Church's divisions? what becomes of all the great sayings, such as Magna est veritas, et prævalebit? are we not sacrificing truth to peace, divine doctrines to hereditary yearnings and impressions?" Here then we come on the fourth head of our discussion: we have to shew, that what has been said is not transferable to the cases mentioned in the objection that being granted, it still leaves us a solid and complete ground of dogmatical teaching and that the hope of Church Union (humanly speaking) would not be diminished, but rather enlarged, by the general acceptance of our principles. The matter may perhaps be simplified by referring to a passage in St. John's Gospel, which contains a sort of classification of all religions. "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He the privilege of becoming sons of God." The first of these three verses seems to represent the condition of Heathens and Unbelievers; the second of Jews, Mahometans, and Heretics; the third of Christians properly so called, i. e. Catholics. Now as to the first, those who know not their Maker, the principle of "the safe way" is at once applicable to them, because in conversion they give up nothing, and have a chance of gaining eternity. With respect to those to whom Christ has come, but they have not yet received Him: the mass of testimony given in the first place to the Jews, and now made present to all Christians by the constant tradition of the Church warranting the Scriptures, is prima facie sufficient to overbalance such moral difficulties as may beset them. For in their case is no discontent nor ingratitude; they are not called on to give up any thing, but only to add to what they have: the Jew, who has always looked to Christ, to believe that He is already come; the Mahometan and Unitarian, to believe in His Divine Nature; the Rationalist, in our supernatural communion with Him. They are not, like English Churchmen, invited to disavow what they have all along accounted a real and living participation in God the Word made Man for them. Again; in neither of those cases are men invited, as we are, to trust their own a priori reasoning. All is testimony, overpowering testimony; first, that such and such miracles were wrought, such and such sufferings undergone; next, that this is the morality, this the doctrinal and sacramental system, in behalf of which it was all done and suffered. The sense of undivided Christendom on all these great points is so notorious, that to acquiesce therein is not reliance on, but submission of, our own understandings. As to the deep sense of sins past: one who has never yet believed himself a living member of Christ, cannot well experience the same fear and shame as he who has been all along taught what God has done for him. Conversion therefore from any form of rationalism to the Church need not bring with it any such check to contrition, as would naturally be occasioned by disavowal of our part in the Church. You go, for example, to a Baptist, and urge him to conform. He cannot say that he is tempted to do so, in part, by the hope of ridding himself of bitter remembrances of post-baptismal sin. For it was never any tenet of his, that post-baptismal sin has any special aggravation. But had he thought himself before in such sense a member of Christ, that his unchristian doings had on them that peculiar mark of evil, which Catholics recognise, then he might feel a sort of relief, in being told that his membership had hitherto been but imaginary. The same kind of remark might be made as to the degree in which he was separating himself from good persons in his former communion, and disparaging their goodness. How has he been used to judge of that goodness in times past? He has counted it, most truly of course, a special token from God's sanctifying Spirit, vouchsafed (as he thinks) upon the act of our believing in Christ as our Saviour. He has not counted it, as supposing himself Catholic he would have done, a regular fruit of the Free Unspeakable Gift, vouchsafed in Baptism on our being made members of Christ :the work not so much of the believer himself, as of Christ abiding in him. In that case, he must have been content to lower his estimate of it. But now nothing hinders, but that he may still think of it as he did; as of a token of mercy overflowing, an extraordinary favour, over and above the settled dispensation of Grace. Much in the same way as (it has been observed) the Rationalist ought not to think himself wronged by our denying the reality of his sacraments, since we allow him still as much as he claims himself,— edification, comfort, order, and the like:-so it is in this case. In joining the Church from any Protestant body, a man does not give up the claim of sacramental and supernatural holiness on the part of the communion which he leaves. For why? such claim was never at all alleged. In joining the Roman Church from the English or the Greek, he plainly does deny and disavow the same. This is a great and a startling difference. Lastly, as to giving offence, no doubt there is risk of it in every change of received opinions and conduct; risk of perplexing the simple, encouraging the presumptuous, and promoting a general scepticism. But the danger is mitigated, as the conviction assailed is less. To give up opinions is not like sacrificing principles. Private theories and interpretations are not so shocking to part with, as Church Formularies. Individuals are disturbed by the one, by the other whole nations and races. And what is more especially to be remarked, the very atmosphere of those bodies which do not profess and call themselves Catholic, is pervaded, avowedly so, by the elements of change. So that a movement towards something fixed, though it be a movement, tends on the whole to stability. As the moral objections to change are less, so the positive prima facie reasons for it are far more overpowering, when we deal with Dissenters, than when Roman Catholics are dealing with us. The very axiom which we begin with, "Universal consent among Christians is moral demonstration," is denied by Dissenters: they must deny it, in order to hold their own at all. But being once received, it tells so unquestionably for a visible Church, for sacramental grace, for government by succession from the Apostles, and perhaps for some other kindred points; that it may well seem intended to overrule far greater moral difficulties than any which stand in its way. One case, that which perhaps is most frequently alleged against us-the case of the Donatists-is at once disposed of by the very obvious reflection, so often adduced, and not least forcibly of late, that the Unity of the Church is by no means visible to us, in the same sense that it was to the contemporaries of St. Augustine. It is matter of reason or of faith, not of sight, in the countries |