suggested that, though intercommu

nion may be most desirable as a pledge of union, it must not be considered as the object to be aimed at in striving for union. For it requires both too much and too little ;-too much; for there may be that in the customs of one Church which may be distasteful to another Church, while yet Christian union may be set up and maintained between them and too little; for the rites of two Churches may be almost coincident as mere matter of form, while the attitude and animus of the two may be substantially antagonistic. It is plain that intercommunion will be rather an accident, than the substance, of the union of which we are treating.

And the same reasoning may be carried further, and extended even to all formal acts of recognition. If any such formal act is to be set up as that without which union is not, and that on which union follows as matter of course, we shall have made the same double mistake. A formal recognition may be inadmissible in cases where union may be easy and obvious; a formal recognition may be, from concurrent circumstances, easy and apparently satisfactory, and yet no true union may follow. These considerations lead up to the inference, that the union of which we are in search will consist not so much in outward acts, as in the state of feeling and temper of Christian bodies one towards another. It will then have begun to set in here in England, when all disparaging thoughts of a man in consequence of his religious denominational position shall have ceased; when we shall have learned to treat the fact of a man's being an Independent or a Wesleyan as no

VOL. IV.-NEW SERIES.

reason for distrusting him or shunning his company; when the Dissenter, on the other hand, shall have forborne railing at us by reason of the apparent ground of vantage which we possess in being the Established Church of the nation, and shall surcease from his endeavours to misrepresent and subvert us.

To expect such a time to arrive, may be thought somewhat chimerical. But it may not be altogether profitless to have indicated at least a desire for its arrival. At all events, this paper will serve as a protest, in the name of the Christian spirit, and the spirit of fair dealing, against the present attempts at formal union with Churches abroad, while the Christian bodies at home are left entirely out of the question.

It may be asked, whether it would be possible or desirable to aim at marking the union of Christendom at home by any outward symbol ? As we said before, we would not have such symbol to be considered as of the essence of the union itself. It would merely be a sign of its existence, tending to carry its reality to the hearts and the senses of those who partook in it.

There can, we think, be very little doubt that any who are prepared to sympathize with what has been said would regard such a symbolical act as desirable. The profession of good feeling, even if genuine, needs some outward occasion on which it may be reduced to a great and tangible fact; and the habit of kind words and charitable thoughts requires stimulus to prevent it from falling into a mere habit.

If then an outward symbolic act would be desirable, have we any reason

M

to think that such an act would be possible? It is obvious that we must not look for an answer to this inquiry in the direction of that which is commonly known as inter-communion. For we should thus at once come face to face with difficulties arising out of the constitutions and liturgical biases of the various Churches; and a concession, by way of compromise, would have to be made-a necessity which we wish to avoid.

But, though inter-communion may be out of the question, might not the highest of Christian ordinances be so administered, by the abstention of each body from the use of its own liturgical forms, as to include all who interpret the command of our Lord as the institution of an ordinance at all? Suppose, at all events, that the commemorative portion of that ordinance were shared by an assembly of various denominations of Christians—the only words heard being the Scripture narrative of its institution, and then bread and wine being administered in silence.

Of course such a proposition would meet with no favour from-nay, would probably strike with horror-those who believe the virtue of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to consist in the liturgical form, or, in other words, in the priestly consecration of the elements. But, seeing that such a belief would probably be commensurate with the view of the constitution of the Church which is held by the opponents of the whole spirit of this paper, it would introduce no new element of opposition, and requires therefore no special notice, except it be to say, that any such view of the efficacy of the Holy Communion is totally unsupported by Scripture, and that, consequently, even should we hold it

ourselves, we have no right to require it to be held by another.

So that, even supposing this to be our view, we might yet find a way to the symbolical act of union. It would be this: that each body, or as many as thought good, might use such previous liturgical service as they might think fit, and that the administration might take place at one time and spot, each, or again, as many as thought fit, using the words belonging to their own liturgical form.

Either of these, or some other method which might easily be devised, would serve to unite those whose hearts were already predisposed, in a symbolical act of union. It was the fortune of the present writer to witness such an act of union performed in two different ways at Berlin, in 1857. The first time, exactly as described above, in silence, and with no words but the reading of the institution by our Lord: the second time, by administration to the members of each Church in the words used by each Church, without, however, any previous act of consecration. It then appeared to him that the former method was by far the more effectual as a symbol of union. The abstention of all from even the forms which they dearly valued, and their meeting on the common ground of the solemn narrative of Holy Writ, seemed to carry with it the reality of their serious and incompatible differences, and the reality also of the One Word of truth to which all appealed; seemed to utter at the same time a confession of the fallibility of the Churches, and the infallibility of God's Word. It might be worth considering, whether the recitation of the Apostles' Creed, or, if thought better, of some declaration of belief made in the words

of Scripture itself, might not form. part of the act of union.

