Present Testimony: Volume N3, 1871-1881

.N. WELL, James, we were able to come back to you, and thought you would like to be present while we pursue our inquiry, and Mr. o. will have no more to say to us. And though it was well for Bill M. that Mr. o. should be there, and not fancy that if one more capable than he were present, there would be an answer, yet we can follow Milner just as well, and more quietly; and he is what they all refer to, and what M. had and trusted in; and I can give you as before what I have collected in reading, so as to judge how far it is true.

Bill M. I hope you have no objection, Sir, but though Mr. o. would not come, a gentleman he knows would be glad to be present, and I said I was sure you would not object.

N. Not in the least. I shall follow Milner as a guide to the points we have to inquire into, but this gentleman can make any remark he wishes, or either of you, of course, if you have anything on your mind, though I shall have, as you two cannot know much of the details, to go pretty straight forward myself through the history.

James 1 am very glad to see you, Sir, and obliged to you for thinking of me and coming back.

N. Well, our next point is apostolicity and succession. To me it has no importance whatever. In the Spirit and word of God there can be no succession. They are themselves complete and perfect, and remain the same. Truth is itself; you cannot apply the idea of succession to it. That truth we have in God's written word. The word of God abides forever. To talk of succession as to it is simple nonsense. They speak of succession as a means of securing the truth. But we have it in the word. It is very striking how the truth is never made a mark of the Church by Roman Catholics. The Scriptures are full of it. Christ is the truth; the Father's word is truth, we are sanctified by the truth, the Apostle loved in the truth and for the truth's sake. If a preacher did not bring sound doctrine even a woman was to judge him, and not receive him into her house nor bid him God speed. Souls are begotten to God by the truth. The truth sets free. But for the Roman Catholic system it is no mark of anything; for if the truth were a mark of the Church, those who seek the Church must have the truth first to judge of it by, before they have the Church, and if the truth was really possessed by them, they then would be begotten of God and sanctified before they find the Church. And so it was at the beginning; the truth was preached and received, and men-thereupon entered into the Church, because they had received it, if it was really savingly received; and this they do not deny when first preached to Heathens and Jews. As to the use made by Irenmus and others of this succession against heretics, though soon abused as a mere human argument as I have already said, I have no great objection to it. What was from the beginning is the truth; the surest way of finding it is reading what was at the beginning, which we confessedly have in the Scriptures; still as a mere external proof, if he could show that no one had ever held it, and that it sprung up now in his own time, it might be used as an argument. Only it has this defect, that the carelessness of men may lose the discernment of many things in Scripture, and truth may be brought up which really was at the beginning, and lost or somewhat enfeebled or even corrupted, so that to the men of the age it may seem new, when only reproduced from Scripture. But when heretics said it was a bad God that made the Old Testament, as the heretics did, it might be honestly argued: No one from the beginning ever heard such a thing; and that is what Irenזus did. The Scriptures were the surest appeal, and Irenזus does appeal to them, only he shows he has not just confidence in using them in the power of the Spirit of God, and with Tertullian it is utterly so. He is just a lawyer, as he was, arguing a brief. And the result shows clearly the danger of leaving Scripture; for what was at first used as a testimony soon came to be considered an authority, and then as more convenient for the corruptions of men, so that the Scriptures were put out of sight. However, that was the use especially made of succession by those early writers. We will therefore examine the succession they plead, and see how far apostolicity in this respect will accredit their system. I take them on their own ground not on mine; for grace and gift, I am perfectly assured, came directly from God, and not by succession. I examine it only as an alleged mark of the true Church. They allege from early writers that the episcopal order can be traced up to the foundation of every see by Apostles and Apostolic men, or afterward through them in places subsequently founded, and in particular the succession of Rome to Peter, for poor Paul is now-a-days pretty much thrown overboard, his teaching does not suit Rome.

James. But pardon me, Sir, I do not see how this affects the truth or the authority of the word of God. That is true whether there are Popes at Rome or not.

N. Surely it does not, but the idea of authority of what has been handed down from Christ and His Apostles to these days, by those, as they allege, commissioned of God, has great power over the imagination. Wherever the word of God is received by faith, all these things drop like autumn leaves, because we have the truth itself with divine certainty, and know it would be a sin to doubt of it. But all have not this simple faith in the word of God; it has not that simple but absolute authority as God's word over them, and habits of mind are very powerful, particularly when they are superstitious habits of mind. It seems humble though it is not; it is a sin to yield up our souls to man when God has spoken, it is what the Scripture calls voluntary humility; and people are afraid to trust God in His word, and do not know that word. Here is our friend Bill M. He thought the clergy secured all truth to him, though it was official authority not truth, and even now he has not the word of God at his command to meet these difficulties. He distrusts his clergy after all they have been obliged to admit, and he does not yet know how quite to trust the word.

Bill M. That is true.. I hope you will go on, sir.

N. I will. We must take then Milner, which is the book they gave you, and see what their apostolicity amounts to.

First, remark that the word bishops in the Word of God does not mean what it, does now. There were bishops and deacons in the church at Philippi; there were bishops in the church of Ephesus, called also elders of the church. You have overseers in the English version, in Acts 20, for bishops, which is indeed the meaning of the word. This is equally plain in Timothy and Titus; so in Acts 14 The Apostles chose them for every city. There is no one stationary president of any church in the New Testament, unless we take James at Jerusalem to be such; but then he presides over Apostles, which is an awkward position for a bishop. I know Timothy and Titus are alleged to be such. That they were on certain occasions entrusted by the Apostles with the care of one or several churches is true, but we do not find them in the Scripture locally resident as such anywhere. They were at the Apostles' service elsewhere afterward, as need called for it, according to Christ's will. All this is uncontested and incontestible. Tradition localized them afterward; Scripture does not. That very soon indeed there were local presidents, who very early got the name of bishops, I do not contest, but the origin of this lies historically buried in the most absolute obscurity. It is stated that the Apostle John appointed bishops in various places in Asia Minor. Thus Tertullian says that the order of bishops, followed up to its origin, will have its standing in John as its author (Contra Marcion iv. 5), Clemens Alex., quoted by Ens. (iii. 23), saying he went round to establish bishops, formed churches, and named as members of the clergy persons pointed out by the Holy Ghost. But this was quite at the end of the century, and would prove that there were not any bishops before, that St. Paul had not established any, just as Scripture shows. Indeed Tertullian goes further, for he makes John the author of the episcopate. Certainly, if this be true, which is possible as history, not Scripture or the word of God, he was in contrast with Paul, or rather with God's word.

Jerome gives a different account. In his epistle to Evangelus (cxlvi. in Vallar. Ben. 101), after showing from Scripture that bishops and presbyters were the same, he declares that if afterward one was chosen to be above the rest, it was done to avoid schism, lest one drawing [it] to himself should break the church of Christ. However this may be, there very soon were such, but not recognized in Scripture. There we find the authority of the Apostles, particularly Paul, in these matters, and those whom he employed as serving with him under the Lord, particularly Timothy and Titus.

Eusebius also relates 11), that after the martyrdom of James and the destruction of Jerusalem, the

Apostles and surviving disciples of Jesus met and chose Symeon, son of Cleopas, cousin of the Lord, to fill up James's place. When we come to details, difficulties accumulate. We know from the Acts, Peter did not found the Church at Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians, whose episcopal succession is traced up to him. Barnabas, as a Paul, labored there all that we read of Peter there is that Paul had to rebuke him to his face for his want of uprightness. indeed Peter never appears in Scripture but as Apostle of the circumcision. His epistles are directed to the dispersed Jews who had become Christians. Antioch, which was the Gentile capital of that part of the world, was the known sphere of other laborers. He may very likely have visited the Jews there. But here too Peter is said to have established the first bishop. Eusebius, nearly three hundred years afterward, tells us he established Evodias the first bishop. Athanasius, about the same time, says Ignatius was the first after the Apostles, Origen says the second, Jerome says he was the third.

Bill M. Here is Mr. R., sir.

N. Good evening, sir.

Mr. R. Good evening, sir. I have taken the liberty to bring with me this clergyman of the Anglican body, Mr. D., who though not of the Church of Rome, may show how universal Catholic principles condemn the rashness and heady mind which does not listen to the Church, and the deadly evil of schism.

N. Well, gentlemen, I am very glad you are here. We had come to apostolicity and succession, and I was about to take up Dr. Milner's statements on the subject, as he is the authority constantly used in these countries, and compare his statements with authentic history.

Mr. D. It is a most important point, the security for grace and truth. It is just what keeps me in the Anglican Church. It possesses an hierarchy which can be traced up to the Apostles, and maintains the primitive faith of the Church, though unhappily expressed in language too hostile to the great body subject to the Western Patriarch; still these expressions are supportable, because they only refer to the common usages and popular views on the points treated, and not to the recognized faith of the Church, which is to be sought in her creeds and formularies, and hence do not preclude the hope of reunion between the Anglican and Roman parts of the same body.

N. I am aware that these are the views of the party you belong to. The authority of the Word of God does not allow me to entertain them. Its statements are the truth, so that we have it directly from God, and, with a mind humble through grace, can learn and profit by it.

D. How do you know it is the Word of God, and if it be, how can simple and ignorant people understand it without being taught?

N. We have spoken of this. The first part of your question is infidelity, which is the uniform resort of Romanists, and of all your school. People who have had it (the Word of God), will be judged by it in the last day, when your clergy cannot help them, and therefore it behooves them to look to it now. The ministry of it is an ordinance of God, and to be highly valued; but the test of truth is the word of God itself. And in point of fact, as a rule, the clergy and not the laity, the teachers and not the taught, have introduced heresies. As to the second point, it is a presumptuous charge against the Apostles and other servants of the Lord, for they addressed themselves to the people, what you call the laity in the Church, and indeed it is charging God with folly, for it was by inspiration that the Apostle and others addressed their writings to all the Church. But these points we have considered already. We have now to see whether what you allege to be a security for grace and truth is really one, or a security for anything. I mean the succession of the episcopate, and particularly of the Roman Pontiffs. The succession of the Archbishops of Canterbury is, since they have existed, much more certain, though doubt hangs over that too, because of the principles of Edward VI.'s reign. I think if I were to put you to legal proof there, you would find it difficult to make it good. But that I will not meddle with now. We can take the Popes, for that is confessedly the keystone of this arch, and your authorities send us there.

D. By all means, though I should be curious to know your reasons for casting doubt on the Anglican succession. You do not believe in the story of the Nag's Head?

N. Not a word of it. It was a mere Jesuit invention, by a person named Holywood, set up as a tale nearly 50 years afterward. There can be no doubt that Barlow consecrated Parker, and then it flowed regularly on. But even all this is a poor security for faith in contrast with the actual word and Spirit of God, which (unless open infidels) no one denies we have. But the Anglican flaw lies elsewhere, as you may see even in Milner (Letter xxix.); the question is who consecrated Barlow; but I will not go into this now, but see what security Roman succession gives. I deny the principle, and appeal to the word of God as the truth actually possessed by the Church. And as regards the truth there can be no succession; it is itself. But we may examine the alleged security.

D. Be it so. You have a writer as early as Irenזus appealing to the succession of Roman Pontiff's, as of all other places, but specially to Rome, and giving the clear succession to his own days.

.N. We have, and that there were very soon local presidents who early got the name of bishops I do not contest. But for all that, nothing is more uncertain than the origin of the episcopal order, the principle on which it is founded, and the succession to which Irenזus refers. As regards the Scriptures, we find in general elders called bishops, as Jerome insists, and no president or presiding authority. The Apostles were in direct communication with the elders, or with the Church, or with both, employing some Timothy and Titus in personal service when they were wanting, and then recalling them to themselves. The nearest approach to anything of the kind is James at Jerusalem, who is often therefore called the first Bishop. But then he presides over Apostles, and Peter himself, in the Assembly held at Jerusalem, as is evident from Acts 15 If we are to believe Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii. 1 Cor. 15, Ed. Ben. x. 355), the Lord himself imposed his hands on his brother, and made him bishop of Jerusalem. So Epiphanius (Hזr. lxxviii. 7). " He first took the episcopal throne to whom first the Lord committed his throne upon the earth" I How Peter came into it as a source of episcopacy it would then be hard to say. How contrary this is to every Scriptural thought I need hardly to say.

D. Why do you treat these holy traditions and Fathers thus?

N. What throne had Christ upon earth? Rejection and the cross was his portion. And how could he establish James by imposition of hands and make him Bishop, when He himself was there, and when he had not yet made propitiation so as to lay the foundation of, or ascended on high and sent the Holy Ghost so as to begin, the work for which he expressly tells the Apostles to wait. Besides, if Christ gave James his throne on the earth as a religious supremacy, where was Peter? However great the folly of all this, Chrysostom and Epiphanius knew no supreme throne at Rome, which Peter had received as the first of the Apostles. On their system, there would be a superior one at Jerusalem, unless Christ's throne was inferior to Peter's. It is also related by Eusebius that the remaining Apostles and disciples appointed Symeon, also the Lord's relative, after James's death and the destruction of Jerusalem. It cannot be alleged that James took the Jewish throne, Peter the Gentile, for then there would be two, and Peter was unquestionably the Apostle of the circumcision, not of the Gentiles. If we are to credit what Epiphanius (Hזr. lxxx. 7) calls "the divine word and teaching of the Apostolic Constitutions," James was consecrated by Christ and the Apostles (Const. Ap. viii. 35). I know all learned men admit the Constitutions to be forgeries. But this helps the simple mind to judge what we have to trust in these Fathers and ancient writings. For this writer-down of all heresies holds these forgeries to be the divine word and teaching.

D. But you cannot deny the fact that James was Bishop of Jerusalem.

.N. That he was the leader or president there, no person subject to Scripture denies (Acts 15, Gal. 2:2). But from that to a universal episcopacy as a note of the true Church and security for grace and truth, is a wide step over a large abyss, and not only that but the succession from them, and if true denies the Pope's supremacy. The Apostles as instruments were the security then, and when they were going they did not commend to successors as a security, but Paul commends the elders and flock to God and the word of His grace as sufficient. And Peter takes care that by his writings, they should have the truth in remembrance. But we will see what even Roman Catholic authorities and Fathers furnish us, that is, on the episcopacy or Apostolicity being a security and that by which the true Church may be known. We may begin with Jerome, whose authority is so great. In his epistle to Oceanus (Vail. lxix. 416): " With the ancients bishops and presbyters are the same, for that is the name of the dignity, this of age." And it was no casual thought, no occasional argument. In his letter to Evangelus (Vail. cxlvi. Old Eds. Evogrius) after quoting Phil. 1:1, Acts 20, Titus 1:5, etc., 1 Tim. 4:14, 1 Peter 5, and John's second and third epistles, using the strongest language in citing them, he says: ' that afterward one was elected who should be above (prזponeretur) the others was done as a remedy for schism, lest each drawing the Church of Christ to himself should break it I" Again on Titus 1:5, still more positively " A presbyter is therefore the same thing as a bishop, and before, by the instigation of the devil, there were parties in religion, and it was said among the peoples, I am of Paul, etc., the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But after every one thought that those he baptized were his, not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world that one of the presbyters should be chosen, who should be set over the rest, to whom all the care of the Church should appertain. Does any one think that the judgment that a bishop and a presbyter are one, and one the name of age, the other of office, is our's, not that of the Scriptures, let him read again:" and then quotes Phil. 1, Acts 20, 1 Peter 5, adding here Heb. 13:17, on which he comments. He continues: " These then that we may chew that the presbyters were the same thing as bishops. But, by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be pulled up, the whole solicitude was deferred to one. As therefore the presbyters know that they are subject to him who is set over them by the custom of the. Church, so will the bishops know, that they by a custom of the Church, rather than by the truth of a disposition of the Lord, are greater than presbyters," etc. And in the same letter to Evangelus, he tells us, that till the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, in Alexandria, if the patriarch died, the presbyters chose and put into office, as the soldiers an Emperor, or deacons an archdeacon, one of their own number; and other more modern authorities state that Mark, who was said to have founded that see, appointed twelve presbyters to be with the patriarch, and when he died, they all laid their hands on one of their number, and that this continued till the time of Patriarch Alexander in the year 318, who ordained that the bishops should meet and do it.

Augustine in a letter to Jerome confirms the notion that it is by the usage of the Church that bishops have a more honorable name than other presbyters: " Honorum vocabula quז Ecclesiז uses obtinent." Urban the Second in a Council at Beneventum, A.D. 1091, and a countless number of bishops and abbots, decreeing that none but presbyters and deacons could be chosen bishop, declared Art. l,

We call sacred orders diaconate and presbytership only. It is read that the primitive Church had these alone, as to these alone we have precept of the Apostle." The object was evidently to exclude any of the sub-orders being chosen, for in exceptional cases by permission sub-deacons might. But the fact is clearly stated, which is what is important. The Decretal of Gratian quotes Isidore Hisp. to the same purpose, Dect, xxi. 1, and what we have seen of Jerome xciii. 24, and xcv. 5, and in the following sections, the relations of bishops and presbyters.

I have no idea of approving or disapproving these views, but when you make Apostolicity, and in fact Episcopal sucecssion, a mark of the true Church, your whole ground fails under you. " What was from the beginning " is true. As to the truth, I hold that the truth that was from the beginning is surely the truth for me. But as to that on which you make the certainty of truth rest, I have here your greatest authorities admitting it not to have been at the beginning, as says Pope Urban, " the precept of the Apostle refers to deacons and presbyters alone." You, gentlemen, a Ritualist or Anglican Catholic, and Mr. R. a Roman Catholic, would impose this succession upon us as a necessary mark of the true Church. But, when the Apostle founded it, and as scripture presents it, it has not this mark at all. Your own authorities confess it. Tertullian, if he is to be trusted, gives other and indeed different information. He says expressly (Cont. Marcion iv. 5) that; " The order of bishops followed up to its origin, will have its standing in John as its author." And Clemens Alexandrinus quoted by Eusebius iii. 23, says, John went round to establish bishops, form Churches, and name as members of the clergy persons pointed out by the Holy Ghost. But this was at the end of the century, and where Paul had labored, and if true would prove that there were not any bishops before that. Paul had not established any, just as Scripture shows. I have Scripture, that is a positive revelation of God, exhibiting Churches to me without this kind of bishops having individual authority; and the founder of these Churches, the Apostle Paul, instituting another kind of Church government. That is, that another order of things was what was from the beginning; and then I have a tradition more than 150 years afterward that the Apostle John went round these Churches and appointed bishops, and moreover, the most learned of the Fathers of the Church, as they are called, telling me that in fact it was not so from the beginning; that Presbyters and bishops are the same, and that, if one individual was set up over the other presbyters, it was only to keep quiet and unity in the Church, because of the ambition of the clergy, a mere arrangement of men, but not God's ordinance. Another most famous doctor, Augustine, tells me that it was according to words of honor by the custom of the Church, bishops were greater than presbyters.

That is, it certainly was not from the beginning, was not a mark of the Church at the beginning,

consequently never can be, and this forms no possible security for grace or faith. It shows only how early the clergy began to be ambitious and to create divisions. If you reject Jerome, Augustine and Pope Urban, and the rest who state this, where are your Fathers, your tradition, and your authority? I am then too thrown back on the Scriptures which have not either bishops in the modern sense, nor succession. It is possible that as a human arrangement John may have done so, setting aside Paul's arrangement; but this is certain, it cannot have the authority of the word or be alleged to have been from the beginning, and your Peter plan falls to the ground. You have other traditions for him, I know, which we will examine, but to which the same answer will apply.

D. But you cannot go against the whole stream of tradition, and make St. John contradict St. Paul.

N. You must remember, dear Sir, that we are not proving bishops to be right, or to be wrong; but seeking the sure marks of the true Church as alleged by the system you uphold. In the Scriptures or in the beginning, as is confessed by those I have referred to, and strongly asserted by Jerome, and fully recognized by Pope Urban in a numerous Council, there were none such as you call Bishops, and St. Augustine confirms it, saying it was a name of honor by the custom of the Church. Tertullian comes to tell us it originates with the Apostle John, who went round to do it, and so Clemens Alexandrinus or Eusebius. All state or confirm the fact that there were none at the beginning. If as Jerome states it was to meet factions in the clergy, it is possible that John may have accepted and suffered it a. a necessity: It is a mere tradition of a century after, and refers to one locality, and we have the positive testimony of Scripture that it was not so ordered at the beginning, but positively otherwise, which fact is insisted on by those you call Fathers. Paul calls for the bishops or elders, warns them of coming evils, and refers them to God and the word of His grace, without an idea of any bishop being a security for grace or faith or anything else. How can I take it as a mark of the Church, when the Church in its best estate had no such mark; the Scriptures, as confessed by Fathers and Popes, stating distinctly that it was not so. Your famous rule, " What always," etc., condemns you entirely here; and Jerome and Augustine knew the Episcopal succession well enough, and were attached to the unity and order of the external professing body as devoutly as any one could wish. As to opposition between the Apostles, I believe only what is in the word. You by your traditions bring in John changing Paul's system. If it was historically the case, it only proves God would not give Scriptural authority to it. I am in no way held to believe these traditions, nor do I know the import of them, if there be some historical basis. And remark this, by no possible means can succession be a mark of the true Church, as the Church must subsist before the mark could be there. If there, it may be used as a testimony, wisely or not, but it cannot be a mark, for it cannot be at, the beginning.

D. But we have the lists, up to the Apostles, of the Episcopal succession, to which the earliest writers appeal.

N*. Who furnish them to us?

D. Irenזus for example, Tertullian makes the same appeal.

N*. Only they?

D. Others may speak of it, but in them we have a clear testimony which none can gainsay.

.N"*. Well, let us examine what is said, and how far it affords a mark of the true Church. We may first take Antioch, as we shall have a good deal to say to Rome. Who was the first person who filled that see.

D. Evodias.

N*. Is that quite clear?

D. Well. He came first after Peter, and Ignatius followed.

N*. Can you rest your case on the certainty of this? D. I rest it on the general tradition which traces the Churches up to their founders.

N*. But Peter did not found the Church at Antioch at all. Some of the scattered disciples addressed the Gentiles there, and it was the sphere of Barnabas and Paul's labors for a length of time, and the place whence they went out to preach the Gospel to the heathen. Peter was not the Apostle of the Gentiles at all. The Lord Jesus expressly sent Paul to them, and the Holy Ghost sent him forth to that work from Antioch, and there he returned when he had gone over a considerable part of Asia Minor. Not only so, but when he went up to Jerusalem, James, Cephas, and John, pillars there in the assembly, when they saw what God had given Paul, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that they should go to the Gentiles, and themselves to the circumcision. That is to Paul was given the Apostolic commission to the Gentiles. God was mighty in Peter to the circumcision. Whatever commission (which was not from Christ ascended, but risen and in Galilee, nor from the Holy Ghost) he had to the Gentiles, with the rest in Matt. 28, he gave it up to Paul and undertook to go to the Jews. The Apostleship of the circumcision was committed to Peter, that of the Gentiles to Paul. So that all your derivation from Peter is antibiblic. Peter we never hear of at Antioch in Scripture, but as rebuked to his face for his dissimulation.

D. Is it right to speak of the Holy Apostle thus?

N*. I suppose it is, as the Scriptures so speak of him,* and Paul does it expressly to combat this superstitious derival of authority from Peter to which you attach such importance.

The Judaizing Christians made everything of it then, and opposed Paul. Paul in the beginning of Galatians boasts in his acting independently of it. So do we. " It made no matter tome" is all Paul has to say for them. Every Christian acknowledges the Apostolic title of Peter, to say nothing of his zeal and devotedness, and receives his writings as inspired; but they know he was the Apostle of the circumcision, not of the Gentiles; and it is remarkable that Paul owns no Apostles but as consequent on Pentecost, (Eph. 4:10,11) and he tells us that as to the Church outside the circumcision, no doubt' in the world at large he, as a wise master-builder has laid the foundation. From him you have no succession, and succession from Peter he rejects and despises. This no one who owns the authority of Scripture can deny (Gal. 2:7-9, Rom. 11:13, Acts 26:17;9: 15, 13: 2-4), and Peter addresses his epistle to the scattered believing Jews, however precious it may be to every saint.

.D. But you do not mean to call in question the Apostolic authority of Peter..

N*. No, surely not. But I take his ministry as the Scripture gives it, the Apostleship of the circumcision or of the Jews. So he let in Cornelius that there might be unity, the first Gentile brought in. But the ministry of the Gospel to every creature under heaven was committed formally to Paul by a Savior revealed in glory, and further he had a distinctive ministry of the Church, Col. 1:23-25. Where we see, it was a dispensation committed to him: comp. Eph. 3, 1 Cor. 9:17. Now you have no succession but a Petrine, one which Paul rejects, may I say with scorn, and from an Apostle who it is quite clear was not the Apostle of the Gentiles at all.

D. I'm rather afraid of this slighting of the first of the Apostles, whose very name is a witness and seal of the testimony Christ bore him. It is hazardous, the spirit of pride which is just what misleads you all. The authority of the Church is gone with you; and now, the authority of Peter, to whom the keys of the Church were confided, and the feeding of Christ's sheep.

N*. Peter, that is, his writings, have exactly the same authority for me as Paul's, because both are inspired. There is no pride nor hazard in the matter, but simply learning and bowing to what the Lord Jesus, or the. Apostle Paul himself has said, and there we see that, finally, the mission to the Gentiles was confided to Paul, by the Lord Himself, without any derivation from, or reference or subordination to, Peter. But where do you find the keys of the Church?

D. In Matt. 16

N*. I do not. I find the Lord, not Peter, going to build His Church; and so Peter, in his. Epistles, does not speak of doing it, but of living stones coming. Paul does; he lays the foundation. But there are no keys of the Church at all. People do not build with keys, and I repeat it is Christ who builds, not Peter. Nothing is said of him as regards the Church, but that he was Peter, a stone; the keys of the kingdom were given to him, and there, I doubt not, all he bound or loosed was sanctioned in Heaven. But it was not in the Church; then, as to this passage in Matt. 16, Christ alone is active.

D. But I never heard this called in question; it seems to me a mere quibble. The Church and the kingdom of heaven are the same thing.

N*. Surely they are not, The Church which Christ thus builds will be in glory with Him forever and ever, and, in another aspect, the tabernacle of God. It is what Christ will present to Himself-a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, and that it is in any sense or at any time His body or His bride, can in no way be said of the kingdom. Tares are sown in the kingdom, among the wheat. He gathers out of it all things that offend, and them that do iniquity; He will deliver it up to God, even the Father. The Church, His body, and His bride, He will never give up.

When the marriage of the Lamb is come, judgment will follow here below. It is then that He takes to Him His great power and reigns. The kingdom is the sphere of His title and power, as King; the Church is His body. But the passage itself is clear: Christ builds the Church. The administration of the kingdom is committed to Peter, symbolized by the keys. Scripture, that is, God Himself, is much wiser, and more accurate, where it is wise to be so, than we are, and He has attributed the use of the keys to the kingdom, not to the Church; this, as here spoken of, Christ builds, and the temple is not finished yet. It grows to an holy temple in the Lord. And where such a system of authority is built upon it, it is very hazardous to change what is stated, and then build on the change you have made.

D. But surely there is a Church on earth?

N*. Undoubtedly; it is there we are to look for it now. But into that building as founded wisely by the Apostolic ministry upon earth, wood, and hay, and stubble may be brought in-a distinct thing from the body which is formed, as 1 Cor. 12 informs us, by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, where every member partakes of the fullness of the Head, and is united to Him. But tell me, do you think that there can be rotten, bad, members of the body of Christ united to. Him by the Holy Ghost, and who go finally to Hell?

D. There may be hypocrites in it on earth.

N*. No doubt. False brethren may creep in and take their place amongst the members. of Christ's body, but they are not united to Christ by the Spirit, and thus members of His body. But you admit that there cannot be really dead, rotten, members of Christ's body?

D. Of course there cannot.

N*. Then the external body you call the Church is not the body of Christ, for there, confessedly, are multitudes of bad members.. They are members of your church, perhaps priests in it; they are not members of Christ's body. That is, your church is not the body of Christ. They are wood and hay, and stubble, it may be, viewing it as a building, built by man. But the attributing the privileges of the body to it, is all a delusion. The Apostle compares it,. in 1 Cor. 10, referring to baptism and the Lord's Supper, to Israel's coming out of Egypt, and many falling in the wilderness after all. The members of Christ's body do, not perish in the wilderness.

D. But you are running after the phantom of a pure Church.

N*. I am not running after anything; I am simply taking the statements of Scripture as to facts. It goes further, for it not only warns me of the possibility of wood, and hay, and stubble being built into God's building, but that in the last days perilous times will come, and that there will be a form of piety, denying the power; nay, that evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse.

D. And what do you make of the gates or Jaen. not prevailing against it?

N*. I thank God, with all my heart for it. What Christ builds, no power of Satan shall frustrate or cast down, but that is not built up yet. There is a building into which could be built what the fire of God would consume in judgment; and I do not confound that with what Christ is building for eternal glory. All that God ever set up in good has been entrusted to man, and he has always failed. That does not hinder God accomplishing His purposes all the same. The Church as entrusted to man has failed, as Adam did, as Israel did when they got the law. It is revealed that in the last days there will be the form of piety, denying the power. The Church that Christ builds, the gates of Hell will not prevail against. Now when you are claiming security of faith and grace by episcopal succession, you are claiming it for what is connected with man's responsibility, not with Christ's building, for that which the Apostle declared would fail. He says (Acts 20) that after his decease, from within and without the danger would arise, and refers the elders of Ephesus to God, and the word of His grace. Why after his decease, if he left a secure guard in apostolical succession? Nor does Peter know any such. Nor, I may add, John;; for as- to the churches he superintended, he warns them of having their candlestick removed, or being spewed out of Christ's mouth, and he knows no such security.

D. But I do not say a particular church may not fail, but only that the whole Church cannot.

N*. Pardon me; you refer, and your authorities refer, to Antioch and Rome, and others, even those referred to in the Apocalypse. And where is the promise to the whole once planted by man, I mean the Apostles, on the earth, if each particular one may fail?

D. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it..

N*. But that is what Christ is building, and is not complete yet. Living stones are, we may trust, still coining to the living stone: it is not what was externally planted as a whole on earth, already established as a corporation, so to speak, settled by men on the earth, however perfectly, at the beginning, according to the mind of God; still left to man's responsibility, whose dangers the Apostle warns the elders of, and which he declares would end in a form of piety, denying the power. What Christ builds will not fail; but when man builds, man's responsibility and its effects come in. Judgment begins at the house of God. And if the evil servant say, My Lord delays His coming, and beat the menservants and maidservants, and eat and drink with the drunken, his portion would be with the unbelievers. The result, in one case, rests on man's responsibility; in the other, on the unfailing power of Christ; but this last is not yet finished, is not a complete structure on earth. It grows to a holy temple, so Scripture teaches us. But now I take you on your own ground. When we diverged to this point you had just said that Peter, Evodias, Ignatius, was the order of succession at Antioch. Let us see what tradition tells us here, for history is all we can have-statements made long after, what men had heard. Theodoret (Dial. I. vol. iv. 33; Haris 642) and Chrysostom say that Ignatius was ordained by Peter. Athanasius calls him the first after the Apostles (De Synodis, i. 607; Ben. Ed. Pat.); Origen calls him second after Peter (Horn. VI. in Luc.); Jerome says he was the third (Cap. Script.). Now, in the first place, these statements, if to be reconciled, how that neither Evodias nor Ignatius were successors of Peter, for he was alive during both their lives, and if the statement be true, Evodias died before Peter did. Indeed Bellarmine, though he makes Peter the first Bishop of Rome, admits that the Apostles, as such, had no successors (De Sum. Pont. iv. 25). The Pope, he says, succeeds to him as ordinary pastor of the whole church, the bishops not. As to them, the Apostles having only an extraordinary place. According to him Christ ordained Peter, or we should have no episcopate at all; he James and John, and they the rest, and so they were all bishops* Still he makes Peter, James and John ordain James after the Lord's death.

