312 of great depression, yea, almost of Yet though the parable, when moral- which might be inferred the resurrec- him return unto the Lord; and he our God, for he will abundantly parwill have mercy upon hind; and to dun. SERMON IV. PROTESTANTISM AND POPERY. “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."-Romans, 12 : 13. charity, full and fervent charity, towards men most vehement in their enmity; but, at the same time, there was an unflinching exposure of their faults, and a determined opposition to their practices. In one of those touching addresses | peace with those around. There was which Christ delivered to his disciples shortly before his crucifixion, he bequeathed them, as you will remember, the legacy of peace. "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you." It is observable that the peace, thus left us by Christ, is emphatically his peace; "my peace I give unto you -and accordingly, we have a petition in our litany, "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace." Though bearing the title of the Prince of Peace, we know that Christ said in regard of himself, "Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I am not come to send peace, but a sword." Hence it may be inferred that the peace, which may be called Christ's peace, that which Christ bequeathed and for which we pray, is not a peace which is necessarily to banish all divisions, but which is rather to subsist in the midst of divisions. The peace which Christ enjoyed as the founder of christianity, and which he may be regarded as intending when he spake of his peace, resulted from a consciousness that he was doing the will of God, and promoting the good of man. It was an internal rather than an external peace: for without were wars and fightings, the opposition of avowed enemies, and the coldness and suspicion even of friends. His peace, therefore, was not We may safely declare of Christ, that he never purchased peace by any thing like compromise. Though his heart overflowed with love towards the whole human race, he was far from being indulgent to their sins; on the contrary, he was too much their friend to be any thing but the stern reprover of their vices. Hence he had peace of conscience, rather than of condition: he indeed desired, and labored for both; but living in the midst of a sinful and perverse generation, he could not be at peace with mankind, save by leaving them unrebuked; and this would have been to purchase quiet by neglecting duty. The church, therefore, may thoroughly possess the lega cy of peace bequeathed to her by Christ, and yet have no concord with the great mass of men. It may even be bound on her to do much by which, to all appearance, divisions will be fomented: for if she would imitate Christ, and thus enjoy his peace, she must be bold in denouncing every error, and never think that true brotherhood can be maintained by compromising principles. It is unquestionably her business to follow after the things that make for peace;" but she is to take special care, lest, in her eagerness to prevent discord, she surrender truth, and ward off separations by unwarrantable sacrifices. Now the words of our text may be said to contemplate exactly that peace which may thus be regarded as bequeathed to us by Christ. The apostle enjoins as a duty, that we strive to live peaceably with all; but plainly intimates that it would be difficult to do so, or perhaps even impossible. He introduces two restrictive clauses, "if it be possible," and, "as much as lieth in you: "the latter implying that there were cases in which it would be a christian's own fault if disunion ensued; the former, that, probably, no amount of diligence and care could insure the universal harmony. It would seem, indeed, from the context of the verse, that St. Paul refers not so much to schisms in the visible church, as to differences and quarrels between man and man. But a rule, designed for the guidance of christians in their individual, must be applicable also in their collective capacity. If it be the duty of every member of the church, so far as in him lies, to live peaceably with others, it must undoubtedly be the duty of the church, as a body, to do all in her power towards promoting union and preventing schism. In each case, however, there may be a point at which separation becomes unavoidable; and therefore are the words, "if it be possible," prefixed to the precept. In the instance of an individual, the conduct of others may be so injurious and oppressive, that, with every disposition to concede, and the greatest patience under wrong, it may be absolutely necessary to shun intercourse, and even to adopt measures for self-defence. In the instance of a church, the tenets of some of her professed members may be so inconsistent with truth, or their practice so opposed to the Gospel, that to retain them in her communion would be faithlessness to her Master. Or a church, in her collective capacity, may grievously depart from the faith once delivered to the saints:" she may introduce unsound doctrines, or superstitious observances: and then may it be the duty of those of her members, who are still zealous for "truth as it is in Jesus," to protest firmly against the abomination, and finally to dissolve their union with that church, if she will not put from her the falsehood and idolatry. The main thing to be borne in