Observer, Mar. 1, '72.

church, without having a positive cure for the evils complained against. Nonconformists and Anti-vaccinators have cures for the evils they protest against, and are agreed as to their application. Have Protestants, so called? No, candour must admit; for they are not at all agreed as to the extent of their evil, nor how to effect the cure, even upon their avowed principles, as shall yet appear. Let all present, then, with me, for some time, examine their standing as avowed Protestants and see whether they act up to their privileges and obligations. We shall now glance at the origin, principles and growth of Protestantism, and then, by the light of our investigation, ask and answer the questions- What is true Protestantism? and, Who are true Protestants?

I. The origin of Protestantism. This brings us at once to the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the causes which were then at work effecting the Reformation. For ages Christendom had groaned under the galling yoke of the Papacy; but the advancing enlightenment of the times, the revival of letters, the discovery of printing, and general progresssocial and political-demanded release from her thrall.

Men, from the king to the peasant, were weary and disgusted with the frauds, violence, and greed of Rome, the insolence and tyranny of her officers, and the awful profligacy of her priesthood; while the final step in her mad and unrighteous career, which fanned into a blaze the smouldering elements of discontent and rebellion, was her sale of indulgences to sin by the Dominican friars, about the year 1509. Meanwhile, in the providence of God, Luther, the now famous German monk, had been gradually opening his eyes to Papal enormities, and resolving in the Divine strength to reform the church. He began to protest against the evils of Popery in 1517, and preached and debated publicly on her errors, and was, in time, joined by Melancthon of Germany, Zuinglius of Switzerland, and others. Papal pride was aroused, and at once attempted his overthrow. Luther boldly defied the Pope, and pleaded his own cause at the Diet of Worms before the assembled learning and power of Rome, and refused to recant until they had proved he was wrong, either by "Scripture or sound reason. After his departure under the safe conduct of the Emperor, they at once condemned him as an heretic, and decreed that he must recant: he refused, and anticipating the Pope's bull of excommunication, seceded publicly from the Church of Rome, burnt the bull when it arrived, at once raised the standard of the Reformation, and sought to effect outside of the pale of the Papacy what he could not do inside of her communion. In all this the hand of God supported him, by the warm and practical sympathy of the Elector of Saxony and other German Princes, and much of the learning and true piety of the land. The Emperor, Charles V., of Germany, being perplexed by foreign politics and internal state dissensions, for some time stood aloof, and by the first Diet of Spires allowed the German Princes to regulate the religious affairs of their respective States according to conscience; but on his reconciliaton with the Pope, with whom he had been at war, he revoked this by an edict of the second Diet, held in 1529. The friends of the Reformation, including some of the leading German Princes, such as the Elector of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, and twelve Imperial German cities, Luther, Melancthon and their learned associates, were naturally grieved and publicly protested against this on the 19th April, 1529. The appeal was made to a 'National General Council, the Emperor himself, and all impartial judges." Hence the terms Protestants and Protestantism which have so largely_figured in the annals of Europe, and especially in our own native land.

Observer, Mar. 1, 72.

When the principles of the Reformation spread to England the name was first given to the Church of England, which seceded from Rome under the policy of Henry VIII (1533), and drew up her ritual and creeds protesting against error in the doctrine, sacraments and worship of Rome. And, finally, the name has been taken by those who do not conform to the Church of England; who are usually called "Protestant Dissenters." Thus we have Protestantism within Protestantism, yet all agree in opposing the unscriptural and arrogant claims of Papal Rome. This brings us to

consider

II. The principles of Protestantism. When Luther and the Reformers came out from Rome, in opposition to her dogma of the authority of the Pope and Mother Church over Scripture, they asserted two grand principles, viz. :

(1.) That the Bible is the word of God, and, as such, our only rule of faith and practice as Christians.

(2.) That private judgment of its contents is the right and duty of every

man.

These are substantially asserted in the writings of that time, as also by the Augsburg Confession, compiled by Luther and Melancthon, and publicly ratified by the patrons of the Reformation in 1530. (See Article 28 and others.) Also, in the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterian Church, and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Article 6 avers"That whatsoever is not read in the word of God or proved thereby, is not to be required of any man to be believed as an article of the faith, or thought necessary to salvation." And all the Reformation leaders and promoters in different countries and times, however varied on minor points, yet agree in recognizing the paramount authority of the word of God. Luther and Melancthon, Zuinglius of Switzerland, Calvin of Geneva and Wyckliffe of England here meet and shake hands. And if the Bible alone be recognized as the standard of faith and morals, then the headship of Christ, equality of Christian privilege, and private liberty to read and judge of its contents all necessarily follow, so that the grand Protestant position is nobly stated in the language of Chillingworth-“ The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants."

