the cross as the central attraction and the bond of fellowship, and which they were successful, to a wonderful extent, in preserving unbroken till the last of them went up to receive his reward. Let all Christians be like their primitive brethren, believing what they believed, loving as they loved, obeying as they obeyed, and the union of the first century will be the union of the nineteenth century.

You, my brother, will regard me as sufficiently specific and definite. By descending to particulars, I should be liable to an assumption of the prerogatives of an interpreter, and thus meddle with a department that is foreign to my plan, and subversive of my main design. And yet, I hesitate not to say that, while I thus speak in general terms of the union which the New Testament recommends and illustrates by examples, as the kind of union that is desirable, I have no difficulty in determining for myself what the New Testament teaches upon this subject. Is it in any sense doubtful what the Saviour required his disciples to be and to do, that they might be united to him and to one another? Does any obscurity rest upon the inspired record of the belief, the spirit, or the practice, of the primitive Churches? Are the Apostles at all equivocal in their teachings with respect to the kind of agreement and assimilation that is essential

to real, permanent union? Is there any reason to suppose, that among the Christians of the first century, there were various sects, and that their union consisted in affectionate association irrespective of diversity of sentiment and practice? Does any one believe that the early Churches had different and clashing creeds, or that they administered the ordinances in various and dissimilar forms?

The waters that encompass the globe are known by different names, as the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Baltic, the Mediterranean; but these names denote only territorial distinctions, never suggesting the idea of difference of quality. They commingle and coalesce without any indications of either chemical or mechanical disfellowship.1 So also in the age of the Apostles there were territorial divisions among Christians, for there were the "Churches in Judea," the "Churches in Asia," the "Churches in Macedonia," and in many other countries and provinces; but these names never denoted any diversity in creed, spirit, or form. Christians of every country, every color, every condition, were spiritually, doctrinally, practically one.

Such is the oneness now desirable ;

1 "Circumquaque porro infatigati fertur fluctus oceani; unus quidem, sed multis cognominibus instructus.” — Dion.

and happy will be that day when we can speak of the Churches in England, Burmah, Denmark, Jamaica, Virginia, Illinois, Rhode Island, Nova Scotia, and, knowing no other distinction than the geographical, can recognize all these companies of believers as one; so that when their members pass from one country or one State to another, they may everywhere be welcomed, not as belonging to a particular denomination, but as belonging to Christ, and following in "the footsteps of the flock." Party names must be dropped, party lines must be obliterated, party spirit must be put away, party measures must be discontinued; and all Christians must have.

one heart and one way;" then will there be the desirable union, that which the Son of God requires of his people as essential to the full development of their character, and to their largest usefulness as his representatives and wit

nesses.

1"The union of Christians on earth is perfectly consistent with many churches, each complete in itself. There is no visible centre of unity on earth to the Christian Church, as there was to the Jewish. In the Jewish Church, one candlestick with its seven branches typified the Church of God in complete unity, as confined to one nation, with one central place of union at Jerusalem; but in the Gentile churches the emblem is different. There are seven golden candlesticks, and in the midst of them one like unto the Son of man.” - Bickersteth.

II.

CONSIDERATIONS THAT RENDER CHRISTIAN UNION DESIRABLE.

THESE, my dear brother, cannot be adequately represented without a more particular and extended reference, than I could wish were necessary, to the deplorable mischiefs of division. It would be far more agreeable to confine my observation, and solicit your attention, to the more illuminated and cheering side of the picture, to that delightful state of things which we anticipate, not in our day, but somewhere in the brightening future, when shall return the palmy scenes of primitive unanimity, primitive affection, and primitive concert; when "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim;" when party names shall all be merged and disappear in the one sufficient designation, CHRISTIAN ; when "there shall be one fold," as well as Shepherd;" when the whole sacramental host of God shall rally around one standard, the bloodred Cross, all prompt to obey the orders of one Leader, all submissively and peacefully "following the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." How

(6 one

inspiring, how soul-elevating the anticipation! Lovely as was the landscape to the natural eye when the "dew descended upon the mountains of Zion," imparting freshness to vegetation, far lovelier to the moral vision will be that scene of moral beauty where "BRETHREN DWELL TOGETHER IN UNITY," and in view of which all holy beings will exclaim, "Behold, how good and how pleasant!" That is a scene which, with pencil dipped in the "rainbow round about the throne," I would fain describe. But, alas! it is one which has never greeted my eye, nor has it greeted yours. Our predecessors through long ages, and many of our cotemporaries, have desired to see it,

"But died without the sight."

It is a state of things which we contemplate only by the visual power of faith. Inspired history has sketched it on the Past, when the Church was young, elastic, and fair, with a single Head to control her movements, and a single Heart to send the common element of life to her extremities. Imagination gives vividness to the picture; we admire it as the ideal of moral loveliness; and yet we admire with a sigh that it finds no actual counterpart in the Present. Inspired prophecy has painted it on the Future, and shown us the