verted men. And that one of these rules, applicable to every member of Christ's church, ecclesiastic and laic, is this: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme;" (St. Peter does not appear to have had any notion of a bishop being supreme ;) unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him," that is by the king (1 Pet. ii. 13, 14).

"or

Protestantism teaches that the Christian institution is not of this world's dominion; that instead of arrogating the place or authority of Cæsar, it should recognise the authority of Cæsar as an ordinance of God, and render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's.

Protestantism (Article 37, Church of England) teaches that "the king's (or queen's) majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other his (or her) dominions: unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes, doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction," nor to any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether foreign or domestic.

The practical consequence of this is, that Protestantism invests political subordination with the sacredness of religious duty, and inculcates submission to the powers that be; not merely for fear of punishment from men, but chiefly for conscience' sake towards God. Conscience towards God is at once the most powerful guarantee for religious submission, and the most watchful guard against any such extension of submission as would involve what is irreligious. Let this be carefully considered. By making submission a matter of conscience towards God, we keep in immediate view our best defence against submission, whenever the civil ruler arraigns his own charter, and commands anything which God forbids, or forbids anything which God commands.1

1 This leaves the details of this question untouched. Of course it does. A discussion of them in a discourse like this was manifestly impracticable;

When Protestant statesmen lose sight of this, and deal with Romanists and Protestants as with subjects of equal rights, and to be invested with equal privileges, they not only exhibit such practical disregard of God's truth and authority as cannot be persevered in with impunity by either man or nation; but also they dishearten, and as far as lieth in them, disgust and alienate faithful subjects, while they give power and encouragement to plausible conspirators, who are at heart ready but waiting rebels who must be such, under a Protestant state, unless they be traitors to their own ecclesiastical monarchy. In a Protestant state honesty as Romanists and loyalty as subjects are absolutely and essentially incompatible; while honesty as Protestants and loyalty as subjects are absolutely and essentially inseparable.

II. Turning now from the teaching to the worship of Romanism, I must be brief. The distinguishing characteristic of Romanism, as developed in her worship, may be expressed by the somewhat quaint, but significant word sensuousness.

The meaning I wish to convey by it is, that instead of engaging the inward man with an invisible being, the skill of Romanism is expended upon objects which address the senses of the outward man. Ceremonies and shows, music and painting, architecture and statuary, gorgeous dresses and sweet-smelling incenses, attitudes, postures, processions, and stage effectsthese are the arresting characteristics of Romish worship, where no immediate contact with heretics (whom it is politic for the

yet the question itself is too important to be overlooked. Those details concerning which Protestants may differ among themselves, are not involved in the statement here made. It is a principle of Romanism, that ecclesiastics, even in their character and relations as citizens should not be amenable to civil tribunals. It is, I believe, a principle of all true Protestants that they should. This is the distinction designed in the lecture, and it is an important one. It decides against Rome that the sacred office of an ambassador for Christ does not exempt any man who holds it from the jurisdiction of the civil ruler though it does not attempt to define, among Protestants, the exact limits and boundaries of that jurisdiction.

present to conciliate) demands a reserve and comparative modesty. In this country we cannot see Romanism undisguised, and enjoying herself in full holiday costume. Notwithstanding all her recent resuscitations, she still ventures on no more than half-dress in England, and therefore it is difficult to convey to Englishmen who have never visited Romish countries any adequate impression of her idolatrous worship.

Dr. Middleton, in his celebrated Letters from Rome, says very well "Many of our divines have, I know, with much learning and solid reasoning, charged and effectually proved the crime of idolatry, on the Church of Rome; but these controversies (in which there is still something plausible to be said on the other side, and where the charge is constantly denied, and with much subtilty evaded) are not capable of giving that conviction which I immediately received from my senses,—the surest witnesses of fact in all cases, and which no man can fail to be furnished with who sees Popery as it exists in Italy, in the full pomp and display of its pageantry, and practising all its arts and powers without caution or reserve.

