But the Lord of the Indies amidst his hoards was as helpless as Belshazzar at his feast. A court abandoned to dissipation is the real hotbed of a revolution. It is not in the crowded factory or amongst the desperate population of the faubourg that revolutions take their origin. The head must be sick, and the heart faint, before the members are benumbed. The madness of the people is always frightful; nor are we amongst the number who maintain that it always has a just excuse. On the contrary, there have been periods in our own, as well as in foreign history, in which it seems to us to have been an epidemic, a popular insanity. But we believe the records of history will be searched in vain for an instance in which it was successful. No really good government, whether constitutional or absolute, was ever subverted except by its own misconduct; for government is of God, and He puts such honour upon His own institutions, that He protects it from violence so long as it continues to fulfil His purposes and to "rule in righteous

ness."

The value of such a work as this depends in some measure upon the reader. To a careless reader, the volumes are merely an entertainment; to a reflecting one they are, as Lord Bacon would have said, full of the seeds of things. In such private notes and confidential letters, the literary gossip finds indolent recreation; the thoughtful reader sees the germ of history; the student of human nature explores the anatomy of man; and the Christian, inquiring more deeply still, the slow development to the purposes of the Righteous Governor of the universe.

CHRISTIAN UNION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John xiii, 35.)

DEAR SIR,-The manifestation of brotherly love amongst the followers of Christ occupies a position peculiar to itself, as having been selected, out of all other Christian graces and duties, to be the distinc tive mark whereby Christians should be known. What could give it a stronger claim upon our earnest attention ?

Amongst the many important aspects of this subject, there is a long-neglected one, which is now happily being forced upon our notice, and which you would, perhaps, not think unworthy of a place in the Christian Observer. I refer to the attitude which members of different evangelical churches ought to maintain towards one another.

It may seem superfluous to assert, that, if they believe one another to be disciples of Christ, they are not merely to "love one another,"

but to let "all men know" that they do so. The mark is not only to be there, but to be visible, or it misses one of its specific objects. But there are two considerations which make it peculiarly incumbent, in their case, to let this badge be seen broadly and distinctly.

In the first place, this is a matter with regard to which, in the opinion of the world around us, every man is held guilty, until he proves himself innocent. The alienation, if not positive antagonism, which so often subsists between different churches holding the same great fundamental truths, has given the world but too much excuse for the taunting proverb, "See how these Christians hate one another." Knowing, then, the existence of this feeling, we surely ought not to be satisfied merely with the consciousness of our own personal innocence; but should make every possible effort to remove the impression, and compel men to acknowledge that we do love one another as Christians, in spite of our differences as churchmen.

Secondly, the greater our differences, the better opportunity we have of proving the genuine character of this brotherly love. For, as I lately heard it well put by the Rev. T. Binney, in proportion as the man I love is a reflection of myself, am I exposed to the suspicion of merely loving myself in him; but if all his peculiar views and preferences are opposed to mine, and we agree in nothing but in loving and serving our common Master, then it becomes manifest that it is on that account alone I love him.

For these reasons, therefore, it seems to be our duty to make even greater efforts to manifest our love to members of other churches than to members of our own; both because the world is less ready to believe it, and because, when plainly proved, it is calculated to produce a greater effect.

But now, to come to the point which demands our consideration. How are we, as members of a national church, practically to carry out this principle towards those Protestant evangelical dissenters whose differences with us cannot for a moment be supposed to affect their discipleship to Christ, or, consequently, our duty of letting all men see that we love them as brethren ?* Let us suppose a case, which is, thank God, of much rarer occurrence than formerly, but still far too common. An evangelical clergyman and an evangelical dissenting minister live and labour for years together in the same place. They are serving the same Master, and doing the same work. Their one grand object, directly or indirectly, is to bring sinners to Christ, and afterwards to build them up in their most holy faith. They preach the same gospel; ask from the same Father the gift of the same Spirit to bless their preaching'; administer the same sacraments, though in different forms; appeal to the same book as their standard of faith and practice; hope to spend an eternity in the same blessed home,and yet have very little more personal intercourse with one another, and give the world very little more proof of all this unity and community, than if one of them were a Mohammedan or a Brahmin. All that meets the eye of the world is, that they invariably worship in different buildings, stand on different platforms, sit on different coinmittees, support different societies, are backed up by different news* See this argued out in a sermon, entitled, "Forbid him not," published at Seeley's.