Thus, at Antioch, one Father says, Ignatius was first after the Apostles; another, that he was the second; another, that he was the third. This is hard to be reconciled, and mean the same thing. One, that he was the first bishop after the Apostle was gone.. Another counts him second, i.e., after Evodias, not reckoning the Apostle Peter at all. Another, counting Peter in, makes him third. But then here come the Apostolic Constitutions, and Baronius, the great Catholic historian, approving, seemingly, their views of the case (Bar. xii. 45), that Evodias was named by Paul, Ignatius by Peter for the Jewish Christians. So that there were two bishops, and the unity of the Church gone, and the fruit of the settlement and decrees of the Apostles wholly lost, Paul and Peter acting in contradiction to the object of them. Then they suppose that Ignatius gave way to Evodias when matters were settled, and when Evodias died Ignatius came in, and was bishop by himself. In general, the Constitutions (vii. 46) give a list of one to a see, but in Philadelphia, and Rome also, two, one by Peter and one by Paul. These testimonies may be little worth, and if true, show, in splitting the Church into two, anything but a ground of confidence or security of doctrine; the succession itself has to be settled. Eusebius is quite clear that Evodias was first bishop, then after him, Ignatius (iii. 22). Now, as Theodoret distinctly affirms that Ignatius received the grace of the high priesthood from Peter, for which Chrysostom also admires him, all this account is not only utter confusion in itself, but the whole story contradicts the account we have in the Acts, which gives us accounts of Antioch later than the time in which a great part of what these ecclesiastical authors speak of should have happened. That very soon, unless at Rome, the order became regular, no one disputes; but the important links, on your system, are the first, and the moment we seek any details of these, all is confusion and uncertainty. We get, as in Apost. Const., a list of names, possibly taken from Scripture, as Timothy for Ephesus, Titus for Crete, Crescens for Galatia, but really nothing more than a fancied list of names, because after ages would have it so.

D. But why do you except Rome, its succession is sure enough?

N*. Anything but that. It is so uncertain, that the best Roman Catholic authors are often not agreed which of two, sometimes of three, rivals was legitimate Pope, and to such a point that you have two, and even three, numbers attached to the names of Popes. Some historians say John 20, some XXI., some XXII., for the same person, and so of other Popes. But this we will, of course, look into; but, as I have said, the origin is the chief point, though, of course, if there be breaches in the conduit, it will not bring in the water rightly, if water, indeed, there be.

.D. But you do not question that there was originally this living water?

N*. No. But I have this water in the perennial spring itself, the Word of God, and your long, and, I am afraid, very muddy canal, gives me more mud than water, and what water it gives remains spoiled by the mud that is in it; and we follow the advice of your great friend Cyprian, when the water does not come properly we go and examine if the spring has failed. It certainly has not, so we get straight to the words of Christ and His apostles. As you insist on the canal water we, though rejoicing in the fresh springs of God's word, examine your canal with you, because you are trying to persuade people that there is no other way of getting the water, seeing the canal was made on purpose, and that they are all wrong in going to the spring, and should trust you. We have drunk of the water, and engage them to go and drink of it, and they will soon see the difference between that and what your canal furnishes, and learn what the fresh and living water is which God originally gave them. We cannot but think, from your attempts to hinder them, that you do not like the pure water and have got a taste for mud. Now your grand reservoir is Rome, and we will see whether the security of the first inlet you rely on is very great. And here I must beg you to remember that it is a security for faith by a clear and unquestioned succession we are seeking. To us it is quite immaterial, because we have the water itself, the Divine word, and can reckon on God's grace and Spirit for the use of it, both for drink and for cleansing; but to you the question is vital. It is your security for truth. Now we are met by exactly the same difficulties as in Antioch; to me a plain proof (not merely of particular uncertainty which no one can, and no one acquainted with the fact does deny but) that the system which asserts this apostolic appointment of successors is utterly groundless. Scripture not only is silent as to such, but really denies it. The apostle appointed elders or bishops, many in a place, and on leaving their service speak of no others, so that the plea of Theodoret is that they were called at first apostles (Corn. on 'Phil. 1), and gradually declined the name and were called bishops. Of this there is not a trace in Scripture, those called apostles, having no such office, and in one case merely meaning Messenger of an Assembly. Tradition, on the other hand, in the only two cases where any details are given, proves through the uncertainty that surrounds them that there was no such appointment known, though, as centuries rolled by and the system prevailed, they traced it up to the names best known at the first. Thus Irenmus goes up to Polycarp at Smyrna. But Polycarp writes as one among the presbyters in his letter to the Philippians; " Polycarp and the presbyters with him," and afterward at the end of Sect. V. and beginning of Sect. VI., knows only presbyters and deacons. Perhaps the first positive recognition of it is in Ignatius' letter to Polycarp as it stands in the Syriac version. And this was in Trajan's time in the year 116. At which time nobody doubts that one presiding prelate existed. Yet even he, III. 22, speaks of the succession of presbyters. As to Polycarp himself, Tertullian says he was put into the office by John, referring to no one before him (De P. Hxr. xxxii.): Irenזus III. 3, says he had seen him young ordained by the apostles; so Jerome (De Viris Illustribus) that he was a disciple of and made Bishop of Smyrna by John. But in the Apostolic Constitutions we have three bishops and no Polycarp: Aristo, Stratias, and Aristo (VII. 46.) But Cotelerius tells us that those celebrated are Bucolus first, and then Poly-

carp. Irenmus knows nothing of Bucolus, but as Polycarp knew John and he knew Polycarp, traces the certainty through what they taught that the Church had never held that the world was created by another and evil God who had also given the law; for this was the subject of Irenזus' controversy. Next as to Rome. This double foundation of the Church which we have already seen alleged in Antioch cannot be admitted for a moment as being laid of God. We find it carefully guarded against in both doctrine and ecclesiastical care in Scripture. It is stated that the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul (Iren. vii. 3);* but the same thing is said of Corinth (Eus. ii. 25) or if not founded, jointly established in the faith. Paul and Peter went together by Corinth to Rome.

It may be so at the end of their lives, but it seems very uncertain. One thing is quite certain. Peter had nothing to do with founding the Church in either place. The divinely given history of the Acts assures us of that.

D. But they may have journeyed together to Rome to their martyrdom.

N*. It is possible; but the Church was long founded, and that does not make Peter Bishop of Rome; indeed, in your earlier* traditions Linus is represented as first, or Clement, but never Peter And now as to this succession we are in the same uncertainty.

Irenזus tells us Linus was first, then Anacletus, then Clement; so Eusebius some two centuries later. But Tertullian much earlier than the latter, giving it as a positive register (census) of the succession, says Polycarp was appointed by John at Smyrna, and Clement ordained by Peter for Rome. But then our Apostolic Constitutions do, as they did at Antioch, give us Linus appointed by Paul and Clement by Peter (vii. 46): Jerome (Cal. Vir. M. 15), tells us that Clement was the fourth from Peter, as he must be if indeed Linus was the second and

Anacletus third. However, most of the Latins think that Clement was the second from Peter the Apostle. But in Optatus Mil. (De S. Don. iii. 3) we have another list given as quite certain, Peter, Linus, Clement, Anacletus. Epiphanius (xxvii. 6), after a very long story as to how it came about, says that it was uncertain whether Cletus, the second according to him, was ordained by the apostles, but that they were bishops during the lifetime of the apostles (Peter and Paul having both been Bishops of Rome together). They having gone away left Linus and Cletus in charge; then Clemens, who had been first named but would not serve, on the death of Cletus was forced to take the see. But that at any rate the succession was Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Evaristus. And to show how little secure these lists are, were it of any importance, in what follows he leaves out one known to have held the see of Rome altogether, and puts another quite wrongly in his stead, having left him out in his proper place. Ruffinus (Prזf. ad Recogn.) accounts for, of the statements, for people 'objected to them in is days, by making Linus and Cletus bishops while Peter was living, and Clement appointed by him before his death; he says it was the same at Cזsarea where Zaccheus was Bishop. One of the Popes (Celestine V.) gives us another explanation of the matter, that Clement resigned because one Pope should not appoint his successor, and Peter appointed him, and that then he took it afterward on surer ecclesiastical ground, a singular view of apostolic authority. Remark again here how Paul who certainly was first at Rome, is ignored. Now let us see what conclusion the most respectable Roman Catholic historians have drawn from the sources to which I have referred. Fleury (Liv. ii. 26): " The apostles having founded and built up the Roman Church gave the charge of governing it to St. Linus, the same of whom St. Paul wrote to Timothy. To St. Lima. succeeded St. Clement or St. Cletus, otherwise named Anacletus. It is certain that they were the three first Bishops of Rome; but neither their order nor the time of their pontificate is certain. Twelve years are given to St. Linus, and yet it is more likely that he only survived the apostles a year or two, and consequently that they had established him Bishop of Rome to govern it under them as they were accustomed to do in other places." There are only two things certain here, that Peter was not bishop, and that he did not appoint Clement before his death. All the rest is uncertain. Dupin, another most respectable Roman Catholic historian: " St. Clement, disciple and coadjutor of the apostles, was ordained bishop of Rome after St. Anaclet.” And in a note, " St. Irenזus, and Eusebius and the ancients put him only the third of Rome, although others make him the immediate successor of St. Peter. But I think it better to adhere to St. Irenmus." Natalis Alexander (M. 19) makes Peter preside twenty-five years, then Linus twelve, then Cletus twelve, then Clement nine, but the length of time uncertain. Baronius sets them all right. He (xxxv. foil.) will have Linus succeeded Peter after his death; he rehearses endless discussions and opinions, but insists that Linus came first, Clemens third, or even fourth, as Tertullian's verses put it, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clement. But he says Anacletus came after Clement. All others make Cletus and Anacletus the same person; but for him they are all wrong, and the true order is Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus; others putting, he thinks, one Cletus for Anacletus or the converse. If you wish to see confusion and contradictions, you have only to read Baronius on the first successors of Peter. Pagius insists he is all wrong.

D. But with all this uncertainty, it is clear that there was a succession of the followers of the Apostles who presided over the see.

N*. I do not doubt that these companions of the Apostles labored in the care of the Romam assembly; but as to succession to secure doctrine, there is none such to be found. Some will have Linus and Cletus assistants to Peter, who was often away in his lifetime. Baronius insists it was after his death they were regular bishops. Others insist Clement was the first. It is evident there was a state of things not clearly known, and that all these were efforts to reconcile this with a well-established system which prevailed when the efforts were made, and which were arranged by one one way, by another another-by scarce two alike, while the most learned of the Fathers insists it was only an arrangement to crush factions, and the most eminent confirms his thought. But this can give no security for successional grace and truth, were such an idea just. But I see, James, your wife has something on her mind, and is only deterred from speaking by our being all here. But we are in her house, not in a church, and she is quite at liberty to say anything.

Mrs. -. I should not think of intruding, sir, on the conversation. I was only saying to James that I cannot understand what the meaning of looking for all this security for the doctrine of the Apostles is, when we have the doctrine itself in their own writings.

N*. Well, I should think common sense, to say nothing of faith, which must have a divine basis, could think nothing else. But there is a human thoughtfulness about antiquity, and it looks like a feeling of reverence to make much of these ancient writers-some of them really saints and martyrs; and then you must remember that our friends here, at any rate one of them, considers, like the Pharisees of old, the tradition of the elders as part of the Word of God; besides, they profess to take their interpretations of the Word from these Fathers. Of this we have spoken; and as to the security of doctrine, it is nothing less than absurd to look for it in an uncertain succession of men, when we have the teaching itself given by God, and proclaimed by inspiration, which none of them can or do pretend to. We have gone into the subject because it is alleged by all Roman Catholics and Ritualists, and alleged by Milner as one of the marks of the true church. It is in that light we are now considering it. Nor can I consider Milner's statement as honest. First he states it as unquestioned that Simon Barjonas was called a rock, which he was not, but a stone.

Mr. R. But it was spoken in Syriac, and the gender makes no difference.

E*. I know your advocates allege that; but you believe that, as we have it, to be inspired?

R. Undoubtedly.

N*. Well then, we have the difference made by inspiration in the sentence itself. Thou art petros, and on this rock ( petra) I will build My Church. And therefore it is not honest to say Peter or rock. Further, he must have known that the Vulgate and Rhemish alike say, Thou art Peter, as a name. And he was too learned not to know, what we have already seen, that half his authorities take the passage in a different sense. Next, he gives the list of Popes, as if it was all a clear case, when his own historians differ entirely, and quietly says he will leave out some, as there would be too many to recount all; whereas an accurate succession, though a matter of perfect indifference to those who have the Scriptures, is yet, in his point of view, quite essential; but it enables him to leave out those which would make the pretension to a regular succession a mere farce-forgive me, gentlemen, for speaking plainly. Dr. Milner not only smooths over difficulties, but conceals the fact that there were two or three Popes at a time, anathematizing and excommunicating each other, and Europe divided between them; and when one faction put down the other, and put their Pope up, the latter canceled all the ordinations of his rival, so that a book had to be written as to there being any real ordinations at all.

R. But ordination imprints a character, and cannot be destroyed or revoked.

.N*. I am aware that is your theory; but here, as they held the Pope to be null, they held all his acts to be null, and declared them all invalid. And, as it is, different Roman Catholic authors hold different Popes to have been the true ones; and if so, where is the security of a true apostolic succession? We will go rapidly through their history (not repeating the atrocities they were guilty of, but) in view of succession and apostolicity. I sum up what we have found in a few words. The Scriptures, as Jerome and others, and Pope Urban, know no difference between bishops and presbyters. The same persons were called by both names, and there was no resident person holding such an office as is now called bishop. James at Jerusalem is the only appearance even of anything like it. Elsewhere, where Paul had labored, he established bishops or presbyters. Paul founded the Church among the Gentiles, and established no bishops, as the word is now understood. The Fathers so called cannot give us any certain list, and historians are disagreed which is the true one, both as to Antioch, Rome, and Smyrna, where there is some account of the names. When insisting on the point of succession, they contradict each other. Then come in the Constitutions, a forgery, evidently in its present form, but very ancient, and gives a totally different account of the matter, and makes two, one established by Paul, another by Peter, the more striking because it affects alike both Antioch and Rome, where the contradictions are found, and in exactly the same way. Save this, there is no tradition making Paul the founder of any succession of the Church, but Peter, who was not Apostle of the Gentiles at all. Tertullian says episcopacy is to be traced to St. John; Jerome, that it arose from the factious spirit of the clergy. The fair conclusion to draw is, that there was no such post or succession at the beginning, as I have already said; and that, when it had become important, through feebleness of faith and want of dependence on the Word of God, they tried to make it out.

R. It is a most bold conclusion against the faith and tradition of the Church.

N*. It is a question of fact; and the fact you cannot prove. The Scripture, by the confession of your own writers, makes no distinction between bishops and elders, and there is no consistent tradition even on the point, but quite the contrary. Nobody denies that they very soon began to have them. Then they tried to make out the list, but they did not agree.

D. Nobody can deny that bishops and elders are the same in Scripture, but there were really bishops with a different name, as Timothy and Titus, whom I name because they were appointed by Paul, not to say James also at Jerusalem.

N*. For what see were Timothy and Titus appointed? D. For Ephesus and Crete.

N*. You must kindly remember that we are discussing the point of succession. I am not arguing for presbytery against episcopacy or episcopacy against presbytery. If James was bishop, he was bishop over apostles, saying, when Peter and Paul had spoken, " Wherefore my sentence is," so that Peter's primacy is gone. As to Timothy and Titus, they were left merely occasionally by the Apostle Paul to watch certain cases, and sent for to go elsewhere afterward, or to stay with him (1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:21; Phil. 2:19) when he was in prison at Rome. As to Titus see 2 Tim. 4:10; Titus 3:12; so that it is certain they were not local prelates in Paul's time, nor appointed by him to be such. I am aware you have Theodoret's authority some 300 years after for calling them Apostles, but nothing in Scripture. Those the Church sent with money are called their messengers, as Epaphras the messenger of Colosse to Paul, whom, as " messenger" in Greek is " Apostolos," is so called, as the Apostles were Christ's messengers. These were those of the different churches. " Apostolos " means nothing else than " one sent," and then, being at a loss, they make him an apostle, and then say, that is, a bishop, apostle being given up out of modesty.

But it is a lame effort to prop up the case; for apostle means one sent, no more nor no less; but when Christ sent them they had divine authority and commission. A resident prelate is just one who is not an apostolos. As to modesty, it does not seem to have grown much with advancing years amongst the ecclesiastics. The epistles of Ignatius do not bear much trace of it, though I do not attribute them all to him.

Here is a curious example among so many others of the frauds and forgeries,, perpetrated in the vaunted primitive church, which got the name of pious frauds: Gospels, apostolic canons, apostolic constitutions, Sybilline prophecies, Ignatius's Epistles, visions, even a letter from Christ. Nothing was wanting in the way of falsehood, in the early centuries of the. Church, to impose superstition and corruption on the ignorance they were in, and exalt the clergy at the expense of the authority of the Word of God.

Bill III. But is this true, Mr. R.?

R. There is no doubt such things existed, but the Church is not answerable for them; they never were received into the Church.

N*. The Visions of Hermas, which were composed about a hundred years after Christ's death, or little more, and are not forgeries, were read in the Church, and nothing could be worse. But I referred to them to show what was the character and spirit of the times; and no honest man can deny the fact. As to Ignatius's Epistles, they were relied on, and are, by Baronius and Protestant episcopalians.

D. But some of them are true.

.N*. They were interpolated, and some confessedly spurious, and now all but three pretty clearly proved to be so, and save in one passage, I think all the bombastical language as to bishops, presbyters, and deacons has disappeared. I refer to them to show, by the multiplying this one passage, so exalting the bishop and putting him on a level with God or Christ, the taste of the times, that it was not modesty and lowering episcopal authority. One modern author, who accepts a great deal of them, seeks to prove by it that it was a recent introduction, and therefore so urgently insisted on as not being quite solid. But oh, what a ground is all this for faith! But as we have examined the source, let us examine the stream. Your traditions are not much good. The first Father, I believe, who makes Peter the first bishop, as we have seen, leaves out one and puts another in his place quite falsely. Still history helps us out pretty clearly as to the succession, and what it was worth. Only human history cannot make a divine ground for faith. Of the first Popes or bishops of Rome I have only to speak in honor. The heathen emperors ruled there, and any prominence they might have, exposed them the more to persecution. The Church was poor and without honor, but spiritually great. Some, as Clement, Anacletus, according to some, Evaristus and Alexander, Sixtus and Telesphorus were martyrs. This was the bright time of the Church. Pagans in power, the Church poor, but honored of God, and a witness to Christ, suffering with Him. It suffered everywhere; but Rome, under the eye of the Roman authorities and a bigoted populace, had a large share in this honor.

R. I am glad to see you own there was some good at Rome.

N.*. I pay unfeigned honor to these men thus honored of God. It is good for us in our days of ease to remember them. They were members of Christ, of that one true Church, true saints, as all Christians are, and specially honored in suffering for the Blessed Lord. It was the glory of those days. It is not what you call the Fathers, (a name forbidden by Christ, which I use myself merely as a well-known title,) that I. honor in early days, but these faithful witnesses for Christ, in all the Roman world, and not least in Rome. They were one in spirit and grace. The Church was then wholly separate from the world; afterward the Popes were the head of it-not persecuted but persecutors. Superstition and heresy, however, began to invade the Church of Rome under the next Pope Hyginus. These heretics Polycarp of Smyrna met, and many deceived by them were delivered, it is said, by his means. In his follower's time, Pius, the superstition increased. Hermas, his brother, with whom he is said to have been intimate, wrote pretended visions, full of the worst practice and the worst doctrines, and' even blasphemies, against the Lord. Yet it is said to have been read in the churches, a fact which proves the total want of discernment in the primitive church. A greater quantity of trash could scarcely be found. He states that God took counsel with the Holy Ghost and the angels what he should do with Christ. Then He put (the, or) a holy spirit,* which He had first created, into a chosen body, and the body obeyed the holy spirit put into it, and so the body was to be rewarded, and Christ got more than had been promised, for he had done more than was prescribed to him.

The similitude is this: A man with a great estate planted a vineyard, and chose a servant, and delivered the vineyard into his care. He does more than what is commanded. The Lord seeing this, calls his son, who was to be his heir, and his friends with whom he was wont to consult, and shows what the servant had done, saying he had promised him liberty, but now he would make him heir with his son, which all approved. And this was confirmed by his sharing presents from his Lord with his fellow servants. The son in the similitude is the Holy Ghost, the friends the angels, the servant Christ. I need not cite any more. I do thus much that we may see what was current in the church in those days.*

I have already referred to this book as sanctioning the vile things called holiness in these days. But here we begin to get into our old difficulties as to the succession. Optatus, Jerome, Augustine, and others put first Anicetus, next Irenזus; Tertullian and others put Pius first. Not only so; it is disputed whether Hyginus sat four or twelve years. As Platina, an ancient secretary and historian of the popes, says (sub Pio), " In this place the times vary, as some put Pius, others Anicetus first. The histories also vary. However it may be in so remote a history and such great negligence of [our] ancestors, it will be better to get at the things themselves in some way, [though] done a little sooner or a little after, than pass them by altogether." A strange ground for certainty of faith. In his time arose the dispute of the East with Rome as to the observance of Easter. The East, alleging the Apostles' authority, kept it on the 14th of the Moon. Victor would have it on the Lord's Day, and take the next one to the 14th. Polycarp had come to make

peace during the time of Anicetus, but. Vidor refused communion with all the East, who alleged they followed John; and it remained in abeyance till the Council of Nice, which decided it should be on a Lord's Day. So the day of the week carried it against the day of the month, and the Church was not divided in spite of Victor. It is a curious piece of history that the Scotch and British Christians too, with the north of England, kept Easter as the Asiatics did; and it was centuries after, in 664, that the Roman practice prevailed, after a conference in the north of England. It was the Scotch Christians of Iona, who were not subject to any bishop, but governed by presbyters, who evangelized Germany and Switzerland and the north, as far as it was done in early years, but it fell under the power of centralizing Rome. The British and Irish Churches did not till long after. The Saxons were evangelized from Rome and the Normans, already in subjection to Rome. But this by the bye.

When we arrive at Anicetus, we find ourselves in serious difficulties. We can hardly doubt there was such a Pope-at least Irenזus puts him clearly in his list, not, after all, a very sure one, as we have seen in Cletus and Anacletus, which some hold to be one person, some two. And Polycarp, it must be supposed, had interviews with Anicetus about Easter; but when he was Pope, and even whether he was Pope, is in no way certain. In what is called the "Chronicle of Damasus " no mention is made of him at all; but Soter immediately succeeds Pius. Baronius makes Soter succeed Anicetus, A.D. 175; others declare Soter began his episcopate in 168; others say Anicetus died A.D. 161. Baronius makes Pius Pope in 158; but some make the beginning of his pontificate in 142, and Eusebius (iv. 11), gives him fifteen years, and says he died in 157, a year before Baronius makes him Pope. Baronius gave him ten years, Pagius begins his pontificate in 141, and places his death in 151, so that the first year of Pius for Baronius, is the sixth of Anicetus for Pagius, who makes Anicetus begin his pontificate in 151, where Baronius places the twelfth of Telesphorus (Baronius, Vol. I. under these Popes). Now a difference of one or two years' date, I admit, does not make a material question as to facts. But what I have produced from Roman Catholic historians and ancient ones here shows that the history of those times is very uncertain, and that such a succession can in no possible way be a foundation or security for faith or grace. I may add here that the Pope gave letters of peace, as recognizing them, to the Montanists and their wild and demoniac prophecies. Praxias came from the place, and forced the Pope to revoke his letters. I apprehend this was Victor, though it would seem Baronius puts it under Anicetus, others under Eleutherius. There are those who introduce a Pope Cyrianus between Pontianus and Auterus; but it is hardly worth considering, though Baronius notices it. It only shows the succession was not very certain. I may mention here that it was from the time of Cyprian only that Rome obtained the title of Peter's Chair. Baronius indeed gives twenty-five years of Peter's holding the See of Rome, but all early authors make Linus the first bishop. Ruffinus, as we have seen, conciliates them by keeping Peter in his apostleship, and making two of them sit in the see while he was alive. The first author who makes Peter bishop is Optatus (De Schis. Don., Lib. II. 3) in the latter part of the fourth century; while Epiphanius, thinking it possible Clemens was first named, but would not act till after Linus and Cletus were dead, and then was compelled, says that Peter and Paul were apostles and bishops (xxvii. 6), then Linus. Eusebius simply says that Linus was the first bishop after Peter. He may perhaps be considered an earlier testimony than Optatus. They were nearly contemporaneous, and Optatus is the first who explicitly states it. That Peter was twenty-five years Bishop of Rome is a simple absurdity; because if the tradition of his being put to death by Nero be true, that was A.D. 68 or 69. But the Lord suffered A.D. 34. More than fourteen-say fifteen-years after that (Gal. 2), Peter had not left Jerusalem, and there had been as vet no apostolic work at Rome at all. This makes A.D. 49. He is still at Jerusalem. After this he goes to Antioch; but tradition says he was seven years in the see of Antioch, before

coming to Rome, and in A.D. 49 he had not yet gone to Antioch, and certainly was not fixed in the see, for Paul was laboring there, and rebuked him for his conduct. How long after we cannot tell-say it was immediately, which I do not believe, because Paul was the apostle laboring there-but I take up the tradition as it is given. He was at Antioch then, at any rate, till A.D. 56 or 57; thus he could not by any possibility have begun to have to say to Rome as its Pope at all till about eleven years before his death. The whole thing is a fable upon the face of it.

Mr. R. But you cast aside all tradition.

N*. I do, as having the smallest authority. But here you have not any two agreeing. You may consult Baronius in the first and twenty-fifth year of Peter, and see what he says with Pagius, who notices the attempt to make two comings of Peter, one in Claudius and another in Nero's reign, and rejects it all, taking the plain statement of Lactantius that the apostles had been preaching everywhere for twenty-five years, and then that Peter came to Rome in the time of Nero (Lac. De Mort. Pet., II. 95). That Peter may have come to Rome for his martyrdom, or to see the Jewish saints, there is possible, though we have little proof of it; but vague and late statements that he ever held the see are mere got-up fiction; that he founded the Church of Rome we know from Scripture to be totally false, let the good Irenזus say what he will. No apostle did; of that we are sure from Paul's epistle to them. If we are to believe Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius (ii. 25), Peter and Paul both planted the church at Corinth too, a statement useful to show what such statements and traditions of the Fathers are worth. Yet in this passage of Dionysius we get, if it be true that Peter ever was at Rome, a glimpse of the truth, namely that Peter and Paul were taken prisoners to Rome together, or at least went together there on the journey which ended in their martyrdom, but all is utterly uncertain. The only thing certain is that Peter's sitting—still more his sitting twenty-five years at Rome —is a got-up fable, and a very poor and transparent one. I have spoken on this point here because we are at the date in the history of Roman pontiffs at which it is first called the Chair of Peter, or Peter Bishop of Rome.

Of several pontiffs I have nothing to say; but when we come to Marcellus and Marcellus difficulties begin again. Eusebius (his contemporary) does not mention Marcellus, nor does Jerome, which is strange, and very learned men exclude him from the list, and ancient accounts state the see to have been vacant seven years-Fleury says three. Baronius says they are all wrong; that it is a confusion of names, and it must mean months instead of years, that no prudent person will hold the see to have been so long vacant. Pagius makes it, us Fleury, three years instead of seven, with the ancient chronicle called of Damasus. (Bar. A.D. 304.)

Mr. R. But you cannot doubt Marcellus was Pope.

N*. Probably he was. Augustine at the end of the century mentions him; but the church was headless for more than three years. "We speak, moreover, of succession, and such a certainty is a poor foundation to rest our faith upon. This Marcellinus is the one charged with offering incense to idols. Some say he was afterward a martyr. But further, Optatus (11. 8), where insisting on the succession of pontiffs against the Donatists, and Theodoret (Lib. I. 2), leaves him out. The former quite in his own age, one may say, and the latter some hundred years after.

R. But Optatus leaves out Eutychian and Caius too, and Theodoret, makes Melehiades succeed Marcellinus, which is surely wrong.

/V*. What you say is quite correct, and I dare say Marcellus, Eutychian, Caius, and Eusebius were all really Popes, though the learned editor of Optatus says. ' whether Marcellus be different from- Marcellinus is no slight question-non modica quזstio est.' It is all alike to me, because We have the 'Word itself, as to which there can be no possible succession, and assured grace to use it. But for you who rest on succession, such uncertainty is fatal.

R. But God will take care of His Church.

N*. Most assuredly. But that is not the question, but whether what you allege is the way He takes care of it. You and Dr. Milner and the rest teach this poor man to rest on succession. Now either he must swallow it down true or false, on your word, or he must examine a long history of the Church; and if he can, he finds confessed uncertainty and no sure ground of faith at all. However, we will proceed; for I have examined your famous succession. Sylvester, from whom the Waldenses date the apostasy of the Papacy, Marius, and Julius I pass over without remark. We then come to a serious difficulty. The Emperors were now Christian in profession, and the actual Emperor Arian, with, we might say, all the bishops, save some rare banished ones. That is, they had denied the faith. The world awoke, as Jerome says, and found itself Arian, so little a security is the hierarchy for the. faith. If the people then had followed the clergy all were Arian. However, Pope Liberius at first was not, and he was banished, and Felix, a deacon of Rome, was ordained. Pope by the Arians, and there was the greatest confusion at Rome and even many killed. However, Felix was there. Baronius will not own him, for Liberius was alive. Bellarmine says he must be reckoned Pope, and gives his reasons. Liberius at last gave way to the Emperor, and signed an heretical creed. Then Baronius says at the utmost Felix could be chorepiscopus, a kind of coadjutor, but will not count any years of his as Pope, but this saves appearances, in part at least, not wholly, for if he were not in office his ordinations go for nothing. Optatus and Augustine do not count him among the Popes, but he is reckoned in the list, as Felix III. and IV. would not be such if he be not counted. Liberius returned from exile, brought back at the intercession of Roman ladies. The Emperor wanted them to be Bishops together. But Felix was driven out. However he got back again and sought to exercise clerical functions in the city, but was again driven out, and lived on his own estate (Fleury xiv. 7). He ordained 21 presbyters and 19 bishops (Bar. 357, 66). Was he Pope or not? What was the succession worth here, two Popes at a time, one subscribing an Arian creed, the other ordained by Arians, sitting while the other was alive, and ordaining others. Some holding him to be Pope, others not. But

this dispute did not quite end with the death of Liberius. Damasus who was chosen to succeed had been of Felix's party. This dissatisfied many, and they met and chose Ursinus who was consecrated too. The see of Rome was worth coveting by men who loved the world. Fine chariots, rich feasts, and regal luxury characterized their life. This is not only the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, but Jerome informs us that Prזtextatus, a proconsular Roman and of high family, and other important offices, when no longer proconsul said that if they would make him Bishop of Rome he would turn Christian directly. Well, there was fighting among the people at Rome who should be Pope. Juvenitius, prefect of Rome, and Julian, prefect of provisions, banished Ursinus; his party rescued him and others who were banished.,Ursinus' party shut themselves up in a Church of Licinus, where he had been consecrated, and they were attacked there, and 137 persons were found killed in the Church. The Prefect, unable to appease the tumultuary violence, had to go to the country. However, Ursinus was banished and Damasus could amass wealth and leave costly silver vessels to the Church at his death. Ursinus then tried again, but the people would not have him and Siricius was chosen.

