it is a cutting thing to a minister to unchristianize any of his flock, and I would not speak in this way of any of you if I did not love your souls. What is life? How soon will it be gone! Why do we press these things upon you, but that you may each see your own character, and judge yourselves, that ye be not judged of God?

One word more, and it is this: He is but half a Christian, if, indeed, he even be that, who, having the Bible, is not anxious to teach others the truths contained in it, and who does not wish that others should walk in that way to heaven in which he is walking. The way to heaven is a very narrow one; but it is not so narrow as to prevent more than one going together in that blessed road. He then, I say, who, having a Bible, has no wish nor desire to bring the world around him to love that book that he says he loves, there is great reason to fear whether he really loves it.

Come, then, think, beloved brethren, what are you doing? Time is short, and death is near. Three centuries, mark, have passed away since the English Bible first appeared complete! How many of our British fellow-subjects are there who have as yet never read it? How many are there in this great city who have never read it? How many hundred millions in different parts of the British possessions are there who have never seen it? Go, then, try what you can do; exert yourselves; be up and doing. I had intended to have had this day a collection; shall I tell you why I had it not? I will: it is not to your disgrace, but to your credit. Your liberal offerings this day fortnight, when you gave us 967. 68. 6d., made me determine that you should not be applied to again so soon. I felt your Christian liberality; but though we have no collection now, in God's name let me set you all to work. Go you, and see what you can do in your family. Let every master of a house this day, or the mistress of the family, perhaps, is the most proper person, inquire whether their servants have got Bibles; and if there be a poor servant girl that waits upon you in any family attending this church that has not a Bible, take care she has one before this day week. Then inquire and think, have you any poor relations that have not got one, any poor friend or neighbour that has not got Then ask again, are your own children unprovided; are they being led away by infidelity on the one hand, or popery on the other. O that there was more family catechizing, more family conversation about the Bible! Come, go to work, and try and do what you can; yet a little while and death will overtake us all. Be up and doing; work while it is called to-day, for the night cometh wherein no man can work. And if you do this then I am not afraid of the mighty struggle that is coming, and coming fast. If the powers of light and darkness are brought into collision, I am not afraid of the consequences, "Great is the truth, and it must prevail." "The sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God," shall never be used in vain. God give us, as Protestant churches, to endeavour to do our duty, and then God Almighty blast all the designs of the pope and the devil. and all the enemies of God's word.

one.

DEFENCE OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND PROM

THE CHURCH OF ROME.

REV. H. MELVILL, A.M.

CAMDEN CHAPEL, CAMBERWELL, OCTOBER 4, 1835.

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."-ROMANS, xii. 18.

man.

IN one of those touching addresses which Christ delivered to his disciples, shortly before his crucifixion, he bequeathed them, as you may remember, the legacy of peace: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give 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 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 speaking of his peace, resulted from the consciousness that he was doing the will of God, and promoting the good of It was an internal peace rather than an external; for without were wars and fightings, the opposition of avowed enemies, and the coldness and suspicion of friends. His peace, therefore, was not peace with those around: there was charity, full and fervent charity, towards those who were the most vehement in their enmity; but there was, at the same time, the most unflinching exposure of their faults, and the determined withstanding of their practices. We may safely declare of Christ, that he never purchased peace by any thing like compromise: though his heart was overflowing with love towards the whole human race, he shewed no leniency towards their sins, but, on the contrary, was too much their friend to be any thing but the stern reprover of their vices. He had peace of conscience rather than peace of condition: he, indeed, desired both, and laboured for both; but since he lived 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. Hence the legacy of peace which Christ bequeathed his Church may be fully enjoyed, and yet that Church have no concord with the great mass of men. It may even be bound on a Church to do much by which, to all appearance, divisions would 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 com promising principle. It is unquestionably her business to "follow after the things that make for peace;" but to take care, lest in her eagerness to promote this object, she surrender truth, and ward off separation by unwarrantable

Now the words of our text may be said to recommend that peace, which may thus be regarded as bequeathed us by Christ. The Apostle enjoins as a auty, that we strive to live peaceably with all; but plainly intimates that it would be difficult, or rather 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 was the Christian's own fault if union did not subsist; but the former that no amount of diligence and care could ensure the universal harmony. It would seem from the context of the verse, that St. Paul is not so much referring to the schisms in the visible Church, as to differences and quarrels between man and man. But the rule for deciding and for the guidance of Christians in their individual, must be equally applicable in their collective capacity. If it be the duty of every member of the Church, so far as in him lieth, to live peaceably with all men, it must be the duty of the Church as a body to do all in her power to promote union and prevent schism. In each case, therefore, there must 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 the individual. the conduct of others may be so injurious, that with every disposition to concede, and the greatest patience under wrong, it may be absolutely necessary to shun all intercourse, and even to adopt measures for self-defence. In the instance of the 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 Maker. Or again, the 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 thus may it be the duty of those of her members, who are still zealous for the truth as it is in Jesus, to protest firmly against the abomination, and at length to break off their union with that Church, if she will not put from her the falsehood and the idolatry. The main thing to be borne in mind, as we have already intimated, is, that peace is too dearly purchased, if purchased by the least surrender of principle; that unity deserves not the name which is purchased by the resolution to avoid all differences in opinion by mutual concession. On points which are not fundamental, much may be done by mutual concession; and those will have a heavy weight of guilt to account for, who have torn and divided the visible Church, when the matter in debate has been one of mere ceremony, or, at least, one which involves nothing of indispensable truth. We doubt whether the mass of those, who in modern days have introduced sects and divisions among Christians, can prove, in vindication of their conduct, that they had obeyed implicitly the direction of the Apostle, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." It might be hard to shew, if the ground of separation were rigidly examined, that the impossible point had been reached, the point at which, if union had been preserved, fundamental truth would have been compromised. It should then only be impossible for a Christian to live peaceably, when, to avoid schism, be must tolerate fatal error. And if separatists cannot make

