospel dispensation. “There are diversities of gifts (says the Apostle), but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? if the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? And now are

there many members, but yet one body.

And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you."

* Ps. xlviii.

† Acts xi. 6.

1 Cor. xii. 12-21.

Thus it appears, from all these analogies, that not a universal uniformity over all, but rather an unity in variety, an unity of spirit and co-operation in variety of form and manner, is all that scripture, treating of the church at large, leads us to expect during the growth of the kingdom of grace. It is also that which the analogy of the kingdom of nature points to; for it is that which that kingdom everywhere displays while in movement. It is therefore that which God indicates as creator, not less than as author of revelation; and we ought not to forget, that all creation is expressive of the ways of God, and full of doctrine. Of the heavenly bodies, the voice at the creation said, Let them be for signs as well as for seasons; and it is equally true of the works of God in general, that they too are significant and symbolic of the ways and will of God, as well as merely useful to man. Now all creation, so long as it is in movement, and undergoing development, constantly developes and displays variety, as well as unity. The course of providence also manifests the same principle on every hand. The view here suggested is therefore as well supported by direct reasoning, as by the immediate testimony of Scripture.

No doubt, the formula of unity of spirit in variety of form, when exemplified in its utmost beauty, leads to the idea of an economy, in which there shall not only be one central object (as there ever must be in every form of the church of Christ), but an orderly arrangement of spiritual ranks, regularly descending and expanding from the centre to the circumference, from the apex to the base, from the one to the many, from the head to the members, and thus uniting them in an orderly and radiant whole. But such a state of things is plainly compatible only with a certain other state of things. It is plainly not to be arrived at, nor expected during periods such as the present, when Christian civilization, and popular en

lightenment in true religion and morality, are as yet only in their infancy, and in very various stages of advancement in different regions of the earth, and when humanity all over the world is changing so very rapidly. In order to the establishment of such a radiant economy over all, Christian society must be in a state of great repose and full development, such as there is no example of in the present age, in any region of the world. During the present epoch, unity of spirit in variety of form, without any such symmetry, appears to be the only attainable form of the great principle referred to May not this, then, be that which, in the nature of things, and according to the will of God, corresponds to the present epoch, and is proper to it? and may we not reasonably hope, that, if all Christians would but unite harmoniously in the present day according to this model, then, although, in reference to certain churches, there should be no legally drawn bonds of union intermediate between Christ and the ministers of individual congregations, but only the unseen bonds of affection, still, this unction of mutual esteem and fraternal love flowing over all and through all, would, when the blessed day came, soon bring it to pass, that the already spiritually united church would, without an effort, and just by the breath of the Spirit and the light of God's countenance upon it, spontaneously, as it were, transform itself into one great radiant society, of outward symmetry and beauty and order also.

If we do insist on an absolute uniformity over all as of the essence of Christian unity, we place ourselves in a strange dilemma. For it has been very ably shewn by the Bishop of Meaux in the interest of the Church of Rome, that the great heads of the Reformation, and those who acted a leading part in settling the form of the first Reformed Churches, differed from each other in many points; and thence, taking for granted, or at least wish

ing the reader to take for granted, and himself merely stating, in a few sentences in his preface, that uniformity is a first principle or criterion of truth; and, leading the reader to believe that the church in whose interest he writes has been uniform, both in faith and practice, all along, he concludes that all the departures of the Reformers from the tenets of the Church of Rome are mere heresies, and the whole work of the Reformation a piece of confusion. Such is the scheme of Bossuet's work, and it is one of the weightiest against the evangelical churches which has ever been written. It has also been lately published in English, and at a very cheap price, so that it is easily accessible to every body.

Ever since ecclesiastical histories were written, however, and more especially since Mr Edgar wrote his book in the interest of Protestantism, directly to contrast with that of Bossuet, it has been seen that the premises of the Romish prelate involve the condemnation of the Church of Rome, not less than the churches of the Reformation; since, far from a universal uniformity, as Bossuet wishes to be believed, there have been as many variations among Romanists as among the Reformed. It has been proved on both sides, that variations have existed all along; and if we but assume the principle of uniformity as the test of the true church, and the only condition of Christian unity, then, not the churches of the Reformation only, but the church which preceded them also, have had no unity, no truth in them. All, in a word, has been but confusion.

Now, though the consequences of admitting such a principle are so grave, it is certain that there is a very general prepossession in favour of this same principle of uniformity; and no doubt that prepossession will remain and operate hereafter, as well as now, and thus effect uniformity, so soon as the present obstructions to it are removed,