THE broad and essential distinction between the Catholic and the Rationalist views of the Christian Ministry, seems necessarily to imply distinct conceptions of the whole Christian Religion. This was briefly alluded to in our first Lecture, but must now be more fully drawn out (though, I fear, at the risk of some repetition) in order to show the bearing of the respective doctrines of the Ministry on the general Religious theory, and on the two classes of interpretation of Holy Scripture. This is the more necessary, because no arguments, however clear, will effectually touch the mind so long as a fundamentally incorrect notion of their whole subject matter is inwardly cherished. So long as one theory is exclusively and implicitly relied on, the arguments which are built on another, essentially distinct, may be looked at as difficult, and perhaps unanswerable; still they will not shake the previous faith of the listener. The arguer is moving, so to speak, in a parallel, or even a diverging line, in which his hearer sees, perhaps, no exact flaw, but he is sensible that it touches him not. Thus many will attend to a train of reasoning, see that it establishes its conclusions inevitably, and yet not be morally affected by it—not convinced, not really touched. Their minds fall back on some distinct and cherished principle which they have previously been accustomed to admit, perhaps, without questioning; having been ever taught it, and so relying on it as a sort of “common sense” truth. This has been peculiarly the case in Religious controversy.—A certain view of the general system is received, and unless you can bring a man to think that this may be erroneous,—that is, unless you can shake a man’s faith in himself, and persuade him to call in question or examine even his fundamental notions—you have advanced but little towards convincing him of the truth; notwithstanding the logical accuracy of your reasonings. It is also to be feared that a mistake as to the very ideality of the Christian Religion is not only very possible, but very common. {111} It is not, therefore, with any desire of mere systematizing that these two distinct theories of Christianity are now drawn out; but with a firm persuasion that there is a reality and a practical importance in the distinction. Doubtless there are many modifications of opinion among Christians; but there are two bases on which they are very generally raised, and perhaps almost necessarily so; a basis of mental Principles, or a basis of Divine Institutions; a basis of intelligible “Doctrines,” or of Heavenly Realities; of that which is abstract, or that which is concrete. And the former of these may be (and I trust, without offence) described as the Rationalized, or Sectarian,—the latter is the Catholic basis. The former, at first sight, seems more philosophical and elevated and popular—the latter, more positive, more real, and yet more humbling to the pride of human intellect.