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,' though all 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

1 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.

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.1 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.'

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

There occurs in a late number of a leading Periodical a remark, which one may find also in the mouths of many, and in the minds of very many more, that the great diversity of religious opinions prevailing in the world, and the absence of all superhuman provision against them, is a proof that it is the will of the Almighty that such should be the case, that men were

1 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.

designed to hold all diversities of religious belief. Now, the inference which will naturally be drawn, on further reflection, from this is, that it is no matter whether we hold truth or falsehood; and next, that there is no truth at all in any religion.

But this is not all. The same reasoning would go to prove that since there is no infallible and universally accessible guide in morals, and men greatly differ in their judgments of what is morally right and wrong, hence we are to infer that God did not design men to agree on this point neither, and that it matters not whether we act on right or wrong principles; and, in short, that there is no such thing as right and wrong; but only what each man thinks. The two opposite errors (as we think them) from the same source are, 'If God wills all men to believe, and to act rightly, He must have given us an infallible and accessible guide for belief and practice. (1.) But He does so will; therefore, there is such a guide: and (2.) He has not given us any such guide; therefore, He does not will all men to believe and act rightly.'

Now, this is to confound the two senses of WILL, as distinguished in the concluding paragraph of the 17th Article of the Church of England. In a certain sense, the most absurd errors, and the most heinous crimes, may be said to be according to the Divine Will; since God does not interpose his omnipotence to prevent them. But in our doings,' says that Article, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared in Holy Writ.'

'It is certain, that heresies and schisms are, of all others, the greatest scandals.'

'Nothing doth so much keep men out of the Church, and drive men out of the Church, as breach of unity.'

If proof of the truth of Bacon's remark were needed, it might be found in the fact, that among the more immediate causes of the stationary, or even receding, condition of the Reformation, for nearly three centuries,-a condition so strangely at variance with the anticipations excited in both friends and foes by its first rapid advance, the one which has been most frequently remarked upon is the contentions among Protestants,

who, soon after the first outbreak of the revolt from Rome, began to expend the chief part of their energies in contests with each other; and often showed more zeal, and even fiercer hostility, against rival - Protestants, than against the systems and the principles which they agreed in condemning. The adherents of the Church of Rome, on the contrary, are ready to waive all internal differences, and unite actively, as against a common enemy, in opposing the Greek Church, and all denominations of Protestants. They are like a disciplined army under a single supreme leader; in which, whatever jealousies and dissensions may exist among the individual officers and soldiers, every one is at his post whenever the trumpet gives the call to arms, and the whole act as one man against the hostile army. Protestants, on the contrary, labour under the disadvantages which are well known in military history, of an allied army—a host of confederates,-who are often found to forget the common cause, and desert, or even oppose one another.

Hence, it is continually urged against the Reformed Churches, 'See what comes of allowing private judgment in religion. Protestants, who profess to sacrifice everything to truth, do not, after all, attain it, for if they did, they would all (as has been just observed) be agreed. The exercise of their private judgment does but expose them to the disadvantages of divisions, without, after all, securing to them an infallible certainty of attaining truth; while those who submit to the decisions of one supreme central authority, have at least the advantage of being united against every common adversary.'

And this advantage certainly does exist, and ought not to be denied, or kept out of sight. The principle is indeed sound, of making truth, as embraced on sincere conviction, the first object, and unity a secondary one; and if Man were a less imperfect Being than he is, all who adhered to that principle would, as has been said, be agreed and united; and truth and rectitude would have their natural advantages over their opposites. But as it is, what we generally find, is truth mixed with human error, and genuine religion tainted with an alloy of human weaknesses and prejudices. And this it is that gives a certain degree of advantage to any system-whether in itself true or false-which makes union, and submission to a supreme authority on earth, the first point.

D

If you exhort men to seek truth, and to embrace what, on deliberate examination, they are convinced is truth, they may follow this advice, and yet-considering what Man is-may be expected to arrive at different conclusions. But if you exhort them to agree, and with that view, to make a compromise,each consenting (like the Roman Triumvirs of old, who sacrificed to each other's enmity their respective friends) to proscribe some of their own convictions,-then, if they follow this advice, the end sought will be accomplished.

But surely the advantages, great as they are, of union, are too dearly purchased at such a price; since, besides the possibility that men may be united in what is erroneous and wrong in itself, there is this additional evil-and this should be remembered above all,-that whatever absolute truth there may be in what is assented to on such a principle, it is not truth to those who assent to it not on conviction, but for union's sake. And what is in itself right to be done, is wrong to him who does it without the approbation of his own judgment, at the bidding of others, and with a view to their co-operation. On the other hand, the unity-whether among all Christians, or any portion of them-which is the result of their all holding the same truth,-this unity is not the less perfect from its being incidental, and not the primary object aimed at, and to which all else was to be sacrificed. But those who have only incidentally adhered to what is in itself perfectly right, may be themselves wrong; even to a greater degree than those who may have fallen into error on some points, but who are on the whole sincere votaries of truth.

Another disadvantage that is to be weighed against the advantages of an unity based on implicit submission to a certain supreme authority, is that the adherents of such a system are deprived of the character of witnesses.

When a man professes, and we are unable to disprove the sincerity of the profession, that he has been, on examination, convinced of the truth of a certain doctrine, he is a witness to the force of the reasons which have convinced him. But the adherents of an opposite system give, in reality, no testimony at all, except to the fact that they have received so and so from their guide. If there were but a hundred persons in all the world who professed to have fully convinced themselves, inde