ciple of the love of order, instead of the order of love as it ought.* But if the love of order be so strong in our nature as to permit men to think that they are justified, when destroying all unity in the church, all affection in the family, all liberty in the state, need we wonder if it operate in Christians generally, so as to lead them to desire that there should be in religion universally the extreme of order, in other words, a perfect resemblance in all creeds, in all rituals, in all churches, in one word, an universal uniformity?

Such a prepossession in favour of uniformity, is only to be expected, even though there were no other circumstances calculated to foster the prepossession. But there

are.

Our inheritance conspires with the original frame of our mind to favour the claim. For, previously to the Reformation, the church, directing all its zeal towards externals, insisted upon uniformity to the last degree, and valued itself exceeding (as the Church of Rome still does), on what small success it had in establishing it. And, indeed, its uniformity was the best feature which the church then displayed. For since, in the popular mind in those days, all was ignorance of religion, and consequently, a spiritual unity impossible; better an unity in externals, than no unity at all. But, in these circumstances, it was only to be expected that the first reformers, as they were educated in the Church of Rome, would naturally cling to the idea of uniformity, the only good feature in the church they had left; and so would carry their demand for it into the reformed church along with them. But if a demand for uniformity prevailed then, it may be expected to prevail now. For we, admiring the reformers for their great achievements, as we are

*This explains how persecutors and schismatics should not always be the worst of men, and how history should have so much good, as well as bad, to say of Charlemagne, Hildebrande, Laud, &c.

called upon to do by every sacred recollection, naturally fall into their errors too, and amongst others, therefore, into an exclusive admiration of uniformity.

Add to this the fact, that we are apt to confound uniformity not only with unity, but with harmony; and that the idea of harmony is never so sweet to the soul as in the midst of discord; and reasons enough will appear, why the prepossession in favour of uniformity (felt if not expressed), should be so strong in the church in the present day, as we may be conscious of finding it in ourselves, and of observing it to be in others.

The prevalence of an opinion, however, is plainly no warrant for its justness, even when it cannot be traced to a fallacy. Have we not occasion every day to speak of prevalent errors? And, in the present case, ought more than the least possible weight to be attached to the mere prevalence of a demand for uniformity, since it has been shewn that such a demand might be expected from a priori considerations, independent altogether of the particular state of the case.

THE QUESTION.

The testimony of Scripture; the suitableness or unsuitableness of an universal uniformity to such an institution as an universal church, in the present state of humanity; its harmony or discordance with the analogy of nature and providence; its moral beauty or deformity; its reasonableness; its practicability,-these are the considerations which ought to decide our judgment in such a matter. Emancipating ourselves, therefore, from all fallacies and unreasonable prepossessions, let us now inquire successively into these grounds of opinion, and see whether they point to an universal uniformity in religion

as that which is alone to be tolerated and to be directly aimed at; or whether they do not rather teach, that an unity of spirit, in variety of form, such as is immediately attainable (and, in fact, exists, were but a great movement of mutual esteem and love to be made by all the evangelical denominations towards each other), is a state of the universal church, not unchristian, not uncongenial with the testimony of scripture, nor with the spirit of the gospel, and, in point of fact, the shortest road to a simpler, a happier, and a more uniform state of things.

PART III.

THE LIGHT OF SACRED HISTORY.

THE BIBLE.

PARADISE.

THE CHERUBIM.

CAIN AND ABEL.

THE ANTEDILUVIAN WORLD.

NOAH.

BABEL.

THE PRIEST.

THE HINDOO.

THE PATRIARCH.

ABRAHAM AND MELCHIZEDEC.

THE EGYPTIANS.

THE ISRAELITES.

GOD'S CHOICE.

THE NECESSITY.

MOSES.

THE JUDGES.

THE LEVITES.

JETHRO.

THE CONSTITUTION.

THE PHARISEE.

THE THEOCRACY.

THE SACRIFICE.

THE MINISTRY.

THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH.

THE CHURCHES OF THE REFORMATION.