R. But the succession was uninterrupted.

N*. And do you soberly think that securing succession in an office that vied with royalty, by fighting and slaughter that magistrates could not stop, is a security for the truth and grace that came by Jesus Christ being conveyed to us, and a mark of the true Church? Must not the heart and conscience be dead to everything that constituted Christianity to think so? And, besides, even the succession is not certain. It cannot be said whether Felix was Pope or not, or partly yes and partly no, if Liberius lost the papacy by subscribing an Arian creed. But if so, if he really had lost it, Felix should have remained, who had replaced him, and he have not supplanted him again. At any rate we have two Popes, one signing an Arian creed, the other consecrated by Arians, both de facto at the same time, whoever was Pope. Siricius closed the century. But early in the next we have the succession even more grievously in: question. On the death of Zosimus the greater part of the clergy and people chose Boniface, others the Arch- deacon Eulalius who was consecrated by the prelate of the see of Ostia, who always regularly consecrated the new Pontiff. Boniface was consecrated by others. The Prefect wrote to the Emperor in favor of Eulalius, who convoked a number of bishops to decide, but there was great division, and he called another Council, including the African and Gallican prelates. But meanwhile, ordered, on a fuller report of the Prefect who said neither were to be trusted, both Boniface and Eulalius to stay outside Rome, and sent another prelate of' neither party to celebrate Easter, which was just coming on. Boniface had tried to get in, but was, after first driving back the civil officers, driven back by a larger number of them. Eulalius got in, and would not leave on being warned, but Boniface's friends armed, attacked Eulalius's, who were not. The Emperor banished the latter for being in the city against orders, and let Boniface have the see. There were the usual tumults and battery and violence on either side. What kind of succession is this? But towards the end of the same century the difficulty is still greater. Symmachus and Laurentius were both elected Popes the same day. In order to terminate the schism they apply to Theodoric, king of the Goths, an Arian, who decided that he who had the majority for him, or was first ordained, should be Pope. Symmachus had the majority. The party of Laurentius however subsequently brought him back, and accused Symmachus of crimes. Some of the clergy and others communicated with Symmachus, and some with Laurentius. The king referred it to a Council, they to the judgment of God. Symmachus appeared the first time, but, having been nearly assassinated on the way, refused the second time and stood on his privilege, and then they left it to the judgment of God. So he remained Pope. The grossest outrages, even against nuns, and fighting and murders took place on this occasion.

A previous Council held at Rome had passed decrees against the canvassing and intrigues which took place at the elections, or rather before them. Symmachus was never cleared of the charges. The only really godly man we read of in the case was with Laurentius' party. In their strifes the clergy went so far as to spend all the. Church's goods to push their candidates, so that civil laws had to be made to repress the abuse. So uncertain was the succession here, that Baronius says that right might seem on either side, and there was not much to blame in Laurentius and his friends in maintaining his right to the Papacy till alter the Council of Rome had decided for Symmachus (Bar. 498 III.) But this was a Council of Italian prelates held by Symmachus. Symmachus presided himself. Of course it owned him Pope. They saluted him with acclamations of long life arid his see many years. But it was really no regular Council, for the presbyters of his party and deacons signed as well, and it was held a year after his election (Hard. III. 958). The Roman Catholic body at that time did not think so much of divine succession. They sent to the civil power, and to an Arian to settle it. To quiet the matter Laurentius was made Bishop of another see; so his consecration was owned. Hormisdas succeeded Symmachus, and. John Hormisdas. But then the king, Theodoric an Arian, put Felix into the see-Felix HI. for Fleury, Felix II. for Baronius, as he will not own Felix I. at all, though he sat and consecrated various prelates, only Liberius was alive. Felix, though put in by an Arian king, was a good Pope, at least there was no competitor; they ordained him on the Arian king's nomination. But the case of his successor was worse still. King Athelric appointed Boniface to be Pope; but if we are to believe Baronius, the Romans wishing to have a Pope of their own chose Dioscurus, and as appears in a letter he quotes, the great body of people were with him. Both were consecrated. However Dioscurus died after some months. Boniface called a Council and forced the clergy to condemn and anathematize him after his death, and to give him the power to name his own successor and give it in writing. And Vigilius was named. However in a subsequent Council this was all revoked and the writing burned. But if Dioscurus was elected canonically and by the majority of clergy and laity, as rather appears to have been the case, both from Baronius's statements and Boniface being obliged to use such efforts to reduce the clergy to subjection, Boniface was never rightly and canonically Pope at all, and the whole succession fails.

R. But you have no proof of this, and Boniface was always afterward owned as Pope.

/V*. If we are to have Apostolic Succession as an essential mark of the true Church-and it is a vital point in your system-the proof of there being such must be clear, and lies only on you. But you cannot deny that both were consecrated. Baronius, though speaking very cautiously, gives us to understand that the Roman choice by the multitude fell on Dioscurus. He does not attempt to say more than that it happily closed by his death. But if Boniface was not originally Pope, but Dioscurus, he never could be legitimate Pope at all. As to being owned afterward in the lists, it proves nothing but that he sat in fact, which nobody denies. We shall find a multitude of cases where they are in the lists, and Baronius will not own them. We have seen such an one already in the case of Felix, so that if you are searching out history, you have to settle, by chronology and contemporary names, which it was. See such a case in Dupin (Cent. VI. under Felix IV). Boniface seems to have pleaded the deliverance of the see from the nomination of the king.. He made all the clergy swear to it; and then, when in the subsequent synod it was all set aside, and the writing burnt, he absolved them from their oath. The truth is that the breaking up of the Roman Empire had put power into the hands of the Roman pontiff's, and all was ambition and wickedness. After the short pontificates of. John 2 and Agapetus, we arrive at a case in which all pretense of legitimate succession fails. The Emperor of Constantinople was by means of Belisarius engaged in the reconquest of Italy, and the King of the Goths, Theodotus, distrustful of influences not his own at Rome. The clergy met to elect a Pope, but he would not allow them to elect the one they desired, but obliged them, under penalty of death, to establish his nominee Pope, which they did. Baronius speaks of their wisdom and divine guidance and approbation, that they all consented to nominate Silverius, whom Theodotus had forced upon them. He was son of Pope Hormisdas. He was charged with bribing the king to have him made Pope. It is also said this was a calumny. It is possible. Things were in such a state that they were as capable of false accusation as he of bribery. Which was the fact, I do not pretend to say. It is the statement of the historian Anastasius. However he was a Pope. But Vigil, who was at Constantinople, intrigued with the empress to be Pope, promising to own her favorites who were condemned for false doctrine in the East, if she would have him named. And she sent him with a letter to Belisarius, who was at Rome. The empress had promised 700 pounds of gold if he owned her favorite, and he promised 200 of them to Belisarius if he installed him Pope. The Goths had returned to besiege Rome; Silverius was accused of treachery with the Goths. They at last raised the siege, however, and Silverius was banished by Belisarius to Patara, in Lycia, who took off his vestments, and made the clergy elect Vigil; and Vigil sat as Pope. Silverius, however, went to the emperor, who sent him back to Rome saying, if he had engaged in treacherous correspondence with the Goths, he was not to be reinstated, but if innocent, he should be. But Vigil, fearing for himself, fulfilled then the conditions on which he had got the papacy, and Belisarius delivered Silverius up into his power, and he was sent off to the island of Pontecune, where he died, it is said, of hunger, and Vigil remained Pope. This is the Pope who had to do with the emperor and the general council at Constantinople, and condemned and retracted, and retracted his retractation, and at last was let go by the emperor, who offered to the Romans him or the Archdeacon Pelagius for Pope. The two returned together. Vigil died on the road and Pelagius was accused of poisoning him, and could only get two out of the prelates of Italy to consecrate him: all the rest refused. But he purged himself on oath, and was the next Pope. Nice work to secure faith, and give a sure mark to the simple of the true church.

R. But still they were regularly consecrated, and grace and truth were handed down.

N*. Why the Bishop of Ostia (who was the regular person to do it) laying his hands on a man chosen to be Peter's successor at Rome, should convey grace or authority from Peter it is hard to tell. If Peter had done so, and then his successor on his successor before his death and so on, I might not believe it, but I could understand it. But it is not so. As the case is, the Pope, who consecrates ever so many prelates, never confers Peter's authority, and a prelate who has it not, nor any pretensions to it, confers it on the Pope. Succession here there is none. However, I drop that, as we are examining the facts. Now in Vigil's case the failure is complete on your own showing. Silverius was deprived by the violence of Belisarius, by the intrigues of some women, and Vigil was thereupon consecrated and made Pope. While the Pope was alive this was impossible; he could not be Peter's successor while Peter's true successor was there, and he never had any other election or consecration. Baronius tries to make out a second election six days after Silverius's death, but does not dare to hint at a second consecration, so that the fallacy is apparent on the face of it; and Pagius shows that the six days' vacancy mentioned by Anastasius was from Silverius's deposition by Belisarius, and not from his death. It is a miserable attempt to get rid of what is a hopeless flaw in the succession of Roman pontiffs. Pelagius, very probably the poisoner, certainly the successor, of Vigilius, who was no Pope at all, has wholly broken the succession of the pontificate, whatever it is worth. We have the true account, no doubt, in Fleury (xxxii. 57, 58). He wrote secretly to the heretics and remained in possession of the Holy See; at the same time professed entire orthodoxy to the emperor, a strange security for faith. Dupin (under the title of Pope Vigil in Cent. VI), tells the truth too plainly: " Although Vigil had mounted the See of Rome in a way wholly unjust, he did not the less remain in possession after the death of Silverius, nor was he the less recognized as legitimate Pope without its appearing even that they proceeded to a new election, or that they confirmed that which had been." Further, Vigil was consulted as Pope by foreign prelates as Eleutherius before Silverius's death.

Mr. D. But if you undermine thus the foundations of faith and of the Church of God, what have we to rest upon?

N*. And do you mean that one who certainly could not be really Pope while another was alive (himself put in by the violence of the king) introduced by an intriguing woman to support what the Church called heresy, and paying the general a large sum of money to secure him and send away his competitor to die of hunger in an island, and his successor so suspected of poisoning him that in all Italy all refused to consecrate him, but two who were not the regular ones to do it-do you mean that these are the foundations of faith and of the Church of God. Really, it seems to me a man must have his conscience utterly deadened; it is a kind of blasphemy to me to make such things God's security for faith in the Church. As to faith, who can tell what Vigil's faith was?-one thing for the empress and the heretics, another for the emperor, and then yes and no and yes, as he vacillated between the emperor and Rome as to the three chapters.

R. But it is not certain he wrote those letters to the heretics. It was, as Baronius says, a proof of God's care of the Roman See that he was providentially forced to be orthodox as soon as he became Pope, though he had engaged himself to the empress to favor heresy in order to get it.

N*. Your fairest historians admit he did. I have quoted no Protestant statements. Besides it is a mere shuffle of Baronius that he then became Pope, as we. have seen. That he made a public confession of orthodoxy to please the emperor and Rome, when he feared them somewhat, is true; but he went backwards and. forwards at Constantinople in just the same unprincipled way. But the fact is he never was rightful Pope at all. He was appointed when a Pope was living and only then. But if you say this is so uncertain, how can what is so give ground for certainty of faith. It is, at any rate, certain he never was really Pope on your principles of succession. To me, save as I may sorrow over any other sinner, it is quite immaterial, but I consented to examine the boasted succession, as it had been put into other people's heads to puzzle;hem. My trust is in the sure word of God and in-His grace, where, as I have said, there is no succession to be sought; it is itself and always the same. You may remark here that Silvering was the son of Pope Hormisdas, and subsequently the great Gregory was a descendant of Pope Felix.

I pass over John III., Benedict, Pelagius II., Gregory-a really great man, who just hints at the possibility of a purgatory for extremely small faults (for the Gospel had disappeared) and who reformed or composed the Roman Liturgy—Sabinianus, and others, and come to Honorius, in the seventh century, where we meet a difficulty of another kind. Honorius, so far from keeping the faith of others, could not, it seems keep the faith himself. He is formally condemned and anathematized by name in the third Council of Constantinople, confirmed by Pope Agathon, and anathematized again by Pope Leo II.,' whence it is formally taught in Canon Law that the Pope can be judged for heresy.

R. But it is not sure, as Baronius shows, that the letters were Honorius's. A certain Theodore was the person, and that it could not, if they were, be called heresy.

N*. Did you ever read Dupin's remarks on it? R. Well, I never did.

N*. I should think not. All Baronius proves is that he himself was at his wit's ends about it. No honest Roman Catholic questions it. He is called Pope in the acts of the Council; the decree was sent to the Pope, confirmed by him; Honorius was anathematized by name by Leo II. In a word, the objections are simply, as Dupin says, frivolous and unworthy of attention. As It is expressly taught, Dis. xl, c. 6, that a Pope can be judged for heresy; and in the gloss, also if he is incorrigible and the Church scandalized for evident crimes, because contumacy is heresy; but that the Church should pray against it much, as its salvation so depends on the Pope. to its being heresy, he states positively in terms what the Council condemns, and Leo and Agathon too, and the Roman Council, with Martin and Agathon, Popes; so the Emperor in his letter to Rome too. In a solemn judgment on a heresy, they condemn and anathematize the Pope by name. A strange security for the faith! They did not dream of his being such then. And what is the value of the succession of a heretic as a mark of the true Church? For my own part, I do not think worse of Honorius than of his adversaries. He was in error, but sought to put an end to useless chicanery too. But if he was not wrong, then the Popes and the Council were wrong, in anathematizing. him. John 4 seems to have no great opinion of him, or at least to think more of Rome's importance, and explains Honorius's doctrine in a statement well meant in the main, but which shows ignorance of the truth of God, confounding man's spirit or conscience with the Holy Ghost, as a Quaker might now. They all confounded, I think, will as a quality of nature, and will in action or self-will, but on that I contest not.. next Pope to John, Theodore, was son of a bishop.

As we proceed, we may see how little like divine order was in the succession of these Popes. The Emperors of Constantinople had lost almost all their authority and possessions in Italy, but held Ravenna, where the Exarch and a Governor resided, and Rome. Ile could not thus directly hinder any Pope but those he wished being chosen, but by means of the troops in Rome acted on it indirectly, so that those who sought to be Pope bribed the exarch to get in (Bar.; Conon Pap.). Thus in the case of Conon's election. The troops held one church, the people another, with two candidates, and could not agree. The clergy and populace went to the Patriarchate and saw Conon, and the troops fell in with the common feeling, and he was elected. The two competitors remained excluded. On Conon's death, Paschalis promises the treasures of the Church, or, as Baronius says, a hundred pounds of gold to the exarch. One party elect Paschal as Pope, another Theodore, and there is a contest between him and Theodore, one holding the inner part of the Patriarchal palace, the other the outer, and nothing could be done. The populace see Sergius, and all acclaim him. Theodore gives way, and Paschal has to quit, in spite of himself. He sent, however, the gold promised to the exarch, and he came down on Rome, and Sergius had to give him some precious treasures of the Church, or he would have been sent off. Paschal, charged with magic, died secluded in a monastery.

James. But surely, gentlemen-excuse me for speaking-there is nothing holy or of God in all this. It is mere human ambition and wickedness. How can this be a sign of the true Church? It is a sign of man's lusts and sin.

1\1*. Holiness is not required in a Pope. The Canon Law says no one is to judge them, save for heresy, as We have seen; and either they adorn their position by their own conduct, or the worth of Peter's excellency rests on them (Dis. xl., 41 non nos).

Bill M. Well, I must say this is all very strange to me. I did not rest on Scripture, and I thought from what these gentlemen and their friends said, all was holy and blessed, and the Pope was called His Holiness, and I took it all for true. But I see now it is all very different from that. How can you, gentlemen, take all this as a proof of the true Church? And Dr. Milner has not really told the truth about it. One expects, at any rate a poor man who has not read much does, to find truth in a book like that recommended by people that seem so holy; and it is not honest, I see it plainly. You will forgive me, gentlemen, but I see I have been deceived.

R. But holiness and authority attaches to the office, and not to the man; and we are looking for the true succession in the office. Besides, many were very holy men.

Bill M. But from what I have heard, the succession is anything but sure; and if it were, what is a succession of ambitious men striving for a great place to do with the Church of God. I do not see anything very Apostolic in that.

D. But you must not impugn the efficacy of Sacraments, because the administrators of them were unholy. We are all imperfect.

Bill M. That seems strange, if Holiness is a mark of the true Church, that unholiness should be no hindrance to the continuance of grace in it, and God's acceptance of it. Would the greatest villain in the world be the same security for grace and the true faith as the Apostle Peter, who was inspired of God? However, I do not judge much about that: I am not fit for it. But do you mean that if the Church and its. heads get unholy and evil, the acceptance and grace of God is as much there as before? Is Holiness as much a mark as before? That is hard for an honest man, or any man, to swallow. At any rate, if so, they should not give Holiness as a mark of the true one, for when it is unholy it is just as true as before.

Di You are pretending to reason, and a person always is ruined when they begin to do that.

Bill M. But you tell me to judge of the Church by these marks, and that is what I am trying to do; and when it does not serve your purpose then you tell me not to judge. I mean no offense, sir, but I do not understand this.

Well, M., we must have patience. I will say a word on Dr. Milner before I close; but we will search further into this sure succession. What we have seen only gives a faint budding forth of what was to come. The Papacy was still in its infancy yet, though already very powerful and an object of ambition; what you say is, in the main, perfectly just. Conscience revolts at such a thought, and it upsets their own argument. God is above his own ordinances, and He can inspire extra- ordinarily a wicked man, as Balaam and Caiaphas. But the moment it is a mark of what the man or the true Church is, that is wholly another matter. We are all imperfect, but holiness is that which God works and produces, and a mark of what He owns. He may bear long in patience with us, and does so, but He cannot accept unholiness and sanction that which is contrary to it. He is sovereign, and can make a dumb ass reprove a prophet if He will; but what He owns cannot as a mark bear the stamp of unholiness. Where there is the form of godliness without the power, His word is, " from such turn away." But we have closed the VIIth century, and I beg you and these gentlemen to remark I have drawn my facts from Roman Catholic sources alone. The names of the Popes suffice to point out the places in Baronius and Dupin; in Fleury, I have given the place; Tillemont or Platina are the others I have referred to. But I have somewhat more to add of the history while Sergius was reckoned Pope. His epitaph is extant (Bar. 701. VIII.), and by this it appears that he was not consecrated till after Theodore's death, who must be considered as a Pope, that subsequently he was in exile seven years, and one John, of whom we have nothing farther sat as Pope, and then Sergius was brought back at the entreaty of the people. Indeed, it was only then that he was consecrated Pope. Thus, during the alleged thirteen years of Sergius's pontificate Theodore was Pope at first, then John (that nobody knows anything about), and Sergius was only consecrated above seven years after lie was chosen by acclamation. Then the exarch sought to put in another Pope, and the soldiers rebelled, and would not let him. Where is Apostolic Succession to be found? Now without this epitaph no one would have known of Theodore and John being Popes. How they were no one knows. Papal historians had wisely buried it.

At this time Spain renounced obedience to the Roman See, but northern Italy rejoined it, for it had all been long in what was called schism, not receiving the fifth General Council; and Ravenna still was.

Two events happened about this time, I may note in passing. The Lombards having driven the Greeks out of Italy, Pope Stephen called the Franks in. They had sanctioned already the French mayors of the palace, who really reigned, setting aside the puppet kings, who did so nominally. The Pope received territorial authority under the new Western Empire, established in the person of Charlemagne, crowned Emperor at Rome. The second fact was the forgery of supposed early decretals, ascribing superior authority to the Popes from the first.

These were the great foundation of Papal authority till the Reformation, when the forgery was detected and exposed, being admitted now by all. There was some opposition from Metropolitans at the time, but as they increased their authority over the prelates under them, they too accepted them.

A little farther on in our history we arrive at still greater confusion. At the death of Paul a Tuscan noble brought his brother Constantine to Rome, and forced a bishop to consecrate him, and he was Pope for more than a year, and his election and consecration as Pope confirmed by a council. He ordained clergy, and consecrated eight bishops. But one of the Roman court, Christophle, went (swearing to Constantine that he would not do it, and perjuring himself) and by treachery brought forces into Rome to drive out the Pope. But while this was going on, Constantine, having hid himself, one Philip was taken and consecrated Pope. However, Christophle made his way in, and Pope Philip swore that he would not leave Rome till he had been driven out, which was done, and he quietly retired to a monastery. They deposed Constantine, and then elected and consecrated a third Pope, Stephen, and Christophle's son went and got Charles called Charlemagne, and Carlo-man, Pepin being dead, to send French prelates to Rome to set things in order. Meanwhile they tore out the eyes of Constantine and his partisans and other suspected persons, and put them into monasteries, or used other torturing processes. The French prelates came and assembled. The blind Constantine was brought before them. They struck and abused him when he cited similar cases of the consecration of laymen, burnt the acts of the Council which confirmed his election, ordered the prelates he had consecrated to come to Rome to be reconsecrated, which was done; but many Roman Catholics hold the second as simply null and void. His presbyters were left as they were, contrary to the decree of the Council. Sergius and Christophle had their eyes torn out by Didier, and Christophle was put to death (Fleury XLIII., XLIV., and subsequent; Dupin, Etienne Ill. Cent. VIII). Baronius treats the see as vacant till Stephen was elected.. He will not at all allow that the eight prelates were re-consecrated, which is impossible he holds, and puts in margin of the historian quoted, " reconciled." So he does for the presbyters, where the same word is used without saying they were never consecrated by Stephen, as the prelates were. Now they were clearly reconciled, and remained as they were. It is a mere come-off for Constantine's episcopacy; and as it was the episcopacy of Rome, pontificate was thereby acknowledged. All was confusion. There were three Popes all consecrated, one having ordained many others and even bishops of sees; if Constantine was bishop he was bishop of Rome and Pope, if not here was the whole clergy vitiated in its source. And they were literally tearing out each others' eyes, and laymen using violence to put their favorites into the see. Stephen got in by the perjury of Christophle and the arms of his followers;. Constantine's armed brother being killed by treachery in the fight, and another consecrated Pope glad to get off unscathed, and end his days in a monastery.

Bill M. Well! well! and is that the holy Catholic; Church? Who would have thought it!

R. There were dark and gloomy days no doubt, and. violence and confusion prevailed, but Stephen was regularly elected and consecrated, so that the succession continued.

N*. How can I Say that? Constantine who had been consecrated and confirmed by a local council was alive, though his eyes were torn out, and Philip too. And if Constantine were not properly consecrated, then all the clergy he ordained were no clergy at all, and there were no real sacraments; I speak always on your own principles. As to violence, violence there was. But the violence was as much on the side of Stephen as Constantine. The only difference was, that John, Constantine's partizan and brother, was guilty only of violence; Christophle of perjury too. Rome was an object of ambition, and they fought for it. Stephen ordained in his council that only the clergy should elect, and the people then salute him; that images should be adored, which was forbidden at Constantinople by a very numerous council, and by a still larger one under Charlemagne at Frankfort of several hundred bishops. They condemned images in the strongest terms,- however the adorations and superstition prevailed. King Pepin gave tithes to the clergy, and Charlemagne issued orders for the regulation of the Church and clergy. The Pope's legates were at the 'Council of Frankfort, where a late Constantinopolitan Council which restored the use of images, presided over by the Pope's legates, and received by him, was utterly rejected. This was somewhat later, in 794; I speak of it here in order not to return to it. Pope Adrian answered Charlemagne very mildly, excusing himself. This Pope's letter to Charlemagne makes no objection to the Greek doctrine as to the procession of the Holy Ghost. Pope Stephen the 4th (or 5th, one having died as soon as elected, and hence not counted by many), ordained that the clergy only should elect, the people being present, and that it should not be done without the Emperor's Ambassadors being there, in consequence of the violence often used. The words of the decree are, When a Pope is to be instituted, the bishops and all the clergy coming together, let the person to be ordained be chosen, the senate and people being present, and, thus elected by all, let him be consecrated, the Imperial Ambassadors being present. The reason of the decree is that the violence took place because the consecration of the Pope took place without the imperial knowledge, and that according to canonical rite and custom, direct messengers from the Emperor were not there who would hinder these scandals from being perpetrated. He made the Romans swear fealty to the Emperor. I refer to this, because it spews what this pretended succession was-such scenes of violence, that the Roman Pontiff, jealous enough of civil interference, is obliged to call in the representatives of the Emperor, that it may at least proceed with some decency. It forms also a kind of turning point, excluding, though in ambiguous terms, the people from direct election. But what an idea of Christian care and episcopal succession, if such be the rule. Armed men forcing a Pope on the see, or armed men driving him away, and lynch law executed in tearing out their eyes, and a third smuggled into the see between the two competitors and then smuggled out.

James. Well, it is dreadful to be sure! And when one compares the words of the blessed Lord, how can one think there should be grace or faith or anything belonging to Christ here.

N*. There were Christ's hidden ones surely all through, but it is not in the great or the Doctors that we find in general anything like Christ. And now all was superstitious, translating relics and the like, though there was, as we have seen resistance, to it. The power of Charlemagne was a remarkable feature of the time, and the way he governed the church in his Empire, and led hundreds of bishops in council to reject image worship, as now restored in the East. Still all was confusion and violence, he conquered the Saxons who were heathens, and drove them with the sword to be baptized in the Elbe, and so they were made Christians of. There were devoted men, however, who occupied themselves with the spread of Christianity, such as they knew it. The Roman see had very great wealth and possessions, and Pepin having added large territories to those the see already had, it was hence the object of ambition. Piety was occupied with buildings, and. sumptuous clothes of service in the church. After Pope Adrian's death, there were again two popes chosen, and the conflict was so serious that the Emperor's son had to go to Rome to settle it. But it does not appear that the second was consecrated, though nothing is known of the matter, save that it was important enough to take the Emperor's eldest son to -Rome. The Emperor asserts fully his imperial rights over Rome, and against the Pope even, but uses it to have elections free and forbid tumults, The nobles it is said (Fleury XLVI. were for Eugenius, and carried the day. The Romans all swore however, not only allegiance, but that no Pope should be consecrated in their presence without swearing allegiance to the Emperor. Still the Pope's authority was gradually increasing, to which the forged decretals which came out about this time largely contributed. But till the decay of the Empire, which was rapid, the Emperors within its limits governed Prelates and Lords, a Bishop and a Count being sent to have all things in order. When their power was quite decayed in Italy, the Popes were engaged in the intrigues of the great nobles to set up Kings and Emperors there, the Marquises of Tuscany at length getting authority over Rome, and putting their creatures into the Papacy, often their illegitimate children or those of the Popes themselves. I merely state this briefly in passing, as the condition of the Empire, that we may better understand the state of things.

It was at this time that the famous history of Pope Joan had its date, a history believed for centuries, not indeed doubted till the Reformation. A German woman born however in England, went to Athens, and thence to Rome, and became so distinguished in her literary teachings that she was at length it is said elected Pope, and held the see two years; but having given birth to a child on the way to the Lateran Church near the Coliseum, died and was buried with disgrace.

R. But you do not believe this odious fable, in. vented by the enemies of Rome, and long after the event.

.N*. Could you say by whom it was invented'? I know Harding the Jesuit and Pagius ascribe it to Martinus Polonus, who, remark, was an eminent Roman Catholic writer, the latter thinking even Martin falsified. But why should a famous Roman Catholic invent it? The efforts to refute it are various: some say it was a retort of the Greeks to an accusation of a similar case in one who held the patriarchate of Constantinople; while the strongest argument against this is that the Greeks never mention it at all when most hostile to the see of Rome, but speak of Benedict III. as successor of Leo IV. This with the difficulties of chronology are the strongest answer to it. But in numbering the Popes this Joan is required to make them out. John 21 would only be XX. without this Joan. It was believed and not questioned for centuries, indeed admitted as true till the Reformation, spoken of as true by Ecclesiastical writers, by John Huss without the Council of Constance reproaching him with it. The Pope's sex was examined by the youngest sub.

deacon from the 11th century.* Platina introduces her under the title of John 7, saying he would not

seem to omit what almost all affirm.

Whence did the story originate? It is not a Protestant allegation. It

was fully believed and affirmed centuries before Luther.

Roman Catholic historians since the Reformation pass it under silence, or deny it, as Baronius in his Annals (853, LVI.) with Pagius' notes, and others. But before it, it is Roman Catholic historians who record it.

R. Leo Allatius ascribes its origin to the history of a false prophetess at Maine.

N*. But this is outrageously far-fetched. What should turn a false prophetess at Maine, who did not conceal her sex, into a Pope of Rome who did? And why should the sex of the Pope be examined continually afterward? It is alleged and still by Roman Catholic authors that there were monuments recording it, indeed as to some it cannot be doubted, their, destruction is also recorded, and that the Pope never passed that way (the straight one) from. St. Peter's to Lateran.* Now I will not say it is proved, but no one has yet accounted for the story, 'nor for the facts in connection with the Pope.

James. But what a way we are got from anything 'Christian, sir.

