can resume her pristine glory and victorious energies? Since then, our sects, far from diminishing, have multiplied. The great body of sectarists whose watchword is, 'I am of Wesley,' have in particular formed themselves into a new and compact party, out-numbering, probably, the whole aggregate of Dissenters at the close of the seventeenth century. That body has at length split with its own weight; and we have now the organized sub-sects of Primitive Methodists, New Connection or Kilhamite Methodists, Independent Methodists, Bryanite Methodists, and Wesleyan Protestant Methodists. These various off-shoots from the Parent Connexion, already number upwards of 65,000 members. The Calvinistic Methodists of Lady Huntingdon's Connexion are a distinct body, comprising about 124 congregations in England, and not far short of 300 in Wales *. In Scotland also, the last century was not less fruitful in divisions and new denominations. In the United States of America, the dissidence of Dissent and the protest'antism of the Protestant religion,' have found the freest scope; and there, religious varieties court the choice of the most wayward and fastidious under all the advantages of an open market.

And where, it may be said, is the harm arising from this state of things? Are we not indebted to this multiplication of sects, this beneficial rivalry, this useful division of moral labour, for all the zeal, activity, and success which so pre-eminently characterize the present era? Let us hear the testimony of an intelligent, though not a religious traveller, as to the working of this system in the open field of the New World. Religious toleration has produced in America, an effect which, though 'natural, is curiously the reverse of what the advocates for a church "by law established" commonly predict. A monopoly, ' either in trade or religion, goes far to produce stagnation and 'decrement: ubi una, ibi nulla. Zeal cools, and faith decays, ' under the indolent governance of chartered pastors, with whom 'such external compliance as will assure them on the score of temporals, may be expected to form the chief part of their anxiety. When the monopoly is entirely close, the few in 'whose mind reason continues to assert her rights, have no resource but in such positive infidelity as will permit those out'ward compliances. A free competition, on the contrary, not ' only stimulates the zeal of all, because one sect has no advantage over another, except what it acquires by its own ex'ertions, but, in the many shades of belief it offers to the pub

6

* See a very valuable Tabular View of the different Denominations, in the Congregational Mag. Supplement for 1829.

lic choice, there are few so fastidious as not to find some ' colour suitable to their own complexion.'

There is, assuredly, considerable force in this statement. Infidelity has never prevailed so extensively and so fatally as under the cover of prescriptive and intolerant formalism. The stern voice of authority which forbids the believer to reason, virtually forbids the reasoner to believe. And in fact, by withdrawing the only legitimate evidence on which rational belief is founded, by separating faith from its only infallible rule and test, it scarcely leaves any alternative but unreasoning submission or unbounded scepticism. Under such a system, when invested with secular power, there are but two classes, the deceivers and the deceived; the credulous vulgar and the craftsmen who are behind the scenes; the fanatic and the hypocrite. Compared with such a state of things, that diversity of sects which is the reproach of Protestantism, is a gratifying spectacle, a healthful indication of the more vigorous pulse of religious life. Heresy, in most of its forms, is scarcely less opposed than orthodoxy to positive infidelity, and may almost be considered as so much gained from it. It is not that religious toleration multiplies diversities of opinion, but it lessens the amount of hypocrisy.

We are not to be frightened at the bugbear which the Roman Catholics dress up under the name of the Protestant hydra. Our sects are not in reality more numerous than have always existed within the pale of their Indivisible Church. The Church of Rome has ever been most tolerant towards all errors and heresies which left unquestioned her own authority,-towards all differences which did not, by their very nature, involve disruption. She has differed from herself and within herself more widely than any Protestant sects differ from each other; but, so long as her empire suffered no loss by open secession, she left her doctors, her canonists, and her religious orders, to dispute about points of faith as well as of discipline without check or reproof. The Church of Rome is one, only as a political society; her unity is purely political; and the only doctrine which binds together her members, as common to them all, is the doctrine of her own authority.

But, although the Oneness to which the Romanists lay claim on behalf of their Church, is a factitious and spurious unity, which we need not fear to have brought into contrast with Protestant dis-unity,-it must not be forgotten, that the argument in favour of their Church, founded on this assumption, derives its speciousness from the fact, that the true Church

* Hall's Travels in Canada (1819), p. 228.

Catholic is essentially One. Among the Roman Catholic's Reasons why he cannot conform to the Protestant Religion'* this is given as the fifth in order.

Because the Protestant Church has not those marks by which the Nicene Creed directs us to the true Church of Christ: it is not one, holy, catholic, and apostolical. It is not one; because the different branches of the pretended reformation are divided from one another in faith and communion: nay, scarce any two single men among them all are throughout of the same sentiments in religion and no wonder, since every man's private spirit is, with them, the ultimate judge of controversies, so that it is not possible they should ever be brought to unity in religion.'