"The noblest heathen temple now remaining in the world is the Pantheon or Rotunda; which, as the inscription over the portico informs us, 'having been impiously dedicated of old by Agrippa to Jove and all the gods, was piously reconsecrated by Pope Boniface the Fourth to the blessed Virgin and all the saints.' With this single alteration, it serves as exactly for all the purposes of the Popish, as it did for the Pagan worship, for which it was built. For as in the old temple every one might find the god of his country, and address himself to that deity whose religion he was most devoted to; so it is the the same thing now, every one chooses the patron whom he likes best and one may see here different services going on at the same time at different altars, with distinct congregations around them, just as the inclinations of the people lead them to the worship of this or that particular saint. And what

better title can the new demi-gods show to the adoration now paid to them, than the old ones whose shrines they have usurped ? Or how comes it to be less criminal to worship images set up by the Pope, than those which Agrippa, or that which Nebuchadnezzar set up? If there be any real difference, most people, I dare say, will be apt to determine in favour of the old possessors; for those heroes of antiquity were raised up into gods, and received divine honours for some signal benefits, of which they had been the authors, to mankind,—as the invention of arts and sciences, or of something highly useful and necessary to life: whereas, of the Romish saints, it is certain that many of them were never heard of but in their own legends or fabulous histories; and many more, instead of any services done to mankind, owe all the honours now paid to them to their vices or errors,-whose merit, like that of Demetrius, in the Acts, was their skill of raising rebellions in defence of an idol, and throwing kingdoms into convulsions for the sake of some gainful imposture. And as it is in the Pantheon, it is just the same in all the other heathen temples that still remain in Rome: they have only pulled down one idol to set up another, and changed rather the name than the object of their worship. Thus the little temple of Vesta, near the Tiber, mentioned by Horace, is now possessed by the Madonna of the Sun; that of Fortuna Virilis, by Mary the Egyptian; that of Saturn (where the public treasure was anciently kept), by St. Adrian; that of Romulus and Remus, in the Via Sacra, by two other brothers, Cosmas and Damianus ; that of Antonine the Godly, by Lawrence the Saint: but, for my part, I would sooner be tempted to prostrate myself before the statue of a Romulus or an Antonine, than that of a Lawrence or a Damian; and give divine honours rather with Pagan Rome to the founders of empires, than with Popish Rome to the founders of monasteries."

נ יי

Letters from Rome, pp. 132, 161-164.

The magic power of genius, and all the contrivances and embellishments of consummate art, are lavished on the material of Romish worship, to invest it with imposing forms of beauty and grandeur.

The subtle distinctions between honour, veneration, and worship, into which a few philosophic thinkers may abstract their minds, and shelter themselves from the charge of actual idolatry, are not characteristics of the system, but exceptions to its operation. M. Chateaubriand, who painted and varnished the Romanism of France (never so degraded as that of Italy or Spain) with all the apologetic ingenuity in his power, was nevertheless unable to keep his work, Génie du Christianisme, free from the frequent intrusion of such passages as this: "Does the believer suffer? he prays to his little image and is comforted. Does he desire the return of his relative or his friend? he makes a vow, and takes the pilgrim's staff: he springs over the Alps or Pyrenees, and visits Our Lady at Loretto, or Saint James in Galicia: he prostrates himself, he prays the Saint to restore him his son (perhaps a poor sailorboy wandering on the seas), to prolong his father's days, or to raise his good wife from the bed of sickness; his heart is lightened; he turns back to his hut, covered with shells; he makes the hamlets echo with his conch; and, in wild and tender notes, he chants the condescension of Mary the mother of God."1

But no writer that I am acquainted with on this subject, fruitful as it has been, has exhibited the materialism of Romanist worship with such a master-hand as our own immortal bard, in his Essay on the Reformation. He says

"Sad it is to think, how that doctrine of the Gospel, planted by teachers divinely inspired, and by them winnowed and sifted from the chaff of over-rated ceremonies, and refined to such a spiritual height and temper of purity, and knowledge of 1 Génie du Christianisme, tom. ii. p. 334.