visible pledge of Church membership: That this Communion is secured by the gift of the Apostolical Succession, and of those truths and ordinances, of which it is notorious, that they were acknowledged as primitive and essential by the undivided Church: That the being of our Lord's Kingdom being thus secured, the collective authority of the Apostles' Successors is requisite, and is sufficient, to make for its well-being laws of universal obligation: But that this authority, for the sins and divisions of Christendom, having been for many centuries under suspension, and visible unity interrupted, we can but go on, as was said before, each one in obedience to the portion of the Church in which his own lot has been cast, under appeal to the governing body in respect of any debated points: And so we are preserved, though not in visible, yet as we may hope in real mystical union.

Of the gravest and most obvious objection to this view, I mean, its seeming inconsistency with the Prophecies, something has been already said. In addition, we may consider that the scriptural images, by which the unity of the Church is familiarly set forth, are such as rather to suggest than exclude this idea. All, whether Churches or individuals, must be branches of the same Tree; but a tree may have suckers; there may be an unseen, underground unity. We must be all streams from the same Fountain, but part of our course may have been out of sight. We must

be all sheep of the same flock, but the flock may have been more or less scattered. We must be all members of the same Body, but the healthful circulation may be more or less obstructed. We must be all subjects of the same kingdom, but there may be a disputed succession.

Adverting in particular to this last analogy; does not the constitution of the Jewish people cause us to think of a federal government, rather than of a monarchy, as likely to be realized in its antitype? Throughout the far greater part of its existence, such was undoubtedly the form of its unity: the Council of Elders bore sway: the longing for a king was deprecated as a degenerate feeling: and although at times, in default of kingly power, every man did that which was right in his own eyes, we are no where told that the commonwealth of Israel had therefore ceased to exist.

For aught that appears at first sight, the notion of each Bishop's independency, sometimes called Cyprianic, may be as legitimate a development of the original Apostolical idea, as the notion of the whole Episcopate, or Apostolate, providentially gathered into a single see. The danger in the one case, of indefinite disunion, is not a priori greater than the danger in the other, of continued exaggeration and corruption. If you say, there is supernatural security in the promise through St. Peter, applying it to the Roman see; why may we not as well apply that promise, as

St. Cyprian seems to have done, to the whole Episcopate? And if this be called an unreal, unpractical view, inasmuch as the Papacy has been acting in great power for many ages, while the government by co-ordinate Bishops has existed (they say) but in theory: such a statement takes for granted one of the main points in question :that when appeals became necessary, they were always, as of right, made to Rome: whereas at first view it certainly would appear that for many hundred years unity and truth were preserved under the other, or federal constitution.

Neither would the loyal and affectionate sense of union be at all impaired by such an arrangement; if one may judge at least by analogy from terrestrial commonwealths. Where shall we find a country where national sympathies take up more of men's hearts than in Germany? Yet in Germany for many years there has been no unity of government; but language and race have proved more powerful to bind than political institutions to separate. Why should it be thought incredible among us, that Divine grace may work a like brotherly feeling in the separated portions of the Church? Since in God's ear they speak all the same language, and they all belong to the same holy family, their mutual estrangements need not have annulled all the privileges of their new birth.

Our Scripture difficulties being thus disposed of, those which arise from natural anticipation, pre

vious to Scripture, ar plainly referable to the same class as those for which solutions are provided in the second part of the Analogy. It may be well to make this evident by taking some of Butler's own statements, only with the substitution of the special terms of the present argument for his general ones.

For example: "Since, upon experience, the [general course of Church history] is found to be greatly different from what, before experience, would have been expected; and such as, men fancy, there lie great objections against: this renders it beforehand highly credible, that we may find the [course providentially recommended in a particular emergency of that history], very different from expectations formed beforehand; and liable, in appearance, to great objections."

The whole of the well-known passage concerning Inspiration plainly holds good in favour of a probable Tradition, as against a special sensible guidance on the one hand, and Papal Infallibility on the other. "We are wholly ignorant.. how far, or in what way, God would interpose, to secure [Church Principles] being transmitted to posterity. We are equally ignorant, whether the evidence of them would be certain, or highly probable, or doubtful: or whether all who should have any degree of instruction from them, and any degree of evidence of their truth, would have the same. . . . * p. 236. Ed. 1791.

f

p. 238.

Nay, we are not in any sort able to judge, whether it were to have been expected that the [mind of the Church] should have been committed to writing; or left to be handed down, and consequently corrupted, by verbal tradition, and at length sunk under it, if people so pleased, and during such time as they are permitted, in the degree they evidently are, to act as they will." How does this way of speaking suit with the sentiment, that an Infallible Guide must needs be given, because we cannot see how the truth can be otherwise preserved? or with that other sentiment, " I walk by my own private judgment, but I know I cannot be far wrong, because I have prayed?"

Again, "The only question [for an English Churchman] concerning the [Church of England] is, whether it be a real [branch of the Church]; not, whether it be attended with every circumstance which we should have looked for: and concerning the [Prayer Book,] whether it be what it claims to be; not, whether it be a book of such sort, and so promulged, as we might be apt to fancy a [perfect form of solemn worship] should." I cannot help thinking that dissatisfied and critical spirits would find much rest, and be saved much temptation, if they would resolve simply to go on in the spirit of these obvious cautions, when they are examining questions relating to their own Church, even as, no doubt, they are used 5 p. 240.

e