mple; and yet its subjects,
neither in a mass, nor as individuals, neither the multitudes on
Mount Carmel, nor the Shunammite and her household, had any command
given them, though miracles were displayed before them, to break off
from their own people, and to submit themselves to Judah.[3]

It is plain that a theory such as this, whether the marks of a divine
presence and life in the Anglican Church were sufficient to prove
that she was actually within the covenant, or only sufficient to
prove that she was at least enjoying extraordinary and uncovenanted
mercies, not only lowered her level in a religious point of view,
but weakened her controversial basis. Its very novelty made it
suspicious; and there was no guarantee that the process of subsidence
might not continue, and that it might not end in a submersion.
Indeed, to many minds, to say that England was wrong was even to say
that Rome was right; and no ethical reasoning whatever could overcome
in their case the argument from prescription and authority. To this
objection I could only answer that I did not make my circumstances. I
fully acknowledged the force and effectiveness of the genuine
An glican theory, and that it was all but proof against the disputants
of Rome; but still like Achilles, it had a vulnerable point, and that
St. Leo had found it out for me, and that I could not help it;--that,
were it not for matter of fact, the theory would be great indeed, it
would be irresistible, if it were only true. When I became a
Catholic, the editor of a magazine who had in former days accused me,
to my indignation, of tending towards Rome, wrote to me to ask, which
of the two was now right, he or I? I answered him in a letter, part
of which I here insert, as it will serve as a sort of leave-taking of
the great theory, which is so specious to look upon, so difficult to
prove, and so hopeless to work.

"Nov. 8, 1845. I do not think, at all more than I did, that the
Anglican principles which I advocated at the date you mention, lead
men to the Church of Rome. If I must specify what I mean by 'Anglican
principles,' I should say, _e.g._ taking _Antiquity_, not the
_existing Church_, as the oracle of truth; and holding that the
_Apostolical Succession_ is a sufficient guarantee of Sacramental
Grace, without _union with the Christian Church throughout the
world_. I think these still the firmest, strongest ground against
Rome--that is, _if they can be held_. They _have_ been