on the contrary, their part to teach him how-by demonstration or by experiment-to verify each point for himself.

On the other hand, the adherents of a Church claiming to be infallible on all essential points, and who, consequently, profess to renounce private judgment, these (besides that, as has been just said, they cannot but judge for themselves as to one point-that very claim itself) have also room for the exercise of judgment, and often do exercise it, on questions as to what points are essential, and for which, consequently, infallible rectitude is insured. Thus the Jansenists, when certain doctrines were pronounced heretical by the Court of Rome, which condemned Jansenius for maintaining them, admitted, as in duty bound, the decision that they were heretical, but denied that they were implied in Jansenius's writings; and of this latter point the Pope, they said, was no more qualified or authorised to decide than any other man. And we should be greatly mistaken if we were to assume that all who have opposed what we are accustomed to call the Reformation' were satisfied that there was nothing in their Church that needed reform, or were necessarily indifferent about the removal of abuses. We know that, on the contrary, many of them pointed out and complained of, and studied to have remedied, sundry corruptions that had crept into their Church, and which were, in many instances, sanctioned by its highest authorities.

Sincere, one must suppose, and strong, must have been the conviction of several who both did and suffered much in labouring after such remedy. And it would be absurd, as well as uncharitable, to take for granted that Erasmus, for instance, and, still more, Pascal, and all the Jansenists, were withheld merely by personal fear, or other personal motives, from revolting against the Church of Rome. But they conceived, no doubt, that what they considered Church-Unity was to be preserved at any cost; that a separation from what they regarded as the Catholic (or Universal) Church, was a greater evil than all others combined. If, without loss of unity, they could succeed in removing any of those other evils, for such a reform they would gladly labour. But, if not, to Unity anything and everything was to be sacrificed.

Such seems to have been the sentiment of a Roman Catholic priest, apparently a man of great simplicity of character, who,

about three or four years ago, had interviews, at his own desire, with several of our bishops. He spoke very strongly of the unseemingly and lamentable spectacle (and who could not but agree with him in thinking it?) of disunion and contention among Christ's professed followers; and he dwelt much upon the duty of earnestly praying and striving for unity.

In reference to this point, it was thought needful to remind him, that two parties, while apparently agreeing in their prayers and endeavours for unity, might possibly mean by it different things; the one understanding by it the submission of all Christians to the government of one single ecclesiastical community on earth; the other, merely mutual kindness and agreement in faith. Several passages of Scripture were pointed out to him, tending to prove that the churches founded by the Apostles were all quite independent of each other, or of any one central Body. To one among the many passages which go to prove this, I directed his especial attention; that in which Paul's final interview (as he believed it) with the elders of Miletus and Ephesus is recorded (Acts xx.). Foreseeing the dangers to which they would be exposed, even from false teachers amongst themselves, and of which he had been earnestly warning them for three years, it is inconceivable that he should not have directed them to Peter or his successors at Rome or elsewhere, if he had known of any central supreme Church, provided as an infallible guide, to whose decisions they might safely refer when doubts or disputes should arise. It follows therefore inevitably that he knew of none. But all Christians were exhorted to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.' Such unity, he was reminded (for he was formerly a minister of our Church), is the subject of a special petition in our Prayer for all Conditions of Men, and in several others.

It was remarked to him, that Truth had a paramount claim to be the first object; and that since Truth is one, all who reach Truth will reach Unity; but that men may, and often do, gain Unity without Truth.

He was reminded, moreover, that agreement among Christians, though an object we should wish for, and endeavour by all allowable means to promote, must, after all, depend on others as much as on ourselves; and our endeavour may be completely defeated through their fault: whereas truth is a benefit

-and a benefit of the first importance-to those who receive it themselves, even though they should have to lament its rejection by many others.

And it was pointed out to him, that to pray and strive for truth; and to be ever open to conviction, does not (as he seemed to imagine (imply a wavering faith, and an anticipation of change. When any one prints from moveable types, this does not imply that he has committed, or that he suspects, typographical errors, any more than if he had employed an engraved plate. The types are not moveable in the sense of being loose and liable to casual change. He may be challenging all the world to point out an error, showing that any can be corrected if they do detect one; though, perhaps, he is fully convinced that there are none.