papers, and vote on different sides of almost every question that arises in the parish. Now, it would be mere affectation to pretend to doubt that, in nine out of every ten such cases, the unwillingness cordially to recognize and openly to consort with the other is on the side of the churchman rather than the dissenter. And even if the proportion were reversed, it would be much better for us to examine the state of our own eye, than to comment on the beam or the mote in our brother's eye. What then, let us ask, would be the excuse probably made by the clergyman, in our supposed case, for allowing such a state of things to continue?

He might perhaps say, that it was not brought about of set purpose, but from the force of circumstances. While their respective views on several important matters remained so diametrically opposed, it was impossible to avoid a certain amount of antagonism in their public conduct; and that the simple explanation of their so seldom meeting in public or private was, that they each had their own work to do, and there was nothing particular to bring them together, except, perhaps, at the Annual Meeting of the Bible Society, when, unless circumstances prevented either of them from attending, they did appear on the same platform, and even exchanged a friendly greeting in the committee room. Now, unquestionably, this is often a true statement of the case; but does it furnish a justification of the facts? I submit that it is very far from doing so. For surely, as maintained above, the unavoidable antagonism that must exist on some points should render us all the more anxious to seek--ay, and if need be, to make-opportunities both for cultivating and for manifesting friendly feeling towards one another as brethren in Christ. Here is a great blot, palpable to all men. Ought we to be satisfied with the reflection that we never deliberately intended it? The question is, what effort are we making to remove it? If remedies do not come in our way, surely we ought to go out of our way to look for them, and never rest satisfied till they are found.

Now it was the necessity for providing a remedy against this evil, deeply felt, which gave birth to the Evangelical Alliance. And admirably adapted it is to meet the case. For, in addition to its value as a powerful agency for promoting the spirit of unity at home, and also as a bond of union and medium of communication amongst evangelical Christians in every part of the world, it constitutes of itself, as far as its own members are concerned, the strongest possible proof of their earnest desire to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. For the fact of our joining such institutions as the British and Foreign Bible Society, or the Religious Tract Society, merely shows that our differences are not so great as to prevent us cooperating for those defined and specific purposes; but by no means proves we would not much rather keep to ourselves, if those purposes could be accomplished without such a cooperation. For all that appears to the contrary, we may be merely constrained by a sense of duty to join such societies, notwithstanding their catholic constitution, and be inwardly resolved not to get closer to brethren of other churches than is absolutely necessary. But with the Alliance, the promoting and manifesting of brotherly love is not an incident, but its avowed object: so that the very fact of joining it is the strongest possible

that

declaration of our desire to attain that object. And let me add, that something of this kind is especially needful in countries where there exists a national church; which, if it does not necessitate, renders almost certain such an amount of separate action, and at least apparent exclusiveness, as is calculated both to alienate the hearts of those who do, and those who do not, conform to it, and to make the world believe that professedly Christian churches, as well as professedly Christian individuals, so far from loving their neighbour as themselves, are bent upon seeking "their own," even at the expense of their "brother's wealth," nay, even to the serious injury of "those things which are Jesus Christ's." Surely those brethren, who conscientiously lean the most strongly to the side of separate action in public matters, should hail the most gladly such an opportunity as the Evangelical Alliance affords to neutralize the injurious effect of such separation both upon the minds of their dissenting brethren and upon the world at large.

But now, sir, as to this question of united action, altogether apart from the Evangelical Alliance.

