for to do otherwise would be to abandon the essential doctrine of his creed, that the Papacy is of divine appointment. As far as the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, or the Congregationalist holds to the jure divino doctrine in regard to his own denomination, too, in this respect, he accords with the Roman Catholic, and must, if consistent, be exclusive also; for it cannot be supposed that modes of government that differ as widely as the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, and the Independent, are all of divine origin, and have all been prescribed as the constituted form of government in the Church. We do not see how it is. possible to avoid exclusiveness if the doctrine of the jure divino prescription of that mode of church government be held; and we must look to some other ground than this for the recognition of other denominations than our own. The Roman Catholic denomination has never recognized any other denomination as having any claim to the Christian name; and with the views which many Episcopalians and Presbyterians have, we do not see how they can consistently recognize any other. If any one mode of church organization has been prescribed in the New Testament, we do not see how there can be any other that is to be recognized as entitled to the name of a Church. If one pattern for the tabernacle was prescribed in the mount, we do not see how another, formed on a different model, could have been recognized as the true tabernacle. If the people of the United States have prescribed a republican form of government as essential to the admission of a new State into the Union, we do not see how a State under a monarchical mode of government could be properly recognized as one of those States. There is, however, no such prescribed form of Church organization in the New Testament. There is no one form so clearly specified as to give to any one class of Christians a right to exclude others from a claim to be recognized as a part of the true Church of Christ. This, to our minds, is perfectly clear; and we do not see how it can be doubted by any one who looks candidly and impartially at the subject. Nothing is more certain that, in respect to this point, it has never been possible so to prove, that any one form, either of baptism or Church government, has been so prescribed in the New Testament as to exclude all others. Men equally learned, equally pious, equally emi

nent in talent, and equally useful, have embraced different views on the subject of organization of the Church, and the modes and forms of worship. In their particular organization, for reasons which may be hereafter stated, they may have served the cause of religion more usefully and more acceptably than they would have done in another form of organization, or in the use of other forms of worship, but not more usefully or more acceptably than other men, equally learned and equally pious, have in the mode which seemed to them to be in accordance with the requirements and the spirit of the Bible.

If the Saviour had designed that the constitution of the Church should be exclusively Episcopal, and had had the views on that subject which Episcopalians themselves have, it would have been so specified that it could not be possible to misapprehend his meaning-for Episcopalians now have no doubt. as to what they regard as the true constitution of the Church. If it had been his intention that it should be exclusively Presbyterian or Congregational, the specification would have been made with equal precision. These modes of government are not alike, nor can one be easily mistaken for the other; and a specification of any one of them would have so excluded the others, that there could have been no danger of misapprehension on the subject. It would be impossible so to interpret the constitution of England as to suppose that it prescribed a Republican form of government; it would have been impossible so to interpret the constitution of Venice as to make it sustain a monarchical form of administration; it would be equally impossible so to interpret the Constitution of the United States as to justify the establishment of a monarchy. The simple truth is, that the people of England meant that their government should be monarchical, and that idea has been unmistakably incorporated into their unwritten constitution; that the people of Venice meant that their government should be an oligarchy, and that idea was unmistakably impressed on their constitution; and that the people of this country meant that the government should be republican, and that idea has been so incorporated in the Constitution that it is impossible to misapprehend it. And thus it would have been in the Christian Church if its Head and Founder had in

tended that it should be exclusively Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent. But that idea is not so expressed. It is not, in this respect, an idea as clear, explicit, and exclusive in regard to either of these forms of administration, as the idea of a monarchy is in the English constitution, the idea of an oligarchy in the constitution of Venice, or the idea of a republic in the constitution of the United States. There is no such specification in the New Testament that the Church is to be organized. on any one of these plans, or after any one of these models, as there is in the constitution of the United States that the government shall be republican; and all attempts to prove that the New Testament is thus explicit, have been, and must always be, an absolute failure.

