[Footnote 18:  It may be said that Hume meant no more than this:  that of two equally oppressed nations, the one which had been taught to assent to the doctrine of resistance would be more likely to practise ’the sacred duty of insurrection’ than the other, from whom the doctrine had been concealed.  Or, in other words, that the first would rise against oppression, when the oppression had reached a pitch which to the second would still seem bearable.  The answer to Hume’s proposition, interpreted in this way, would be that if the doctrine of resistance be presented to the populace in its true shape,—­if it be ‘truth,’ as he admits,—­then the application of it in practice should be as little likely to prove mischievous as that of any other truth.  If the gist of the remark be that this is a truth which the populace is especially likely to apply wrongly, in consequence of its ignorance, passion, and heedlessness, we may answer by appealing to history, which is rather a record of excessive patience in the various nations of the earth than of excessive petulance.]

[Footnote 19:  There is another ground for the distinction between the conditions of holding and those of expressing opinion.  This depends upon the psychological proposition that belief is independent of the will.  Though this or any other state of the understanding may be involuntary, the manifestation of such a state is not so, but is a voluntary act, and, ’being neutral in itself, may be commendable or reprehensible according to the circumstances in which it takes place.’ (Bailey’s Essay on Formation of Opinion, Sec. 7).]

[Footnote 20:  The following words, illustrating the continuity between the Christian and Jewish churches, are not without instruction to those who meditate on the possible continuity between the Christian church and that which is one day to grow into the place of it:—­’Not only do forms and ordinances remain under the Gospel equally as before; but, what was in use before is not so much superseded by the Gospel ordinances as changed into them.  What took place under the Law is a pattern, what was commanded is a rule, under the Gospel.  The substance remains, the use, the meaning, the circumstances, the benefit is changed; grace is added, life is infused:  “the body is of Christ;” but it is in great measure that same body which was in being before He came.  The Gospel has not put aside, it has incorporated into itself the revelation which went before it.  It avails itself of the Old Testament, as a great gift to Christian as well as to Jew.  It does not dispense with it, but it dispenses it.  Persons sometimes urge that there is no code of duty in the New Testament, no ceremonial, no rules for Church polity.  Certainly not; they are unnecessary; they are already given in the Old.  Why should the Old Testament remain in the Christian church but to be used? There we are to look for our forms, our rites, our polity; only illustrated, tempered, spiritualised by the Gospel.  The preempts remain, the observance of them is changed,’—­Dr. J.H.  Newman; Sermon on Subjects of the Day, p. 205.]