N*. Far indeed; but that you must, if you follow 'the Popes. But this is the very thing which this sad history is useful for, the proving that the Roman system is as far from Christianity as anything can possibly be. But, alas, though this story Makes the certainty of succession utterly untenable, we shall find in this and the whole condition of Popery far more grievous and flagrant facts still, and that their own marks-their Apostolicity, as much as their Holiness and Catholicity-'are wholly wanting. It was just about this period that the separation of the Greek and Roman bodies began, and began really about hierarchical importance, though consummated somewhat later, when dogmas were alleged as an excuse. The manners of the clergy, and of the Popes particularly, became at this time so licentious and corrupt, incest and unnatural crimes flowing from imposed or lauded celibacy, that it is hard to say in such corruption what is to be' trusted. But we will proceed. Schrock attributes, citing from others, the story of Pope Joan to this. Universally recognized as it was, it. must have had some source, and the source was Rome. The attempt to put another on the Papal throne instead of Benedict failed, and may be passed over. His follower was crowned, a thing immaterial to us, but showing the progress of Antichristian character. He began too to use the forged. decretals in his conduct towards Metropolitans. His follower absolved the emperor from a solemn, though forced. oath. I have nothing to remark till we come to the end of the century, where, in 891, Formosus (already consecrated of old Bishop, but sent as Legate to Bulgaria) was chosen Pope, and enthroned, but not consecrated over again, the first example of such a transfer to Rome. Whether it may be considered a. succession to St. Peter may be well questioned. Such translation was strictly forbidden in the early Church. But on that I do not insist. He was never consecrated to the Roman See, or to be successor of St. Peter, as they say. Either the consecration of a Pontiff to be St. Peter's successor has nothing to do with the matter, and any other is as good, or he was not a successor at all-he was only his successor by election, and any special descending grace and security by being consecrated successor of St. Peter is a fable. After this we are plunged in struggles and confusion, so that to speak of succession is really ridiculous. The empire was weakened; Italian nobles struggled for the crown, and Popes brought' in German princes to counteract their efforts, and whichever party prevailed put in a Pope, who undid what his predecessor had done. We have an instance of this in Formosus. He is called Bishop of Porto, but fled, with others, from Rome with the Pope's treasures; after his return from Bulgaria he was cited to appear, and was condemned, by regular process, before the Pope, John 8, deprived of his priesthood, degraded, and after delay given, anathematized. This sentence was confirmed in the Council of Troyes. The Pope condemned those connected with Formosus, who belonged to his own court, and did rob and would have killed him.*

They fled; but it appears that Formosus was not only banished, but had to swear that he never would join in public service but as a layman. Marinus, or Martin, followed, who, Platina says, got in by evil arts. He undid all that John 8 had done as to Formosus, and absolved him from his oath, and restored him to his bishopric. (Fleury 53, XLV). He was Pope little more than a year; Adrian followed for two months, then Stephen, and then Formosus himself became Pope by bribery, says Platina, more than by virtue. Boniface was then consecrated Pope, elected by the popular voice, but died, it is said, of the gout in fifteen days. Platina says he was Pope, Fleury that his intrusion was condemned (54, XXVIII). He too had been deposed from the subdiaconate and from the priesthood.*

Dupin (IX. 16) says, Formosus having returned under Marinus, intrigued to get the Holy See; then the see was disputed by Boniface and Stephen. Baronius will not own Boniface at all; yet he was consecrated Pope as well as any one, but died somehow in fifteen days. I may as well quote here, though somewhat long, the statement of the history by Baronius (897, I.), no Protestant account, but a very great stickler for the Roman See. " He (Boniface) held the see fifteen days. He is not to be reckoned among the Pontiffs, being condemned in a Roman Council under Pope John 9,* as shall be said in its place, a wicked man, already twice deposed, once from the diaconate, then from the priesthood, but against him Stephen the Seventh, called Sixth, was substituted, the intruded Boniface driven out by one in like manner intruded. All these things were extorted by force and fear, and have brought the greatest ignominy on the holy Roman Church. But that some of the intruded Pontiffs have afterward been received as Pontiffs, others altogether set aside, as Boniface, of whom we speak, comes from this, that those, however tyrannically they got hold of the see, yet the consent of the clergy having followed (accidente), it was better to tolerate them, whatever they were, than have the Church divided by schism, and than that legitimate Pontiffs in new electoral assemblies be chosen by accustomed rites. That we should say this, evident necessity compels us, because the universal Catholic Church honored them as legitimate Pontiffs, obeyed them and recognized them as Vicars of Christ, successors of Peter, and went to them with the respect (cultu) due to a true Pontiff." This is a direct acknowledgment that they were not legitimate Pontiffs, but that it was more convenient to own them than have a schism. If they succeed in holding their ground, better own them. If a stronger, like Stephen, intrudes, and puts out the first intruder, and he dies of the gout in fifteen days, then he is not in the list at all. Yet Boniface was as much consecrated Pope as Stephen, and if Stephen was consecrated after him, before he died of the gout, Stephen, the successful intruder, was never legitimately consecrated at all Is not apostolic succession a farce after such facts and acknowledgments as these? The attempt to have a legitimate Pontiff would have produced schism, so better to accept unprincipled intruders; and it was done. Luitprand (quoted by Baronius) says, Formosus being dead, and Arnulf (the emperor he had favored and brought to Rome to help him) gone home, he who was constituted Pope after the death of Formosus is expelled, and Sergius (Stephen, Baronius says, at the instigation of Sergius) constituted Pope by Adelbert, and then relates the horrible history I shall now briefly relate, Stephen getting his act withal to be confirmed by a Council at Rome.

He disinterred Formosus, set up his dead body on the Pontifical throne, and dressed it in the Pontifical robes, and a kind of assembly being formed, addressed it as an unworthy intruder into the see. A deacon was given him to defend him, but, counted as unable to defend him, he was stripped of the robes, the fingers cut off with which he consecrated, and his body thrown into the Tiber, and all his consecrations held for nothing, and the subjects of them consecrated anew. All this was condemned and annulled afterward. But before we proceed to further history, I must remark that at this epoch all is a sea of confusion as to the succession of the Papacy. If I take up an ordinary history, I find John 8, Marinus, Adrian III., Formosus, perhaps Boniface, and then Stephen VII. (or VI.). But if I look a little below the surface, I find Sergius elected Pope, as well as Formosus. Luitprand's account of it, quoted by Baronius (891, III), is that they were in the act of consecrating Sergius when Formosus' party came and drove him by force from the altar; so Formosus was Pope. But then further, most respectable Roman Catholic writers, historians every way recognized among them, introduce two more Popes here, Agapetus and Basil.

These authorities are Marianus Scotus and Sigebert, who remark that these names were not found in some writers in his time, nor did the latter even die of the gout in fifteen days. Others follow these; how they came to be put in is hard to say. They may have been antipopes, whom their party owned, the others not. The chronology does not suit; but that is hardly more certain than the list of Popes, Leo Ostiensis leaves out Stephanus VI. Now Agapetus and Basil may be supposed Popes, and Stephen a real one; Sergius may have just escaped, being one half ordained, and Formosus succeeded by the violence of his followers, who expelled Sergius with no small tumult and outrage from the altar, says Luitprand; but where is the certainty of succession and decency-I will not condescend to say holiness—in your Roman Catholic Church? To say nothing of Formosus going against the ancient Canons, and being already Prelate of Ostia, never being consecrated Pope at all.

R. But he could not be consecrated over again.

N*. Be it so; but he was never consecrated successor of St. Peter at all. He was an ambitious prelate, who had sworn never to come to Rome or be anything but a layman.

R. But Pope Marinus absolved him from his oath and reinstated him in his see.

N*. A strange way of maintaining holiness as a mark of the Church; but then, the canons peremptorily forbidding translation from one see to another without any fresh consecration; he seizes by open violence the See of Peter, so called, when another is actually being consecrated, and so becomes successor of St. Peter. The only thing he was Pope of Rome by was by outrage and violence; and your Baronius is obliged to own that Popes who intruded were dropped out of the list or kept in it as it suited convenience to avoid worse schisms; so that there are many' Popes not allowed in the lists, who were as much Popes as those in it. Agapetus and Basil may have been as much Popes as Boniface, and others we shall find, whom Baronius leaves out. Nothing is more uncertain than what you call Apostolic Succession.

R. But do you believe that Agapetus and Basil were really Popes? There is no ground really to suppose they were.

N*. I really do not know. But I know that several most respectable historians say they were, and that Baronius, whom you trust, admits that many illegitimate Popes were recognized rather than have schism, and Boniface he does not own, who was certainly consecrated Pope. All I say is, that there is no certainty at all in your apostolic succession; and that ordinations too were annulled, and set up again just as parties varied.

R. There were doubtless dark ages, and the empire too was in dissolution and confusion, and Italy in the disorder of incipient feudalism, different parties having the upper hand in their time, and this had its effect on the Church in those turbulent times.

N*. Quite true; but that merely says that instead of a holy apostolic succession, a light to the world in the lowliness of Jesus, it had fallen into the world and its darkness, and was a prey to the violences, which set one up and another down, as parties had the upper hand, and so it was. But then what becomes of holy Apostolic Succession?

R. God has doubtless preserved it.

N*. He has preserved the Church in spite of it; but you make it a matter of faith, like its holiness, as Dr. Pusey says, but history denies it in fact, and as we are looking for marks of the true Church, which even a poor man can use to find it, we ought to have facts, not believe one thing that he may believe another by the proof it gives. You have no apostolic succession in fact, but require one to believe there must have been, and then take it as a mark, as if it were.

It is well to give Baronius' account of the Papacy at this epoch. It will give us a just idea of apostolic succession. He says of Stephen, who had so treated Formosus's body (906, VI.): " In this year, Stephen, the invader of the apostolic see, and himself driven out, is thrown into prison and strangled. He then 'quotes his epitaph: Thus indeed the wicked man suffered, who entered as a thief and a robber (a singular kind of Apostolic Succession!) into the sheepfold, closed his life by a halter-so infamous an end-through an avenging God. Indeed, all things at Rome, sacred and profane, were mingled up with factions, so that the promotion of the Roman Pontiff to the Apostolic see was in the hands of him that was most powerful, so that at one time the Roman nobles, at another time the Prince of Etruria, intruded by secular power whom he would, and cast down him who might have been promoted to be Roman Pontiff by the contrary faction; and this was done almost all this century till the Othos, emperors of Germany, came in against both opposing parties, arrogating, however, also to himself the election of Pope, and putting down him who was elected." And we shall find consequently two or three at a time all successors, or none a true Pope. But at this moment (900, VIII.) the faction of the Romans having the upper hand of Adelbert, Marquis of Tuscany, Pope Stephen, called Sixth, having been removed, as you have heard, they created a certain person, Romanus by name, who lived, it is said, four months and twenty days, but not easy to say what month or day by ancient monuments. But Stephen, he adds, lived to the end of the year. Theodore succeeded Romanus, but lived only twenty days, and John 9 succeeded him. Platina says, Romanus set aside the acts of Stephen. At any rate, Theodore buried Formosus and brought back the bishops to their sees, and the priests he had ordained in their offices. Those who replaced them were to be counted of course intruders and false, whatever their ordinations and sacrament-giving were worth; but John 9 went further. Still the same conflict for the Papacy; some chose Sergius, who had been trying to be Pope a long while, and had been half consecrated (Formosus having, as will be remembered, driven him from the altar) was chosen Pope. However, John had the stronger party, and Sergius was driven out from Rome, and retired to Adelbert, Marquis of Tuscany. John held council, re-established fully the memory and acts of Formosus, restored his bishops in a Council, burnt the acts of the Council held by Stephen, and forbade any translation again from another see, which the Canons forbade under a penalty of being reduced to the state of a layman, and also any one being placed in the See of Rome without the presence of the emperor's commissaries, that these violences might not take place. But decrees do not destroy passion or ambition. Sergius was still hankering after the Papacy, and the history of the see is full of darkness here, though the discovery of monuments has thrown some light on it. Benedict IV., succeeded John 9, if Sergius was not true Pope. If not, Baronius admits that Sergius held the Papacy during the time he gives to Benedict (906, I). Pagius gives to Sergius all these years. Dupin (X. Chapter 2) gives only about a year to Benedict. Platina says three years and four months. Leo succeeded him; he was Pope forty days; his house-chaplain Christophle took him and put him in prison, and made himself Pope in his stead. However, our old friend Sergius heard of it, came to Rome, took Christophle and put him in prison in his turn, and seated himself on the Papal throne. We hear of no consecration; indeed, he seems to have sat on the Papal throne already. If he was, all the late Popes were no Popes at all; or if he was not, then he sat as Pope without any consecration, and conferred orders. At all events, there had been two Popes all the time from Formosus, Benedict IV., Leo, Christophle. Really to talk of Apostolic Succession as a security for the true Church and the faith, is worse than ridiculous. But further, Sergius renewed his hatred against Formosus, annulled all his ordinations, and forced the ordained to receive ordination over again, and annulled all that John 9 had done in his Council to make valid the acts set aside by Stephen. It was at this time that Auxilius wrote a book against the Pontiffs, assailing the ordinations, annulling of ordinations and re-ordinations, so that nothing was certain. It was hard to know who was a priest and who was not. These were unhappy times, says Baronius, when each intruded Pontiff set aside what had been done by another. So here, that wicked Sergius, a man, the slave of every vice, the most wicked of all, what did he leave unattempted? We must now, alas, plunge into details more horrible still.

Bad enough that ambition and violence should be called Apostolic Succession, when it is quite impossible to know who was really Pope, and two or three, and even four were at the same time of the last few. Benedict IV., Leo V., Christophle, Sergius. But it is now the most worthless of women and their illegitimate children who will dispose of the Papal See as they please, putting in their paramours or illegitimate children.

R. They were very sad times, it is quite true. All Roman Catholic historians admit it. Baronius, as you know, says, how can he hold them for really Popes who were thus put in, only he must date by them. But God steered the ship of the Church through all these waves and tempests, and the bark of St. Peter was never lost.

N*. St. Peter's bark I think little of; God's Church will never, and can never, be hindered from arriving at port. What Christ builds, the gates of hell will not prevail against. But was Christ building all this? And remember we are looking for Apostolic Succession as a Mark of the true Church, and holiness too. If they are, it is quite clear the Roman Church is not the true one, if Church we are to call it. Come now, gentlemen, you make great account of this succession; you believe the existence of the Church depends on it. Which of the four I have just named was the real Pope?

R. We do not answer for irregularities in an evil time. We only say the succession was providentially secured. N*. Sp as to be a ground for faith.

R. Yes.

N*. Well, which is the succession here?

R. Well, Benedict IV., Leo V., Christophle, Sergius.

N*. Does not Baronius admit Sergius sat during Benedict's pontificate?

R. Well, yes; but that is uncertain.

N*. What is certain?

R. The distance of time has thrown obscurity over it.

.A7*. True; that is the boasted succession is quite uncertain. At any rate, Sergius and Benedict were alive together, and which was Pope?

D. Benedict was Pope after the death of John 9

.N*. But Sergius had been chosen at the same time as Formosus, and was driven, as we have seen, from the altar when he was being consecrated. And if he was (and if not, it does not appear he ever was) Benedict could not be legitimate Pope at all. The truth is, it was a struggle between the power of the Marquises of Tuscany and the Roman nobles, who had many of them fortified houses in Rome, who should have the upper hand, and whichever had put his creature in and his adversary's out, so that it is extremely difficult to know who was or who was not Pope, till these wretched women, Theodora, Marozia, and the younger Theodora acquired paramount influence by their personal charms and wealth and noble race, and put in whom they would.

James. But what has this to do with Apostolic Succession? The Apostles had little to do with all this.

.N*. Nothing, James; save to show that there was none. In the first case which we have gone through there is no certainty of any succession whatever but violence; in the second, the vilest of harlots putting in her paramours or children.

Bill M. But is this really all true, Mr. R.?

.R. Well, the facts are very sad, as all own, but we must believe that God would not forsake His Church, and that those who did sit as Popes were regularly consecrated, and so communicated the deposit.

Bill M. But we are trying to find if it is His Church or not; and you want me to believe it is, to show me that there must have been succession, but I was told to look for the succession to know which was the Church. We are looking for proofs of the true Church, and Mr. o. made Apostolic Succession one of them; so does Dr. Milner; so we must get the fact to believe it is the true Church; and there is no succession here, but two or three at a time, and driving one another out like robbers. And how can I know whether they were consecrated or not? Here was one of them driven out in the middle of it from the altar. How can I tell he was ever consecrated? If things went on quietly, we might suppose they were, if it was the rule; but with all this violence, we cannot tell what was done. Then they set aside the ordinations, and others set them up again. This is no sure foundation to build a man's soul upon. I do not see anything Apostolic, or indeed any Christianity in it at all. I am amazed, that is certain. How can people call such things the holy Church of God. But I beg pardon; I'll say no more; but it is no good to tell a plain man that this is Apostolic and holy, to find the Church of God by.

.N*. There is nothing, M., like having the facts in such a case and if we are to believe it is the Church without proof, I have no need to seek then the proofs or marks that it is so. The word of God is quite sufficient for me to build my faith on through grace. But you know this is the ground you were put upon, and so we went into it. We have still a little further to go to make the matter plainer if possible. It is evident," says Baronius (900, III.), "no one could scarcely believe, nor is it indeed scarcely to be believed, unless one had himself seen it with his eyes, and handled it with his hands, what shocking and what base and hideous and execrable and abominable things the holy Apostolic see was compelled to undergo, on which the whole Catholic Church turns as on a hinge." This he attributes to princes meddling with it. But it was, remember, in the Popes that sat on the see these things were found, and this dark state of things lasted and characterized, as Baronius states at the beginning of it, the whole century, till they called in a powerful Emperor, Otho, to set it to rights, swore fealty to him, got him to name a Pope, and then rebelled against him. It had become hopelessly intolerable. It was partly, not all, the consequence of the interference of the Marquis of Tuscany and his family. It is necessary to mention one fact in civil history to explain the history of the Popes. The Marquis of Tuscany had got possession of the Castle of St. Angelo, which still exists, and had been the tomb of the Emperor Adrian, but had been fortified, and commanded the city. He gave this to a noble Roman woman, Theodora, not his wife. and she and her two daughters lived there and governed Rome. Her daughter Marozia had a son by Pope Sergius, with whom she lived. After Sergius came Anastasius, who, says Platina, lived modestly and in integrity.

There was nothing worthy of reproof in him, a good deal to say in those days. After him came Lando. Theodora was all powerful at Rome. A certain presbyter, John, came from Ravenna to Rome, whom she seduced to live with her; one of her daughters living in adultery with Adelbert, Marquis of Tuscany, as the other had lived with Pope Sergius. Theodora had a son, Alberic, by the Marquis. Theodora makes Lando consecrate John to the see of Bologna, but Ravenna, a great archbishopric, falling vacant just then, she makes the Pope promote him to that. Lando did not live long, and then she, not liking him to be at a distance from her, brings John to Rome and makes him Pope. Such is Luitprand's (a contemporary who resided even at Rome) account, adopted by Baronius, Dupin, and Fleury. Muratori seeks to invalidate it some eight hundred years after, but nobody ever doubted it till then. Baronius does not attempt to deny it. His remark is this, " Such was the unhappy state then of the Roman Church, that everything was set in motion by the will of the powerful harlot, Theodora, the mother. By her meretricious acts she had this power; but besides, the son of Adelbert, by his wife Wido, had married Marozia, the mistress of Sergius. What, then, was the face of the holy Roman Church! how filthy when most powerful, and at the same time base harlots ruled Rome, by whose will sees were changed, bishops given, and what is horrible and unutterable to be heard, pseudo-pontiffs their paramours were intruded into the see of Peter who are not to be written save to mark the dates in the catalog of Roman pontiffs; for who can say that persons intruded by har. lots of this kind without law were lawful Roman pontiffs? Nowhere any mention of clergy electing or afterward consenting, all canons buried in silence, the decrees of Pontiffs suffocated, ancient traditions and old customs in electing the sovereign Pontiffs proscribed, and sacred rites and ancient customs utterly extinguished" (912, VII., VIII.); he justly says all the clergy chosen by them were of course like them. Thus at Rheims, the Count Hugo made his son of five years old archbishop, and took the revenues; then some one getting the upper hand another was consecrated, and there was a fight, and councils about that, and two archbishops at a time. But if Baronius is right in this, that they were not legitimate Popes, where is the succession? I know, he says, though the abomination of desolation was there, destruction did not follow as at Jerusalem, that Christ seemed to sleep in the ship, but He was there and the like, that the Church emerged out of it. But we are seeking Apostolic Succession as a mark of the true Church, and here we are for some fifty years without a true Pope at all. There was no true succession, no election, no consent of the Church, but nominees of vile women putting in their paramours or their sons without either. If this be Apostolic Succession, Apostolic Succession is a strange mark of the true Church. And as Auxilius said, when they each annulled the ordinations of another, all was invalidated; there were no true ordinations, no true sacraments. What security is this for the Church of God, or any soul to build its faith upon?

R. But as Baronius says, the Church emerged out of it, and was more flourishing than ever.

Bill M. But all this is very shocking, and to make the Church of God, out of this and such things, a security for our faith, and their own great men saying they were not legititnate, so that whatever else there may be, there cannot be succession.

R. But you are not to take an individual's statement, however eminent, as an authority in matters of faith. Bill M. And what am I to take?

R. The Church.

Bill M. What Church? The Church of Rome governed by harlots? We are just looking for the true one. Is that the true Church that was governed by these women, and the creatures they had about them? I never can think that is Christ's Church. He does not govern His Church by harlots. How they do deceive us.

D. Who deceives you? What right have you to make such charges?

Bill M. Milner deceives me, or had, for I am pretty well undeceived, to say the truth. To talk of the holy Church and Apostolic Succession! And you, gentlemen, I must say deceived me. You cannot deny these things are true.

N*. Allow me to ask, Who was the head of the Church of God at this time?

R. Christ is always the head of the Church, and He could and did take care of it.

N*. That I admit; but then if He be the head always, we have need of no other, nay, another is impossible, the Church cannot have two heads. Christ is the one ever-living head of His body, and son over God's house. But then what is the Pope?

R. He is the head on earth, and vicar of Christ who is in heaven; and what he binds on earth is bound in heaven.

N*. Then they are no real heads, only represent Him who is Head, as you say. But were these infamous dependents on these vile women the vicars of Christ, and was what they did on earth bound in heaven?

R. What they did in their official capacity was bound in heaven.

James. This is very shocking. I had no thought it was so bad. To make these men the vicars of Christ, and their acts Christ's acts.

R. Not their wickedness, I say their official acts.

James. And is all my security to rest on my finding out what were official acts in this horrible history, even if they could represent Christ in anything?

N*. But you will please remember that we are looking for the true Church by the mark of Apostolic Succession. That is the reason I quoted this well known passage again, as I did as to holiness. But tell me, were their ordinations official acts?

R. Of course.

N*. Well, those of one Pope were annulled by another as void from the beginning, and then set up again by a third. Auxilius wrote his book because prelates were disposed to give up their sees, as having no real orders, to persuade them not. What was-perhaps I should say which was-sanctioned by Christ here? But further. Here is your Baronius's account of those whom they did ordain. " Not only was Christ," he says, "asleep in the ship, but (alluding to the history in the gospels) there were no disciples who should wake Him up, they were all snoring. What Presbyters and Cardinal deacons can we suppose should be chosen by these monsters, when nothing is so implanted in nature as that each should beget what is like himself? Who can doubt that they consented in all things to those by whom they were chosen" (912, VIII.)? And so history tells us it was; iniquity, corruption, vice, walked shamelessly abroad; and the clergy, the worst, were screened by official sanctity. Now these were their official acts. I mean the putting the clergy into their offices. Were these sanctioned by Christ in heaven? The gates of hell did not prevail against the Church which He builds, and that is all He says; but is this His Church, the choice and installation of the clergy, of people like themselves, by these monsters, the work of Christ sanctioned by Him in heaven?

James. You surely cannot say that, sir?

R. All I say is that sacramental grace continued, so that the Church endured.

N*. Even that is doubtful on your own ground, from what we have seen; Baronius will not own them for legitimate Popes, some put those in the list that Baronius will not. flow is a poor man like Bill M. to judge of such questions when he is seeking a mark of the true Church?

D. He must humbly take it for granted.

.Ar*. Take what for granted?

R. That God will be faithful to His Church in spite of all.

.N*. We do not doubt that. It is begging the question. We are inquiring which is the true Church. Is he to take for granted that securing grace to monsters of wickedness by sacraments, and they communicating it to profligates like themselves, is sanctioned by Christ, and His way of maintaining the security of the true Church, when he has been taught by yourselves to look for holiness as a mark of the true Church and apostolic succession; when, if he could read these things, and were not deceived by men like Milner, he would know that Baronius says he cannot own them for legitimate Popes..

When he says, Christ was still in the ship, it is saying that He did not fail when there were no legitimate Popes, which I fully believe; but that is the ground we rest on, not yours. We own none to be legitimate, nor the Papacy itself to be legitimate, but Christ to be faithful, and infallibly to assure His Church to the end in spite of these illegitimate Popes. But we hold all this to be illegitimate, and therefore not the true Church. God is true if every man is a liar, but to make Christ sanction illegitimate monsters as the true Church, is horrible.

R. And how is a man to choose amongst all the Protestant sects?

N*. 1 do not want him to choose anything, but to bow to the word of God, and follow it.

R. But how can he tell it is the word of God?

N*. Of that we have spoken; but I answer briefly, by divine teaching. Do you not believe in preventing and assisting grace?

R. Yes, surely; I am no Pelagian.

N*. Well then, he learns its truth and power by that, quite recognizing that ministry of grace which may be a great help to him, while he must be himself taught of God.

D. But cannot grace make him subject to the Church?

N*. When he has found it, as the word directs him. But he must find it first, and take 'the word for his rule, that is, believe in the word first. But if you please we will continue our history. John 10 buckled on his armor, and led his troops with others against the Saracens with success; but Wido and Marozia were jealous of the authority of Peter, his brother, conferred on him by Pope John, in Rome They killed Peter before his eyes in the Lateran palace, and put John in prison, where he died, some say of grief, some of a violent death. Leo VI. succeeded, he was put in prison, and died there after half a year's and a few days' pontificate. Stephen VII. (VIII.) succeeded, and was over two years Pope. Then Marozia put in her own son John, whom she had by Pope Sergius, or as Baronius says, pseudo-Pope. Wido died, and Marozia offered her hand and Rome to Hugo, King of Lombardy, brother by the same mother to Wido.

He accepted it. But he insulted Alberic, son to Adelbert, Marozia's father, by his wife; he raised the Romans, and put Marozia and the Pope in prison. Accounts do not agree how far he was allowed to officiate, some say privately, others more publicly. Alberic made him authorize the Patriarch of Constantinople to wear the pallium without Rome's sending it. For twenty years there is not much to remark. There were three Popes after Leo VII. who succeeded John to John 12 Alberic, who had so long ruled at Rome, had a son named Octavian, who inherited his authority, though the power of Otho I., an able prince, began to make itself felt in all the west; he was crowned Emperor by John 12 (XIII). But this was later. This Octavian, it is said at the suggestion of the Romans, made himself Pope, being a mere boy not possibly more than eighteen, probably a good deal less, not of an age to be a deacon, mimicking a Pope in a play, says Baronius; but it was better (though on no possible condition to be called a legitimate Pontiff, no law in his election but force and fear, but as it was acceded to) it was better, as those worthless times persuaded, to bear with him than have a schism-no true Pope at all, that is, rather than two questionable ones (955, IV.). Octavian or John XII., first led his troops to war against the Duke of Capua, but was forced to make peace. He then began a life of unparalleled debauchery. He wrote to the emperor, whose influence now was great, to deliver him from the violence of the chiefs in Italy. The emperor came; was crowned emperor. The Pope swore allegiance on the bodies of Peter and Paul that he would never in any way help Adelbert and Bereuges, the rebellious chiefs referred to; and all agreed that the Pope should be canonically chosen, and not consecrated until he had bound himself, in presence of the commissaries of the emperor, to preserve the rights of all. However, no sooner was the emperor's back turned than he joined Adelbert. The emperor sent to Rome to inquire what this meant. The answer was that the Pope hated the emperor as the devil hated his Creator; that he had turned the Lateran Palace into a house of ill-fame; and they related the vilest wickedness of which he was guilty; and not content with that, violated matrons and virgins in the very churches. Otho said he was a boy, and would, on being spoken to, mend his ways. It resulted, after several missions, in Otho's coming to Rome, and the Pope and Adelbert fleeing. The emperor entered, and the Romans swore never to elect or have a Pope consecrated without the consent of the emperor. The emperor, the prelates of Germany who came with him, and, nearly all those of Italy met in Council. His misdeeds were publicly stated: he consecrated bishops for money, had made one of ten years old, drunk wine in honor of the devil, and with various cruelties caused the death of persons that were named. The bishops and the clergy and people of Rome declared in the most solemn way it was all true. The emperor wrote to him to say: " You are accused of homicide, perjury, sacrilege, incest with your own relations and with two sisters, of having drunk wine in honor of the devil, of having invoked in gambling Jupiter and Venus and other demons, and we beg you to come and clear yourself." The Pope answered: " We have heard that you are thinking of making another Pope. If you do we excommunicate you in the name of Almighty God, so that you can do nothing, not even communicate as laymen." They sent again, but John had left. The Council deposed him, and chose Leo VIII., who sat as Pope more than a year. Eighty-five prelates or clergy of Rome were assembled in council besides Roman nobles. Otho, after troubles, and the Romans again swearing fidelity and giving hostages, left Rome, and at the instigation of Pope Leo gave up the hostages. John returned, held a council of twelve bishops, of the Papal states chiefly, and twelve of the clergy of Rome, deposed Leo, who saved himself by flight, broke all his ordinations, perpetrated brutal acts against some who had borne testimony against him, and some three months after, being found committing adultery outside Rome, was killed by the husband-by the devil if you believe Luitprand; and this is Apostolic Succession. The Romans thereupon, not heeding their oaths, chose Benedict. The emperor returned to Rome with Leo, whom the Romans recognized, and Benedict was brought before them. He humbly acknowledged his fault and begged for mercy, gave up his pallium and crozier to Leo, who broke the crozier, and stripped him of his other robes, and he acknowledged himself a usurper. He was reduced to the diaconate, but was to go into exile, where he died peacefully at Hamburg. He seems to have been a quiet, respectable man. Leo himself died very soon after. The Romans, who it seems had given the emperor the right to choose the Pope in this synod, sent to him to know his choice. He sent ambassadors to Rome, and Jean, Bishop of Narni (one of John's accusers) was unanimously chosen Pope, and accepted by the emperor. The latter seems to have been a wise, moderate and moral prince. Baronius does not own Leo; he does own Benedict. Dupin does not own Benedict; he does Leo. Benedict had joined in choosing Leo. Certainly John 13 succeeded Leo, not Benedict. Fleury also owns Leo. Platina says Benedict was seditiously elected Pope by John's friends; as to Leo, the Romans finding John insupportable, begged the emperor to choose one. He said it belonged to the people and clergy, and they chose Leo, whom he confirmed; then changing, they brought in Benedict. The emperor came, and tired with all these things, he transferred the right of election to the emperor. This Platina was in office under the Popes, and at last librarian, which involved other important charges.

Now here, with this pretended succession, all is uncertain as to who was really Pope at all. Baronius has Leo IX. afterward, without any Leo VIII. at all, concealing the difficulty; to say nothing of such an one as Octavian, of some sixteen years old, consented to because there he was by his own power, but confessedly no legitimate Pope, as a proof of Apostolic Succession. The consent was merely that he was strong enough to maintain himself in his place till Otho came.

