be spilt abroad, -forgetting that, in this our state of imperfect selfcontroll, forms and ordinances imposed from without are wholesome and necessary, and that it is a higher act of freedom to submit to them than to reject them. They are too apt to fall short-who indeed does not?-of that heavenly Wisdom, which taught, These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others undone.

But further, I would contend that uniformity, in the sense which in these days is usually attacht to that word, is by no means necessarily or essentially the form in which unity manifests itself; that, on the contrary, the injudicious pursuit and enforcement of uniformity have oftentimes marred unity, and must do so, from engaging in an endless struggle to efface and destroy that diversity and variety, which God has ordained shall prevail in every part of the creation. This desire of imposing uniformity is one of the commonest errours of our weak, selfrelying, narrowhearted, stiffminded nature. For it is not a desire of raising ourselves and our brethren up to some ideal standard. He who could frame such a conception, would likewise discern that the only way of approximating to its accomplishment is by animating men with the same principles, and stirring them to realize those principles, as best they may, according to the gifts they have received. Nor will the seeker after uniformity be studious to conform his own conduct to that of his neighbours. Such an attempt would indeed imply an amiable humility: but it would be impracticable, since, while shaping ourselves after the model of one, we should be receding from thousands; and it would often involve a sacrifice of honest convictions. They however who want the whole world to walk in one way, are sure to

mean at bottom that this way shall be their own way. The one exemplary unit, to which men have wisht that all others should conform, has always been more or less that which occupies the largest space in our intellectual field of vision, and with the notions and feelings, the habits and circumstances of which we are the most familiar. Indeed, inasmuch as it is a point of duty to take care that what we do shall be that which our deliberate judgement deems best and fittest, a slight logical oversight will infer that the selfsame course must be best and fittest for others; although differences of position, of relations, of education, of character, of moral and intellectual habits, give rise to endless varieties in that which is obligatory and expedient.

:

Delusions of this kind have been a perpetual source of misconceptions, misjudgement, contemptuous and hostile feelings, and even of overt enmity, in every region in which man has had to act but they have been far the most hurtful in the Church; because in questions pertaining to religion we too readily identify our will with God's will, and thus, instead of being checkt by that deference for others which practical life breeds, grow to fancy ourselves bound to carry our will into effect; and because all constraint from without is injurious to that, which can have no true worth, except as the free and reasonable service of the heart and mind. In the very first age of the Church obstinate attempts were made to enforce rites and ordinances, which were outward, typical, unessential, and therefore finite, mutable, and transitory. Nay, the purpose of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, which in this as in other respects differed so widely from other Councils, was to put an end to dissension by sanctioning

diversity of practice and though two positive regulations were enacted, as expedient under the circumstances of the Church at Jerusalem, it was soon felt that these regulations also were merely local and temporary; wherefore the Church, in a wise exercise of her liberty, thought right to remit them. St Paul too had to struggle over and over against one form or other of this delusion; and hence it is in his writings that we best learn what are the true principles of unity, and how to discriminate them from those rules of uniformity, which men are ever setting up in their stead. The former, it has often been recognized, are proclaimed for all ages of the Church in those sublime verses of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which are the text of this Sermon: and those verses are followed by an enumeration of the different gifts and offices bestowed on the various members of Christ's body, which are to work effectually in union, so that the whole body shall be joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth. Again, what a lesson full of heavenly wisdom does he give to the Church in the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans! a lesson which the Church has grievously disregarded, and against which she has frequently sinned; nay, which has been shamefully evaded by persons bearing rule in the Church, under the plea that it related merely to those early ages, when Christians were living in the midst of a heathen world; as if the principles urged through that whole chapter were not of lasting obligation; as if its precepts were anything else than a setting forth of that gentleness and forbearance and love, which ought to guide the disciples of Christ in all their dealings with each other, so that no one may destroy or hurt any of those for whom Christ died. Or

shall we rather open the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in order to learn how there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, and differences of administrations, but the same Lord, and diversities of operations, but the same God working all in all? and how it is the will of God that the body should not be one member, but many, each performing its part in ministering to the body, and to every other member of it? and how a far higher wisdom is manifested in the union of all these diverse members into one body, than if the body were all one member? I know not what words could prove more convincingly than this whole passage, that uniformity is not the essential form of unity, but that unity, according to the riches and fulness which God has been pleased to shew forth in His world, manifests itself best in diversity.

Here I cannot help asking you whether there is not something slightly "rhetorical" in your own antithesis, that "uniformity even without unity is at least better than discrepancy added to disunion." For, since the persons who fall under your reproof draw a broad distinction between unity and uniformity, so as even to oppose" them to each other, it seems plain they cannot be advocating "discrepancy added to disunion," but must rather be maintaining the very truth urged by St Paul, that unity manifests itself in diversity. And as they set the two ideas of unity and uniformity in opposition, they must probably contend, with much truth, though, it may be, with some exaggeration, — that, according to the laws of nature, of man's moral nature, as well as that of the outward world, a real living mighty unity cannot manifest itself otherwise than in diversity. This proposition would seem indeed to be directly opposed

to yours, that "uniformity is the silent and symbolical language of unity;" and still more to that implied in the question which follows: "What is the variety of nature but the uniform expression of a variety of laws, not a various expression of any one law?" But as the word uniformity, like every other abstract term which gets into general circulation, has become somewhat ambiguous, it is possible that some part of the apparent contradiction may arise out of this ambiguity. In our popular speech, I conceive, uniformity means identity in outward form or act, more especially when used with reference to the Church and its services, being generally associated with the Act of Uniformity, by which that identity was enjoined ; and we use the term equally, whether the outward identity result from an identity of inward principles, or be imposed compulsorily by some external power. This however is very different from Hooker's meaning, when he says (E. P. iii. 1. 3), “The Unity of the Church of Christ consisteth in that Uniformity which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all profess themselves, that one Faith which they all acknowledge, that one Baptism wherewith they are all initiated." For this uniformity of the members of Christ means their being actuated by the same formative principles, and is perfectly compatible, as Hooker contends throughout his great work, with wide diversities of civil, moral, and religious acts. Hence that which is said in behalf of uniformity in Hooker's sense of the word, is no argument in favour of that very different uniformity which has been imposed on us by the Acts

of our Legislature. Both may be good;

but as logicians,

in arguing for the latter, we must beware of using