good their separation on this simple principle, their failing to live peaceably is not to be sheltered by the first clause of our text; they must rather vindicate themselves by the second," as much as lieth in you:" 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 with regard to this or that particular case of infraction, 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 more than separation if, in maintaining peace, we have to compromise truth. We must admit, indeed, that there will be difficulty in applying this rule; for since the Bible no where 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 may belong, and therefore also doubt whether it should be enforced at the risk of separation. But if Scripture has not made a division of truths, there are some which manifestly constitute the very essence of Christianity; whilst others, though full of importance and instruction, are manifestly subordinate, and fill a lower place in the Christian economy. There are points on which differences of opinion may be 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 remain in perfect harmony, though some hold and some do not the doctrine of 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. Christianity is nothing if these points be denied, and therefore must the Christian Church, if it would not forfeit its character, separate boldly from all those by whom they are rejected.

Now it would be easy and natural to enlarge on the principle of our text when thus applied to the maintenance of peace in Christ's visible Church; and 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 many, if not all of you, are aware, that this day is the anniversary of an event of the greatest moment to the Church of Christ in these realms, and you will have conjectured that I have selected the text and made the foregoing remarks with distinct reference to such an event. There have, indeed, been no directions given to the officiating ministers of the Church that the event in question should be commemorated by them in their public discourses; but as each is left unshackled in this matter, I for one feel but too deeply how Popery is labouring to gain an ascendancy in our land, to neglect an opportunity of reminding you of your privileges, and warning you against the man of sin. I cannot put away the persuasion, that there has been among Protestants a growing ignorance and indifference with regard to the points in dispute between the Reformed Church and the Papal, and a strengthening opinion that the two Churches 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 forefathers rose manfully up, and in the expulsion of which they perilled substance and life, has been putting forth tokens of strength and expansion, profiting by the apathy of those most bound to withstand it, and procuring itself the aids of a timid legislation. With such views in regard to

the present state of Popery, I could not feel justified in omitting an opportunity of addressing you as Protestants.

On this very day of the year, three centuries ago on the fourth of October 1535-w 5—was finished the printing of the first translation of the whole Bible which ever appeared in English. This translation is ordinarily known under the name of Coverdale's Bible; Miles Coverdale, afterwards Bishop of Exeter, having superintended the whole, and himself translated many parts. Wickliffe, justly styled, "The Morning Star of the Reformation," had laboured to render the Scriptures accessible to his countrymen; and before Cranmer prevailed on Henry the Eighth to order a translation, an English version of the New Testament was published by Tyndal: but Coverdale's was the first entire English version of the Bible, and the first version that was allowed by royal authority so that we may fairly say, that on this very day three hundred years back, the Scriptures of God were first given to the English in their native tongue. Who will say, that this event is not deserving of commemoration? The publication of the Bible under royal authority was tantamount to a proclamation that all men had a right to read God's word for themselves, and was therefore the national renunciation of that worst tenet of Popery, which forbids to the common people the perusal of Scripture. Hence there is great justice in regarding the day on which the Bible was first published as the day on which the Reformation was effected in England. We need not remind you that the Reformation was a long and laborious work, carried on through a series of years, and with many interruptions. It might be difficult to fix the precise time at which the Reformation in this country legan, or at which it could be pronounced complete. A sense of the corruption and tyranny of the Roman church had been so long gaining ground before openly manifested, and afterwards the advances towards a moral emancipation were so gradual and so often checked, that if you wish to commemorate the Reformation you can hardly determine where the anniversary should fall. Hence the necessity of fixing on some great leading event, whose importance should be such as to warrant our regarding it as constituting the Reformation. In Germany, for example, the Protestants make this use of Martin Luther's first publication against papal indulgences, regarding that publication as the first blow struck at the Catholic usurpation, and therefore date from it as the commencement of the Reformation in their country. It might indeed be possible to fix on some similar event in our own country; but none can be more appropriate, because with none is the Reformation more connected, than the first publication of the entire English Bible. We are quite, therefore, of opinion with those who would regard this day as the third centenary of the Reformation in England. We would reckon that on this day three hundred years back was Popery rejected and Protestantism established in this country. And if we be warranted in considering that we are this day completing the third centenary of the life of the Reformed Church in these realms, there must be a special appropriateness in addressing you on points connected with the Reformation, if, as we fear, there is a sickliness and spuriousness in modern Protestantism which encourages the hopes and seconds the efforts of the agents of Popery.

Now we have selected our text in preference to many that might seem more appropriate, because we consider that every point on which it is important that