But it is one thing to avow a principle, another to put it in practice. Justice compels us to say that while the Reformers did a noble work in thus laying the basis of our present civil and religious liberties, yet owing to their peculiar surroundings, the atmosphere of ecclesiastical despotism in which they had so long lived, moved, and had their being, they often failed to carry out their own principles of religious toleration. Hear Hallam, the historian, speak upon this-"The pretensions of Catholic infallibility were replaced (in them) by a not less uncompromising and intolerant dogmatism, availing itself like the other (Papal Church) of the secular power, and arrogating to itself like the other the assistance of the Spirit of God." (See Intro. History of Europe.) And the Edinburgh Review for October, 1855, tells us-"That the right of private judgment in religion (among Protestants) is a principle more vaunted than exercised." The Reformers escaped from bondage themselves, yet they sought to coerce others. To this let the faithful annals of the Baptist Martyrs of he Reformation bear ample and awful testimony. There we are told that the decree of Zurich (1525), under Zuinglius decreed-"That the Baptists be drowned without mercy." The Emperor, Charles V., of Germany, and also the chiefs of the Reformation, including Luther

Observer, Mar. 1, 72.

Melancthon and others, from time to time, decreed fire and sword against them; and all because this people stood up for liberty of conscience, purity of communion in the church, separation of the State from the Church, and opposed the authority of Scripture against the Papal dogma of infant baptism. (See Martyrology, published by Hansard Knolly Society, for the years 1524-1660.)

Luther himself said "that the Church had the power not to baptize infants," and yet, standing by the Bible alone, surely he could not dare to omit anything which it sanctioned! His argument in favour of the practice altogether begs the question, and is unworthy of him as a Christian and a logician. Said he, when pressed for proof-" Our opponents cannot show that infant baptism is contrary to scripture." Melancthon in much the same way eased his conscience, shut his Bible, and called in the forcible arguments of his Lord, the Elector of Saxony, to put down all this dangerous discussion by the strong logic of the law. (Neander on Christian Doctrines.)

Still, with all their shortcomings and failures to carry out their own principles, we must acknowledge they have achieved a noble work, sowed good seed, the germs of civil and religious freedom,-which in these latter days, have sprung up and borne blessed fruit, so that each man in this land may sit under his own roof, whether at home or in chapel and worship God as he thinks best, none daring to make him afraid. This will further appear in

III. The growth of Protestantism. I need not speak particularly of her triumphs in other lands; of the liberation of priest-ridden Spain and the good work now going on there in the name of Christ; of the entrance of Protestantism into the very den of lions, Papal Rome, and the establishment of a Bible Depôt under the very eyes of the "Man of Sin," Pius the Ninth, as he looks from the Vatican; of the thousands of Bibles read, and the many churches formed in Italy, and the general spread of the principles of religious toleration throughout the Russian and Germanic Empires, this is well known, but let us look at home and see how far we have been carrying out Reformation doctrine, and striving to throw off the last link of the Papal chain.

Our progress since 1533 has been chiefly evident in the various bodies which in succession have come out of the Established Church, pleading purer principles and worship than her creed allowed or her practices exhibit. Thus we had the Puritans, who were the first Nonconformists, properly so called in opposition to the Conformists and the legal worship established by Edward VI. A body of them under one Brown were termed Brownites in 1581. Since then the Independents of our day, who are among the foremost in pleading for religious liberty and separation of Church and State. History tells us they were more simple, in their "mutual teaching" and general worship than they are now with their organs, monthly communion and one-man ministry. Again, the Presbyterians, under Calvin, and their modern rival the Free Church of Scotland, in the parity of their ministry and strictness of discipline, are another approach to true Protestant principles. The Baptists are ahead of all, so far as they practice the apostolic baptism, or immersion of believers. Still, as a body, they, like the others, hold by humanly compiled creeds, and make their vain speculations, on Election and other dogmas, terms of union and communion, opposed to the liberality of the New Testament confession of faith (see Matt. xvi. 16-18 and Rom. x. 8—10.)

Observer, Mar. 1, '72.

The spirit of a true Protestantism also embraces much of the general desire for Christian union expressed by men of all classes. English church clergymen are preaching in Presbyterian pulpits. The Irish Episcopalian church has expunged the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian creed from her liturgy, and leading English churchmen, perhaps somewhat in advance of their party, frankly recognise the grace of God in Dissenting communities. All these are signs of the times; but still in spirit and practice they fall short of realizing either spiritual or organic union among disciples of Christ. They perpetuate partyism among Protestants-the taunt of Roman Catholics-and come short of occupying the true Protestant position, that the Bible alone is their religion. This brings us to consider

"

y?"

