fence of our rights, and the permanence of our independence.

The subject under consideration may be further illustrated, by an extension of the comparison we have used. Since the establishment of our national independence, and the due organization of our federal government, we have witnessed serious political divisions. Systematically organized parties have several times arisen. Parties in politics have been loud, persevering, and even vehement against each other; and have strongly maintained widely different opinions concerning men and measures. But do these divisions endanger our independence, or our national existence? We trust not. But why? Because the foundation remains firm and immovable; and all parties look to it, and refer to it; and all parties will defend it. The spirit of union still lives, and we trust it will live, until the principles it has supported in our happy country shall universally prevail, to the destruction of tyranny, and the liberation of the human race.

Notwithstanding the seeming opposition of political parties, now existing, in our republic, should a design be formed by a foreign power to wrest the boon of liberty from us, and subject us to arbitrary power; should the fleets of such an enemy appear in our waters, and his armies attempt to land on our shores, we should soon see the American standard unfurled, and all eyes directed to the E Pluribus Unum, significant of a united people.

Like what we have noticed in our national concerns, we learn, by history, that after the apostolic age of the church, various and conflicting doctrines were introduced; divers sects arose; sectional interests obtained their respective votaries, and much contention rent asunder those who ought to have strove for the unity of the spirit, in the bonds of peace. And the present condition of the great christian community presents an aspect which indicates very little of that sacred union, in which the Saviour prayed that his disciples might be kept. But is christianity in danger of being overthrown, by these divisions? We trust not. Why? Because the foundation remains; and we believe it will remain forever. All sects and denominations of christians look to it; all refer to it; and all will endeavor to support it. Whoever attempts to demolish christianity, or to remove the foundation thereof; let his philosophy be ever so subtle; his reasoning ever so plausible; or his attacks ever so bold and daring; will be met directly on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner

stone.

We may now direct our inquiries to an inves tigation of the means, by which Jesus prayed his disciples might be kept united; "Holy Fa

ther, keep through thine own name, those thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." It was the NAME of the Father, through, or by which Jesus prayed that his disciples might have their union maintained. It is evident that Jesus meant the same by name, as he did by word. See verse 6th of the chapter in which our text si recorded: "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word." Verse 8th-For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them." Verse 12th While I was with them in the world I kept them in thy name.' Verse 14th'I have given them thy word.' Verse 26th'I have declared unto them thy name.'. Το take up time in proving that, by the name of his Father, Jesus meant the doctrine which he was sent to preach, seems quite unnecessary, as it is presumed no one doubts it.

We now find a subject before us of immense moment; a subject concerning which many controversies have been carried on in the church, for ages, employing all the talent and learning, which the schools, could bring to the contest. Numerous creeds have been drawn up by councils, venerable, in the world's estimation, for their profound learning, deep study, and great piety. These wise productions have widely

varied from each other; and generally contain the greatest contradictions in themselves. So deep and profound have been their mysteries, that the learned doctors of the church have found it necessary to write voluminously, to explain them to the common people; but the common people can no better understand these explanations, than they can the contradictions in the creeds themselves.

We certainly owe it to our subject as well as to ourselves, to ask, why these numerous, and conflicting, and contradictory creeds, have been written. Was it to make divine truth plainer than it is as expressed in the words which the Father gave to the Son, and which the Son gave to his disciples? If the creeds which men have written, make the doctrine of the Saviour no plainer, no casier to be understood, than do the words of Jesus, there seems to be no need of their having been written at all.

It is a fact, which ought to be seriously regarded, that the example of writing creeds was never set by Jesus or his apostles. Yet no author ever expressed a single tenet more plainly than he expressed all which is necessary for us to believe. Do we desire to know the disposition of our heavenly Father towards us; and our duty to each other? And do we desire to understand the real difference between what the wisdom of God teaches on these important points, and that which is taught by man's imperfect wisdom? All this we have in the following words: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and . persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil, and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more more than these? do not even the publicans so? Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.'

If Jesus had intended to express the universal love of God to mankind, and the impartial operations of that love, how could he have expressed it more plainly, than he did in the passage just quoted? And who can doubt, for one moment, that it was the purpose of the divine teacher to enforce the duty of our loving all men, and of doing good to all, in imitation of the conduct of our heavenly Father? Let us further ask; if Jesus had been as careful to guard his hearers against the doctrine of God's universal, impartial goodness, as our clergy now are, could he have made use of more dangerous compari