mind, is, as we have already intimated, that peace is too dearly purchased, if purchased by the least surrender of principle. That unity deserves not the name, which is produced by the resolution of avoiding, by mutual concessions, all differences in opinion. On points which are not fundamental much may be done by mutual concessions: and they must have much to answer for, who have torn and divided the visible church, when the matter in debate has been one of mere ceremony, or, at least, one involving nothing of indispensable truth. We doubt whether the mass of those, who, in modern days, have introduced sects and divisions amongst christians, could prove, in vindication of their conduct, that they had implicitly obeyed the direction of our text. It might be hard to show, if the grounds of separation were rigidly examined, that the impossible point had been reached, the point, that is, at which, if union be preserved, fundamental truth must be compromised. It should then only be impossible to a christian to live peaceably, when, to avoid schism, he must toler ate fatal error. And if separatists cannot make good their separation on this simple principle, their failing to live peaceably is not to be sheltered under the first clause of our text: it must rather vindicate itself by the second, as much as in you lieth;" and then there is a question which none but God can decide, how far the infirmity, which caused unnecessary division, was sinful, and how far unavoidable. But whatever may be determined in regard of any particular case of an infraction of peace, the general rule, already stated, is manifestly correct, that whatever is not fundamental should be given up for the sake of peace; but that there must be war and separation, if, in maintaining peace, we have to compromise truth. We admit indeed that there will be difficulty in applying this rule; for since the Bible nowhere divides doctrines into those which are fundamental, and those which are not, there may be difference of opinion as to the class to which a certain truth belongs, and, therefore, also doubt as to whether it should be enforced at the risk of a schism. But if Scripture have not made a division of its truths, there are some which manifestly belong to the very essence of christianity; whilst others, though full of worth and instruction, are as manifestly subordinate, and fill a lower place in the christian economy. There are points on which difference of opinion may be safely permitted, and others on which unanimity is indispensable. There can, for example, be no sufficient reason for breaking the bond of peace in the matter of predestination; the members of a church may abide in perfect harmony, though some hold, and others do not, the doctrine of personal election. But if the debated point be the divinity of Christ, or the impossibility of justification except through his merits, there must be unanimity, at whatever cost obtained. Christianity is nothing if these points be denied; and therefore must a christian church, if it would not forfeit its character, separate boldly from all by whom they are rejected. It might justly be expected from us, under ordinary circumstances, that we should examine, in greater detail, and with more precision, where the point lies at which peace can be preserved only by compromising principle. But the occasion requires us to speak with peculiar reference to Popery and the English Reformation. And I, for one, am glad to avail myself of the opportunity. I cannot put away the persuasion, that there has been amongst protestants a growing ignorance and indifference with regard to points in dispute between the Reformed Church and the Papal; and a strengthening opinion that the two, after all, differ in little that is vital. And this degeneracy of protestantism has given encouragement to popery; so that the false system, against which our fathers rose manfully up, and in expelling which they perilled substance and life, has been putting forth tokens of strength and expansion. If this be true, great and manifest is the need, that you be reminded of your privileges, and warned against "the man of sin ;" and I could not feel justified in neglecting an op portunity of addressing you specifical ly as protestants. Now we have selected our text in preference to many which might seem more appropriate, because we consider that every point, on which it is important that your minds be strengthened or informed, is involved in the question, can we, as disciples of Christ, live peaceably with Rome? "If it be possible," saith the apostle, "as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men." Apply this rule to a church; and then, as we have shown you, it undoubtedly demands that there be nothing of schism or separation, so long as principles are not sacrificed for the sake of keeping peace. It warrants us in nothing that can be called a rending of the visible church, if we cannot prove that we have reached the point at which union is no longer possible; at which, that is, if union be preserved, it must be at the expense of conscience, and with mortal injury to truth. And therefore our text requires us, if we would vindicate any separation-such, for instance, as that of the English church from the Roman-to prove, by most rigid demonstration, that separation had become absolutely a duty; and that, if it had been