In this statement, there is either an ignorant or a wilful misrepresentation of the Protestant principle, combined with the most dishonest exaggeration of the diversities of sentiment in Protestant communions. But passing over this, we must admit, that here is an apparent difficulty, which every one who professes his belief in one catholic and apostolic church' must be concerned to have fairly met. The Papist may be sufficiently answered, by retorting upon him the allegation, that his Church is neither one, nor holy, nor apostolic, nor Catholic. It never included within its pale the Eastern and African patriarchates, and is, therefore, according to his own definition, destitute of the slightest claims to universality. The Romanists must annihilate the Greek Church, before they can with the slightest colour style their own Church Catholic in their own sense. Calvin has plied the Papists with this argumentum ad hominem. 'I ask them, why they assert that the Church has been lost among the Greeks, among whom there has never been any 'interruption of that succession of bishops which they consider 'as the sole guard and preservative of the Church. They call 'the Greeks schismatical. For what reason? Because it is

6

pretended they have lost their privilege by revolting from the Apostolical see. But do they not much more deserve to lose 'it, who have revolted from Christ himself.' +

The very title assumed by the Church of Rome, conveys an historical untruth. It is as false to assert, that it has extended to all nations, as that it has existed in all ages. It is as far from

*These Reasons', printed by Keating and Brown, form one of a series of cheap Tracts well adapted for circulation among the ignorant of the lower classes. Reason 4. is: 'Because Luther and the first 'Protestants, when they began to set up their new religion, and dis'claimed the authority and doctrine of all churches then upon earth, 'could not say the Creed without telling a lie, when they came to that article, I believe in the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints.' + Institutes, B. iv. c. 2. § 2.

being universal as from being apostolical. And happily, the sceptre of England is now extended over more millions than acknowledge the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. But the Infidel objector is not quite so easily answered as the Papist. He laughs, it may be, at the pretensions of the Church of Rome, and at the scarcely less magnificent claims of her eldest daughter: he is keen-sighted to perceive the benefits which have arisen to society from the clashing of opinions, the competition of sects; and he amuses himself by philosophizing on the endless varieties which necessarily distinguish the creeds, as well as the complexions of the human race. But speak to him of the unity of the Church of Christ, and he will be ready to laugh you to scorn as he points to the present state of the Christian world, and asks for the verification of the Saviour's prayer, That they all may be one.' The diversity and discord of Christian sects form, in his view, a sufficient reason for standing aloof from Christianity itself.

Religious persons,' remarks the present Writer, who mix exclusively in society of their own sort, and who have no intimate and undisguised intercourse with intelligent but irreligious men, can form no correct estimate of the magnitude of the injury inflicted upon tens and hundreds of thousands, by the inconsistencies and discords of the Christian world. It is true, that the plea for irreligion which is ordinarily derived from this source, is too palpably sophistical to have any influence over a sound understanding, if it were not backed by the prejudices of a heart at enmity with God. Nevertheless, this plea, in point of fact, proves itself to be fatally valid; and in the actual state of religious profession, it is always an easy task for the caviller to pick up facts which give it a show of plausibility. When the proper evidences of Christianity have been urged upon the objector with irresistible force, he makes good his retreat, even with an air of triumph, from what he feels to be the untenable ground of infidelity, and takes refuge, as if in perfect security, in some such evasion as this:-"Well, when Christians have agreed among themselves what Christianity is, we will give it a hearing." If it be replied, that all those whose spirit and conduct prove them to be the sincere disciples of Christ, are actually agreed in whatever is of the most importance; then it is vauntingly rejoined:-"But if they are indeed agreed in things important, why, on account of things unimportant, do they stand, from age to age, divided into parties, and so put contempt upon the primary article of Christian morals?" Thus it is, that in spite of every explanation that can be given, the notorious fact of the divided state of the Christian body, snatches the weapon of conviction from our hands, as often as we attempt to vanquish gainsayers. But this, alas! is a disadvantage and an opprobrium under which we must be content to labour, perhaps, for a century to come,-God grant a shorter date to the error of his people!' pp. 70-72.

That religious discord is both in itself an evil, and the fruit

ful parent of a train of mischiefs and disorders, no one will deny; but it may be alleged, that were there no discord, mere diversity of persuasion and distinction of communion would scarcely present occasion for scandal or regret. If we could but agree to differ, the circumstance of our differing would be immaterial. The main evil lies, it has been truly said, in the intolerance which has exalted things indifferent into points of honour and articles of faith. Yet, on the other hand, how can those differences be otherwise than an evil to be deprecated, which have confessedly originated in the secularization and corruption of the Church,-in imposing as doctrines of belief, the commandments of men, and in establishing terms of communion distinct from those enjoined by our Lord and his Apostles? If the cause of division be evil, how can the effect be of a different character?

The criminality of schismatic separation rests indeed, as we must ever maintain, with those who are the real aggressors, and whose proceedings or character render it an imperative duty to protest against them and to withdraw from their communion. On this ground, the Reformers and the Nonconformists rested the justification of their conduct. We glory in their magnanimous assertion of the sacred rights of conscience, and the stand they made for the purity of the faith. But can we ever cease to deplore the occasion of a separation which has given to the Christian world an aspect so opposite to the design of its Divine Founder, and adapted so fatally to obscure the character of our holy religion? Shall we content ourselves with laying the blame of this, as Protestants, upon the Council of Trent and the Court of Rome,-as Dissenters, upon the Court and Church of Charles II., and forget that, as Christians, we are still concerned and implicated, if not in the culpability, at least in the dishonour and detriment Christianity has suffered, and is suffering, from the causes that have necessitated the division. For us to have 'come out,' as a nation, from a corrupt Church, and become separate, may be sufficient to exempt us from being partakers of her predicted plagues. But selfish and narrow-minded is the view of the subject which terminates in such a consideration as this. The cause of Religion is of necessity very deeply involved in any prevailing form of nominal Christianity; and the very corruption that has overspread the larger portion of the Christian world, presents a primâ facie objection, though no solid argument, against the truth of Christianity itself. The extent to which this has operated as a positive stumbling-block, it would be difficult to calculate. An Englishman can scarcely, perhaps, be a competent judge.

That the essential unity of the Church does not consist either in having a common political head, or in a uniformity of