It seems, at first, almost paradoxical to assert, that division is the best method of preserving the truest peace, but it may easily be proved to be no paradox. In the outset it must be taken for granted, that, constituted as we are, it is impossible that we should think alike on all subjects. This cannot be denied. It is a fact depending on our very nature. This being premised then, we say that a denomination should never be so numerous, a church should never be so universal, as to be able to put any force whatever on belief and conscience. Let their intentions be ever so good, they will be sure to become intolerant; they possess power, and they will abuse it. We know that the mind of man is naturally independent; and we know too that there always have been some, even when the church of Rome was in the meridian of its pride, who have firmly maintained their independence, and constantly refused to graduate their faith by any human standard. Such men become at once the objects of dislike, and fear, and lastly of persecution. The church is convinced of its own infallibility, and consequently of their error and heresy. This conviction is accompanied with a desire of rooting out the heresy, even by the severest means, and finally its power is employed for the unrighteous and detestable purpose of doing so. And even if there be no one article of the creed directly questioned or attacked, it is no matter. The course is the same. If doctrine be not immediately concerned, any thing else can be made to bear on doctrine. Galileo was thrown into a dungeon for affirming that the earth turned round.

This is the birth and history of persecution. And who will call it harmony, who will call it peace? Who

will prefer the unity of the fourteenth century to the sectarism of the nineteenth? Who does not see, that as sects have increased in number and force, intolerance has decreased in fury and deadliness? Which is the truest peace, that which is kept by the rack and the stake, or that which is secured by mutual intimidation and mutual respect?

We

If it be said that a church universal would not, at the present day, be intolerant, we answer, that possibly it would not, but we should not like to try the experiment. Facts and experience are decidedly against it. We would rather remain as we are. want no unity but the unity of a good spirit; no universality but that of piety and virtue. Religion is a concern between man and his heavenly Father alone. Let every man form and practise his own in sincerity, and he never need fear the judgment of a righteous God. We care not how many denominations rise up, so long as they do not interfere with the rights and well being of society; and when they do, society will take care of itself. We never wish to see one sect possess an overwhelming majority over all the rest, for then begins the reign of pride, presumption, exclusiveness, and terror. But where the Christian Church is made up of many strong and independent denominations, no one of these will dare to assume the attribute of infallibility; and even if it should be so absurdly arrogant, who will allow its claims, or who will care for its excommunications? It cannot revenge itself on the recusant; it cannot punish the obstinate freeman; and it cannot do this from the want of that very unity and universality, which we often hear so much commended and longed for.

4

The last advantage which we shall enumerate, as arising from the existence of different religious denominations, is a great and undeniable one. Every sect stands guard, as it were, over the good conduct of every other sect; and thus the cause of morality is advanced, more, we believe, than can be estimated or known. It is well understood on all hands, that virtue will make itself respected in any sect, and that no sect can be respected without it. Whatever the faith may be, it is impossible that it should gain any lasting favour, if good works are not found in its company. The best argument against any belief is its immoral tendency. Aware of this, and aware that the eyes of all its opponents are on the watch to detect proofs of such a tendency, every denomination will be careful to disappoint such a purpose, by keeping up a respectable standard of morals. In this way, a line of conduct, adopted at first for private advantage, becomes of incalculable benefit to society at large.

These considerations apply particularly to the clergy, who have always a great share in determining the character of the denominations to which they severally belong. If it had not been for the notorious profligacy and corruption of this order in the Roman Catholic Church, Luther and Calvin would have found it far more difficult to maintain their opposition than they did. With all their learning and talents, perseverance and zeal, they might have produced but an inconsiderable excitement, if Tetzel, the Pope, and the monks, had not proved such powerful auxiliaries. Nor was the Reformation confined to those who followed the reformers. The Catholics perceived the necessity of reforming themselves, in order that

they might refute one argument, at least, of the Protestants; and if the reformation had spread still wider than it did, this moral reaction would have spread with it, and the world would have been all the better on both accounts. In our own country the Catholics can lay no claim to universality. They form but one of the many sects which exist here, and not by any means one of the strongest. If you would know the consequence of this situation, look at the difference: between the Roman Church in the United States, and the Roman Church in Italy and Spain. Here, the lives of its ministers are free from stain, and without reproach; there, if authentic relations are to be credited, they are, in general, any thing but what they ought to be. The Catholics of the United States, though they may not think so, have, in our opinion, great reason to thank God, that instead of being the only acknowledged Church, they possess no more privileges, influence, or authority, than a multitude of other denominations. Indeed, should any church, in any land, arrive at such power and opulence as to become lazy, worldly, insolent, and immoral, the best cure, that we can conceive of, for such a diseased state of things, would be the rise and progress of some bold sect, who should point out and decry, with unsparing severity, the prevailing corruption. And it seems to be the remedy which God himself has appointed, and which will always, sooner or later, be applied.

We have seen then, that the existence of various religious denominations may, in the present condition of human nature, be in many respects, highly beneficial. It keeps alive a warm regard for our common

faith; it promotes the diffusion of religious knowledge; it guards against the pernicious effects of arbitrary power; and it is of eminent service to the cause of virtue.

Several practical reflections may be drawn from our subject, but we shall confine ourselves to one only.Seeing that so many, who have brought genius, judgment, learning, piety, integrity, and candour, to the study of the Scriptures, have yet disagreed in their results, we should be taught by this circumstance a lesson of charity; the charity which is willing to believe that others intend to think right, and to give them credit for that intention; which, though it felt persuaded that its own sentiments were correct, and those of another incorrect, would still admit the possibility of being in both cases deceived; which, though far from being indifferent to the progress of its own opinions, would never entertain a single wish to interfere by violence or restraint with the opinions of others, and never desire to throw the tyrant chain of human authority over the mind, which God created free.

Christianity a Religion of Peace.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, said Jesus to his disciples, I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matt. x. 34. This declaration has sometimes been thought to contradict the peaceful sentiments uttered on other occasions by the Saviour, and to be at variance in general with the mild spirit of the Gospel. Such a view of it, however, may be shown to