Few readers of the Christian Observer are likely to argue that dissenters are ipso facto schismatics, and therefore to be "avoided." It would require some courage to say that such men as Baxter, or Doddridge, or John Angell James answered to St. Paul's description of those who " cause divisions," namely, that "they serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly;" or to St. Jude's description of those who "separate themselves," as "mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts-sensual, having not the Spirit." And, except on this ground, or something very like it, utterly untenable both in reason and scripture, it is difficult to see how any churchman can maintain it to be a matter of conscience to stand aloof from dissenters without manifestly committing ecclesiastical suicide. Could the strongest anti-state-churchman wish for a more conclusive argument against-not merely the expediency, but-the lawfulness of having a national church, than the admission that letting all men know that we are good churchmen, is incompatible with letting them know that we are Christ's disciples by the love which we manifest to all other of His disciples, wherever they may be found. If loyalty to a national church, or a due regard to its interests, could only be maintained by cutting ourselves off from open communion with other members of Christ's body, how could any one with a safe conscience remain within its pale? A national church is a human institution, one of the various forms in which Christianity may be outwardly embodied; Christian union is an essential element of Christianity itself, the special appointed mark of Christ's disciples. If it were really impossible to serve the two masters, who could hesitate as to his choice?

But there are many good men, who, without going so far as this, consider separate action as generally expedient, on the supposition that union with dissenters tends practically to weaken the national church. I believe there never was a more mistaken idea. On the contrary, I am persuaded that if the evangelical clergy, as a body,

*. See Appendix on "Schism," in the sermon before referred to.

came forward to meet the ministers of other evangelical churches with the frankness and cordiality that our common Christianity demands, it would do more to disarm hostility where it exists, to raise our church in public esteem, and in every way strengthen its position, than all the acts of parliament that can ever be passed, or all the church-rate victories that can ever be won. But still I am far from maintaining that united action must always be the best course. It is simply a question of expediency; and amongst the considerations which may fairly be taken into account in any particular case, one undoubtedly is the effect which it will probably have upon that national establishment, which we believe to be so great a blessing to the country. I only plead that the cause of Christian union may also be allowed its due weight in the decision: and that while we remember the vast benefits conferred upon us by our established church, we may not forget the enormous evils which result from even the appearance of disunion between conformists and non-conformists.

It may be useful just to glance at some of the more prominent attempts that have been made to carry on united action, since the great revival of religion in England about a century ago.

It is rather remarkable, that the first of such attempts, namely, that to combine in missionary operations to the heathen, proved one of the very few failures; the London Missionary Society being now left almost exclusively to the Independents, and every other body of Christians having also its own separate organization for that purpose. The peculiar difficulty, however, in this case is easily seen; because the very object of the missionary being to make converts from amongst the heathen and form them into churches, a question at once arises as to what shall be the provisional constitution of these new churches. And happily there is not the same necessity for union in foreign missions that there is in home missions: because there is not the same preju dice to overcome, arising from the clashings and collisions of rival churches.

The British and Foreign Bible Society has been as signal a success. And really, if Christians could not combine simply to circulate the book which they receive in common as the word of God, it would be hopeless to think of union in anything whatever. This may be considered the first elementary lesson in the science of which we are treating. And yet it has its own peculiar value, as publicly testifying to the world, that if the Christian religion be variously exhibited in the creeds and opinions of Christian men, it results, not from any defect in the revelation of it from heaven, but from our defective reception of it. There it is, in that book, whole and entire; and from that book, with such aids as may be within your reach, you ought to gather your own views of it. So far we are perfectly agreed.

The Religious Tract Society is a decided step in advance. For there we agree to circulate human expositions and applications of the truths revealed in scripture; and in almost every conceivable shape and form. As a manifestation of the unity of evangelical Christians in matters of faith and practice, this society stands preeminent above all others; for, although none of its members can be considered pledged to every sentiment that it publishes, yet the fact that they can all