Two principles seem, so far as we can understand the matter, to have guided the divine mind in the directions in the New Testament in the establishment and organization of the Christian church. One is, that the essentials of religion, or the things which are indispensable to salvation, should be clearly defined: that they should be the same in regard to all ages of the world, all countries, all periods of life, all classes and conditions of men, and all the forms of society, whether barbarous or civilized. The other is, that in things which are not essential, there should be liberty:—that the church should adapt itself in its development to different states of society; to the tastes and the intellectual habits of individuals; to the modes of civil government which may prevail; and to the voluntary preferences of men. The former of these was necessary, because the matter pertained to essential right; because there are truths which are vital to the salvation of men; because these truths in no wise depend on the peculiarities of any age. or condition of life, on any conventional arrangement or locality of situation, on any form of civil government, or on any grade of education, talent or civilization in those who embrace them. They are founded on the nature of things. They are not susceptible of change. They are unchangeable so long as the nature of the things to which they relate remains unchanged. The great truths pertaining to God and his law; to the work, the person, and the doctrines of the Redeemer; to the plan of salvation, and to its claims on mankind; to the obligations of

truth, of justice and of humanity, are not susceptible of change. The law of God is always and equally binding on all men. Every man is, and must be, bound to love and obey God. Every sinner must be saved in the same way. There can be but one form of truth in respect to the condition of man under an apostacy; to the way by which the heart of man is renewed; to the doctrine of justification; to the method in which a sinner may become righteous before God. In all lands, and among all conditions of people where the Gospel is preached, the same essential truth must be presented on these subjects, and it must be essential in the existence of a church, that these truths should be embraced.

But it is not thus in respect to the other class of the things specified. There is a class of subjects in respect to which there should be liberty in the church, and in respect to which there may be variety of opinion in the church. That class of subjects, not being essential to salvation, pertains to the best mode of civil or ecclesiastical organization; to the forms of worship in which the great essential truths of religion shall be expressed and embodied; and to the different methods in which the same great truths shall be brought to bear on the understandings and the consciences of men. In respect to these the best interests of the church demand that there should be liberty; the best interests of truth itself will be sccured if the whole arrangement is so left that there may be variety" in things essential, unity; in things not essential, liberty; in all things, charity." There may have been measures wisely adapted to the promotion of religion in the times when Christianity was first promulgated, which could not be regarded as of binding and permanent obligation on the church, and which would not be wise now; there may be forms of worship adapted to promote the edification of one class to whom the Gospel is addressed, and to secure the best influence of truth on that class, which would be less wisely adapted to another class than some other forms would be; there may be an organization of the church that shall be better fitted to our age, or the prevailing notions of government in our land, than some other form could be; there may be minds that would best accomplish the purposes of an organization in a church under

the Episcopal mode of government than they could under a Presbyterian organization, and there may be those which would better accomplish the ends of an organization in the church under a Congregational or an Independent form than either.

These facts, we think, lay a foundation for different denominations in the church, and have been, and are to be, the guide in the formation of such denominations, and in their mutual recognition of each other.

To express more fully our views, and to show what we regard as the true position on this subject, we will suggest somewhat more particularly what we consider to be the points on which there may be variety, consistently with the proper notion of essential unity in the Church: what is the proper notion of liberty, and within what limits there should be charity and mutual recognition.

(a.) First, then, in respect to forms of government. We apprehend that this subject is left in the church, precisely as it is in civil matters. It is impossible now, whatever may once have been thought on the subject, for any man to demonstrate that any one form of civil government has been prescribed by divine authority, or that all governments in the world are, by divine direction, to be either monarchical, republican, or aristocratic, or that any one of them will be more acceptable to God, than either of the others. The great principle is laid down in the Bible, that there should be civil government; that subjection to an existing government, unless it becomes so oppressive as to justify revolution, is a duty, and that its laws should be obeyed. But it is impossible to make out a prescribed civil constitution from the Bible; impossible to prove that any one form of administration was furnished for all people and all lands. And the reason why this subject was left in this manner is plain. The idea at the basis of all the injunctions on the subject of government in the Scriptures, undoubtedly is, that, while government of some kind is essential to the prosperity of a country, and while obedience to the laws is necessary to the good of the whole, it is desirable in respect to the form of government, under which they shall live, or the mode of administering the laws, that men should be free; that is, there would be more advantage in freedom, than in a pre