He called them to be, to do, and to suffer. But such details are only remotely connected with the object of this work. No inconsiderable step has been made, however, if it appear from what has been shewn, that, even during the theocracy, the priesthood was chartered and limited, and had no exclusive right, either to dictate arbitrarily to the people on the subject of religion, or to make positive institutes of their own. Many institutions were made, however; and let it be granted that the spirit of these institutions implied an uniformity over all, in the practice of religion. It was, indeed, in point of fact, more generally otherwise. But this need not be insisted in. Let an universal uniformity, in reference to the Mosaic dispensation, be granted. It will afterwards appear whether this makes for or against the views of this work. we must pass on. Here JETHRO. Let us, however, notice one event which happened almost at the beginning of the wanderings of the Israelites, which bears directly upon the question, whether, in order to a true communion of pious men, there must be an uniformity over all, or whether an unity in the spirit of true religion, though there be variety in external forms, be not enough. I allude to the meeting of Moses and Jethro in the wilderness. And what does this meeting prove? Does it not shew most clearly that all peculiar as the Mosaic dispensation was, yet, when rightly understood, it admitted fully of the catholicity of true religion? For what were the circumstances of the case? Jethro was a patriarch residing over his family and dependents in a part of Arabia, not far distant from that which the Israelites were to pass through. In our public version of the Bible he is called the priest of Midian, but it is well known that the Hebrew word here rendered priest signifies also prince, and that Jethro might equally well have been called the prince of Median. He was, in fact, both. He was a patriarch; and although in Egypt, on the western side of the Red Sea, humanity had long since left the patriarchal constitution and the purity of the patriarchal religion, yet, in the land of Median, both seem to have existed still. And Jethro was in every point of view worthy of religious communion with the chosen people of God. Well, this he fully enjoyed when they met. Notwithstanding the great differences in religious circumstances of the two parties, nothing could be more congenial than their intercourse. Nor was the interchange of thought and feeling between them of a friendly and secular character only. It was of a religious nature also. In order to be convinced of this, it is only necessary to peruse the passage of Exodus,* where their interview is recorded. It is thus concluded:-" And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God." In other words, the Jewish high priest and the whole representatives of the congregation joined cordially in communion with these stranger but pious Midianites. Not one stood aloof. All united. Such was the meeting of Moses and Jethro. It reminds us of the meeting of Abraham and Melchisedec. Both are most beautiful displays of the catholic spirit of true religion. Both teach most expressly that wherever we find true religion, the fear of God, and personal piety, there we find the just grounds of evangelical intercourse, esteem, and love, however considerable the difference in externals, whether of language, country, or religious forms. Both teach that there may be an ordained priesthood without an exclusive spirit, and that * Exod. xviii. 12. ministers of religion of different denominations, and their people along with them, may and ought to preserve the unity of spirit in the bonds of peace, may and ought to * meet each other as Christian brethren, each esteeming another better than himself,* each esteeming all upon a footing of equal recognition and honour. In these cases, however, in the ancient church, and in all similar cases, the grace of God has much to do before such a beautiful result can be obtained. And especially with respect to the sacred order, as its spiritual privileges in general are greater than those of the other classes of the community, so, in this particular matter, are its trials greater. Instead of an open-heartedness to religious communion with all who love the Lord Jesus, the sacerdotal spirit is quite of another stamp; and, therefore, it happens too generally, that instead of being the first, priests and even pastors who differ are the last to agree. Instead "of being examples to their flocks,"+ like Abraham, Melchisedec, Moses, and Jethro, they are too often the hinderance and the reproach each of his own congregation or church. And this not so much because each is in all things behind others who see him to be wrong in this particular, or because he is either naturally as a man, or privately as a Christian, of an exclusive spirit ; but because he is of the sacerdotal order, and feels the dignity of his calling, and is betrayed by this feeling into a spirit of exclusiveness and despotism, through want of grace proportional. The spirit of James and John in the early days of their ministry, is too apt to be that of their successors all their days. Nothing but the spirit of Christ can keep the zealous from preaching by fire. To rest satisfied simply in turning away from those who will not receive us, and in shaking off the dust of their city from our shoes, and to leave altogether our own justifica† 1 Peter v. 3. * Phil, ii. 3. tion and their condemnation to the judgment, is what our office wholly indisposes us for, and nothing but eminent grace can enable us to do it. And let not these remarks be taken amiss by the clergy, since the author · thus does not scruple to identify himself with the order, one of whose tendencies he thus condemns. THE CONSTITUTION. The sketch of sacred history, which we are now taking, would be equally available for illustrating the catholicity of good civil government, did that subject lie within our sphere. The doctrine of unity of spirit in variety of form, is every where illustrated in the proceedings of Providence, whether in regulating the economy of nature or the constitution of human society. Of this we have a remarkable instance in the epoch of history which we have now hurriedly glanced at. Thus God gave the Egyptians one constitution through Joseph, the Israelites another through Moses. The God who gave both was one. The spirit of both was one, and yet the form of the one differed widely from that of the other. And, in fact, it was only by instituting such a difference in form, that the unity of spirit and of object in reference to both could be manifested and maintained. For when two people differ from each other in their civilization, manners, moral condition, and moral diseases, then, in order that any proposed result, as, for instance, the best state of moral health, may be attained, the appliances, the medicines, must plainly be different in the two cases. And so it was in reference to Egypt and Israel. In Egypt, before Joseph's day, a multitude of independent chiefs or princes kept the nation always disunited, always in fragments, and, consequently, always weak, exposed, and unhappy. What was necessary for the strength and stability of the nation, and the happiness of the Egyptian people, was unity and centralization of the government. But in order to this, the power of its many independent tribes and princedoms must be reduced. Accordingly, Joseph, divinely assisted, and with corn as his weapon, reduced all the independences into one great nation, and united all its princes as subjects of Pharaoh. This did Joseph under God for Egypt; and hence, in a great measure, if not altogether, the greatness of that nation above the other nations of antiquity. God's dealings with the Israelites, on the other hand, were altogether different from this; and that just because their moral condition and their wants were altogether different. Instead of being the spirited vassals of independent princes, whom a famine must humble before they would receive a good and a united government, the Israelites were abject slaves, who would take nothing upon themselves, and who needed to be miraculously fed by food from heaven. Instead of being disposed to take any share in the government, or to consider the difficult times that Moses had to deal with, they merely cried out against their ruler for every evil that befel them. Such was their case. It contrasted in every feature with that of the spirited Egyptians. Instead of being subdued, therefore, the Israelites needed rather to be taught the difficulty of governing, by each man having something given him to do. Their character needed to be developed by the dignity and responsibility which franchise and a voice. in the state confer. In a word, they needed to be constituted members of a republic-so ordered, however, that it might not fall into anarchy through the incompetence of the many to administer it. Now this is just the form of government which God instituted through Moses among the chosen people. And thus we see, emanating |