It would be matter of further inquiry, whether under any, and if so, then under what circumstances, the pulpits of one Christian body should be opened to teachers of another. It is obvious that such liberty, though it may seem a legitimate corollary from what has gone before, would require the most jealous guarding and watching. It must be strictly confined to its exceptional character, and never allowed to become customary, nor of course in any case to extend beyond exhortation from the pulpit. In the Church of England, the morning sermon is so strictly bound into the Liturgy, as to form part of the Communion office. For this reason, even were the above-mentioned licence given, the morning should be exempted, and reserved without exception for her own ordained ministers. It will arise to every mind, but it is necessary to be stated, as supplementary to any such proposal, that for every case, as it arises, special licence, pro hac vice, should be required from the bishop of the diocese, with whom it would rest to obtain such satisfactory proofs of soundness in doctrine, and such undertaking to respect the differences between the Churches, as he might think necessary or expedient.* Probably any such admission might be found in practice undesirable. But it may not be amiss to have at least indicated a desire that it should be in some cases given. I have read Nonconformist sermons, which have be

gotten in me the wish that they could have been delivered to our congregations, and could have served both to stimulate our somewhat languid preaching, and to set us an example of earnest, and at the same time careful thought. The practice would not be altogether a new one, even in our own times. I have understood that Mr. Venn and Mr. Simeon were in the habit of preaching in the pulpits of the Established Church of Scotland; and the present writer knows of two occasions on which the offer of the parish pulpit in Scotland has been made to, though it was not accepted by, a minister of the Church of England.

But it may be well to conclude with an indication of a course already and easily practicable. The manifestation of private social sympathy is in every one's power. It is in every one's power, also, to lay aside all those disparaging epithets and insinuations which unfortunately are now so plentifully cast about in the discourse of Churchmen with reference to Dissenters. It is also in every one's power to banish denominational jealousies in commercial dealings. Of course those of the clergy who do these acts of Christian justice, or any of them, must make up their minds to incur the bitterest obloquy at the hands of the exclusive High Church party. The agents and the journals of that, as of every other extreme party, are perfectly unscrupulous, and will not hesitate to call in question their Churchmanship and their sound

ness in the faith. There is nothing in the eyes of that party more unpardonable than the following out, with regard to non-episcopal Christian communities, of the principles of the Church of England. They are well aware how entirely they themselves are in opposition to those principles. They know that the Church of England has again and again, by her Convocations, accorded to those bodies. the name of Churches; and that the best and most approved of her writers have declared Episcopacy to be not essential to the being of a Church. Knowing these things, and keeping them in the background, they trust to being able to bluster down those who are more consistent Churchmen than themselves.

But it is at length, we believe, beginning to be felt, that bluster is not proof; and that the advocates of common fairness, and of Christian charity, ought to be granted a hearing. In this belief we have ventured to put together the foregoing remarks. It seemed to us that, while to the superficial observer the Church of England

is casting off her moorings, and drifting back to Romanism, there is in the hearts of the great mass of her children the earnest wish to make her faster than ever to the Rock which has for three centuries held her safe. We Churchmen yearn, as much as any can, for the union of Christendom; but we will not seek it by reaching out the hand to distant Churches, while we are fostering disunion at home. When we can say to them: "Look once more at the sects into which you charge us with being split; behold them, while maintaining the differences incident to freedom of thought, cemented together by the unity of the Spirit of our common Master;" when we can challenge them to witness our success in having reconciled the rights of conscience with the mind that was in Christthen also we may say to them, “Unite with us, be followers of us." Then, it may be, some of them on their side may be given to reply: "We will go with them, for God is with them of a truth."-The Contemporary Review, February, 1868.

as the poet has it,—

"Many a flower is born to blush unseen,

And waste its sweetness on the desert air."

There may be many holy alliances, such as that of Ruth and Naomi, and such as that of David and Jonathan, even in the Babel and chaos of this London-alliances of which the world knows nothing, but the beauty and fragrance of which are well-known in heaven.

One thing is certain: there is a form in which all that we call romance in the affection and devotion of Ruth to Naomi has its full and perfect counterpart in real life-and that is, in every instance of true love to Christ. The redeemed soul would be guilty of no exaggeration in addressing Christ in the words of Ruth, so far as they can be accommodated to its circumstances: "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest, will I die.". Peter did not offer and resolve more than it was his duty to offer and resolve when he said, "Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." His fault lay in the selfconfident spirit in which he spoke, and in the non-fulfilment of his word. Christ said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth

of me.

-Matt. x. 37, 38. After His resurrection He said to Peter, "When thou wast young, thot girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest : but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.' This spake He, we are told, signifying by what death Peter should glorify God. And when He had spoken this, foretelling and picturing the cross on which Peter should die for His sake, He said unto him, "Follow me. And Peter with this cross full in view, did not hesitate for a moment, but followed Christ. The memory of his fall was sufficient to prevent his saying in words, "I will, Lord-I will follow Thee to prison and to death." But he did it. And he did no more than is the bounden duty of every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ. The romantic attachment, if you will have it so, of the young Moabitess to her mother-in-law, is but a type of the common, real, everyday attachment of the redeemed soul to Christ.

In this we have the very spirit of Paul's words to the Hebrews, "Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." -Hebrews xiii. 13. The Jewish practice, on which the form of the exhortation is founded, needs but little comment. "The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp." It was so when Israel was in the wilderness, and when his dwelling was a camp. After the sanctuary was permanently established in Jerusalem, the bodies of the beasts that were slain in sacrifice were burnt without