IV. What true Protestantism is. You infer from this that there may be a false Protestantism. The inference is just. That is a false Protestantism which fails to carry out the principles at first laid down; just as a Temperance Society would be false to herself by allowing moderate drinking in those who sign her pledge, so are all societies and professors who say one thing and do another. "Ah! but," says one, "have not the surrounding denominations each done this in its own way? We reply, hear Dr. Barnes. In his "Christian Evidences," p. 342, he says Luther indeed performed a great work; for Christianity in the Protestant form is a different thing from what it was as it had been presented to the world for a thousand years. But we are not to assume that the work was wholly done by him, or that in the Westminster, Helvetic and Savoy Confessions and the Thirty-nine Articles, we have Christianity precisely as its Author designed to communicate it to mankind." Thus you perceive it is one thing to discover principles, laws, or lay down rules of action, and another thing to carry them into practice or reap the results. Newton discovered the grand law of gravitation, Harvey the true theory of the circulation of the blood, but we especially reap the benefits of those discoveries. So Luther sowed, and we may reap; he began the struggle against ecclesiastical error and despotism; as true Protestants, it is our duty to continue it in the strength of God, not taking off the armour till the principalities and powers of darkness are dethroned, every rebellious heart made obedient to the Christ, and all disciples of our common Lord banded together as one man, not merely for the reformation of religion, but for its restoration in faith and practice, belief and obedience, in all matters of conscience and life, church government and membership--to the faith as it was delivered to the saints eighteen hundred years ago. This, and this alone, is true Protestantism, and for this, as a body of Christians, we desire to plead in the divine strength. Will you help us? We desire not to carry you back to Geneva, Augsburg or Westminster, that you may listen to Luther, Calvin, Knox or Wesley, good men although they were; but to Jerusalem of old and the company of the infallible apostles and prophets of Christ, He being the grand source of all enlightening and saving and ruling power to His people, their Prophet, Priest and King. You stand upon the Mount of Transfiguration, and the glorious voice is heard-"This is my beloved Son, hear hear ye HIM." He speaks to all by His word, which is an all-sufficient directory of faith and morals, of duty to God and man. It enlightens, sanctifies, converts. As presented in the Gospel, it is the power of God, the means He uses for the salvation of every believer. (See Psalms xix. 7,8; John xvii. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 15-17; Rom. i. 16; Heb. iv. 12.) Why

Observer, Mar. 1, '72.

then not trust it? Why? First, I ask the question of church members and attendants, generally, for this, remember, is the grand test whether you are true Protestants or not. Is the Bible, then, your only rule of faith and practice? Are you guided in all things by your private judgment of what it reveals unto you? or are you ruled by the teachings of men, allowing others to think for you? Ah! reflect, we beseech you, for religion is a personal matter, and we must all stand before the Judgment Seat to be tried by the Word of the Living God. No proxy religion, then, but every man for himself. If you are guided by the Bible alone, why then call yourself a Methodist, a Baptist, an Independent, a Presbyterian, or an Episcopalian, as the case may be? There is no Scripture for this, but only for the name Christian, disciple of Him who was crucified for you. Cast aside these Christ-dishonouring and party names, then, and be true Protestants; better far disciples of Jesus only, members of His Church or people. Again: as Protestants, why say that you have obeyed the Lord in baptism and thus joined yourself unto Him and His people, simply because your parents or sponsors had you sprinkled in infancy, upon a profession of their faith and not yours? For this there is also no Scripture, Luther and many of your own leaders being judges. Why thus make void the command of Christ that believers only should be baptized, even upon a profession of their own faith in Him and desire for His glory? Why? By refusing obedience you are surely, like the Pharisees," rejecting the counsel of God against yourselves." Jesus plainly commands this as the first act of a living faith in Him. (See Mark xvi. 15, 16.) He has given you an example and says, "he that loves me will do my will." You love Him: why-O why, then, not obey and stand upon safe ground? Surely all past history-the lives of Saul, king of Israel, Abraham, and our brother Paul-show that faith works by love, that obedience is better than sacrifice, and that only in obedience to the known will of God lies the path of safety and eternal praise. Come, then, dear friends, and obey Jesus in this His appointed ordinance, and join yourselves to Christ and those who plead for the truth in its purity and simplicity, and, knowing the truth, you shall be free indeed.

Second, I speak not to Unitarians, Mormons, Christian or other Spiritualists, because they practically reject the word of God as the final standard of appeal, and are, therefore, not on true Protestant ground. And all who stand by mere human creeds or the traditions of men as bonds of union and communion, we also reject as false to Protestant principles and making void the commands of God by their traditions. We deny not your moral character and sincerity, but, scripture and reason being judges, you are not upon true Protestant ground until you stand by the Bible alone.

And finally, to my dear and unsaved friends present to-night. You are Protestants, you say. Well, what about the mere name if you have not the power of it. The mere knowledge that the Protestant theory of salvation is better than the Roman Catholic will never save you unless you apply the cure-drink as well as believe in the soul-saving medicine; you must taste to see that the Lord is good. "Ah!" you say, "there are so many sects I am bewildered." Never mind the sects. Jesus Christ and His Church are ever one, however men may differ. You can settle the question for yourself as a true Protestant by reading the word of God, and there you will find that all parties are agreed that the conditions of salvation embrace the two grand principles of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to His will. These reduced to practice bring before