avoided in order to preserve peace, there would have been a surrender of the principles of the Gospel of Christ. Thus we are thrown on examining the reasons which led our forefathers to break off communion with the Roman catholic church, and which justify our own refusal to give to that church the right hand of fellowship. We need hardly observe that these reasons cannot be expounded, save by a statement of the doctrines of popery, as contrasted with those of protestantism; so that, in proving to you that the Reformation involved no disobedience to the precept of our text, we shall inform or remind you of those great points of difference which separate between our own church and the papal. It will be well, however, that before entering on the inquiry thus suggested, we take notice of the common accusation, that we were guilty of schism at the Reformation, and continue chargeable with this guilt, so long as we return not into the bosom of the Roman catholic church. We shall, therefore, make it our business to en deavor, in the first place, to show you that there was no schism, properly so called, in our separation from Rome; in the second place, to prove to you that the separation was demanded, and is still justified by the corruptions of Rome. what would have been their duty under such circumstances; we now only state that, before the charge of schism, properly so called, can be substantiated, popery must be proved true, in the article of the universal headship of the pope; for unless this be true, there could be nothing schismatical in England's refusing to acknowledge any longer the authority of the Roman bishop, and re-establishing the supremacy of her own king in all causes, ecclesiastical and civil. Now it is one of the great doctrines of popery, as you must all be aware, that the pope, who is the bishop of the Roman church, is the head also of the universal church of Christ, so that he is vested with supreme authority over all bishops and pastors in every section of the earth. This pretended supremacy of the pope we utterly reject; declaring that it can find no syllable of vindication in the Bible, and maintaining it to be a modern and insolent assumption, of which no trace can be found in the early ages of christianity. The Bible no where hints that there was to be such an universal head of the church as the pope professes to be; and centuries elapsed before the bishops of Rome discovered, that, as St. Peter's successors, they had right to this universal lordship. We contend, therefore, against the doctrine of papal supremacy as utterly unsanctioned, whether by Scripture or antiquity; and we maintain that the pope could have had no power, except by usurpation, over the branch of Christ's church established in this land. He indeed claimed a power, and, during the long night of ignorance, the claim was conceded. But we utterly deny that he had right to any power, because we utterly deny that, as bishop of Rome, he was vested with authority over other parts of Christ's church. Whatever his sway in his own district, England was no part of that district; and if England, in her ignorance, had given him power, England, when better taught, did but justly in withdrawing that power. Hence there was nothing which, with the least show of justice, could be called schism, in the separation of the English church from the Roman. There might have been schism, had the doctrine of Roman catholics been true, that the pope is the universal head of the church; for then would the re-ed as supreme in every ecclesiastical formers have withdrawn an allegiance which they were required to yield, and detached themselves from the visible body of Christ. It is another question, And we need not say that we are not much troubled with the accusation of schism, so long as it cannot be made good till popery have been proved true. It is somewhat bold to call us schismatics, when the name takes for granted what we contend against as false, that the Roman Catholic Church includes the whole visible. And we wish you to observe, that there were no spiritual ties which necessarily bound together England and Rome. We were not indebted to Rome for our christianity. Whatever may be thought of the opinion which has been supported with great learning and ability, that St. Paul himself preached the Gospel in Britain, and ordained a bishop here before there was any in Rome; so that the Anglican Church would be older than the Roman; it is, at least, certain that christianity made its way into these islands at a very early period; and that, when the missionaries of Rome first visited our shores, they found a christian church already established, a church whose bishops refused submission to the pope, though, in process of time, that submission was yielded. On what principle, then, is it to be maintained, that the English church was so integral a portion of the Roman, that there could be no separation without the guilt of schism? The English church had been independent, governed by its own officers, and having no connection but that of a common brotherhood with other parts of Christ's visible body. And Rome came down upon it in subtilty and pride, putting forward arrogant claims, and asking to be receiv cause. The times were those in which moral darkness and mental were fast pervading the earth, and which therefore favored the bold pretensions of |