R. No doubt they were dark and dismal times.

N*. Be it so; but the darkness was in the Papacy more than anywhere else (the emperor seems to have been a worthy man), and we are looking for light as to the true Church, and do not find it here-not on your

own principles. True succession there was none. This is upon the face of your histories. You have no Leo VIII. in your greatest historian, though he is obliged to put in Leo IX. The others explain fully what this means. He really sat as Pope for more than a year, and died in the see, and John 13 was chosen on his decease. We can understand Baronius, because Leo was introduced by deposing John for his enormities, and he and all the Romans gave the right to choose and establish the Popes to the emperor, in order to have some decency in the matter, and they sent to the emperor on Leo's death, who sent his commissaries to Rome for the choice of John 13, being a moderate and able prince, who sought moral order at least in what he held to be divine and the Church of God. I gather the facts from Platina, Baronius, Fleury, Dupin, all Roman Catholic historians.*

But we now arrive at utter confusion and uncertainty as to the whole succession itself (Fleury 56, XXXVI.; Dupin Cent. X. c. ii.; Baronius 972, and following). Domnus II., Benedict VI., Boniface VII. (whom Baronius will not own, who plundered the Vatican church of all its wealth, and went off to Constantinople, but was a regularly ordained Pope) follow-it cannot be ascertained as to the two first in what order. Baronius puts Domnus first, making him hold the see three months; Fleury puts Benedict VI. first, then Boniface, then Domnus, but says many allege he was never Pope. All is obscure as to him. Baronius says, "everything save that he was Pope three months after John XIII. is obscure." Dupin* puts Domnus first, then Benedict; Platina, Benedict first, then Domnus, then Boniface. Domnus's pontificate is quite uncertain.

What comes of succession I know not. If Pope, he was Pope only three months. After a while he was Pope (Baronius says the day after his death). Benedict VI. was Pope, whom others make to follow John 13 Crescens, or Crescentius, son of Pope John 10 it is said, at the instance of Francon, called Boniface, put Benedict in prison, and Boniface became Pope, and afterward had Benedict strangled, so that he was never really Pope, as successor to another. After a year or more he was obnoxious too, and Benedict VII. drove him away; but he escaped, and took all the treasures of the Church with him to Constantinople, and lived on them. He never was truly Pope, as Benedict VI. was still alive, if we are to count him or Domnus. I do not pretend to unravel this history. Muratori and Fr. Pagius have contested the accounts of others, such as Hermann Contractus. I do not pretend to have examined and settled it. The last two, if I am not mistaken, with. Sigbert of Gemblours, put Domnus between Boniface and Benedict VII. He, for once in these times, died quietly a natural death. John 14 succeeded; then Boniface comes back, seized him on the throne, put him in prison, and starved him to death, and sat as Pope four months-murderer of two Popes, and robber of the Church. Baronius will not own him for Pope; but Pope he was as much as others. It was a question really of political parties (Bar. 983, I). Boniface died in the Papacy. His corpse was dishonored by his own party (Dupin, Cent. X., c. ii). On his death a Pope was chosen, and held the see four months, but was never consecrated, and is not reckoned. John was then chosen, called John 15 Crescentius took the castle, and the Pope fled; but Crescentius was found to be quiet, and John returned and held the see peaceably. The emperor was in Italy, and the Romans sent to him. He recommended his chaplain, who was elected and made Pope Gregory V.; but Crescentius drove him away, and set up John as Pope. The emperor came, hanged Crescentius and his principal followers. John was deprived of eyes, nose, and tongue, and made to ride an ass backwards. He is said by Fleury (57, XLIX) to have been put in prison, but is no more heard of: John 15 was the first who canonized any one. The Council says we adore the relics of martyrs and confessors (Bar. 993, IV). Sylvester II. followed Gregory V. He demands some notice, as the object of the utmost horror of Roman historians.

Baronius declares him a horrible blasphemer, heretic, and schismatic (992, XXII. and following), and spends folio pages in railing against him. Cardinal Beuno says, he bought the Papacy and sold his soul to the devil under condition that he should not have it till he said Mass in Jerusalem; but having done so in a church in Rome called Jerusalem, he died thereupon; and we learn from Sigbert that many in the twelfth century would not reckon him among the Popes. However, Baronius will not quite admit that. His commerce with the devil, however, obtained currency, as he was the most learned man of his age-a great mathematician and astronomer. But the motives of Baronius's hatred are hardly concealed. A Council at Reims had deposed Archbishop Arnulf for giving up the city to the Duke of Lorraine, one of the common political squabbles with which the ecclesiastics were mixed up. Gerbert was ordained Archbishop, but the Pope put him down and set Arnulf up. The emperor made Gerbert Archbishop of Ravenna, a much greater see, and on Gregory V.'s death he made the Roman people make him Pope. When turned out of the See of Reims, he wrote against the Popedom, and brought to light and depicted the frightful depravities and ignorance which characterized it, saying, if a man was not pious he was Antichrist, however he was ordained; and if ignorant, an idol. This, and his nomination by the Emperor Otho, excited the spleen of Baronius.

After him we find the difficulties of Apostolic Succession in our path (Baronius 1003, IX). " John," he says, " XVI. of that name, called XVIII.; then another John XVII., more commonly XIX. Marianus Scotus, a writer of that age, calls XVI. XVII., and the second, John 18; however, more frequent usage makes him XIX., but against all reason, as some in this number, schismatics, unworthy of the name of Pope, are included." So Dupin: " John 16 according to us, XVIII. according to others." This comes from John 6 (or Pope Joan), whom Baronius will not recognize, and John, who sat as Pope when he had turned out Gregory V., and was then turned out himself, and deprived of eyes, nose and tongue. Fleury makes it, with Marianus Scotus, XVII. XVIII.; Baronius, XVIII. XIX., only that the first sat only some months, and hence is not counted in dates. The second of these Johns calls himself (Pagi ad B. 1003, III.). But then he reckons either Pope Joan (John 6) or the John that drove out Gregory. The uncertainty of succession, whatever its value, is evident; XVII. and XVIII. seem most generally owned, and the expulsor of Gregory owned as Pope, so that there were two at a time, and not John 6 Platina counts XVIII. XIX., counting the John who drove out Gregory and John 6 In John's time it seems Constantinople and Rome were re-united in communion; under Sergius not. It is not known why. Sergius, who followed, and his follower Benedict, were of Henry of Germany's party (Bar. 1009, IV.). The Romans made one Gregory Pope, who drove out Benedict. He fled to Henry, who brought him back to Rome with an army, on which the Romans drove away Gregory, and took Benedict back. John, his brother, succeeded him by bribery, says Glaber, a contemporary author, when a layman wholly unordained. He dies. These two Popes were brothers of the Count of Tusculum. He did not like the Papacy going out of his family, so by money and influence his son, a boy not ten years old, was made Pope Benedict IX. Some affirm that John was driven out and re-established by the emperor, but it seems uncertain. Some give Benedict seventeen or eighteen years. Fleury says only about twelve; but Glaber, quoted by Baronius, his contemporary, ten. His life was one of infamy, murder, and debauchery of every kind, till at last it was insupportable. He had sat ten or twelve years; the Romans put in his place the Bishop of Sainte Sabine, who became Sylvester III. But after three months Benedict returned, and drove Sylvester of Ste. Sabine out. But desirous of devoting himself to pleasure, he agreed for a sum of money with John Gratian, archpriest, that he should have the Papacy, reserving only the revenues of England. Gratian became Gregory VI. A. strange Apostolic Succession! But there were now three Popes.. However, the emperor came to Rome to put them all down. Benedict fled, Sylvester was sent back to Sainte Sabine, and Gregory arrested, and finally sent into exile. No one was found at Rome fit to be Pope, and Suidger of Bamberg, who was with the emperor, was made Pope by the name of Clement II., a respectable man, it seems. So now there were four Popes at once. Clement II. died in nine months; back came Benedict, though the emperor had sent one Poppo, consecrated Pope as Damasus II., but poisoned within a month, as is said. Baronius says Cardinal Beuno is not trustworthy, and Benedict sat as Pope eight months longer. Baronius (1033, VIII.) would persuade us that the Church of Rome suffered, did not do, all these things. But who was bribed to set up the boy Benedict? Who agreed to let him go with a sum of money and the English revenues? Who accepted the rule of Theodora and Marozia, and their sons made Popes and fathers of subsequent Popes? The only decent Popes, with very rare exceptions, were those put in by the emperors. On the contrary, the evil was at Rome.

R. No doubt it is very sad, but your selecting these cases of wickedness gives a false idea of the general state of things.

N*. I am not speaking of the general state of things, however apparent it may be from what has been said. Had I done so, it would have been a history of murders, incests, crimes not to be named, and a depravity especially among the clergy, of which all contemporary writers are witness, as Ratherius and Damianus. Simony was universal. A Pope introduced by the emperor labored, by himself and by councils, to put a stop to it. But our present subject is Apostolic Succession. Now the four I have named are counted among Popes at any rate there. Baronius has Benedict. IX. Gregory VI. He does not own Sylvester III. (1044, I. etc.), but says (from Otho Frisingensis) there were three schismatic Popes at once. Damasus he does own. Platina says: " Damasus took the see by force, with no consent of clergy or people, for this usage had become so inveterate that every ambitious person could invade the See of Peter." But God arranged it, he tells us, for he died in twenty-three days, so that some do not count him among the Popes. At any rate, Benedict was Pope all the time. Baronius says he was regularly chosen, yet reckons among the Popes Benedict who was alive at Rome, and is said to have had him poisoned. Fleury says Benedict at last repented, and retired; and Poppo, whom the emperor had sent from Germany, was consecrated the same day. I do not pretend to decide who is right or who is Pope, but the vaunted succession is not worth a straw. It is making a mockery of religion and Christianity to rest anything upon it.

R. Why, then, did God bring it out of all this, and raise it to still greater power?

N*. The power was worldly power, which their cunning and men's superstition put into their hands, and it was over men of the world, and only lasted till it became quite intolerable where there was any conscience left. As to continuing, Buddhism has continued longer-from 540 years before Christ-has been much more moral and has a vastly greater number of adherents to this day. This proves nothing. Spirituality does not go by number, and true Christians are a little flock.

R. What do you rest on, then?

N*. We have spoken of it. The word of God, which knows no succession, it is always itself, and the grace of Him to use it, Who is ever the same. The faithfulness of Christ to His Church can never fail.

As to the history, I should add here that Baronius distinguishes John and Gratian. John was a third schismatical Pope; Benedict's conscience then yielded to conviction, and Gratian, or Gregory VI., was a regular and commendable Pope. He says, (following Otho Frisingensis) that he bought off all the three (heads of Cerberus, as he calls them) with money, the English revenues being left to Benedict, as having most title, and then was made Pope. This does not hang together with history, however. It was poor repentance being bought off with money and England's revenues; but there was a reason for Baronius' owning him Gregory VII. The famous Hildebrand owned Gregory VI. as legitimate Pope, and called himself VII.; so Gregory VI. must be acknowledged. His paying the others to be gone, he will have it, was canonical virtue, not simony. However that may be, he was deposed in council on the arrival of the emperor, along with Benedict and Sylvester, and taken to Germany, though Benedict managed to get the see for eight or nine months afterward. Such is Apostolic Succession. On the death of Damasus IL, Leo IX. succeeded, a very respectable man, a German sent by the emperor, chosen at Worms, but who, it appears, only took the place on condition of the people and clergy of Rome confirming it. Victor II. succeeded, also a German, under the influence of Hildebrand, afterward Gregory VII.; after him Stephen X. of Lorraine. Then the Romans chose Benedict X.; but Damianus and other cardinals left Rome, and chose another, Nicholas II., who was settled in the see by the emperor's power, and Benedict degraded. And Nicholas first settled the Popes should be chosen by the cardinals. These Popes were Germans, and at least decent people. On the death of Nicholas there was great conflict for the Papacy. Alexander was chosen, supposing it would please the imperial court. But the emperor was not content. Another was chosen; the emperor came with an army, but was defeated, and in the Council of Mantua, a compromise was made, and Alexander was sole Pope. Cadulous (Honorius II.) does not count in the list. Gregory VII., the most able and ambitious of all the Popes, came next. He had long governed Rome, and was seated in the Papacy, before his predecessor was buried, some say by soldiers, and a host devoted to him; some say the cardinals and people had their part. He sent to the emperor, at any rate, to say it had been done without his will. The emperor sent a commissioner to Rome to inquire, and found, it better to acquiesce. He pushed the. power of the Pope to absolute dominion over everything, and enforced the celibacy of the clergy more than any of his predecessors. Meanwhile corruption reigned everywhere. The Emperor Henry struggled against his power, a struggle I need not enter into here; but councils were held in Germany. In that of Bresse, Gregory was deposed, and another chosen, who took the name of Clement III. Henry besieged Rome, took it, and Clement was placed in the see, and crowned Henry emperor. Gregory sent for the Romans, and Gregory got into the castle of St. Angelo. Henry retired to his camp; Robert Guiscard, the Norman, fired the city, and in the confusion Gregory escaped and (Baronius 1083, I., and following) retired to Salerno, under protection of the Normans, and died there. William, King of England, alone effectually resisted him, suffered his legates to hold no councils, nor the English and Norman prelates to go to Rome. Gregory it was who laid the foundation of Roman pretensions, the pride and the shame of the Papacy. The general state of the clergy at this time was indescribable in vice and degradation of every sort. Gregory VII. enforced celibacy, which made it worse. It is impossible to describe the excess of wickedness and its universality among the clergy; but it is not our subject now, but succession. These German Popes were brought in as no decent ecclesiastics could be found in Rome, and men were wearied with sin and violence. But, on the other hand, it was the custom for monks, as a way of holiness, to do penance for others by proxy. A man had sinned enough to be put to penance for 120 or 100 years. A monk undertook it, reciting the Psalter, with flagellations, it is said about a thousand for 10 pss.; 3,000 were worth a year's penance, and so 15,000 worth five years' penance; thus twenty recitations and the lashes paid the whole hundred years. It took about six days thus for a hundred years' penance!

R. But you do not believe these ridiculous stories?

N*. There is no doubt it was the practice. It is the statement of one of the brightest luminaries of the age, who, if superstitious, at any rate sought to stop the floods of abounding iniquity, Peter Damian. He had learned it from Dominic. You may see it in Fleury (60, LII.). In his letter, excusing what he had said of voluntary penances, he says. that laymen get rid of them by giving so much money, and that was not in the Canons, and why not monks by austerities? (Fleury 60, LII., and Dupin XI. Cent., c. viii.) It was the same Damian who wrote a book about the prevalence of unnatural crimes among the clergy, approved by Leo IX., which the Pope Alexander II. hid away for fear of scandal, refusing in council to take it up. Victor III. and Urban II. closed this century. Gilbert of Ravenna, however, was still Pope or antipope through their pontificates as Clement III., a council of thirty bishops and others having elected him and deposed Gregory VII. at the time of the latter hurrying into the see before his predecessor was buried. Gregory, we have seen, died out of Rome, among the Normans. Paschal II., who succeeded Gregory VII., made war on Clement III., and drove him into Calabria. His first successor was, after four months, taken by Pope Paschal's troops and confined in a monastery; his successor had it three months and retired; the third, who took the name of Sylvester IV., was better sustained, but died soon after, so Paschal was sole Pope. The emperor and Popes were at war. The emperor had put Paschal in irons, and made him yield the right of the investiture of the prelates in their sees. In this, on a trial with Callixtus II., as afterward in France, the princes gained their point, only it was agreed to be done with the scepter in Germany, by writing in France-not with staff and ring. On Paschal's death Gelasius II. was raised to the pontificate; but the emperor came, and he, as yet only deacon, fled, with some difficulty, to Gaieta; but there was consecrated Pope. The emperor made another at Rome, Gregory VIII. After some time Gelasius fled, and died in France, where Callixtus II. was chosen by the Romans with him, and acknowledged Pope on his coming to Rome. Gregory VIII. fled and shut himself up in a fortress called Sutri. After some time Callixtus sent an army, joining it soon himself. The inhabitants gave him up, and he died imprisoned, having been three years Pope. All his ordinations were annulled. Honorius II. succeeded; then Innocent II. by some, and Anaclete by others, the majority at Rome being for the latter. Innocent fled, but was acknowledged by France, England, and Germany, not by Guyenne and southern Italy. Lothaire came from Germany, and set up Innocent; but as soon as he was gone, Innocent fled from the Romans again. But some in southern Italy took up arms, and, Anacletus' party being defeated, could do nothing

against Innocent. Anacletus died; another Pope. was chosen, but finding lie could not hold his ground, submitted to Innocent, and all his ordinations were annulled.

R. But Anacletus is never reckoned among the Popes.

N*. He was chosen by a large majority of the cardinals, clergy, and people. The civil power established Innocent, but Anacletus was canonically consecrated and installed. Innocent was elected by Honorius' private friends in secret before his death was publicly announced. He died at Rome, having been Pope some eight years (Fleury 60, XLV.). Dupin, (XII. Cent., chap. iii.) Platina, Baronius makes Antichrist of him (1130, VIA This he borrows from Bernard (Epist. cxxiv., etc.), who was excessively active in promoting the cause of Innocent. No plain man sees why he is to prefer to Anacletus, who sat at Rome regularly elected, Innocent who did not sit there.

R. But Anacletus could not be Pope because Innocent was already.

N*. Innocent was chosen in a hole and corner meeting, before it was known Honorius was dead, because they knew this Peter de Lion (Anacletus) would be. But Peter was chosen by the large majority, so that Innocent had to flee, though he sought to defend himself by force-a pretty Apostolic Succession.

R. But the Church owned Innocent.

N*. Not the Church at Rome, if Church we can call it, at the time. But we are finding out the true Church by Apostolic Succession, so we cannot find out Apostolic Succession by the Church. But we shall have more of this when even this false plea fails. It is possible that if not Antichrist, at any rate what was Antichristian sat at Rome in St. Bernard's time. But what comes for the holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church of all the ordinations made for eight years. They were annulled, though I know not why he was not legitimate Pope. But then what of all your sacraments meanwhile Either they were void, or else, as is said, once a priest always a priest, and the decree of the Council was invalid which annulled them. And they will have ordained others. All is hopeless confusion. Innocent carried on war in person

against South Italy, and was taken prisoner. Eugene had to fight for Rome, was consecrated away from it, had to fly after his entrance, went to France, returned, took St. Peter's, which had been made a fortress, but died out of Rome. Anastasius IV. succeeded him; then Hadrian IV. Alexander III. was chosen after him, but also Octavian. At first, France and England, and partly Italy, owned Alexander, but Germany only Octavian. Both had referred to the Emperor to have it decided, who summoned a local Council in Italy to decide who had right. Alexander would not go, Octavian did, the Council decided in favor of Octavian, and the Emperor never owned any other; at the end England joined him too. France and part of Italy held to Alexander. Octavian called himself Victor III. The English and the French, though having long hesitated to pronounce because of the Emperor, held also local Councils, who supported Alexander, and the French excommunicated Victor III. The Emperor convened one in Germany, having letters from Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Bohemia, and many prelates besides those present, and then Alexander was excommunicated. Frederick, the Emperor, proposed putting both down, and the French and English Kings met him to settle it. Alexander would not go, and nothing was settled; then Alexander held a French Council, and excommunicated Victor and all his adherents. Victor died, and Alexander went to Rome. Victor's party, however, chose another Pope; Frederick supported him, but was defeated by the Italians, and his prelates were driven out of Lombardy, but Paschal remained seated Pope at Rome, Alexander having offended the Romans. He died at Rome, and a successor was chosen to him too, but the Emperor made peace with the Pope, and Alexander was received at Rome. Now I do not pretend to say who was Canonical Pope, but we have half Christendom owning one whom the Romanists do not own, and the sacraments and ordinations in a vast extent of country depended on his being real Pope. Out of Northern Italy, when the Emperor was beaten, all his partizans were driven out, whom all supposed in the succession of these sees, what became of Succession? If ever there was a thing disproved, it is what is ridiculously called Apostolic Succession at Rome (Dupin, Cent. XII., chap. ix.)

If we are to believe the Council of Pavia, where were fifty Archbishops and other prelates, with a quantity of Abbots of Germany and Italy, and the deputies of France and England, after seven days' examination of witnesses and deliberations, the Emperor having left it to them, Victor III. alone was duly elected and made Pope. The majority of the Cardinals were for Alexander, but the senators for Victor, and they put Alexander in prison; but he escaped by the intervention of the people (Fleury 70, XLI.). Though the Emperor accepted Alexander, it does not appear Victor's party gave up. We read of one Lando Antipope, calling himself Innocent III., who submitted to Alexander, the latter having made peace with the brother of Victor, who supported Innocent III., and bought the castle on which Innocent maintained his ground. This was the time of Waldo of Lyons. Baronius treats all the testimony received at Pavia as lies (1160), but gives no other facts than what are before us. I cannot find that he mentions Innocent III. Urban III., Gregory VIII., and Clement III. follow in peace, as far as our question is concerned. Innocent III. followed. In his days, transubstantiation was made a dogma of, and the inquisition established. Honorius was his successor. Gregory IX. followed him. After him all was confusion. Two Popes were chosen, but neither had a sufficient majority according to the constitution of Alexander III., that the majority of Cardinals must be two-thirds. Both at last yielded, and then one of them, Godfrey of Milan, was chosen, Celestine IV., and died in about a month, some saying he was poisoned (Fleury 81, LI.). The see having been vacant a year and a half, the Emperor and the King of France, the former having marched against Rome to enforce his letters, at last compelled the Cardinals to choose, and Innocent IV, was Pope; Alexander IV. followed. Then three or four months' vacancy; there were only eight Cardinals to choose, and they could not agree which should be Pope. At last they chose the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Again four months elapsed, and Clement IV. was chosen. Then intrigues for three years and no Pope; the Cardinals however made a compromise, and the Pope, Gregory IX., made the constitution that the Cardinals should be shut up till they agreed. Innocent V., Adrian V. who died unconsecrated, John 19 or XX., XXI., rapidly succeeded each other within a year; then Nicholas III. Then after six months' delay, through intrigues of Roman families, one connected with the King of Sicily and Martin IV;* Honorius IV.; then a year's vacancy, the Cardinals were hardly shut up all the time; then Nicholas IV.; then two years and some months; then Celestine was chosen, and resigned the see for quiet, at the instance, some say, of Benedict, who got himself chosen in his place.

Celestine renewed the decree to shut the Cardinals up, and made another that Popes might resign; a useless one, says Dupin, no one ever did since (Cent. XII., chap. iii.; Fleury, Bks. 79 to 87). Boniface VIII. succeeded. In Celestine's time, if we are to believe it, the Virgin Mary's house went over the sea of its own accord to Loretto; Raynaldus (we have Baronius no longer) says he does not know from what motive. I have gone rapidly through these last named Popes, as, though the intrigues of Cardinals are very little like Apostolic Succession, and the ambitions of eight men a very questionable source of Peter's authority, and long vacancies prove what was at work, there is nothing peculiar. We have no Pope at all instead of two at a time. The times were changing. But how the Pope could give exclusive authority to his nominees to choose a successor to St. Peter I know not: as a human provision against tumults and fighting we can easily understand it; when they snatched a man from the altar when being consecrated. But what all this has to do with Apostolic Succession is hard to tell.

James I am sure it is a disgraceful history of ambitious men, not Apostolic Succession. I see in Scripture Paul looked for no Apostolic Succession, but ravenous wolves to come when he was gone. But at any rate this is all a history of ravenous wolves more than Apostolic grace and authority.

Bill M. It is all shocking; but what I feel most is how they deceive one in talking of holy and Apostolic. If the Church be holy this is not it. As to succession, no simple person could find out where it really was; and to say that these monsters, as some of them were, were successors of the apostles is too bad. It shocks a man's conscience. Why the devil was reveling in wickedness there.

R. But the grace was handed down.

Bill M. What grace? And when there was no Pope for two or three years, where was the grace and the head of the Church then? And when there were two or three, and even whole countries owning each, who can say where the grace and the title was?

R. But we only count those who were recognized by the Church.

Bill M. But some recognize some, and others others; and how am I to settle it?

N*. M. is quite right; for example, Gregory VI., was he a real Pope?

D. I suppose we must reckon him such, as the great Hildebrand called himself VII., and so Baronius owns him.

N*. But he resigned and owned he was not one, having been set up when Benedict IX. was there, but such a monster that he was first driven out, and then went to pursue his pleasures. So in other cases.

R. Well, I hold to the Church's judgment on these things, and recognize as Popes those she does.

N*. Where is that judgment? We have Baronius declaring that for a hundred years he must put in their names as dates, but otherwise cannot recognize as legitimate. Popes, infamous men put in by the mistress of the Marquis of Tuscany, or of the Popes themselves; and admits there was no election or consent of clergy, only it was acquiesced in to prevent schism. I go on your own principles, for I agree with M. that it does shock natural conscience to think such people successors of Peter. It is making grace, or the security of the means and channels of grace, the security of unholiness: grace has its security in holiness. If so, I need not look for holiness as a mark of the true Church; it is secured without it, and Christianity becomes a guarantee of unholiness being no matter.

R. This is strong language, Sir.

N*. Is it not true, if what proves the Church and secures grace is the most awful system of wickedness, and series of wickedness we have on record?

R. I do not know that we can gain anything by pursuing the subject. The Church and its unity are thrown overboard by you, and it is hopeless then to come to any conclusion or to find any security at all.

N*. We are looking for the true Church as taught by your own doctors, and just now by the mark of Apostolic Succession, consequently we must have the facts. Nothing I admit can be more absurd than to set any one to build his faith upon such ground, and to say he cannot find the true Church on which the word of God affords him with divine authority the fullest light without going through this long dark history of wickedness.

D. But all the bright examples you leave out.

N*. Which are they? A few Popes introduced by the Emperor were decent people, and poor Celestine, who resigned his Popedom because he was not man of the world enough to manage things, but save two or three, it was one series of wickedness. I have not now gone into the revolting accounts of crime, simony, wars, and violence which make up the history of these times. It was in these times that the Cardinal who relates the history of the general council of Lyons at which Pope Innocent excommunicated and deposed the Emperor Frederick, and professed to reunite the Roman and Greek Churches, declares that their stay there had made one universal brothel of the whole town, and that with shocking levity, saying that they ought to be grateful; there were two when they went there, but now only one, but that it reached from the west gate to the east.

Damianus' book I have already referred to; but I have confined myself to the question of succession. I understand you have not much to say, because I have merely related the facts as recorded in Roman Catholic historians, or ancient annalists. Baronius admits that in some cases there was no choice or consent of the clergy whatever. To avoid the crimes committed, for a long time the Emperor put them in; then, when more free from the Imperial power, to avoid these things it was put in the Cardinals' hands, and as their ambition and jealousies sometimes kept the system without any head for several years, or two were named, they settled that two-thirds must concur, and they were to be shut up till they had a sufficient majority, and that is still the rule. It is said that after the death of Innocent IV. in Naples, the governor shut the Cardinals up in the house he died in till they elected one. But however absurd resting the certainty of one's faith and the continuance of grace on such a history, it is utterly impossible to base Apostolic succession on it. We shall find Papal breaches in the succession yet wider in the next century, and two or three Popes at a time excommunicating one another, and then all deposed.

R. I know it was so, but it has been healed.

N*. Healed by others interfering and putting them all down, but then where was the succession? Through whom was it conveyed when there were two, and half Europe recognized one, half the other? And to whom was the Pope a successor, when two and even three were deposed? It was a new appointment by a council, not a succession. Indeed why a choice by people, or Emperors, or Cardinals, should make a successor of Peter would be hard to tell.

Bill M. I do not see much Christianity at all in all this.

N*. I see none at all. But I suppose we must break up; but we will meet again, and if these gentlemen are inclined, they can of course come; but we will pursue for a while the history of the Popes.

Expiation, Propitiation, Reconciliation, Etc.

I PROFESS at the commencement of my present paper that I write as an inquirer anew after truth, and not as one who takes the place of teaching what he has learned and proved.

Scripture presents to us " the word of God," and we have to receive it, " not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thess. 2:13). Self mistrust, humility before God, but also faith in Him, surely become the student of the Word of God.

I find, as matters of fact, that the verb " to atone" is not met with in the English New Testament at all, and that the substantive " atonement" is found only once (viz., in Rom. 5:11.); "Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." The word here is katallagee, the reconciliation, as it is correctly rendered in all the rest of its occurrences, viz., in Rom. 11:15, the reconciling of the world, and in 2 Cor. 5:18 the ministry of reconciliation, and ver. 19 the word of reconciliation. This is confirmed by the rendering of the verb katallasso in all of its occurrences.

Remark it is man that needs to be reconciled to God, and not God that is or that ever needed to be reconciled to man. Such notions as that " Christ died to reconcile the Father or God to man" have no place in Scripture. God cannot be made other than He is. Believers, through grace, have been made other than what they were, even lovers of God instead of lovers of themselves more than of God. Christ has made propitiation, is our propitiation, and faith in Him as the propitiation does reconcile man to God.

But propitiation and reconciliation are not one' and the same thing. Without the propitiation God would not justify the sinner; through the propitiation. He is, and shows He is just, while justifying the sinner. But who provided the propitiation but God Himself. Of this more hereafter.

The Greek word allos means other, another; the verb allasso, (if we might coin a word in English, would be to other,) and thus means to change.

In God there is no change, but this does not set aside another truth, viz., that He has made different revelations about Himself. For instance, the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator (Rom. 1:20); the long-suffering, patient goodness of the God of providence (Gen. 8:21-ix. 17). His glory as Ruler upon

earth in Government and Himself as Redeemer and Savior through Jesus Christ. It is in this last revelation of Himself, and in it alone that we find, as sinners, salvation.

In creation, providence and government divine attributes are made known. In redemption alone Himself (by the revelation of Himself, in and through the Son and His work) can be learned or known, and for this faith and the Spirit are needed.)

Rom. 5:10*, We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life; and 1 Cor. 7:11, Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to (her) husband; and 2 Cor. 5:18, God, who hath reconciled us to Himself; and ver. 19, Reconciling the world to Himself; and ver. 20, Be ye reconciled. So also the same word when compounded with a preposition, e.g, apokatalatto, in Eph. 2:16 and Col. 1:20 and 21, is rendered by reconcile.

(* Note that the two occurrences in this verse (10) immediately precede ver. 11 as above, which makes the change from recon-. ciliation to atonement the more noticeable.)

Is it, then, that the atonement (as men now speak) is not named in the New Testament even once? Not so. The work in which the thing meant is presented, by which it was Wrought, is described again and again, and so are scenes described that bring it before us in its fruits; words, too, occur again and again, which bring it before us in other ways. But the translators have rendered the places in which that is spoken of (described in itself or in its connections) which is now commonly called "atonement," by other English words. But I must return to this again.

If I open the Old Testament I find the words atonement and atone frequent, e.g., the substantive atonement, kippoorim, -occurs eight times.

Ex. 29:36. A sin offering for atonement.

30: 10. The sin offering of atonements.

16. Thou-shalt take the atonement money.

Lev. 23:27. (There shall be) a day of atonement.

