ize it to labor, with all zeal and diligence, to bring its own communion into Christian fellowship with the one catholic, apostolic communion. If I find myself invested with authority in a revolted province, I have the right to exercise that authority for the maintenance of order and the restoration of the authority of the legitimate sovereign. More than this we did not contend for, because more than this was not required by our argument. Doubtless, a further question may be raised, but into that we do not enter.

We

Our correspondent is, unquestionably, a Churchman. He ought, then, to comprehend us, and perceive, at once, what we were contending for, even though not explicitly stated. We were not discussing the question in its bearing on individuals, but on communions. We contended that the question, between the several particular communions and the catholic communion, should not be regarded as a question between the Church and Paganism or Mahometanism, nor as a question between the Church and individuals not professing to be members of Christ's body. It must be regarded as a question between communions, separated by what, in technical language, is called a schism. The heresy, be there more or less of it, is abandoned, the moment we become willing to hear and obey the Church. will suppose, then, that the several communions have come to comprehend and believe the Church, to own, and to be willing to come under, its authority; the question which now comes up concerns simply the schism. The schism is now to be healed; and we contend that it is to be healed without the particular communion being required to break up its religious order, or give up its ministry. Congregations may come into communion with the Church, through their bishops or pastors. The question concerns, then, the conditions of canonical communion for the clergy of the several sects; and this question, which is of great importance in its practical bearings, we proposed should be settled, as it easily may be, on Catholic principles, by a new Council. Are we understood ?

But we are told, in addition, that "some one of the sects must have and develope the reproductive power of the Church." We believe we understand this. It means, we suppose, that only one of the existing communions has a truly apostolic ministry. As to this, much may be said, and we must be careful that analogies do not lead us away from the truth. We, however, willingly concede, that the reproductive power of the Church is indivisible; for, if it could be divided, and become the property of distinct communions, no argument could be offered for unity and catholicity; in fact, the unity and catholicity of the Church would be words without meaning. If, then, we assume that the Church still exists, unmutilated, in all the fullness of its reproductive energy, we must, undoubtedly, assume that the reproductive power, and the reproductive organs, are possessed by one communion alone, and that the rest, if they have life at all, can have it, only through communion with that one.

But, it is possible, that the reproductive energy, though still retained, is, by the disruption of Christendom, somewhat impaired in the communion which still retains it. We admit that there is still the one catholic apostolic communion, unbroken; but the power and efficiency of that communion, in generating and communicating life, though not destroyed, are yet greatly impaired, and, to no little extent, rendered inoperative by our sectarian divisions. The Evangelist says, Christ "did not many mighty works" in a certain place, "on account of their unbelief." The same thing happens to the Church itself. Not merely they who are in a state of schism suffer, but the whole body suffers, and no longer performs, unimpeded, its proper functions. The whole Church suffers by the distractions and divisions of the so-called Christian world. This is wherefore we speak of it as the torn and bleeding, though it be still the living, body of Christ. We say, then, the reproductive energy, though still retained by the Catholic Church, is not possessed by even that Church, at present, in all its vigor. A work is neces

sary to be done before it can resume its functions, and prosecute its labors with the requisite energy and success. It is not a reform within that it needs, but the removal of obstructions from without. It is the Church, the Catholic Apostolic Church, the spiritual mother of us all, but, alas! not the Church in full strength, full glory, and full operation. This is the ground we take, because it is obviously true, and involves no contradiction of Catholic principles.

