And certainly I would not deny, that both the Prophecies of the Old Testament, and those of our Lord Himself in His farewell discourse with His Disciples, and also the general tone of Church writers and aspect of Church affairs in the first and best times, would lead to the expectation of something very different from what we now see; something more like what the Roman Church claims for herself. I say, more like what she claims; for it would be begging the question to affirm the justice of her claim, or to maintain that even at first sight a primitive Christian would not be startled at the aspect of the Latin as of other sections of the Church. On first impressions, we might well anticipate that he would find something new and astonishing in the Supremacy, in the adoration of the Virgin, in image worship, and in the doctrine of Purgatory, as each of those tenets is now popularly developed. But I waive that portion of the argument, and suppose for the present that the general face of things at Rome has more of the air and outward habiliments of the system described in the Bible, than can be found elsewhere; and thereupon I ask, Is it safe, in interpreting Prophecy, to be guided mainly by such anticipations, how natural soever?

I think, that the analogy of God's dealings with men in former times would lead us to expect a less obvious fulfilment, to be recognised rather by a trusting, resolute faith, than by a searching,

comprehensive, historical intellect. For instance, Canaan seemed to be promised to the Patriarchs themselves: there was something, to human sense, disappointing, in its not being won till after many generations. How completely did the predictions to the house of David appear to man's judgment as if they failed"! how eminently is it the work of faith to see that they are realized in our Lord! And to take the greatest instance of all, what a disappointment was that of the whole Jewish nation, the lowly Apostles alike and the haughty Priests, when they were told the true meaning of the Old Testament in its sayings concerning Christ's kingdom! a disappointment in which even now both Jews and many Christians (so far perhaps Judaizing) seem almost entirely to sympathize. Is it not possible that the Roman Catholic exposition of the same Scriptures may partake of the same error? It surely seems to depend very much upon certain outward circumstances, which however striking to the imagination, are rather particular forms and embodiments of the great idea of Unity, than inseparable parts of the idea itself. I allude to such details as the correspondence of Jerusalem with Rome, of the succession of the Popes with that of the kings of Judah, of pilgrimages and appeals with the resort of God's people to His city. It were much to be wished, that those who

are attracted by these and other like obvious external points of unity in the Roman Catholic Church, would soberly endeavour to analyse their own impressions. They would find, perhaps, that they are influenced in a far greater degree than they imagine by considerations such as I have now specified, political rather than theological or devotional; after which if they go, doing violence to their moral instinct, what is it but taking Christ by force, and making Him an earthly King?

I will hazard another and a very obvious remark, on the general state of the whole controversy; namely, that the Roman view, to be fully convincing, ought to apply to the other notes of the Church as well as to its Unity and Visibility. No doubt, in respect of those two marks, the theory in question answers more literally to the Prophecies, than does the Anglican, which I suppose to be also the Greek theory. The Papal Monarchy unquestionably exhibits to the eye an Unity of government more entire than can be found in the rest of Christendom. But how is it when we come to the note of Sanctity? Is not Rome obliged to demand on the whole the same allowances as the other parts of Christendom are, when such texts as the following are to be considered? "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children." "Thy people also shall be all righteous." "Violence shall no

more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders."

Again, in respect of Universality; wide and large as her Communion is, it does not as yet by a great deal come up literally to the prophetic promises; such as, "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." Such words as those cannot of course be pleaded for her, just as they stand. A certain approximation to their meaning is all that she can allege enough and to spare for faith in her as a real Church, but hardly enough to satisfy a soberminded person, whose duties have hitherto lain elsewhere, that she alone is the real Church.

Now, if Roman Christians may fairly claim this kind of allowance, in their explanation of those texts, which make Sanctity and Universality notes inseparable of the true Church; why may not similar allowance be granted to English or Greek Christians, concerning the note of Unity also? What law of Providence is there, what declaration of holy writ, what clear tradition of antiquity, to warrant our expecting that the Church shall be always visibly One, in another and more exact sense than that in which she shall be visibly Holy? If the one attribute may be obscured and doubtful, in a greater or less degree, for a longer or a shorter time, why not the other also?

See also Ps. lxxii. 7; Isaiah xi. 6—9; xxxii. 1—5, 15—18; xxxv. 8, 9; lxv. 25. Ezek. xxxv. 25. &c.

But it is feared that in this way men lose the promises of guidance and instruction, such as, “My Spirit and My words shall not depart out of thy mouth :" and, " He will guide you into all truth." And it is surmised, that without perfect visible unity of government, we might listen in vain after an authoritative voice, to secure well-meaning souls from ruinous error.

But first, it is surely a material consideration, which has constantly been urged in this controversy, and has never, that I know of, met with a satisfactory answer, How far the promises to the Church, like those to individuals, are conditional:her more external privileges dependent on her inward and spiritual privilege of sanctity.

-

In the next place, defect of guidance in essentials is no necessary consequence of simple disunion in the Church. A different result is at least conceivable. It is conceivable, that before the time of disunion, events had been so providentially ordered, that all truths and practices generally necessary to salvation were sufficiently established in the rule of the whole Church, and that, in all such matters, the several portions continued to agree. Such agreement, being notorious and unquestionable, might be ascertained by any, even

This latter promise, by the way, seems at least as inconsistent with the notion of imperfect developement of fundamentals in Apostolical times, as with that of possible error touching truths of a secondary order in after times.