Nor is there any thing in the profession of the sects around us to disturb us. They contradict each other, or rather themselves. They pretend to no Antiquity, they do not claim a Tradition, they have no stability, no consistency; they as little interfere, or profess to interfere, with our doctrine and our pretensions at all, as the schools of philosophy and science. They have taken a different line and occupy a different province. They gain their opinions from a distinct source. As well might it be said that diviners interfere with prophecy, as those who out of their own judgment conjecture the doctrine of Christ, with its traditionary delivery through His appointed stewards.

The only real difficulty in our path in the question now under review, arises from the pretensions of the Romanists who are among us. They profess to be the Church and to teach the Catholic Faith as well as we, yet differ materially from us. Which then are our people to believe? but even here there is no such difficulty in our path as opponents would be glad to create. Assuming, as our present argument leads us to do, that Romanists and we are both branches of the one Catholic Church, I say the difference of doctrine between them and us is little of a practical difficulty in finding what is Apostolical, or of a drawback upon our people's certainty and comfort in the Anglo-Catholic communion. Indeed, the two rival systems, Roman and English, agreeing amid their differences in those

points which they each hold to be the highest truths, and which sectaries more or less undervalue, afford a remarkable attestation to the Apostolical origin of these. Both profess the Apostles' Creed. Both use substantially the same Common Prayer, ours indeed being actually but a selection from theirs. It is nothing to the purpose in this place what and how great the errors of Romanism are in practice. We know they are very serious; but I am speaking of its professions, with which alone at this instant I am concerned. And the doctrines of Three Persons in One indivisible Divine Nature; of the union of two Natures, Divine and Human, in the One Person of Christ; of the imputation of Adam's sin on his descendants; of the death of Christ to reconcile God the Father to us sinners; of the application of His merits through external rites; of the singular efficacy and mysteriousness of Sacraments; of the Apostolical ministry; of unity; of the necessity of good works; these and other doctrines are maintained, and maintained as the chief doctrines of the Gospel, both by us and by them. And our very differences in other matters, and our hostility towards each other increase, I say, the force of our unanimity where it

exists.

On the other hand, the very fact of those differences throws a corresponding uncertainty over those points which Rome maintains by herself; such as

the existence of Purgatory, the supremacy of the Roman see, and the Infallibility of the Church.

If, in answer to this statement, it be urged that the peculiar claim set up by Rome to be the true Church to the exclusion of ourselves, is so serious as to perplex the inquirer, and almost to lead him to join himself to her communion as the safest course, whatever be the identity of doctrine between the two systems on greater points, let it be considered whether on the other hand there be not some peculiarities hanging about her, which are sufficient from the same prudential motives to keep us at a distance from her. Our Lord said of false prophets, "By their fruits shall ye know them;" and, however the mind may be entangled theoretically, yet surely it will fall upon certain marks in Rome which seem intended to convey to the simple and honest inquirer a solemn warning to keep clear of her, while she carries them about her. Such are her denying the cup to the laity, her idolatrous worship of the Blessed Virgin, her Image-worship, her recklessness in anathematizing, and her schismatical and overbearing spirit. Surely we have more reason for thinking that her doctrines concerning Images and the Saints are false, than that her saying that they are Apostolical is true. I conceive, then, on the whole, that while Rome confirms by her accordant witness our own teaching in all greater things, she does not tend

by her novelties, and violence, and threats, to disturb the practical certainty of Catholic doctrine, or to seduce from us any sober and conscientious inquirer.

And here I end, at last, my remarks on Fundamentals, in which I have been unavoidably led, partly to repeat, partly to take for granted, some portions of the preceding Lectures.

LECTURE XI.

ON SCRIPTURE AS THE RECORD OF FAITH.

It will perhaps be questioned, whether the foregoing view of Catholic Tradition and the Fundamentals of the Church, is consistent with the supremacy of Holy Scripture in questions of faith. That it is not consistent with present popular notions on the subject I am quite aware; but it may be that those notions are wrong, and that the foregoing view, which is taken from our great divines, is right. If it could be proved contrary to any thing they have elsewhere maintained, this would be to accuse them of inconsistency; which I leave to our enemies to do. However, I will not content myself with a mere appeal to authority, but will argue the question on grounds of reason. In this, then, and the two following Lectures, I propose to discuss the question of what is sometimes called "the Rule of Faith;" and to show, that nothing that has gone before is inconsistent with the reverence,