senters of the Continent, while as regards the Papists, in spite of very strong prejudices against them, I had been forced to feel that there was a deep unity of principles between us. She dwelt much on the denial of the cup to the laity, and said, "If anything could drive the people to rebellion it would be that."

Some days after I visited the Princess again, who said, "You surprise me. In talking to you I do not feel as if I were talking to a Protestant, and yet I suppose I must call the Anglican Church Protestant. What strikes me is the vast diversity of opinions, and upon the most important points, which I find within the English Church and in English authors. I have read," she continued, "many English books "-and she spoke of Tillotson, Hannah Moore, Bishop Horne, &c., &c.-" and my brother studied at Edinburgh, and has an excellent English library. I like much the pious and practical spirit of many of those English books, though of course I do not agree with the Methodistical, or Calvinistic, or Protestant doctrines contained in them, and, when I am preparing to communicate, I put them aside, and then read such as treat of the doctrines we believe. At such times I would rather read Catholic books, as I do not find in them any difference to signify, but I cannot endure their uncharitable spirit. I, for my part, would gladly pray in their churches, but they think it a sin to come into ours."

She was speaking especially of Vilna, where she has some Polish friends. They think all the followers of the Greek rite to be in the way of damnation. I said, "They are not to be blamed as uncharitable, because they have a horror of heresy and schism. Though they be wrong in their definition of the Church, that it is rather the fault of the Popes in past times than of individuals under authority now. Your own forms for receiving proselytes set up for you just as exclusive a definition as that of the Latins, only you are inconsistent. You all of you disbelieve the sense of your own books and formularies, and your danger lies in this, that, when your common sense has carried you out of the exclusive Orthodox-catholic Eastern definition of the Church, you know not where to stop, and so your practical disallowance of the formal pretensions of your own Church degenerates into liberalism and indifference. Here, for instance, I have not met with a single person who has shown solicitude to bring me to the orthodox communion for the salvation of my soul, though were I, thus unbefriended, to come myself to be reconciled, God would be thanked 'for having put it into my heart to flee, as from the flood into the ark, from heresy and the way of damnation into the true Eastern Church, out of which no one can possibly be saved.' Is this charity? I call it rather cruelty."

She seemed not to know anything about those

passages in the formularies which I quoted; nor to know how far they were of authority. She said, "Our Saviour distinctly rebuked such a spirit in the Jews towards the Samaritans, and turned the Samaritan woman's attention away from such former disputes to 'spirit and truth.'” On the contrary, I pointed out how He laid down to her dogmatically, "Ye worship, ye know not what; we know what we worship; salvation is of the Jews." So also the Church says now, to the Protestants, "Ye worship ye know not what, for salvation is of the Church." She admitted it, and said, smiling, "I wonder what my son's preceptor, an excellent Evangelico-Reformed Lutheran would say if he heard you accuse me so strongly of Protestantism. I cannot endure that illiberality. I think one must admit the difference between those who believe in Christ and wish to obey Him, and those who do not. If a man has this requisite with honesty of purpose, though he be out of the pale, one must feel and admit that he is a Christian, and in the way of salvation."

I asked, "When once you begin, where can you stop?" She answered, "Some time ago I wished to engage a preceptor for my son. A German presented

himself. I asked, 'Are you a Christian?' He was confused, and hesitated; then he said, 'I have not made up my mind, I have not quite formed my

opinions.' So I tried again, and at last got a satisfactory answer." "Satisfactory," I said; "had he been. baptized?" "I took that for granted." "Therefore you must have thought it necessary." "Yes, certainly." "Did he believe in the Holy Trinity? in the Incarnation?" 66 Certainly, for I asked him if he was a Christian." "Perhaps he was an unbaptized Unitarian, for such there are in America. It is by no means certain that he would understand your questions in your sense.' Just then the Hebrew Professor, a converted Rabbi, came in, and the Princess appealed to him; and he settled the point at once in her favour, saying, "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and confess it with your mouth, you are in the way of salvation; this is the doctrine of our Church."

CHAPTER LXXXI.

Conversations with M. Mouravieff, the Bishop Veniaminoff, and M. Serbinovich.

HE same day I saw M. Mouravieff, and lent him

THE

a little book, published at Rome, in which an attempt is made to prove that the Russian Church had remained in communion with Rome long after the time of Cerularius; alleging, among other things, in proof of this, the reception in Russia of the festival of the translation of St. Nicholas to Bari, a festival which the Greek Church ignores. He said, "All the communications and intercommunions stated to have taken place between the Russian Church and the Roman, after the breach with Constantinople, are inventions and misrepresentations of the Uniats." He put aside all attempts to defend or excuse the Anglican Church for its actual separation from Rome, saying, "The Pope had acquired a right of jurisdiction. The Latin Church had taken that Gothic form and constitution, and your separation was made by secular violence. If