judgment. They believe it, because they hope it. But it must be remembered that hope and belief are not relative things. Hope and fear, belief and disbelief, are the real antagonists. We believe or disbelieve according to the evidence for any fact; we hope or fear according to the character and consequences of the fact either proved, or probable upon the evidence proposed. Our hope may not, any more than our fear, overrule our belief. Either way we are merely deceiving ourselves; the feeling of our nature is usurping a tyranny over our reason and conscience. In fact, they who disbelieve the eternity of punishment because they fear it, and they who believe the indefinite theory of Catholic unity because they hope it to be true, must be classed in the same category, though the moral affections be diametrically opposed. In both cases, evidence is made to yield to the wishes, and the reason to the will.

Again, it must be remembered that the endeavours of modern times to construct a theory which shall embrace all the anomalies of Christendom are most narrow and partial. It is argued that the condition of so large a body of Christians, perhaps thirty or forty millions in number, who have forfeited the Apostolical succession, claims at our hands some concession. Whether we are appointed of God to make such concessions from His institutions, whether this giving of largess of that which is another's may not bring us under the condemnation of the

steward who wasted his master's goods, is a matter to be considered by all serious men. But waiving this point, it seems always forgotten that all Christendom for fifteen hundred years, and more than five-sixths of Christendom from the Apostles to this day, have ever stayed their belief on the promises of Christ made to His one Catholic Church. They that are concerned to establish a looser theory, how numerous soever when taken by themselves, are a small fraction of the Christendom of to-day, and as a handful compared with the multitudes of Christians who from the beginning have lived, hoped, suffered, and died in another trust.

But, lastly, I have endeavoured to show that the supposed consequences of this Catholic doctrine do not in fact flow from it. It is one thing to assert that there is no proof that God has revealed another way of salvation besides the one Church, and another thing to say that all concerning whom God has revealed nothing shall certainly be lost. This no man dare say; nor does it follow from the principle here affirmed. The shallowest logician can tell us that between the propositions, "All that live faithfully in the one Church shall be saved," and "None that are out of the one Church shall be saved," there is neither by conversion nor by inference any imaginable connexion.

But, once more, let it be observed that we have ascertained a plain and sufficient principle, by which we may well and surely believe in the salvation of

all those who bring forth the fruits of repentance and faith, and of no others, whether they be heirs of the one Church, or disinherited of their birthright, or never so much as included within the precincts of Christendom. In all such the one inscrutable Spirit dwells, and they are one in an unconscious and invisible unity; while the conscious and visible unity of the Church Catholic stands unshaken. This will remain a fact, a phenomenon, a mystery, a sacrament, a witness of manifold wisdom revealed and unrevealed, to the world's end. At the same time we have seen reason to believe that they who forfeit the unity of the Church place themselves, or are placed by others, at a grave disadvantage—it may be in a great peril; and this by the forfeiture of the mystical, moral, and doctrinal media, and helps, to holiness and everlasting life. And this great law the analogy of all God's dealings, natural and revealed, confirms; as, for instance, disease following sin, inherited poverty, and the like: and, again, the removing of the candlestick for the fathers' sins, the state of the Asiatic and African Churches, the folds of Cyril and Clement, of Cyprian and Augustin, at this day.

CHAPTER III.

THE LOSS OF SUBJECTIVE UNITY.

Ir now remains for us to consider the last form of the subject before us, namely, the condition of those Christian churches which, retaining the objective unity of doctrine and discipline, have forfeited the subjective unity of inter-communion.

I have already shown that this subjective unity is one proximate final end for which the objective unity is ordained; and that it is the matter of probation, duty, and responsibility to the individual Christian, and to the several churches of the Catholic communion.

The first instance we may take is that of the Donatist schism. It is true that this case does not fall with absolute strictness under the enunciation of our present question; and yet it is for the most part included in it, and it has no approximation to any other division of the subject. The Donatist schism is an example of the forfeiture of subjective

unity in a particular Church by the establishment of a rival succession of bishops. Only one of these could be the lawful succession, though both were undoubtedly valid. It is unnecessary to go further into the history than to state that, on the vacancy of the see of Carthage, a division was made in the choice and consecration of a successor. Cæcilianus being lawfully elected and consecrated, the antagonist party objected that one of his consecrators, Felix of Aptungus, had been a traditor in the Dioclesian persecution. This, with other accusations against Cæcilianus, formed their pretext for electing and consecrating Majorinus. There were thenceforward two successions in the African Churches, and afterwards in Gaul and Rome also. In Africa the Donatist body for a time were the majority, and their bishops out-numbered the Catholic. The rival succession maintained itself for more than a hundred years. The characteristic temper of the two bodies is remarkable. The Donatists denounced the Catholics as idolatrous and defiled, re-ordained and re-baptized all converts, assumed exclusively to themselves the title of Catholic, and taught that the whole Catholic Church, except themselves, was fallen from Christ. It is not to our present purpose to go into the detail of their pride, covetousness, violence, and rebellion. I am speaking of them only as a phenomenon in relation to the objective Unity of the Church. On the other hand, the Catholics acknowledged them as Christians, called