spirit of pride than the spirit of CHRIST—more of party vanity than of Catholic generosity—more of historical ignorance than of philosophical wisdom, in these self-congratulatory comparisons between our meagre conflicting, though (if you will) enlightened, “systems” of Religion and the One high-minded faith, and chivalrous piety, and unsystematized benevolence of our less instructed ancestors.—At all events, the vague objections drawn from these intangible charges of general corruption, very plainly rest on two unproved assumptions—one of the principle and one of the fact. And this, perhaps, is all that is necessary to be shown. For is not the Succession itself a fact of sufficient magnitude to make us pause before we say, it is WORTH NOTHING? This undeniable fact which we allege; this Succession of CHRIST’S Apostolic Ministry; this, GOD’S sustained marvel of eighteen hundred years, is assailed by man’s bare assertion, ‘that it has been SUSTAINED FOR NOTHING.’ But from among these general charges of Corruption, there sometimes is one singled out, as of a magnitude too great to be doubtful, and to the believer in Revelation too malignant to be of questionable effect: the charge, I mean, of Idolatry. If there were nothing else, it is said, to impede the spiritual grace of the Succession, the Idolatry prevalent in the Churches of the Roman Communion would be amply sufficient. And in proof of this, the case of the Jewish Church is confidently quoted, and the fierce denunciations uttered and executed against GOD’S favoured people for this especial sin, beyond all others. Now here too we seem to have some unproved assumptions; as well as some false reasoning from the analogy of the Jewish people. First of all there is the assumption which we have previously noticed, namely, that there _is_ an amount of personal human sin which _fatally_ cuts off, or obstructs, the instituted channels of Divine grace; which has never yet been proved. Then there is the assumption that idolatry is the specific sin whose guilt would have this effect. And this may possibly be true—when the first assumption is made good—but as yet, this has not been proved. And then there is the third assumption, that the Church in the middle ages was so fully and universally guilty of this sin of idolatry, as to cut off the virtue of the Apostolic Succession for ever. And I need hardly say that this has not been proved, for it must in any case remain a doubtful point—beyond our power to settle for certain. And yet how unheedingly these three assumptions are made use of in the arguments so resolutely and thanklessly urged from the parallel circumstances of the Jews. In the first place it is assumed that the grace of the Jewish institutions was so cut off as to be _lost_ on account of idolatry, in the times before CHRIST; which cannot be shown. (Rom. xi. 29.) For even if it be shown that that Divine grace was quite suspended during a season of idolatry,