But waiving this; we go further, and maintain, that all communion with the one Catholic Church has never been entirely cut off. The regular channels may have been blocked up, and the communication become irregular, feeble, and insufficient; still, there has been, and is continued, some communion, through which, Christian life may, and does, find its way from the heart to the extremities. How this can be, we hold ourselves abundantly able to show, and will show, on some future occasion. We will only say now, that, while we contend earnestly for a regular apostolic ministry, as indispensable, essential, to the very being of the Church, yet, we are not prepared to say, that Christian life can be communicated only by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. Apostolic succession and canonical appointment have a profounder significance than some formal, narrow-minded Churchmen suspect. The Gospel is a system of Realism, and everywhere acknowledges the Real Presence. The Holy Ghost dwells in the Church not merely by way of promise and external appointment, but really, in the fullness of his lifegiving energy. The Divine Life enters into every holy man, and every holy woman. Communion with the holy, even though they are not in orders, is a medium of life. A virtue goes out from every good and pious Christian. I cannot meet and converse with a saintly man or woman, for one half hour, without receiving a divine influence, as well as impulse. A holy energy is imparted to me, and I never can be again what I was. In this way, every true Christian becomes, in some sense, a priest, and diffuses the Chris

tian life even beyond the sphere of the regular priesthood. Here is the significance of that promise, "I will make you priests and kings." We must not, in our laudable endeavours to sustain the outward priesthood, overlook this glorious and blessed spiritual priesthood. Doubtless, we should speak with great delicacy, and maintain great soberness in our views, lest we run into the errors, extravagances, and absurdities of the old Montanists. We must, undoubtedly, take care not to make our views of this priesthood a pretext for fanaticism, irregularity, and abuse of the regular ministry. It does not override, supersede, or oppose, the regular priesthood; but operates under it, in harmony with it, continues and extends its influence. Within its legitimate sphere, the Catholic Church has always asserted it, and it was only the abuse of it, it condemned in the Montanistic heresy. Now, who can say, how much of Christian life has been diffused by this spiritual priesthood, by the lives of holy men and women, far beyond the sphere of the direct operations of the regular ministry? Here is a subject deserving more consideration than it usually receives from Churchmen.

Then, again, the sects have not yet exhausted all the life generated and communicated by the Church, prior to the disruption of the Christian world in the sixteenth century, sustained to some degree, as it has been, by the Bible, the literature of the Church, and numerous foundations and social institutions, all running back and having their root in the Church, prior to that epoch. Moreover, all have, in various ways, participated in the life generated by the labors of the Church since that epoch, which, though not equal to its previous labors, yet have not been altogether inefficacious. The Church is the city of God, an illuminated city, set on a hill, and sends out its rays to enlighten many who dwell not within its walls.

We have no room to treat at length the theory of development, which our correspondent so positively condemns, nor to rebuke him, as he deserves, for his theory of pantheistic immobility. The Church con

tains, 1. The Life; 2. The philosophy of the Life. The Life is the principle, the Law, the indwelling Force, or Energy, and is, strictly speaking, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete. This changes not; but its assimilation to human nature, and practical realization in the life of man and of men, is a progressive work, and involves development and growth.

The philosophy of the Church, that is, its exposition, interpretation, and practical application of the law of life, must needs be subject to development and growth. In this mutable world, and changing life, new questions are perpetually coming up, or old questions in new forms, which are to be decided. The Written Word, no doubt, contains the principle, the law applicable to each particular case; but the application itself demands an authoritative interpreter. The law does not change, but men's views of it change, and so do the questions to which it needs to be applied. The outward form and discipline of the Church, while the principles of each remain unaltered and unalterable, may often need modifying, to adapt them to the altered conditions of society. The Church, we contend, has the inherent power to make such alterations in them, from time to time, as in her wisdom are necessary; and this power she has always claimed and exercised. No man will venture to say, that the outward form, the usages, and discipline of the Catholic Church, have remained unvaried from the time of the Apostles.

Similar remarks may be made in respect to general science and philosophy. Nothing that concerns fundamental principles can be altered; but the exposition of these principles is always affected more or less by the state of science, and the prevailing philosophy, at the time it is made. It may so happen, that the Church may sanction an exposition, which, though true in substance, shall yet be faulty in form; for, while the truth. is universal and eternal, the form, under which it is set forth, may be local and temporary. At the time of setting it forth, this form may be as necessary as the Greek language when speaking to Greeks, or the Latin when