28. It (is) a day of atonement.

25: 9. The day of atonement.

Num 5: 8. The ram of the atonement.

29:11 The sin offering of atonement.

But before proceeding I would here raise two questions. First, as to what the reader understands by the word " atonement" in these and similar places; and, secondly, whether the word atonement' be a good word as a representative of what is meant?

Let each settle for himself what he understands by "atonement" in these and similar places.

For myself, I will only say now that it and the other occurrences of it point to something of the most solemn moment for man in connection with God, and in these passages with the dwelling place of God upon earth among Israel; something which God required to be in connection with Himself, and with everything about His dwelling, if He was to dwell in blessing among Israel. But the question is about God and His connection with the people and the place, and not about their reconciliation in themselves to Him.

Now, as in Rom. 5:11, the translators used the word ((atonement" where reconciliation would have been the better word, so we shall find that in translating the verb kahphar they sometimes translate it reconcile, appease, pacify, e.g.,

Gen. 32:20. I will appease him with the present.

Lev. 6:30. To reconcile (withal) in the holy

8: 15. To make reconciliation upon it.

16: 20. When he hath made an end of reconciling

Prov. 16:14. A wise man will pacify it.

Ezek. 16:63 When I am pacified toward thee

45:15. To make reconciliation for them

17. To make reconciliation for the house

20. So shall ye reconcile the house.

Dan. 9:24. And to make reconciliation for iniquity,

Now, if reconciliation is a change in man, and the means of that change in man is faith in a something of God's providing for His own name's sake, confusion of thought between the two cannot be unimportant. In Old Testament days of types and shadows and outside offerings, etc., ignorance might be of little moment, but now that life and incorruptibility have been brought to light by the Gospel, and that worship in spirit and in truth is what the Father seeks in the worshipper, intelligence in such things is of great importance. Buy the truth and sell it not. We may see the difference of these two things in 2 Cor. 5:18-21. This passage teaches two things. First, the reconciliation of man; secondly, the wondrous work of God, faith of which produces it in man.

First, the effect produced; (ver. 18), God has reconciled us to Himself, and given to us the ministry of reconciliation; (ver. 19) to wit, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has put in us the word of reconciliation. (ver. 20) We then beseech: be ye reconciled to God. Secondly (ver. 21), the work of God calculated through faith to produce this reconciliation in man: For God has made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

When man had refused to listen to Christ alive upon earth, and had crucified and rejected Him, God sent Paul and others to preach forgiveness through His blood.

Reconciliation in me and the basis provided by God Himself; that He might be just while justifying the sinner and reconciling me to Himself, though connected together, are not the same thing.

It has been said, " When our translation was made, it [katallagee] signified, as innumerable examples prove, reconciliation, or the making up of a foregoing enmity; all its uses in our early literature justifying the etymology, now sometimes called in question, that atonement' is at-one-ment,' and therefore= reconciliation,' and that consequently it was then, although not now, the proper rendering of katallagee. See my Select Glossary,' s. vv. atone," atonement."—Trench's " Synonyms of the New Testament," Sec. 76. AT-ONE, v. To be, or cause to be, at one. - ME N T.

"His first essay succeeded so well, Moses would adventure on a second design, to atone two Israelites at variance."-FULLER, A Pisgah Sight of Palestine.

Having more regard to their old variance than to their new atonement.'-Sir T. MORE, History of Richard 111.

" If Sir John Falstaff have committed disparagements unto you, I am of the Church, and will be glad to do my benevolence, to make atonements and compromises between you."- SHAKESPEAR.)

(C. Richardson's "Diet. of Eng. Language.")

There is another remark of Trench's which I must quote.

" Before leaving katallagee we observe that the exact relations between it and hilasmos, which will have to be considered next, are somewhat confused for the English reader, from the fact that the word atonement, by which our translators have once rendered katallagee (Rom. 5:11) has little by little shifted its meaning. It has done this so effectually, that were the translation now for the first time to be made, and words to be employed in their present sense and not in their past, it would plainly be a much fitter rendering of hilasmos, the notion of propitiation, which we shall find the central one of hilasmos, always lying in atonement,' as we use it now. It was not so once."

To this extract (which immediately precedes the former one) I only say that it seems to me that if the translators had not been somewhat confused in their own minds they would not have introduced the words appease, reconcile, pacify, in the passages of the Old Testament which I lately cited. Other proofs of the same kind we shall find in the New Testament, e.g., Heb. 2:17,

To make reconciliation for the sins of the people; which, according to Trench's remarks, as given above, should be, make atonement, etc., in the modern sense of atonement. But of this more anon. Only an equivocal term, used to-day for what God has wrought, so as to show that He is just while justifying a sinner, but which was used for the reconciliation produced in us by the knowledge of that work, ought to be well noted. 'Tis a serious point to err upon; and every error which brings confusion into the mind between what God has wrought for us and what God works in us is dangerous.

This is the first real difficulty to the one who only reads English, if it be so that the words atone and atonement did, when the translation was made, mean to reconcile, reconciliation, and therefore were quite correctly used THEN, wherever these things were meant; but they were incorrectly used where (not reconciliation in or of man, but) that which God did in order that he might be seen to be just while justifying the sinner, (i.e., make expiation, propitiation, etc.,) was to be expressed. The second difficulty is that the words atone and atonement seem NOW to carry to most peoples' minds the import of expiate, expiation, and NOT reconcile, reconciliation.

As to the meaning of the Hebrew word kaphar, and the primary idea running through all its derivatives, there seems no doubt but that it is to cover, to cover over. Who can cover sin before God? This was a question raised in the sanctuary, and victims appointed for man to offer; sacrifices various, too, for sins as they varied: the whole, I doubt not, essentially connected also with the great day of offering once a-year, as given to us in Lev. 16 Then the blood of the bullock was to be sprinkled upon the mercy-seat eastward, and before the mercy-seat seven times, and the blood of the goat had its place likewise. But the bodies of both were to be burnt outside the camp. The year's sins were put away. But though the mercy-seat and the way up to it, and the holy sanctuary and the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar and the priests and the people were thus yearly marked with blood, and so sin was passed over, itself was neither really covered over, nor did it meet its doom. It was quite right to obey God, most surely, and do these things; but what really did this day show (besides the insufficiency of the sacrifices) but that God was a God who knew all about sin and sins, was minded at that time in patience to bear with man a sinner, and once a year to pass by the sins committed against Him, without saying why or how He could do so consistently (save that it was by death and blood-shedding), either with His own claims over man, or with. the law. It was all a constant bringing of sins to mind as before God, and as constant a reminding of man that no man could cover sin or sins. But God has now shown the counterpart of all this; for once, in the end of the world, His Son has been down here as a man, and has taken up the question of man's rebellion against God, of his sins and sin, and has brought full glory to God, and blessing, to the sinner that believes in connection with it. When He who knew no sin was made sin for us, God took occasion of sin to glorify Himself as to it; and He who was made sin knew how so to act as to glorify God, whose servant He was. The very brightest light now fills heaven, for the Lamb that was slain sits now upon the throne; that light shines down upon a dark and wicked race of men. Unto all the light comes, and tells of what sin is as being against a God of mercy and compassion and love, who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life. But that light enters to fill the soul that believes, and there it rests and abides, the blessing of eternal life. My sins are... where? become the manifestation of the glory and excellency of the Savior, in whom, as faith sees Him in the holiest of all, on heaven's high throne, one learns both the. infinite enormity of sin and its having lost, to us who believe, all its condemnatory power forever.

But to resume. One of the leading and most important words derived from kahphar is the kappohreth. This word occurs twenty-seven times in the Old Testament. That which it represents was in itself and use the cover or lid of the Ark of the Covenant: Ark and cover had each of them a ledge so arranged that they

might lock together. In the ark were the two tables of stone and the golden pot of manna. The kappohreth is uniformly translated in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) by the word hilasteerion (propitiatory), and in English by the word mercy-seat. The primary idea, however, is the "cover of the ark," which was where God dwelt between the cherubim, and where the blood was placed on it and before it once every year, and whence mercy flowed as from the propitiatory.

Other derivations from kahphar are names of things in which it is said the idea of covering may be traced, e.g.,

If' phohr 1. Ex. 16:14, and Job 38:29, and Psa. 147:16, the hoarfrost.

2. 1 Chron. 28:17, and Ear. 1: 10, and 8: 27, basins.

So k' pheer 1. Judg. 14:5, a whelp of lionesses, etc.

2. Neh. 6:2, a village. So also kahphahr.

Josh. 18:24, 1 Chron. 27:25, Cant.. 7:11.

So kohpheer 1. Pitch, Gen. 6:14, pitch it within and without with pitch.

2. 1 Sam. 6:18, country villages.

3. Ex. 30:12, a ransom, money given to cover an offense, which would be a far better rendering than "sum of money" in Ex. 21:30, than "satisfaction" in Num. 35:31,32,

and than " bribe" in 1 Sam. 12:3, and Amos 5:12.

4. In Cant. 1:14 and iv. 13 it is rendered " camphire."

As to kahphar, the ambiguity of the word " atone," through a former and a modern sense (which differ the one from the other immensely) is a serious obstacle to its use. I certainly suppose that the thought which most serious and scripturally intelligent minds attach to "atone" now is pretty nearly equal to " expiate," and that " expiation" would pretty nearly equal what they mean by " atonement." To " expiate" is to annul guilt and the consequences of guilt, to purge and cleanse guilt before God. Sin was, in the root of it, willful in- dependence of God; out of this first sin (through which came death) has come, secondly, a nature prone and willful to act for self and independently of God, the author and end of our being, and from it acts of omission and commission against God and contrary to him. Hence man, looked at as a creature, is guilty, and a time of judgment is before him. To supersede the power of the old root by the introduction of a new and more powerful one did not come into the scope of Judaism, but was reserved for Christianity. Neither did the root of sin in fallen nature then hold the same place which it does now in doctrine. Nevertheless acts of commission or omission according. to the standard of what the creature (man) ought to be, each of them placed a man under the curse of a judgment. He was called upon to acknowledge his failure, and to do certain things, make certain expiations (if you please), by the which, through the forbearance of God, He said He would pass by the offense.

Perhaps " expiate," " make expiation for," " purge," or " purge away*** and cleanse,"**** would cover the sense in all these occurrences of kahphar in which it has a sanctuary sense: " before God," always being understood.

In Deut. 21:8, Be merciful, 0 Lord, unto thy people; and 32: 43, And will be merciful unto His land, (and) to His people. The translation agrees with that of the mercy-seat.

As to the ten passages referred to before, in some of which, as I judge, the translators have shown a want of clearness of perception in themselves by the use of the words " reconcile, " make reconciliation," etc., words properly applied to a change in man God-ward, where, on the contrary, the words should be such as present something much higher, even that which can be the basis of

God's manifestation of mercy man-ward, I would say a few words.

They are these:—

Gen. 32:20, appease.

Prov. 16:14, pacify.

Lev. 6:30, "reconcile," read " make expiation."

8: 15, " make reconciliation," read " make expiation."

16: 20, "reconciling," read "making expiation for."

Dan. 9:24, "make reconciliation," read "make expiation."

Ezek. 16:63, " am pacified toward," lit., " in my

pardoning thee."

xlv..15, " make reconciliation," read " Make expiation for."

17, "make reconciliation," read "make expiation for."

20, "reconcile," read "make expiation.

In Gen. 32:20, a present was to be the cover in Esau's mind of all Jacob's past bad conduct to him. The word is used here in a secondary, or tertiary sense. " Appease," here, makes no confusion in doctrine. The same may be said as to Prov. 16:14.

So also in Isa. 28:18. Your covenant with death shall be disannulled, i.e., erased, covered over by something else.

In the rest of the occurrences, viz.:—

Num. 35:33, cleansed; and Deut. 21:8, forgiven; and 1 Sam. 3:14, purged; and 2 Chron 30:18, pardon; and Psa 65:3, purge away; and Psa 78:38, forgave; and Psa 79:9, purge away; and Pro 16:6, purged; and Isa. 6:7, purged; and lsa. 22: 14, purged; and Isa. 27:9, purged; and Isa. 47:11, put of; and Jer. 18:23, forgive; and Ezek. 43:20,26, purge,

My reader may safely, I judge, change the translation by substituting " expiate," "make expiation for," etc., for the words now standing, though I still press that the primary idea should be kept before the mind, connected with, though perhaps not identical with, the hilasteerion, propitiatory of Rom. 5

I may remark that in Hebrew nahsah (to take up, lift up) is rendered forgive three and twenty times, as in Psa. 32:1,5; but sahlahh (spelled—samech, lamed, heth), is the more proper word for pardon, forgive.

The English words atone, atonement, are found nowhere in the Old Testament save where kahphar or a derivative from it occurs.

I will turn now to the Greek and to another word, with words derived from the same root.

Hilaskomai.

Luke 18:13. God be merciful to me a sinner.

Heb. 2:17. To make reconciliation for the sins of

the people, read " to make propitiation (expiation) for."

As to the first of these passages, it is the language of a certain publican (in a parable spoken by the Lord).

Mercy (goodness in spite of demerit) and propitiation go very well together.

Now, as to the second passage. We have but these two occurrences of the word in the New Testament. In classical Greek it is common enough, and naturally enough, yea necessarily so, because the writers' thoughts were limited to those of fallen human nature, man was supposed to be the party who had to propitiate the gods; man had to appease, to conciliate, to make a god propitious to him. We Christians, as such, know that the living and true God has done a work, whether men will credit it, unto eternal life, or whether men will reject the report of it, unto their own eternal ruin,—God has done a work whereby He can be just while justifying him who is of sinners the chief. The work was done but once in the end of the world (Heb. 9:26). Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many (Heb. 9:28 and 1 Peter 3:18). The conscience of sinners may now be purged once for all (Heb. 10:2.) Christ has done thy will, 0 God (ver. 7), by the which will we are sanctified [or practically set apart to God] through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (ver. 10). God has scrutinized His Son's work, all was divinely perfect; and after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever He sat down at the right hand of God.... For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

Again, hilasmos is the word for the person, Jesus Christ the righteous, God's Son, who is, who was sent to be, the propitiation for our sins.

1 John n. 2. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

1 John 4:10. God... sent His Son (to be) the propitiation for our sins.

1 John 2:2. Some assert that the term " whole world" here is used by way of contrast with the narrower circle of "us," as if " us" referred to Israel. It may be so, but then " the whole world" could not mean to "all out of the Gentile world who believe"-the clauses are not equivalent. The passage read in the light of Rom. 3:22 is plain enough, the righteousness of God... unto [or toward] all, (its tendency and display), and upon all that believe [believers who alone get the benefit of it, faith alone appropriates it, it is substantiated to no one but by faith].

Here the permanent blessing and shelter of the propitiation to the person of the believer is shown. Just where he has failed to honor it, and has been inconsistent with it, and his failure in not walking as a son, he learns that his Guardian on high has prayed for him. If any one [of us] do sin, we have a Guardian on high, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. The propitiation was from God toward sinners, the advocacy restores the believer if he fail.

1 John 4:10. Here propitiation for sin is looked at higher up in point of order than the intercession. Not only does its refuge continue, in spite of any practical inconsistency of a believer, but it is one of the proofs of God's love to us; He saw us lying under sin, and dead without the life of God (Eph. 4:18) in us, as we read in vers. 9 and 10.

In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son the propitiation for our sins. Compare this turning back of the believer's mind for the comfort of love with Rom. 5:8-11. The Rock once smitten by God on Calvary was to give forth its stream of life to us when He had returned to the bosom of the Father on high.

Again, Hilasteerion.

Rom. 3:25. A propitiation through faith in His blood. Heb. 9:5. Shadowing the mercy-seat.

The Lexicon of Liddell and Scott treats hilasteerion as an adjective in the neuter gender, and suggests that epithema, cover is understood, i.e., the cover of the ark had so distinctive a place as connected with propitiation that it was called the propitiatory.

Rom. 3:25. As we have seen in 1 John 2:2 and iv. 10 hilasmos is rendered " propitiation." Here it is another word, hilasteerion, better rendered the propitiatory (thing or place).

The verdict against man when tried by the law was clear (Rom. 3:19) in order that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world might become guilty before God. Man, as a creature, was become what he ought not to be, he could never give to God, the Creator, what was due from the creature to the Creator. He had no righteousness. But God had not changed because man had left his innocency, given up his first estate. He thought that there were certain things which it was meet for Him, what became Him, to do.

He would show that He was God still, existing before all and above all, unsearchable, past finding out, His ways not as our ways, nor His thoughts as our thoughts. He would show that His resources were infinite. He would show what the contrasts are between Himself, who cannot lie, and who delights in blessing and building up in blessing, and Satan the liar and the destroyer; He would show forth what sin is in His presence, not little according to 'the littleness of the creature who rebels, but great according to the greatness of the Creator, Upholder and Governor of all things, against whom and against whose claim it is. He would leave man, too, without excuse, his having been a rebel should not be his condemnation, if he would but turn as a rebel and receive God's testimony, and give his ruin to God if he had nothing else to give. He would show how He could give more to the creature that had ruined itself, by handing it over to His own Son as Redeemer, than man had ever lost.

There was such a thing as God's righteousness in every sense of the words.

Even God's righteousness through faith of Jesus Christ towards all men; but upon all those that believe for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and are come short of God's glory; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth propitiatory [or the propitiatory] through faith in His blood.

Towards showing out His righteousness for [on account of] the passing by of foregone sins in God's forbearance; for showing out His righteousness in this present time that He might be just and justifier of him that is of the faith of Jesus.

Again (to give since it occurs) hileohs—

Matt. 16:22. Be it far from thee, Lord; or, lit., (be) merciful to thyself, Lord.

Heb. 8:12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness.

Of this subject one may safely say, 'Tis a deep that knows no sounding! God alone fully knows it all. I bless Him that I often tell Him so. And yet how blessed to have known in part through the Spirit.

When Christ died the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; thence onward there has been no veil to shut the light of God in and to shut man out of His presence. No veil or cover over Christ's face as revealer of God and the Father as there was over Moses's face; no veil over the heart that turns to the Lord. God is revealed now as the God of eternal redemption and of eternal salvation. The Prince of life died as made sin, and to remove sins and guilt from those that believe in Him; and faith can now say crucified together with Him, dead together with Him, buried together with Him. Wonder of wonders that Which His death contains and imports. But I must not now linger over Him dead or Him risen and ascended and seated on high (and myself one with Him there), but confine. myself to my research.

If any wish to follow out the subject more fully, let them study Rom. 3:19 to 8: 8, Heb. 8 to 10: 25; let them also follow the Lord Jesus in the gospels, and especially through the latter part of His life down here, and the account given of what befell Him when ascended and entered into heaven in the Acts. Let them study, too, 1 Pet. and Rev. 4 and 5. I may remark here how in these scriptures we find the subject treated of in various connections. The blessed Lord's death bears upon man down here and his justification in Romans, on his access to God on high in Hebrews, on his walk under government down here in Peter, and on the glory of Christ the object (as elsewhere the leader) of worship and head over everything in Rev. 4 and v. His one death among men has ten thousand phases of glory before God, and they will all be made good.

I add a few references which seem to me at once to guard the believer from shutting himself up to a limited view of the subject, and to suggest that, however precious the truth may be to which he has attained, yet that there are veins of truth yet undiscovered by him.

Anaphero, to offer up.

Heb. 7.26, 27. For such an high priest became us (who is) holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people's; for this he did once, when He offered up Himself.

Heb. 9:28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and to them that look for Him shall He

appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation.

Heb. 13:15. Let us offer [up] the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

1 Peter 2:5. An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:24. Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness.

Again prosphero.

Heb. 8:3. Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore (it is) of necessity that this one [i.e., Christ] have somewhat to offer.

Heb. 9:14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Heb. 9:25. Nor yet that He should offer Himself often.

Heb. 9:28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.

Heb. 10:12. But this one, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever sat down on the right hand of God.

And its substantive prosphora.

Eph. 5:2. Christ has given Himself for us, an offering.

Heb. 10:10. By the which we are sanctified (or set apart) through the offering of the body of Jesus

once.

Heb. 10:14. For by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified.

Nothing can be added to, nothing taken from the perfect standing befbre God of those whom the knowledge of Christ's offering of Himself has led. to separate themselves unto God.

See too, agorazo

Matt. 13:44. The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man had found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.

Matt. 13:45,46. It is like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls; who when he has found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

1 Cor. 6:20. You are not your own, for you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Cor. 7:23. You are bought with a price.

2 Peter 2:1. Denying the master that bought them. Rev. 5:9. Thou hast been slain, and hast redeemed

to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Rev. 14:3. No one could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, who were redeemed from the earth.

Rev. 14:4. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes. These have been redeemed from among men, the first-fruits unto God and the Lamb.

Again, its compound exagorazo.

Gal. 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.

Gal. 4:5. To redeem them that were under the law.

Eph. 5:16

Col. 4:5 }Redeeming the time.

In all these passages there is a force of buying up from which can hardly be expressed in English.

Take again the words thusia, an offering or sacrifice, a slain victim, and thuo, originally to offer meal,

etc., but later to sacrifice by slaying.

Thusia

Eph. 5:2. Christ... has loved us, and has given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor.

Heb. 8:3. To offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore (it is) of necessity that this one have somewhat also to offer.

Heb. 9:23. The heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Heb. 9:26. Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Heb. 10:12. But this one,. after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.

Heb. 10:26. There remains no more sacrifice for sins. [The question of sacrifice in this sense being all closed up with Christ's sacrifice of Himself].

*.x..* The word altar, thusiasteerion, may also be looked at. The altars of the tabernacle and of the temple, as had Noah's and the patriarch's altars before, all pointed typically to Christ. See, also, in Ezra's time (c. iii.), how much turned upon the altar being set up. Among other passages I citeHeb. 13:10-13. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.

Read also Rev. 8:3-5 as to the altar, and the golden altar, and 9: 13 the golden altar, and 11: 1, and 14: 18, and 16: 7, the altar.

Again, thuo rendered eight times out of 15 in the New Testament kill and once slay.

1 Cor. 5:7. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. From luo to loose probably we have-

Lutron, 1, the price paid for ransom, a ransom; 2, an expiation; 3, a recompense.

Matt. 20:28. The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many (Comp. Mark 10:45).

Again, the same word in composition, antilutron.

1 Tim. 2:6. Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified of in due time.

Then lutroo, to release on receipt of ransom, to hold to ransom.

Luke 24:21. (Here in the middle voice). We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.

Titus 2:14. (Here in the middle voice). Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 Peter 1:18-21. (Here it is in the passive voice). Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, (as) silver and gold, from your vain conversation (received) by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you; who by him do believe in God.

In lutrosis, ransoming, redemption, the being redeemed, observe the contrast between the temporal and the eternal redemption.

Luke 1:68. Blessed (be) the Lord God of Israel, for he bath visited and made redemption for his people, etc.

Luke 2:38. Anna... spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Heb. 9:12. By his own blood he (Christ) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

Again, the same word in composition, apolutrosis, redemption.

Luke 21:28. Your redemption draweth nigh.

Rom. 3:24. Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Rom. 8:23. Waiting for the adoption (to wit), the redemption of our body.

1 Cor. 1:30,31. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. [He is speaking of what the soul that was lost has found, through faith, to be its rest and power of blessing.]

Eph. 1:7. In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace. [This epistle looks at the.

Church as seated in Christ in heavenly places] comp. Col. 1:14. [The Church here only knew a Lord ascended to heaven, and was in danger of letting slip the higher doctrine of Christ, the head of a body].

Eph. 1:14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession. [The inheritance is bought and paid for, and the spirit given to us is the earnest of this inheritance, but it is not appropriated as yet by the Lord, any more than are our bodies brought home to it, Rom. 8:13.]

Eph. 4:30. Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. [In the context here the body, the old man, put off, and the new man put on, and the Spirit as the seal are brought before us.]

Heb. 9:15. That by means of death, for the redemption of transgressions under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb. 11:35. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance.

Lutrotees, a ransomer, redeemer.

Acts 7:35. Moses... the same did God send (to be) a ruler and a deliverer.

In conclusion, the ramifications from the doctrine, through things connected with it by various other words used in Scripture are too many and too large for me to follow them all out here. The reader should bear in mind the difficulty of translating from one language into another, which arises from the fact that the range of the meaning of words in no two languages is exactly the same, e.g., kahphar in Hebrew may be equal to "expiate" in English, if the other idea " owned by God," be added; " propitiation " is this " expiation before God" set forth before men. But to enter upon this would lead me into the niceties of Synonyms. All I have tried to do here, was to trace out in such a way as my reader, if unversed in Hebrew and Greek, might find light from. To me the study and research has been refreshing. I look to God to make it so to any that may read it. G. V. W.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, 4:43-54.

OH 4:43-54Two days of testimony,-in figure, I doubt not, the present time of grace to the Gentiles in which they receive the gift of the living water, the Holy Ghost,— and then we find the Lord again in Jewish connection, not in Judea, but in Galilee, whence the latter-day light streams forth (Isa. 9). He is at Cana too, and we are reminded of the miracle which had there taken place, type, as we know, of Israel's happiness in her coming marriage day, when she will be married to the Lord. And now from Cana, this place of blessing,. -healing waters. flow out to Capernaum. A nobleman,. one of Herod's courtiers, takes the unwonted place of suppliant to Christ. His child, the strength of his house, is sick,—sick at Capernaum, the place of curse,. of which those words had been uttered: "And thou. Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day." Capernaum, thus, under wrath for rejection of her gracious visitation, gives a character to this sickness of the courtier's son, himself a representative of the nation's sin; for they had indeed paid court to the great ones of the earth, and many lords had had dominion over them, and the King of Israel had been among them unknown, a lonely and suffering stranger. But a sickness nigh unto death, but which is not unto death, but that the Son of Man may be glorified thereby, shall yet throw them into the hands of Him who alone can heal.. They who, as in the Lord's reproving words, had called for "signs and, wonders" (verse 48) shall yet call for Himself. Unbelief shall give place to faith, and death to life. He who once was Herod's courtier shall take the place of Jesus' disciple.

This is the place which I believe these verses have in the connection of truth. They come in as an appendix, the brevity of which may be a hint that it is but a glance at what comes not so directly into the line of things presented in the Gospel, but still has part in it, as relating to the work of the Life-giver. The prominent thing is the scene at Sychar's well, the gift of the living water, the new worship founded on the knowledge of a God known in salvation (verse 22), the Gentile reception of the Savior of the world; to which this appended scene at Cana gives, if possible, yet more precision.

F.W.G.

1. " GOD is love, for so it is written. Faith, therefore, says; God is love. You say so, for you have faith; and you say so as to every detail even of your sorrow and anguish down here. You say it, though you have to add, as the antidote to sense's surmisings, Let God be true, and every man a liar.' He was love when He put the cup into the hand of His only begotten Son. Be is love when He gives to us to drink of fellowship of His sufferings. Faith is not feeling, much less is it fallen nature's feeling."

2. " Can I read love in this your present trial? I may be stupid and unable to do so, or I may be able to read part of it aright, and I think I can. There is large love to you in it, the expression of a jealousy on His part toward you, that you should learn how to walk blind like His servant; an expression, too, of His jealousy to have your heart, as His Son's was, able to say, Not my will but thine be done' He loves you, and wants His will to be all your satisfaction; wants you to find your all in Him and in His Son; He will not let you share your heart's best affections between Him and even your mother. All this is His love to you. His good pleasure that you should be like Jesus, Lord of all. He thinks that, if all His pleasure is found in the Son of His love, He can make that Son of His love enough for you when all else is gone. He so loves you in Him, that He is making every affection in you, every thought in you, to find the Lord Jesus as its center.

" Oft it requires a broken heart as a prelude to this blessing, but His love broke my heart to make room for Christ; and I know it was love that did it; till then I never knew either the creature's need of Christ, nor Christ's sufficiency for a broken heart."

3. " Christ Jesus is quite enough to satisfy your heart and mind-yea, to enable you to count all else but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Him. The more

think of it, the more it seems to me that it is love alone which is to be seen in this sorrow to you-the jealousy of love divine, which purposes that you should know and own the sufficiency there is in Christ to satisfy your heart, as He has satisfied God's heart these 1800 years and upwards.

" If you still find you cannot pray, try whether you can write-write, as it were, a letter for your Lord to present to His Father. It may be, that, as I have known before, this might help you. I have known when reading, or trying to read Sacred Scripture brought no profit; but writing it out did; and I have met cases in which prayer was impossible, save with paper and ink. We are strange in our littlenesses, as strange as He in all His greatnesses.

" I pray for you, and HE prays for you too."

4. " Love-the Lord's love to you-makes me think again and again by day and by night, There is..... in her full taste of sorrow.' Ah! if He makes me, in my impatience, think of you, it is because He wears you on His heart, and is jealous in His love over you, and over your thoughts and affections. He wants them all for Himself, every one.

" I find often, when I cannot pray, that hymns, which are the expression of my thoughts when in vigor, become their railroad when I am in weakness. You will find the truth of Hymn 76* too, and after sorrow's taste (79), Rest of the Saints above.' "

(* "Rise, my soul, thy God directs thee.)

5. "Many long years ago I was wounded with a wound, which has been green ever since. The Lord be praised for that blow. Through eternity it will proclaim His love to me."

6. " In a letter I read lately, there was one expression which struck me; it was to this effect, that His people, amid the sorrows and sense of bereavements, would find that Christ made His own sympathy to flow in through the kind sympathies of His members upon earth, and that was sweet. I am sure that the Lord has stirred up many of His in heart and mind to you, that our thoughts and affections are in unwonted play toward you, because His are, who is our life."

7. " Do not try to answer Satan, or to stop his slanders of you. Bunyan found that Satan could say, Sell Him, sell Him, sell Him,' faster than he could say, Not for a thousand worlds, not for ten thousand worlds. George Herbert's was a better way: Thou Lord shalt answer for me.' Jesus Christ knows that He keeps you, and that you do not keep Him. He told Peter that He did not confide in Him, but that he (Peter) might trust Him (Christ). John 13, last verse, and xiv. 1.

" The discovery that it is Satan who worries is an immense boon; for if he worries me, it is because I am Christ's, and this oft has comforted me in the hour of temptation.

" We all have to learn the contrasts between our little. ness, and the fullness of that which is ours in Christ. I, like Job, may oft have not been able to discern between God and Satan. Yet Christ loves us because the Father, His own Father, gave us to Him. How should He but love and look with intense delight on that which His Father gave Him, and gave to Him, too, as the expression of His confidence, that He was able to do with it as He the Father wished, and bring it to glory, spite of all its pitifulness."

8. " The Lord is blessing you, I know, I am sure of it; and you will say so too. Even that all this year's march has been in His love."