He was, in conclusion, reminded that no man can serve two masters;' not because they are necessarily opposed, but because they are not necessarily combined, and cases may arise in which the one must give way to the other. There is no necessary opposition even between God and Mammon,' if by 'Mammon' we understand worldly prosperity. For it will commonly happen that a man will thrive the better in the world from the honesty, frugality, and temperance which he may be practising from higher motives. And there is not even

anything necessarily wrong in aiming at temporal advantages. But whoever is resolved on obtaining wealth in one way or another (si possis, recte; si non, quocunque modo, rem') will occasionally be led to violate duty; and he, again, who is fully bent on 'seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,' will sometimes find himself called on to incur temporal losses. And so it is with the occasionally rival claims of Truth, and of Unity, or of any two objects which may possibly be, in some instance, opposed. We must make up our minds which is, in that case, to give way. One must be the supreme,-must

be the master.'

'Either he will love the one and hate the other.' This seems to refer to cases in which a radical opposition between the two does exist: 'or else he will cleave to the one, and despise (i. e. disregard and neglect) the other.' This latter seems to be the description of those cases in which there is no such necessary opposition; only, that cases will

sometimes arise, in which the one or the other must be disregarded.

"When Atheists and profane persons do hear of so many and contrary opinions in religion, it doth avert them from the Church,

One may meet with persons, not a few, who represent religious differences as, properly speaking, designed by the Most High, and acceptable to Him. (See the extract from the tragedy of Tamerlane in the Annotations on Essay XVI.)

Thus, in a very popular children's book (and such books often make an impression which is, unconsciously, retained through life), there is a short tale of a father exhibiting to his son the diversities of worship among Christians of different denominations, and afterwards their uniting to aid a distressed neighbour. The one, he tells the child, is a thing in which men are born to differ; and the other, one in which they are born to agree.' Now it is true that persons of different persuasions may, and often do, agree in practising the duties of humanity. But that they do not often differ, and differ very widely, not only in their natural conduct, but in their principles of conduct, is notoriously untrue. The writer of the tale must have overlooked (or else meant his readers to overlook) the cruel abominations of Paganism, ancient and modern,-the human sacrifices offered by some Pagans-the widow-burning and other atrocities of the Hindus; and (to come to the case of professed Christians) the 'holy wars' against the Huguenots and the Vaudois, the Inquisition, and all the other instances of persecution practised as a point of christian duty. Certainly, in whatever sense it is true that men are born to differ' in religion, in the same sense it is true that they are born to differ' in their moral practice as enjoined by their religion.

Somewhat to the same purpose writes the author of an able article in the Edinburgh Review, and also of an article on this volume, in the North British (Aug. 1857, p. 6), with whom I partly agree and partly not.

This writer maintains (1) that all, or nearly all, the divisions that have existed among Christians relate to points of a profoundly mysterious, and purely speculative character.

D

(2.) That on these points the language of Scripture is so obscure or ambiguous, that we must infer the Author of the revelation to have designed that it should receive different interpretations; while, on all matters of practical morality, the language is too plain to admit of doubt or difference of opinion.

(3.) That the dissent and schisms arising from diversity of interpretations of Scripture are on the whole beneficial; because, the union of great masses of men in one community does not tend to their improvement, but the contrary.

(4.) That the inexpediency of persecution may be demonstrated by an argument of universal application,—one to which a Mahometan or a Pagan must yield, as well as a Roman Catholic or a Protestant; namely, the impossibility of demonstrating that what is persecuted is really error.

not.

With all this, as I have said, I partly concur, and partly

(I.) It is very true, and is a truth which I have most earnestly dwelt on in many publications, that what is practical in the christian revelation is clearly, and fully, and frequently set forth; and that, on matters more of a speculative character, we find in Scripture only slight and obscure hints.'

But nevertheless it cannot be admitted that no passages of a practical character have been variously interpreted; or that all, or nearly all, or all the most important, of the differences that have divided Christians, relate to questions purely speculative. Take, as one instance, that very early and very widespread heresy, of the Gnostics; most of whom were rank Antinomians, teaching that they, as 'knowing the Gospel'— (whence their name),-were exempt from all moral duty, and would be accounted righteous by imputation, without doing righteousness."

These, John in his Epistles manifestly had in view; and no doubt Peter also, when he speaks of those who wrest the Scriptures,' especially Paul's Epistles, 'to their own destruction.' They, doubtless, as well as their successors (for, under various names Antinomians have always arisen from time to

1 This circumstance is pointed out as characteristic of our religion, in the Essay (1st Series) on the Practical Character of Revelation,' and also in the Lectures on A Future State.'

2 See John, Epis. i.