the simplest Christian; by a process similar to that, whereby a Roman Catholic (for example) ascertains the voice of his own Church.

Now a very large proportion indeed of any Churchman's faith, be he Greek, Roman, or English, is made up of these common elements: much larger than any of us, perhaps, would imagine, until he had considered the thing in detail: and I say again, It is surely conceivable, that in it may be providentially contained all things necessary to salvation and if so, then the promises about guidance are really fulfilled to the divided Church; and that, in the same unexpected, and as one may say, indirect manner, which seems generally to have characterized the fulfilment of the ancient prophecies.

It may illustrate what is meant, if I put a case, which some Roman Catholics themselves, perhaps, will feel to be not undeserving of attention. For considerable portions of time, sometimes for two generations together, the Mediæval Western Church has been divided. There have been Anti-Popesrival pretenders to that throne, which in its distinct visibility claims to be the sole sufficient guarantee of the continuance of Christ's kingdom on Earth. How was a plain Christian to know which of the claimants he should adhere to? What became of those, many or few, who with no fault of their own adhered to the wrong claimant ? Where, during all that time, was the infallible

unquestionable guidance? What was the duty of persons finding themselves providentially in communion with one of the claimants, and coming to know that there was a doubt, but conscious that they were unable to balance the authorities, and solve that doubt for themselves?

It seems as if the answers to these questions, mutatis mutandis, might help us not a little in coming to a right practical sense of our own position and duty. Suppose a Roman Catholic should say that all necessary truths and rules having been settled before such schism commenced, a simple believer adhering to them was safe, even though he might be, innocently on his part, out of communion with the true successor of St. Peter: I suppose he might also add, that God's watchful Providence protected both sections of the Church against disagreement in fundamentals, during the period of their estrangement; so that although externally divided, they were in His sight One, and the means of grace and salvation might be had in both.

If thus much be granted, (I know not whether it would be, but if it were,) how is not our principle conceded? For surely the mere length of time is not essential in this case. It is just as conceivable that nine as that two generations of believers might live and die in such comparative disadvantage. The one no more implies failure in the Church, or a breach of the promises, than the

other. By whatever process the word of Scripture was fulfilled, to any faithful man "willing to do God's will," and desiring so to "know of the doctrine," in a time when the chair of St. Peter was disputed, by the same or a similar process it may be fulfilled to us.

It was of course impossible, then, for ordinary persons to decide between those claimants; for how could they ascertain the facts of an election, or settle the disputed points of ecclesiastical law? They could but abide in the Communion whereunto God's Providence had called them, desiring and hoping to be in the Catholic Church. And is not this just an account of the duty of the same sort of persons under the present sad division of Christendom? The disputed points are waiting for a general Council to settle them. That final and supreme authority of the Church is for a time, providentially, in abeyance. We go on appealing to it, and in the mean time submitting our judgment to that portion of the apparent visible Church, wherewith, by God's appointment, we are in Communion.

The more I consider the promises of Holy Writ, directed as they are more especially to the meek and humble and trembling of heart, the more hope do I seem to feel that they may be addressed to persons in our condition, at least as consistently with their letter and spirit, as when they are taken in that more outward and palpable sense, which

Roman Catholics attribute to them. And if there is but a fair probability that such may be the case, then on Bishop Butler's principle,—rather I will say, on the principle which our Great Father has ordained to guide His children in practical matters, it must be better for each person, and in the end, doubtless, more conducive to the unity of the Church, for English Catholics to "abide in the calling wherein they are called;" overcoming, for faith and charity's sake, the temptation to seek elsewhere more certainty, and a more satisfactory systematical kind of knowledge: whereof the one seems rather too like "requiring a sign," the other, like "seeking after wisdom," in that spirit which the Apostle reproved.

Again according to Roman Catholic statements, an analogy might be supposed between our case, and that of an Israelite of old invited to Christianity. What then was the sort and amount of testimony, which it pleased God to vouchsafe to those whom He called to so great a change?

By allowance of all but infidels, no Jew could be more certain of the divine origin of the system in which he was trained, than we are of those portions of Christianity which we hold in common with the Roman Church. We seem to ourselves to have, at least, as complete evidence of our relation to Christ, as the Jews had of their interest in the God of their Fathers. Our circumstances (if it may be reverently said) require more abundant proof than

theirs inasmuch as we are called on to renounce and disavow a great deal, they only to build on what they had before.

But what is the fact? While to them was given every mark of supernatural interference, we are left to such comparisons as our own and others' ingenuity and learning can supply. With them it was submission to a voice from Heaven: with us it must be either reasonings and feelings of our own, or acquiescence in those of a guide whom we choose for ourselves. If we were sure that we might reason at all from their case to ours, the obvious inference would be, that God willed us rather to refrain from that, which when He would have done, He signified His purpose so irresistibly. The comparative want of evidence would strengthen the impression which the moral difficulties had left.

Another broad and obvious way of considering the question would be, to compare the acknowledged difficulties of the Roman and English theories, and observe which are in fact most analogous to those, wherewith the general truths of all religion are beset.

The Anglican theory of Church Unity may perhaps be stated, sufficiently for our present purpose, as follows: That our Lord left His Apostles to be collectively the centre of union to His Church, so that Communion with them in Faith and Sacraments should be for ever the