9. " Unbelief, or the feeling of mere nature in you, would say on awaking this morning, " She is gone and left the earth to solitary me.' But Faith would say:

And yet I am not alone, for the Father and Son are with me here.' And more than that, as to herself. She is only gone from this place, where circumstances impeded your constantly realizing her presence with you, to be there where your spirit and soul are already with your Lord. I refuse to say of myself bereaved,' when the Lord has won another to His presence. I will not say of myself bereaved ' when another is gone to be with Him. Surely, if I love Him, I must unselfishly resign all I love to Him; surely, if I love her, I must rejoice at her great gain-and she is now in spirit where I would always be; and if so, I would ever realize her blessed with the Lord.' "

10. " I woke in the night with another thought' Lord, thou wilt remember that solitary one in all her infirmity;' and then again-' Lord, thou hast remembered, dolt remember, and wilt remember her that is in trial.' I have full assurance that He is with you, not that you fully feel it new, but that He has said, Fear not; it is I.' I heard Him myself, if you did not, and you will find He is near. Remember that word, ' This is mine infirmity, I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.' Well I pray for you, and I know in whose hand you are, and if the jealousy of His all absorbing love barks and lays bare lost nature to us, the eternal, divine nature only is strengthened. Read 2 Cor. 1"

March, 1864.

14 March, 1864.

With a conscience set free by faith in a risen and ascended Lord, and with the flow of joy which the ungrieved Spirit of God gives to a heavenly man who is a son of God, what is the fever of disease, what the clammy feel of the body, when its life is flickering in the socket, and the eternal life within centering the heart and mind upon the person of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Yes, but there is a coffin before us! There rests the body of an aged and devoted saint! happy in His love, and full of His love to His saints-and now gone! Aye, but gone whither? To the Lord Jesus. Is He not worthy to have

His saints with Him, and has He forestalled God's counsel in calling this one home, home to Himself-Himself the home? Not so; the words, If ye loved me, ye would rejoice that I said, I go to my Father, for my Father is greater than I,' may be quoted here as true in this case also Oh, have we no love for those that go? No love save for our own selves? No willingness to see them blessed, if their blessing will cost us any privation? It is will, wretched selfishness, which forgets God's joy and Christ's joy in welcoming to His presence a soul that leaves us, and which hinders, too, our thinking of its great gain. Well may you, who are thus full of your own selves, forgetting God and Christ, and the friends you profess to have loved, well may you be indignant with your own selfishness and your own narrow-hearted love of self I But there is a jealousy of love in God. He wills that your hearts should know the sufficiency of Christ to satisfy you amid all the wrestlings of the wilderness. He wills in that jealousy of love that you should think of Him to whom He has espoused you, and of His joy over those that sleep in Him, and that you should learn how to think and feel according to that sphere in which Christ is the center.

What can I tell you concerning the blessedness of the departed? I can only answer by another question. What do you know of the blessedness of being with the Lord? For if self and selfishness fill you, why then, they find their aliment in this world; and if you are full of yourself, your likes and dislikes, your gains and your losses, you will not profit much from the doctrine of the blessedness of those absent from the body, and present with the Lord. It does not fill you in your selfishness, and so you may not like it! What did the thief know of Paradise? Probably nothing at all. But he had made a new friend in One whose fellow was not to be found. Faith had revealed to him the blessedness of the Lord. Faith had opened his heart to holiness and to confession, and to trust in his Judge, and had drawn into it the sweetness of inseparableness from that Savior.

Thou shalt be with me.' With Him! that was enough. This throws us on the measure of our appreciation and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who know and make much of Him will find much in the thought of being with Him. To a saint there is nothing like presence with the Lord. If self rules, we must have circumstances and details, so as to be able to pick up what suits man thinking of himself and his circumstances.

There is a monstrous abortion of unbelief in many minds now, that because earthly ties and relationships cease in Heaven, persons will not be known, or our mutual interest be sustained. I know and love, and am known and loved by many who have been either my masters or my servants upon earth. The relationship may be passed, but, thank God, not the mutual love and esteem which our hearts formed in it. A child, when married, ceases to be child in the house-is, he or she is, according to God, absolved from the tie, but the love and interest go on; or does a married daughter cease to be loved because she has taken headship under another, and has not the tie and responsibility of the child in the house? Paul's former tie with the Thessalonians may cease, but not his love for them, or theirs for him, as found when on Earth. They will be around him in glory, his crown of joy and rejoicing. " For what is our hope, or joy or crown of rejoicing.? Are not even ye, in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?"

WHAT a discovery is it for us to make, in any measure, that the portion of Christ at the world's hands is our portion too. It knew Him not, and, in proportion as we are simple and true as children of God, it knows us not; and we, too, know it not. We know that it exists, but it and we have nothing in common. We are not of it, we do not approve it, and it is nothing to us, save in so far as we are inconsistent, allowing lust to come in and work.

We shall be like Him! With all the affections of children, and all their hopes-with all the schooling of God, with all the judgment of self, with all the true-hearted prayer that a saint pours out for himself, and for God's dear people-bow will the groans, nevertheless, come out from the heart-"So little attained so little of power!" Never mind; go on climbing up the hill. We shall be like Him. We shall yet have no taste for anything that He has not a taste for-no mind, save for that for which He has a mind. Like Christ clothed with immortality, incorruptibility and glory! And not only like Him outside, even in a scene where all can shine out without disturbance, but like Him all within, from the quickened soul upwards and outwards. All in harmony with Christ! What a word to have in one's heart, " I shall be" like Him! His name written on my forehead; I clothed upon with His likeness, for I shall see Him as He is.

Now we see through a glass darkly, and yet, if in any measure we see, we are molded into the same image; but then eye to eye-go onward. Onward in darkness? No, onward still in light, because it is onward to Christ. 'While the heart is occupied with Him, each step leads it nearer. Every spot that is unlike Christ becomes odious. We purify ourselves, even as He is pure.

It becomes us in these days to look to it, that we have the marks of God's children on us, both as answering to God, and also for the joy and comfort of our own souls.

As many are very much occupied with the Greek aorist just now, allow me to suggest some thoughts as to it. As to. Greek scholarship I should yield the palm to anyone, I may say, who has made it especially his study, though conversant with the language, as one may be who for years had laid it aside for other occupations, and has only resumed it for the study of the New Testament. But when the question is one of translation, the power of a second language has also to be settled, and its forms may not exactly answer to those of Greek. Still there are certain conditions of human thought which are the same in all languages, because all languages are the expression, as such, of Le human mind. I do not speak of the effect of inspiration on them, but merely of the vehicle of thought in itself. But this shows that metaphysical analysis has its part as well as the empiricism of particular grammars. I shall confine myself to English, unless any particular suggestion may offer itself.

I shall begin by stating what may seem very paradoxical, that tenses have nothing to do with time properly speaking. Verbs, and still more accurately participles, refer not to objects, that is to nouns, but to acts (voices I do not speak of here).

There are only two tenses, as there are two participles; one is accomplishing an act, the other views the act as accomplished. " I dine," that is accomplishing: " I dined," here the act is viewed as accomplished. " I dine every day in the year at three o'clock," that is the accomplishing of the act, and in so far present, i.e., viewed as present; the time is expressed by every day in the year, each viewed as present, but, in fact, many not yet come. But " I dine" is a real aorist, only an aorist of accomplishing, not of what is accomplished. When I say " I dined," the act is viewed as accomplished. But it relates the act as such, the mere act is accomplished, and if I can put my mind into the position of viewing it as accomplished in the mind's eye, a future act as to time will take this form. I take an example which Howell cites as to this question. "He told me he was sent by his principals to Paris, and returned next week." Now, "returned" is de facto at a future time, next week. But the mind views the arrangement as one whole in the mind, and so accomplished. The moment you get into the historical form, not in a mental view of a whole looked at as a plan, and so existing complete in the mind, you must put the present or future. " He was sent by his principals to Paris and returns," if vividly presented, or " will return," if prosaically stated, "next week." But when I look at it as a whole in his plan, the act is looked at as in that accomplished, and I say " returned." The nature of the time remains the same.

Farther, there is no real future tense, because there nothing is accomplishing or accomplished, or it could not be future. Hence I can affirm no act accomplishing or accomplished. What does the mind do? It takes the pure verb which represents the act simply as an act, " dine," and puts present purpose before it. " I will" (that is present will) "dine-with you to-morrow;" the verb is present, a thing accomplishing, " I will." Philologists tell us that in other languages terminations were originally words, but I confine myself to English now. In Greek it seems evident that change of form is used for the tenses, auxiliary verbs being occasionally used, besides the case of the pluperfect.

Participles give very definitively the accomplishing and the accomplished act; " dining," "dined. This, with the auxiliary verbs, gives great accuracy of expression-" I am dining," " I have dined." The former is an exact present, whereas, " I dine," being merely the accomplishing, the act may apply to any time at which the mind realizes the act. It is an aorist present. But in the exact present the' verb is not the act but the participle, " dining." The verb is simply the expression of the present existence of the act. Not that "am" by itself expresses time; but existence, but if the accomplishing is in existence it is of course present. I say, "I am a man." That is not time, but " what;" only it must not have ceased to be, because existence is stated. And in the highest of all expressions it is in contrast with time-" I Am." The other auxiliary verb which must be the main object of inquiry is "I have." This, too, has two tenses, " have," "had; one possession now, the other possession past; the present, as usual, is the fact, not time, only it has not ceased to exist to the mind " I have a book." But I can use this, too, for all times, provided it be viewed in the mind as going on. " I have breakfast every day at nine o'clock." But it is used, though a present, with a past participle, which gives a very logical definite force to it in English. " I have written a letter." The participle views the thing as done, the letter is written. " I have" affirms present realization of the fact. Hence, in English it has a. moral force not historical, not properly referring to time, though to a thing done, not doing or to be done. That man " has stolen." This is not historical. For that I should say " That man `stole' my watch." It is characteristic of the man. " You have beaten your brother." " I have not; I never touched him." " I have not" is denial of the fact morally; "I never touched" is historical. Hence, I say, " I wrote it yesterday," not " I have written." I say simply "I have written a letter." Hence it may be used for the Greek perfect, where the participle can be applied mentally to a subsisting effect. "He has taken the city," historically as a fact. I say, He took the city, but lost it again the next week." " Took" is merely the accomplished fact, " taken" is a past fact, has present possession of the fact. But it is by no means in English a Greek perfect always, i.e., a past fact continuing. It is often a fact in itself wholly past; but realized morally as a present thing. " I have written to you in this article on the subject of the aorist;" in Greek εγτραψα, in English " have written," because though the writing be done once for all, an accomplished fact, it is treated morally as a present thing between my reader and me. " I have;" here the Greek aorist must be translated by what people are pleased to call a perfect. If I say "I wrote," present realization is gone. It is the revelation of the past fact, but present realization is not necessarily a Greek perfect. It may, and very often is, an aorist in Greek. When I read the New Testament I may throw it back into historical fact naturally enough. But often we lose thus the power of it, because the writer is treating the matter as a morally present subject of consideration between him and those written to; yet the aorist may and very often is used. "I have prayed for- thee,"εδεηθην. " I prayed for thee" (which people want us to use for aorist), gives no right sense at all. " Prayed" is past, but the Lord is using it as a present matter between the Apostle and himself. "I have transferred these things in a figure,"μετεσχηματισα. (1 Cor. 4:6.) " I have espoused you," ηρμοσαμην. Where it is an actual continuing act it is perfect: "I have used none of these things," κεχρημαι, he still was not using them (1 Cor. 9:15); but in the same sentence, " neither have I written," ουκ εγραψα. " Neither wrote I" would falsify the sense. In some cases one may hesitate, thus, 2 Cor. 11:7, εποιησα, ευηγγελισαμην. It may be taken historically (aorist, so called) or as present realization in the mind of an accomplished fact. " Committed I sin," " announced the glad tidings;" or, as a present question as to a past fact. " Have I committed sin." " I have announced freely." It is a matter of discernment as to what the writer means, not of Greek tenses. But in a multitude of cases the use of the historical tense in English for the aorist falsifies the sense. First, the application of rules for Greek tenses (often a matter of the writer's feeling at the moment) to English grammar (as if the tenses were the same) leads all wrong; and, secondly, the force of English tenses has not been clearly seen, (of which I am satisfied there are but two, but which from the use of auxiliaries with participles acquire a peculiar force) has not been really analyzed, when Greek aorists are pretended to be represented by them.

How far this is connected with so called tenses in Hebrew, where it is known there are only two, I leave to further investigation. The rules for the use of Vav conversive seem to me strangely vague and unsatisfactory. Try it with Psa. 18, and see what you can make of it.

I have taken the Greek examples merely as they occurred. Hundreds of other examples, perhaps stronger ones, may be found. When it is a present moral question " have" is better than the so-called aorist, though the fact be a simply past act. The question is, Is it treated morally or historically in the mind. " I have written to him twenty times" has not the same shade of meaning as " I wrote to him twenty times." The latter in strict use would require a note of time. I wrote to him twenty. times last year, and I never got an answer." "I have written to him twenty times, and he has never answered me," is the moral fact. " Written" is past, but "have" makes it morally present. I may say, " I wrote to him twenty times, I have never got an answer." " Wrote" is the historical fact; "have never got" is a moral view of what he has done present with me.

THE following notes on particles and prepositions were the fruit of private research for private use in studying the New Testament, so that the reader must not expect anything of a complete treatise on the subject to which they apply, and, perhaps, he will find sometimes what may not satisfy his judgment as to the metaphysical connection of the literal with the moral senses of a word. But when it was merely the question of using his labors, undertaken in and for his own New Testament studies, for the service of others who may profit by the labor without adopting all that is said, he could have no objection to their being printed. The reader may learn how many nice points of meaning, there are in the use of these words, and may use these notes to come to a more just appreciation of the force of words and shades of meaning than the notes themselves can furnish. As a help to his further labors he may find them useful. They are in no sense offered as anything complete or final. They were formed in bond fide noting down the remarks and fruits of private research for private use. The reader can profit by them and draw his own conclusions. They will, at least, supply a pretty large index to the New Testament use of these words, and raise the questions for enquirers which the paper itself may not solve. One only can guide us into truth and the mind of God in His Word.

GREER. PARTICLES.

Av expresses what is hypothetical possibility. When the ground of hypothesis is stated before, it is accompanied by the indicative; the consequence is asserted as a fact: it would so happen in that case, μετανοησαναν, Matt. 11:20,21; so chap. 12: 7, and often. When the possibility or hypothetical case is stated in the verb to which αν belongs, the verb is in the subjunctive, as ὁς αν απολμση, ἐως αν ειπω ὁπως αν ποτιση: as to times, 1 Cor. 11:25, ὁσακις αν πινητε, i.e., whenever they did do it: the doing it was uncertain. So as to place, Μark 9: 18, ὁπου αν καταλαβη, wherever he did, but the taking him was occasional and uncertain; ὁπως αν κηρυχθη (Mark 14:9), the preaching was incidental.

Av means, I think, in that case, ever, every, (immer). Eav is practically et ay. Hence, when αν (if not to be read eav, which always has the subjunctive, as uncertain) leaves the act uncertain or not accomplished (cases of time αχρις οὑ αν θη, Om 1 Cor. 15:25), it has the subjunctive. Where the act is assumed or done, αν is still ever, but the verb is in the indicative. Thus, Mark 6:56, ὁπου αν εισεπορευετο εις κωμας, because it is an assumed fact, he went into the villages, had gone into them, when they wanted to touch him; but κ’αν ἁψωνται, uncertain whether they could. Then ὁσοι αν ἡπτοντο, where it is the fact; but Matt. 10:11, as εις ἡν δ’αν πολιν εισελθητε,

because it was a future uncertain possibility. So Luke 9:57, James 3:4, Rev 14:4, Mark 14:9, wherever he went' may be αν, but indicative; wherever he might go,' αν with subjunctive. The same rule applies to time as to other cases; if the hypothesis is stated previously. the verb with αν is in the indicative, as Matt. 11:23, " they would have remained" εμειναν αν. Otherwise, as a future is not a fact, it is in the subjunctive, ἑως αν θω, and a multitude of cases. Is not its real force ava, each, every, one? As we say, whoever, whosoever, and, in German, immer. The fact and non-fact is more plain in cases of time than others, though the principle is identical. 'Till it come,' it remains till.' The first is non-fact, the second fact, though based on an hypothesis, but if- then the fact is so. 'Finally, if the hypothesis precedes, αν has the indicative. So without an hypothesis (Mark 6:56), where it is connected with an assumed or actual fact. It answers to the English ever, and affects style: `as many as ever I could,' i.e.,' every one I possibly could,' it is possibility.

‘Απαξ, εφαπαξ, once, and once for all, or all at once, on once, auf einmal, at one time, as we say, at once. It is not merely that he did it, or it happened once, but that all that is in question is brought into that once; " Five hundred saw him at one time." " He entered in, εφαπαξ, into the holy place." It is not that He once did it,ἁπαξ, but that, not like the high-priest who repeated his entrances, the work not being finished, Christ did it once for all. It was all summed up and complete and enduring in effect on that one entrance to stay there. So of His offering the same; so Rom. 6:10, it is not merely that He did it once, not twice, but that all His dying to sin was in that act, and that it was absolute, complete and final, He had no more to do with it. It was all done then in that act and completely. We reckon ourselves to have died, and once for all too, have no more to do with it. ‘Απαξ is simply once, not twice, only it is used (as in English) for a past time which has not continued. "You once knew this;" "once delivered."

Apa is not ουν, a consequence drawn, but resumes

what has been gone, through and gives its real force, assuming its truth as a witness of something which follows. Hence, it is often accompanied by ουν, so then it always, I think, gives the idea of this being so; or if a question, is it indeed so that. Thus, Matt. 12:28. It was not ουν, therefore, but " then this being so, the kingdom of God is come to you," So Matt. 7:20, αραγε, γε strengthening the consequence, thus then surely (alio iα), Rom. 10:17. So in questions; only it often takes its force from what is passing in the mind, the tacit assumption of facts or statements, as Matt. 18:1, τις αρα μειξων, that is, seeing there is a kingdom, and you say it is going to be set up, and you say such and such things concerning it, Who is to be greatest in it?' So Luke 12:42, where it is given occasion to by Peter's question, which is not meant to be directly answered, and the αρα refers to the Lord's whole conception of the condition of the servant. Compare Matt. 24:45, where the Lord evidently answers what is passing in his own mind. In Luke 1:66, the antecedent circumstances are evident. So 8: 25. In Luke 22:23, since some one, would,' `it being so—τις αρα?' It is less evident but the same sense in 11: 48, you being what you are, and doing what you are, αρα μαρτυρειτε. With ει it is uncertain possibility under the circumstances; still this being so,' hence it increases the improbability of ει, Acts 8:22;17: 27. Rom. 5:18, αρα ουν ' therefore this being so;' Rom. 8:1, ' This being so, there is none,' and Rom. 14:19 is the same. In 1 Cor. 7:14, it is elliptical, if it were as you say, and you had to leave the husband or wife,' but the force of αρα is the same. 1 Cor. 15:15, if indeed it be so.' Gal. 3:7, the sense is the same. It is the application in proof of what has been said. This being so,' etc. The other cases are all simple. Indeed all are, when once its proper force is seized.

Tαρ requires a little more mental attention. Its simple meaning is an illative for, a reason for what precedes, not a cause, but a because.' But it is very often indeed a resuming of a series of thought in the writer's mind, and is no inference from what precedes, but a new

statement of' the case from facts or thoughts in the writer's mind. The same point is proved, but theγαρ or inference does not refer to what has been stated, but to what is in the writer's mind; but which confirms the general thought. A singular case of this is in Matt. 1:18, where the matter is wholly in the writer's mind, and he has only said ' thus. So that all that follows with γαρ is the explanation of οὑτως. This is an extreme case perhaps, but this use of γαρ is very common with the Apostle Paul, and we should not seize his meaning without seeing it. Thus Rom. 1:17 is a simple plain inference or reason: " he was not ashamed of the gospel, for it was the power of God unto salvation." But in verse 18, γαρ has not this direct force, but begins a long series of proofs of what made that gospel necessary; and he returns to the point laid down in verse 17, only in 3: 21. But it all bears on it, and is what his mind goes through to prove the point. It may be filled nominally by an ellipse, as (and I have these thoughts and can show the value and necessity of this righteousness, and that this is the only possible righteousness) for the wrath of God is revealed,' etc. This is very common with Paul. You have both again in Rom. 5:6,7, the simple use in verse 10; the resumed new proof of what was in his mind in verse 13. So I believe in verses 16, 17, for the first part of these sentences is clearer as a question; so in verse 19, he is proving his general point, not what precedes. So in 7: 14, where, as in many cases, the connection is so obvious that it creates no difficulty. But in 8: 2, 3, we have two distinct new grounds of argument which prove the main point of what he is at, in connection with what precedes, but is not the proof of it. You could not say in verse 2, ὁτι or διοτι which for ' in English often answers to. It aids in proving the general point, but by a collateral testimony. He is delivered from the whole condition and element to which condemnation applied, and is introduced into another to which no condemnation can apply. He is in Christ, not in the flesh. Verse 3 is another and additional point to prove it. Still chap. 6. had shown one, and the end of 7. thee dummy of the law. These verses 2 and 3' resume the whole results, and describe the condition of the man in Christ which had not been spoken of in these chapters. The delivering power of life in Christ is the force of verse 2, and what Christ had done before we are in Him, or God in and by Him as to the flesh in verse 3. The same reference to the result in his mind is in 8: 18. We are not glorified together because he reckoned. He illustrates the state of thought which expressed it, by a new series of thoughts. This ground for the question in the thought of the speaker is common in interrogation.. Matt. 27:23, τι γαρ κακον εποιησε: ought not to condemn him,' or why do you seek it, for,' etc. Acts 19:35, Who is there?" Your judgment about Diana is incontrovertible, for who is there among men?' John 7:41, μη γαρ εκ της Ταλιλαιας ὁ Χριστος ερχεται, it cannot be as you suppose for, does,' etc. It is not that a positive thought is formed in the mind, to which the question refers, as I have filled up the ellipse. It is vague, but assumes to negative doubt, or reject some consequence, by the question which proves it cannot be.. 'Who then doubts that Diana is great;' his object is to prove them wrong in making an uproar, for, etc.; in demanding Christ's life, for, etc., in pretending Jesus, to be the Christ, for, etc. And this is put as a question, which by its certain answer settles it.

But γαρ has certainly the sense of indeed, even, immo,. perhaps כִ֖י, as Acts 16:37, ου γαρ no indeed. The connection with its usual force may be seen perhaps in 1 Thess. 4:10.

In Acts 2:15, ου γαρoy is not for,' I suspect, but, these indeed are not as you suppose, drunk, for these are in no way.'

So with και, γαρ has the sense of even. It cannot have the sense of for, save very elliptically: yet you may still do it, for even the dogs,' etc., Matt. 15:27. In John 7:41, γαρ has the force of indeed, but with a question: as above, denying it thus; but its force is indeed. Again, 1 Cor. 9:10, δἰ ἡμας γαρ, indeed, surely, even, for us' James 4:14 again helps us to the connection of the two sentences. We must say even, perhaps, but it is giving the reason why it is the weak thing which the question supposes-' it is as nothing, for it is a vapor:' but if we do not supply the ellipse, we must say indeed,' ' even.' Acts 8:31, ' I cannot do so, for how should I be able,' etc.; but again with the ellipse, we must say, bow indeed should I. And in this use of it, I do not see, however unusual, it may not be η γαρ εκεινος, Luke 18:14, than surely that other, one' γαρ being merely increased affirmation as כִֽי in Hebrew, or ja ' in German, or immo. It was then left out as difficult in Greek; rather, yea, than that other for the other thought himself so. In Rom. 3:2, we have πρωτον γαρ, first indeed, first surely, etc., 15: 27, ευδοκησαν γαρ. Again, 'they were pleased indeed'-the mind stops, says, no doubt.' It is the more striking here, for in verse 26 we have ευδ. γαρ in the usual sense of for. If the force of yap be the mind stopping and affirming anything, inasmuch as, indeed, it being so, that, which is the reason for what is spoken of, or what is in the mind, to which the previous part referred. Then η γαρ εκεινος, Luke 18:14, would be, than, whatever people may think, that [other] one' than, yes surely, that other.' So Acts 16:37, Nay, whatever they may pretend to, let them come!" Nay, surely not.' So in 1 Cor. 9:10, Acts 4:16,ὁτι μεν γαρ, for then indeed, or for indeed, for that indeed, etc. Rom. 3:2,πρωτον μεν γαρ, first then indeed, first indeed. In 2 Cor. 12:1, we have a special use of it. Well (δη) it is not expedient for me to glory, I will then now come,' etc. 1 Cor. 11:22, have ye not then.' Και γαρ has essentially the sense of since, literally for even. It gives a confirming proof, as και γαρ Ταλιλαιος εστιν, Luke 22:59; 1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Cor. 13:8, since, or for, for even if, since if Matt. 15:27, Mark 7:28, for even or since.

Τε, does not present much difficulty, though not easy a sometimes to put in English. Its general idea is at least, at any rate, Luke 11:8;18. 5, where we may say yet, only it is feeble; so with και, Luke 19:42, even, at any rate, at least; 1 Cor. 9:2, "at any rate I am to you." Sometimes even is the best, in the same sense substantially. Acts 2:18, Rom. 8:32, the latter ὁς γε, where (ja in German) even is right, but cold; not even better perhaps. Acts 2:18,και γε, yea even, or yea by itself, or yea on the very, Luke 24:21. αγγα γε is more difficult. But then, he stops his account of what He was when alive, with but then there is this," in spite of all this," too," into the bargain,' this, at any rate, bas taken place.' Acts 8:30; do you, at least then, understand as you are reading (αρα) do you at least (γε) understand it.' Acts 11:18, Then indeed," these things being so, doubtless God. has given the Gentiles life,' certainly without question,' which is the force of at any rate,' affirming that, in spite of all that might be alleged, it was so; or whatever might be of other cases. 1 Cor. 6:3, but indeed things of this life," not at least things of this life '-such as these at any rate cannot be excluded if we are to judge angels. These are all the passages, found only in Luke or Paul's

writings.

Aλλα πλην,δε. The force of πλην as a preposition is simple, besides, except, but only in Mark 12: 32, John 8:10, Acts 8:1;15. 28, xxvii. 28. These I believe are all we have; πλην ὁτι, Acts 20:23.

Δε is distinction, not opposition, a second thing,— αλλα is opposition. Δε may be often translated now' as Matt. 1:18. It supposes some thought to have been in the mind if not expressed, and goes on to what follows: &act, as fondern after a negative in German, is in contrast. So Rom. 7:7, no, I do not say that, but I do say that,' etc. Δε admits what precedes, but adds or modifies. There is difference but no opposition. It carries on the sentence to another element of thought, another, but carries it on. Mark 5:33, "but the woman being afraid." Mark 9:50, " Salt is good, but if," etc. Sometimes there is more contrast but it is as if psi was there. Acts 22:28, εγω δε.Se. But you may generally translate and' without altering the sense, as Rom. 2 We say, I do one thing to one, and another thing to another;' if I say but,' it brings in mere opposition: but in English, the opposition lies in the sense, even with and '; in Greek it is expressed by δε. Δε is a continuation of the same reasoning, a completing it, though the subject matter may be opposed. So Matt. 12:26-28.

Αλλα negatives the, thing it is in contrast with; δε connects them in reasoning, though it may be the converse or distinct, " not in circumcision, αλλ’ in uncircumcision," Rom. 4:10, Mark 9:8, " they saw no man αλλ’ they saw Jesus," xiv. 29; Rom. 3:31, " αλλα, on the contrary, we establish," and 5: 14, " sin is not imputed,"-that is true-" but death reigned." So Rom. 8: 37, referring to 35, on the contrary:' 1 Cor. 3:2,

"not only do I say this, αλλ' ουδε, on the contrary ye are not even now. 1 Cor. 9:12, we have it twice,

the second is evident contrast, the first we have got the power but, etc., in contrast with the natural effect of having it. It is less evident in 2 Cor. 8:7, but is just a beauty of style. It is as much as to say, It is as if I doubted of this, and therefore sent Titus. It is not that, but what I want is, that you,' etc. Eph. 5:24, αλλα is sometimes used when it is a setting aside a current of thought in the mind to substitute another; so it is used, I take it, here. So 2 Cor. 11:6. It gives force simply to style, as in 2 Cor. 7:11, yea' is well enough, aye not only that but.

Пλην is always an additional thought that comes into the mind-"Moreover,' but then I add. It is not ' but' or and,' but moreover,' though the sentence may not bear the word in English, Matt. 11:22,24, add, moreover:' so 18: 7. So Luke 22:21,22, πλην, moreover, 'the hand is there, and the Son of man goes indeed, scat "Lev, but then I add, woe to that man.' Matt. 26:39, but then I add.'

Μενουνγε. is used only three times in N. T. Phil. 3:8 is read αλλα μεν ουν in the editions. Luke 11:28, Rom. 9:20;10. 18. It has the sense of a kind of aye, indeed, if you talk of that.' So Luke 11:28, If you talk of blessing, such and such are the really blessea. Rom. 9:20, Ah, indeed, you talk of calling God in question; who are you then.' And 10:18, 'If you talk of not having heard, why! their sound is gone out into all the world,' In the first, yea.' In the second, nay but' is all well, in the third, yea.' Literally it is now

then indeed.' For Μηδε and Mητε, see 2 Thess. 2:2, in editions. Mηδε adds a subject of negation: μητε contrast different points into which the subject spoken of in the negative is divided, " not shaken nor troubled (μηδε) -by word, nor by letter (μητε)." Te by itself connects two things in a measure in one, και leaves them two: but when τε is used with και, it raises the subject of τε into prominence. It is not only what follows και, but what precedes τε too; but still unites them: saying, not the two, but both, take place. So indeed μητε....,μητε, both form part of one single subject. There is more bond in τε than in μητε in the two things mentioned as, in 2 Thess. 2:2, both are connected with θροεισαι. It is more, also, or both than and. It is found twice as often in Acts as in all the rest of the N. T.; then in Heb., Rom., Luke, rarely elsewhere: often it is a mere shade of different aspect of something from κια. James and John, both James and John; bad and good, both bad and good. The sense is the same, only both' brings them together to the mind as one. The distinct commandments, Mark 10:19, are μη not μητε. Δη only 6 times used. It arrests the mind on the noun or verb, impressing it on it, as the important point then in the mind. The passages are Matt. 13:23, Luke 2:15, Acts 13:2;15: 36, 1 Cor. 6:20, 2 Cor.. 12: 1. It is then, then now; also does well in Matt. 13:23, then now in Luke 2:15, 1 Cor. 6:20, 2 Cor. 12, well it is not,' would do.

Mεντοι. In John always however, found elsewhere, only in James 2:2, and Jude 8, yet the sense is the same. It is also in 2 Tim. 2:19.

Mεν, does little more than arrest the mind instead of simply stating the fact. With δε it contrasts the two members, but often hardly more than 'these' and those' in English, without indeed' and but,' as Acts 27:44. The difference I believe to be this-when a common statement applies to both, indeed' and but' may be left out in English; when the subjects ofμεν and δε are different, then they have their places.,- thus Matt. 22:5, " they went,-all-some to one thing, some to another," but verse 8, " the wedding indeed is ready, but they that are bidden." In Luke 8:5,6, it is μεν and κια; in Matt. 13:4,8, μεν and δε. Luke 3:16, both, no doubt, are baptizers, but ‘εγω μεν ὑδατι, αυτος δε εω π’ The contrast is full.

Μεν ουν, is always, I think, a fresh start of subject in the mind of the writer, assuming acquaintance with what precedes, and referring to it as the basis of some new statement, where some particular point connected with what precedes, comes out into relief. The writer has some one or something in his mind, shut up in the previous part, which makes the prominent subject in some -new statement. Oυν, I think, connects, μεν fixes the mind on the particular object. Once ουν μεν, but then ουν has its own ordinary force. I think μεν ουν thus always begins a new sentence. It is chiefly found in the narrative of the Acts, as may be supposed. See ουν. Ομως, even, nevertheless, however, although, found only in John 12:42, 1 Cor. 14:7, and Gal. 3:15. In this last ὁμως goes with ανθρωπου, and in 1 Cor. 14: 7, with αψυχα, not φωνην διδοντα.

Οπως, Is almost always the expression of object or purpose. Acts 3:19, in A. V. is a mere false translation. The only exception is Luke 24:20. It is not always so that or that, but always the object or intention, as Matt. 12:14, Mark 3:6, Matt. 26:59, Luke 12:37, Acts 23:23. But ὁπως is the object in the result, not the intention as in the mind. I do a thing Iva, that is the intention in my mind. Οπως is

the effect of the act, the aim of the act, not the intention -of the mind, it is so that,' not essentially in-order that,' it is the πως of the thing.

Oυν. Therefore (folgerung) sometimes, however, a mere consequence of facts in the mind, not a cause, then, and its proper sense is not cause but consequence, hence therefore. I say in the mind because it is the mind singling out some particular person and thing in a less open way in the mind, in what precedes, and bringing it out into relief and importance. See μεν, in connection with which it is thus used. With a question, and with ει, it has this force of consequence; 'these things being so.' Matt. 13:27; 12:12. Eι ουν, 7: 11; 22: 45, any hypothetical case is as the formal word ει: thus ὁταν, 24:15; Mark 12:6, ετι ουν ενα υἱον εχων. This being so,' if it be so.' It has this force even in direct statement and command, as Mark 3:31;13:35, Luke 3:7;6: 9, 36, John 4:28. The causative and antecedent ground often run into one another, John 2:20. But the antecedent occasion is as common' as the sense of cause (see the discourses in John's Gospel passim). This being so, such and such follows' is the sense which rises up into 'therefore.' A strict cause is δια τουτο, and can be used with ουν, 'therefore' these things being so. John 5:18, sometimes what is so is expressed, as is naturally the case with ει, ',if they are so;’ ὁταν, when they were so,- then,' etc.

Μη. When used where we might suppose ου could be (for it has its own use besides), gives, I think, the state and character, not the fact; but it is only a shade of meaning. Thus Matt. 1:19, Joseph,μη θελων, he being a person, μη θελων, a just man and unwilling;' ου θελων would be the fact. So Acts 27:7,15. It was the state of things, the wind not suffering.' It is not the fact that the wind then and there did not suffer that the ship should easily make her way, but the wind being such that it could not, and (verse 15) the ship was caught and unable. So Acts 12:19. The shape it takes in the mind is the state of Herod, not the fact that he did not find. Compare 2 Cor. 4:18;5. 21; Matt. 7:26; Luke 12:4; John 7:49; Rom. 4:17: so often. Hence it is commonly used with a participle, or future conditional, future, at least in thought, as Luke 17:1; see John 12:47,48,' both cases. So of a state, in the infinitive with article, Luke 8:6;22. 34; _Heb. 11:3; or without, as Luke 18:1, where the article is with δειν. In many cases, when it refers to a fact, the imperative, its very common use, is understood. In questions, it is not merely, as usually stated, the expectation of a negative answer, but a present presentation of it as not so, or of circumstances which made it likely the inquiry would convey a doubt, or undesired, unpleasing possibility, one that can hardly be supposed true, and raises the question -not an inquiry for information. Thus John 18:17,25;6: 67; Mark 2:19. In the last the negative answer meets it. John 7:47, Mark 12:14,15, where on is used for indicative negation of fact, μη for the moral propriety with subjunctive. For the contrast of affirming expected answer with ουχι, see John 7:41,42.

Nαι, though used for yes,' as Matt. 9:28, etc., is, however, something more, as ' yea,' from the uses loquendi, is in English. It affirms positively when a matter might be supposed to be in doubt, or reiterates as a certainty that cannot fail, as Luke 11:51. Query, is it more than simply yes' in Matt. 21:16, a reply, or in any way connected with what follows? But it is very commonly, at any rate, emphatic, as Luke 7:26;12: 5. In Matt. 15:27, Mark 7:28, it is simply ' yea, Lord,' that is, ' yea, Lord, you can do it' even on your own ground, for even,' or since.' It calls in question any opposition.

‘Ωτεe re does not express an intention, but a means or instrument which brings about what follows.

ὁτι a fact which exists, when the οτι is applied.

ἱνα what is in view or intention, when what governs ινα is stated.

‘Ινα is the object and intention of the person or thing from its nature, and sometimes amounts to a telic infinitive [all modern Greek infinitives are formed, I learn, by it (να)]. Hence it is not merely in order that, as an indirect consequence; that is, I do one thing in order that, in its turn, another may follow; but in Greek it is immediate also. 'Oτι answers to what or why, meeting the τι, the what or the why is so and so; hence that answering to what,' and for or because answering to why.' But when there is not cause or object, but intention, or end of anything, it is ἱνα.

Hence with words of request, command, or wish, desire, as 1 Cor. 14:1 (and in sense, 2 Cor. 8:7), it is common; Matt. 4:3;12:10, 20: 21, 31, 33, 26: 63; Mark 7:32,36; Rom. 15:31; Eph. 1:17, etc. etc. Some cases are less evident. Matt. 5:29,30;8: 8, 10: 25, and even 26: 4, Mark 4:21, shows the connection, the object and intention are there, not merely one act in order to another. Mark 6:12, preached, ‘ινα'; 6: 36, let them go, ινα.' Thus we have the direct intention and object of the act, or will, or thing. Luke uses it quite as much (it is not used in an ekbatic sense) in 7: 6, 36, 8: 31, 32, 9: 40, 45, 16: 27, 18: 39, 41, and others. I do not believe, for instance, John 9:2, is for wore; it was not the will of the parents, of course, but the meaning and end of the act. A person may object to this, as contrary to his way of thinking; but so it is. ικανωος ινα is not so that,' but the τελος of the ἱκανοτης in the mind of the writer, and is powerful in style. It is intention, or something to be; ὁτι may be future, if it is a fact, not what is in view as an object. So in 11: 50, συμφερει ἱνα. Is not the sense always future to that on which iva depends: 'Oτι an existing fact? To state a cause you must have the caused fact; an intention looks to the future. In John 6:28, it is not in order that,' i.e., doing one thing that another may come, but with this intention or object to fulfill it; the direct τελοσ of the will in doing, not a subsequent effect, hence ἱνα. And this sentence also gives the clue to its use in 9: 22. It was the intention, object of their agreement. In 4:34, " my meat is ἱνα ποιω." 'On has no place here; it is an infinitive in sense, but it gives the intention. His meat was not having done it, but to do, " If any man θελει to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." Still, John carries its use farther. We understand the intention in the works or speaker's mind of an ἱκαωοτης, fit for (propre ὰ, not pour) that. But John 13:1, εληλυθεν ἡ ὡρα, ἱνα, it was the intention and meaning of that hour, as the writer viewed it, and divinely so. Still it is a special use of it. So 18:39, a custom, ἱνα the object, meaning of the custom; still it is carrying its use very far. So in John's 1st Epistle 1: 9, "faithful and just ἱνα he might forgive;" again a telic infinitive, ὁτι has no place. So 4: 21, here it depends on εντολη, ' the intention of the εντολη was,' etc. In 5: 3, I suppose it is the intention to keep, as in the passage; my meat is '; but this carries its use very far, as it is evident John does (but ὁτι would have another sense) as before in Gospel 4: 34. But in John 17:3, it is merely infinitive (not ὁτι, nor ὡστε). So indeed, practically, is 1 John 5:3 (see above). John 11:19,31, shows how it connects ' in order to' with infinitive. John 11:37, we have ποιησαι ἱνα, "caused this man not to die;" not acted so that he had not, but acted to hinder him dying, only αποθανη so that it was effectual; after need, John 2:25, for any one to bear witness; 5: 7, infinitive; 8: 56, 16: 2 (a strong case). 1 John 5:3, 2 John, 6, 3 John, 4. With the pronoun 'this,' 6: 29, 39, 40; 15: 13, 17: 3; Luke 1:43. The real point, I believe, is besides the common use in. order that,' when it is future, a thing in posse, not in esse, an object in view, hence equivalent to " to " with an infinitive; whereas ὁτι is in esse, not merely in posse. In Matt. 26:34, On seems future, but it is you will have done it before.' In Mark 4:38, it is present, we are perishing.' On is used after speak or write in Greek, when in -English it is left out, as John 4:42, and a multitude of cases. The only strong case as to ἱνα is after αυτος; still, though peculiar and idiomatic, it is an object in view, the thought and will of the person who acts or speaks; Luke 1:43 is the strongest of all, but it is not the fact that she has come, but this, that she should come, should have the thought or mind of coming. So John 17:3, it is not the fact that a person who has known. has life, but the thought that to know is or could be life to him that knew. It is the abstract idea, what life eternal is. It is to know, it is found in knowing, which thus stands as an object to be attained before the mind. This was the way of having it. `0τι would be that they have known a fact about some people, ἱνα is follen, what is to be. So in Luke 1:43, whence' refers to the mind or intention to come, the motive ινα for coming. In the case of αυτος, etc., the thought is, this must be to have the matter in question, a man must know, to have, i.e., the knowing is looked at as a thing to be necessary, not existing. So with greater love hath no one than this, that (ἱνα) life must be laid down to make this good '-i.e., it is not the fact which (On), but viewed as needed and so to be, a moral consequence, not a fact; as I have said,ὁτι always refers to a fact, Eva to an intention. There may be a future with ὁτι, but it is an assertion of the fact (which may be future), as Luke 19:26;18: 8, not an object in purpose or intention. Not' I command, request, that it should;' but I say that it will;' that it should, is in purpose; the other an assertion of fact, though the fact be future. That' or because' are not really different as the meaning of ὁτι; when it means `because' it is practically δια τουτο οτι.

'Eως, is as far as, hence can be with verbs, ἑως εληλυθεν, ἑως ἡμερα εστιν, John 9:4, John 12:35,36, εχετε. Hence with the sense of till or while, because both are 'as long as.' It is not objective; ἑως ἡμεραν, if it were Greek, would be up to day,' during night.' Hence the genitive, which is a genitive absolute. So you can have (which spews its force), ἑως εις, Luke 24:50, and 'Eως ανω, John 2:7; and again, Εως εξω, Rev. 22: 23, εσω, Mark 14:54. There is always the sense of so far as; not merely to as an object, but 'up to,' 'all the way there.' It is not εις, zu, but his zu ihm. Hence it is whilst' with an indicative, as John 9:4 above, or with a conjunctive when it is intention, Mark 6:45, or future προσευξωμαι, as. Matt. 26:36.

Mη, μηποτε etc., not, that not, but, as is known, intention of the mind, not fact, as Matt. 4:6; μηποτε, Thou dash '; μηδεποτε, 2 Tim. 3:7. Oυποτε is not found, replaced by ουδεποτε. Oυ and ουδεποτε are fact. Hence μη with imperative, and with an interrogative, meaning, can you suppose that,' when the intended answer is ‘not': ου, when, yes.' So in moral reasons, μη: δια μη εχειν, Matt. 13:5,6. Hence with participles, as verse 19,μη συνιεντος: Luke 2:45, μη εὑροντος. In Matt. 13:5, ουκ ειχε γην, the fact. The participle is a supposed or assumed state on which the fact is based. So indeed μη in interrogation is a supposition that not. ' Μη thou greater than our father Jacob,' John 4:12. It is a state of mind or of things on which something is based, when not the simple expression of a state of mind, as in the imperative. We have ου μη, not only in assertion, where it is not at all, but in questions also, ου μη and µη ου. But I do not think either a mere' doubling of the negative ου μη is not, certainly not, but no in no case, under no supposition, " the mind cannot entertain the negative." So μη ου is interrogation, as before, but with the sense is it to be supposed," are we to lay it down that,' etc. Oυ μη is used in an' interrogative sense, but with a note of admiration, Luke 18:7. " And God would not avenge his own elect?" Is that to be supposed?' In Heb. 10:1—11 ουδεποτε approaches the nearest to μηδεποτε, but it is the fact; μηδεποτε, in 2 Tim. 3:7, the character of γυναικαρια. Μηκετι and ουκετι follow the same principle. Ουκετι is fact; μηκετ, command, consequence, ὡστε μηκετι, not ουκετι, but they could not, ουκετι. So μηδε Mark 2:2,1.μηκετι with infinitive. In 1 Thess. 3:1,5, it is the participle as before with, μη. The same generally with ὡστε, ὡστε ουκ ει δουλος the fact: `Ωστε μη ισχυειν, the thought as a consequence, not the fact. So Mark 1:45;2: 2, 3: 20. The strict sense of ὡστε is so as,' Matt. 15:33: then' so that,' that,' Matt. 12:22, Gal. 2:13, or with οὑτως, John 3:16, Acts 14:1, But that' with so ' understood—i.e., not intention (ἱνα) but result, even if in thought.

Αλλα, when not a contrasted but; not this, but that,' is an arrest in the thought, in the sense of this. Do I say this? nay, but,' etc. It stops the mind on what was going before, and brings in something else. The ellipse depends on the passage, Acts 10:20: "But arise "; or no ellipse really, but turning to another point, it supposes some contradiction might be urged, or means not only'; but it is never, I think, simply copulative, as alleged. See with 0, Luke 12:51, 2 Cor. 1:13, this peculiar.

NOTE that, as to its primitive force, the genitive is anything in its nature, origin, or character, of. [The word is of Julius Cזsar, they say, and is derived from genus.']

The dative is immediate connection or proximity to.

The accusative, objective, towards. These senses are modified by the preposition, or, rather, the preposition borrows the sense of the case, and adds its own peculiar meaning to give a special form to the thought, as παρα, μετα, εκ: παρα with a genitive, from,' but it is genus still; περι around or about you is more remote from the radical sense, but still the circumstances draw their character from the relationship to the governed word; what they are is περι ὑμων, etc. With the accusative, it is the object whom they do or will refer to, περι εμε. Eκ is only source and characteristic source, hence has only the genitive. Mετα is like περι, the thing is characterized by its association, μεθ’ ἡμων. They are thought of as associated with "us.' This characterizes them: μετα ταυτα, they are separated, and they are a distinct object by themselves when ταυτα are complete, hence they come after. Προς and παρα have genitive, dative, and accusative.

Ava: Besides the idea of respectively, each, we have only ανα μεσον, Matt. 13:25, Mark 7:31, 1 Cor. 6:5, Rev. 7:17, among, between, in the midst of. 1 Cor. 14: 27 shows Connection of prepositional and adverbial use, ανα μερος [each] for [his] part, in, his 'turn, by course; so, by fifties, or fifty each, man by man, each man. Aνα has the accusative from its objective force, up to, reaching up to, in all cases, even when it means each respectively. The translation of it may be various. Aνα μεσον is not εν μεσω, which may be a point unconnected with the rest. Aνα connects the thing which is ava with that ava (up to) which it is, so as to have to say to all. He fills up that to which ava applies. It is not Μittelpunft but mitten unter. Not in the middle but in the midst.

Anti, in the place of, and so for, sometimes, because; the force being, I apprehend, you get this as a recompence,' αντι, answering to.' So Luke 1:20;12: 3; 19: 44; 2 Thess. 2:10, and Eph. 5:31, it passes, by use, into the more general sense of because.' The rest are ' correspondence,' or 'instead of,' James 4:15, the last, John 1:16, ' grace upon grace,' one grace taking the place of another in succession, a beautiful idea.

'Aυα is used for a preposition instead of συν, Matt. 13:29.

Aπο: Genitive: point of departure: Hence, by reason of, occasioned by, (Matt. 13:44;14. 26, Luke 22:45) Acts 11:19, Heb 5:7, Matt. 18:7. On the part of, not simply by but of, away from, Luke 9:22;17: 25; but here, after αποδοκιμαζω. So Acts 2:22, where απο is in the verb, not in 2 Cor. 7:13. It is not for 'ὑπο. The cases are after απο in the verb or after αναπεπαυται which supposes toil, and ceasing to have it; not the present effect of an agent (ὑπο) under whose power and influence the matter happens, or the person is. In a good state, Titus might have been received and cheered ὑπο; though scarcely this last, but not αναπεπαυται when they had been going wrong before. His refreshment now proceeded from them: peace from ' is simple, delivered from,' also; so with παρελθη, Mark 14:35. The point of departure is clear in αφ ἑαυτου, αφ ἑαυτων, etc. Luke 12:57, John 5:19;10.18; 16:13. It is used of material of clothes or food. A mass is supposed, and the part is taken from' it; as we say, made from wool.' So, choice from, Matt. 7:16: απο, point of departure of the judgment: it is a conclusion drawn from, not by means of, instrument ally; in the same verse materially from:' Luke 14:18, απο μιας is idiomatic; said to be, one point of view left out as understood;' if so, it is simple. Their minds started from one point to the common conclusion.

Eκ. Genitive, out of, a place, set of people, or what any one is sunk in, or the like. Hence a moral source: goes deeper than απο;απο is a motive; this a principle. English uses it so, too. He did it out of fear,' 'from fear.' Both are English. There is a shade of difference in the sense, fear in the latter case is a motive, the point of departure of the mind. Eκ supposes one more in the state referred to. I can say, are απο του ὑδατος; one leaves the water to be on land;Εκ του ὑδατος, out of the water in which one was. What answers to απο is ' at,' to; εκ is ' in.' Hence εκ is more abstract εκ πιστεως, on that principle. Απο ευλαβειας, that was the actual governing and producing motive. Eκ is sometimes merely a shade of meaning different from απο, but there is the difference noticed. Hence εκ has the force of the character of anything εκ του κοσμου, εκ του διαβολου, εκ του πατρος. And this tone of thought is found even where place is in question and the article is used. " New Jerusalem descended εκ του ουρανου απο του θεου." It came out of, no doubt, but it stamps its character in revealing its source. Aπο is the point of departure. It came from God Himself. It was heavenly, but it came from God, was not merely divine. Speaking of time, it differs little practically from απο, though the ideal difference remains, απο πολλων ετων since many years, εκ χρονων ἱκανων a long while, beginning from many years ago, and taking its rise in a period which still lasted. The first is a date, the last a characterized period; so εκ νηοτητος. But characterizing, as marking origin out of which anything is, is the common use, where not materially used. "The baptism of John, was it εξ ουρανου; hence, Matt. 1:20, " is of the Holy Ghost;" John 1:13, " born of God." Hence characteristic of the state or thing which causes the action of the verb, one 'lives by faith.' It is not δια, the means of living, but the character of the life. " A tree is known εκ του καρπου," Matt. 12:33 and Luke 6:44. In Matt. 7:16,20, it is απο. The former is characteristic in the thing, the latter a conclusion in knowledge from.' "Οἱ εκ περιτομης:" "ὁ εξ ουρανου:" "ὁ εκ της γης:" "εκ του κοσμου λαλειν:" "οἱ εξ εριδειας." In a multitude of shapes it is used for characterizing, as the source of anything does, only that its use to express character goes far, as in εκ μερους; partly, in part, εξ ισοτητος. It becomes thus adverbial. Thus he agreed with the laborers εκ δηναριου, we say, at a penny, Matt. 20:2. Eκ is commonly used where we have the genitive, where it is one or more from among a set of objects whether left or not:

Eν. Governs the dative. It means properly 'in:' then, with plurals, 'amongst.' Where it is connected with words of motion, it indicates the result in which that motion places and leaves them, ανεληφθη εν δοξη.

It is used to mean what accompanies and characterizes, where we should say, with' `in the power of,' εν ραβδω with a rod.' It is not the origin of the character as a source, but characterizes the power by which we act, see Col. 1:8, εν πνευματι.

A strong case of this instrumental character is in Luke 14:31; if εν δεκα χιλιασσι.... ‘with ten thousand.' So Heb. 9:25, εν αἱματι αλλοτριω: Matt. 6:7, εν πολυλογια. Hence it is not the effective instrument of activity, that is δια, but what characterizes: πολυλογια is not looked at as the means, but as the character of the prayer which will be heard. Hence the state or occasion, 1 Cor. 15:52, εν σαλπιγγι εσχατη; at or during, within, when referring to time, John 2:19,20, εν τρισιν ἡμεραις. So (here more literally used) Matt. 11:25;12: 1, εν εκεινῳ τῳ καιρῳ, John 5:16, εν σοαββατῳ. It has thus the force of the means by which,' εν τουτῳ γνωσονται, John 13:35. We have a peculiar case in εν ὑμιν κρινεται ὁ κοσμος, 1 Cor. 6:2— ' If the judgment of the world shall be characterized by your doing it, surely,' etc.: ifεω ὑμιν—if such be the case with the judgment of the world.' It is not simply as instruments; but if such a judgment be found to be in the hands of the saints, and so characterized as to be by us f if that be the case with that judgment. So in Heb. 10:10, εω ᾡ θεληματι. Christ comes to do God's will. That is what sanctifies us, that will (i.e., Gοd's) which Christ was to do is what sanctifies us. One must in English say by,' but the emphasis is on which.' But it is not the δια of an instrument, but the εν or character of what does it. So he came, Luke 2:27, εν τῳ πνεματι into the temple.' It is not the instrument, but what characterized His coming, only the τῳ personifies the Spirit, i.e., gives personality to the thought, `the Spirit,' as one acting not merely εν πνευματι—i.e., the state of the person. He casts out devils, Matt. 12:24, εν τῳ αρχοντι τ. δ. It was what characterized His power (personally again) or miracle. Acts 20:19, εν ταις επιβουλαις, that was the state of things in which he found himself, and which caused his tears. It was not δια, simply, instrumentally, but what characterized the situation.

Heb. 11:2, εω ταυτῃ, Col. 1:16, εν αυτῳ εκτισθη, in same verse, and compare verse 20, and Heb. 1:1,2, compare εν ὑμιν, 1 Cor. 6:2; Matt. 12:24,27,28; and see use of εν and δια in Rom. 5:9 (comp. 10).

Is not δια an historical word when the fact that took place is looked at as taking place at a given time? Whereas εν is the abiding character and being of Him or it, by which the work is wrought, εω ῳ εκτισθη, δι’αυτου εκτισται, Col. 1:16,17. So Rom. 5:9,10, justified εν τ. α., reconciled δια τ. θ. Then when any one is looked at as a distinct agent or means it is δια, Rom. 5: 9, δἱ αυτου; so Col. 1:20, δἰ αυτου, because Christ is looked at as such, as a distinct person, as a man, though εν αυτῳ is applied to the fullness of the Godhead. Heb. 1:1,2, God spoke εν υἱῳ. There they are not separated; but δἰ οὑ εποιησε, a particular historical act, and God is looked at as distinct, see verse 3 in John 1, δἰ αυτου εγενετο. There He is looked at as a distinct person, verse 2, προς τον θεον, and it is an historical fact. Col 1: 16, εν αυτῳ εκτισθη, its literal ordinary cause and abiding characteristic, δἰ αυτου in verse 20, historical (see the cases further on). Δια is the instrument of a fact, εν an abiding cause or state (δια may be used as a state through which we pass, but it is then, also, only temporary), what characterizes a state which produces a consequence. Thus 2 Cor. 6:5, εν πληγαις would be in that state of things he proved himself a minister: δια πληγων would have been the means of proving himself so. Hence 2 Cor. 6:7,δἰ ὁπλων, because that was the proof. It might be thought that verse 8 δια δυσφημιας και ευφημιας was in going through it, but I doubt it.

In 2 Cor. 6 we have a string of examples, of different shades of meaning, still showing that in which he approved himself a minister of. God; that in which the characterizing power came out in which he was shown to be suitably such. It was not merely that in those states his conduct proved it, nor simply by these things as a means, all concurred in giving evidence. This case is the more remarkable because he changes it after a while to δια. This is only a change of style occasioned by ὁπλων, which were clearly instruments, and not merely characteristic as to the state he was in; and δια goes on rightly because there is contrast,' the most opposite things were the means of showing it. The 'yet' inserted in English (ver. 8) is wrong. So "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (εν) the wife"-not by means of (δια). Then it would be more real; but, just as a Jew was profaned in the Gentile wife- was so characterized in respect of the wife, as, qua husband of the Gentile woman -the marriage gave him this character,-so the converse held good in Christianity, the other stood, as wife, sanctified by the husband; or, vice versa. This characteristic force is plain in many cases, εν αληθεια, εν δολω, εν κρυπτω, εν προσωπω, λογος εν εξουσια -where it does not mean being really in Christ, it is the same with Christ,' or the Lord.' 'Receive her in the Lord,' 'only in the Lord.' That is the sense of the Lord, and what He is in the soul, and what the person is as respects His will and claims, is to characterize the reception, the marrying, etc. So of' children,' "obey your parents in the Lord." "Ye are not in flesh but in spirit." That characterizes your state, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. So Christ was declared to be Son of God 'in power,' εν δθναμει; that characterized the state of sonship of which the proof was 'given. On the whole, when it is not used in a material or local sense, εν characterizes (not in its source that is εκ, but) what accompanies it; very commonly in English it must be rendered ' with' or 'by.' So in English, 'He did it out of hatred' to me. That was its source, cause. 'He did it in hatred' or 'with hatred.' This characterizes the act when he was doing it. 'He did it in self-will.' It is the description of the state or condition in which he who acts is.

Δια: Genitive and accusative. Its sense is through. With a genitive, simply so, physically and morally, or figuratively: with the accusative, more remotely so. It is then a motive or reason for a thing of which the thing is not independent, but not the effective instrument by which an effect is wrought-i.e., that is not the sense of δια with an accusative. There are some important passages connected with this distinction: as to time, the literal 'through,' δια τριων ἡμερων, in the course of (Matt. 26:61); δι'ὁλης της νθκτης, δια πυρος, 1 Cor. 3:15. So I doubt not, δι' ὑδατος, 1 Pet. 3:20. Hence, 'for in a state of,' δι' ακροβυστιας, and

analogously δια της τεκνογονιας, 1 Tim. 2:15; the article denotes the childbirth she was to undergo. Rom. 4:10, we have εν ακροβυστια, the state, as noticed in εν; that characterized his state. In ver. 11, we have εν τη α. and δι'α. δια I apprehend to be more vague and general. That condition specifically and contrastedly characterized Abraham. He was εν ακροβυστια. For Gentile believers it was merely de facto they were in that state. So of τεκνογονιας, so of νυκτος. It is a time, state, or period, not a characteristic. For the rest the application of through' to time, place, and circumstance is very simple. It then comes to mean the instrument or means by which, or through which a thing 'through' through ' being still the radical thought. It is an intermediate instrument; "all things were made by him" (John 1:3). " By whom also he made the worlds" (Heb. 1:2). It is not that the same being may not be the author; but that his action in that case, where δια is used, is looked at as the intermediate instrument of His will, or, it may be, an actually intermediate agency if Divine-" without him was not anything made." This 1 Cor. 8:6, εἱς θεος ὁ πατηρ εξ οὑ -εἱς κυριος δι'οὑ. Christ is the divine Creator, but He is in this case viewed as an agent of a divine will. So Heb. 1:2. The use of δια does not hinder the source of action and the primary agent to be the same person. We read in the chapter, δι'ἑαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος. So in Col. 1:16, we see He was the end and object, τα παντα εις αυτον εκτισται, which is said, as to us at least, distinctively of God the Father, 1 Cor. 8:6; δι'αυτου being applied to Christ. And in Colossians we have εν αυτω εκτισθη (comp. εν) and δι'αυτου. Creation was characterized by his action, as the world's judgment by burs (εν ὑμιν): but there He was the one by whom all things were created. So, "spoken by the prophets," here they were intermediate to the Holy Ghost (δια), it was not αφ'αυτων, but δι'αυτων, Luke 1:70, more fully and absolutely.

The accusative is still through, but a cause or motive, and so more remotely 'through'; not the means or instrument. "They had delivered him through envy," that was the moving cause; their hearts and minds did it; but the medium, intermediate passion, through which they acted, was envy. Matt. 13:58, "because of their unbelief," still 'through,' but it was not indeed a motive, but a cause, what occasioned it, because. Here we may notice John 6:57, κἀγω ζω δια τον πατερα κ.ὁ.τ.μ. ζησεται δι'εμε: "'because' of the Father, he that eats Me even he shall live 'because' of Me:" again not as motive, but cause or reason why (14:19, ὁτι εγω ζω και ὑμεις ζησεσθε). There was such connection between Him and the Father, that because the Father lived, He lived. The Lord only states the fact, we know they were one. What the Lord states is that it was not an independent life, but that, as inasmuch as the Father lived, he lived. The two things could not be separated, and He, speaking as on earth, takes the dependent side, yet the connection was such that if His Father did, He did. So, he that eats Him will live, by reason of His living. There was an indissoluble connection. Yet our life is dependent on His, but therefore cannot fail. So Rev. 11, 'through, ' 'by reason of.' The use of δια with an accusative for a motive is common: thus, John 7:13, Matt. 12:27, so with το and an infinitive, Luke 2:4: both genitive and accusative, Rom. 5:12: so, διατι, δια.

There is another point to be mentioned in connection with the intermediate character of δια. When the instrument is the proper cause or instrument, the immediate instrument, the noun, is in the dative (the δι'ἑαυτου of Heb. 1:3 only confirms it). The genitive with δια is viewed as another agent from the one who uses it-as a distinct agent. Thus, Rom. 5:15,17, τω του ἑνος παραπτωματι; then 16, δι'ἑνος ἁμαρτησαντος, το δωρημα, by the offense of one, it was the act of the offender himself which brought ruin on all that belonged to him; it was not merely through it as a distinct means, but that act of the one brought the evil in on the many; but God's free gift was by the means of a person brought before us distinctly. So 17, τω του ἑνος παραπτωματι ὁ θανατος εωασιλευσε δια του ἑνος; here the one Adam is viewed as a distinct person from death personified, but "by the offense of one" was his act; so at the end of 17, δια του ἑνος Ιησου Χριστου. In 18, we have it as a distinct act, δι' ἑνος παραπτωματος, εις παντας, in and by itself as a means, "and so by one righteousness." Compare the use of 'εν' in this same passage. The dative is a mere means identified with the agent, the δια makes a distinct object to the mind.

In Heb. 13:20, 'the God of peace brought Christ from the dead, εν αἱματι,' in that way and character; but in Heb. 9. He entered in once, δια του ιδιου αἱματος' (ver. 12). This refers to ου χωρις αἱματος of ver. 7. I do not think it means that that was the means of His entering in simply. As to Himself, His person, we all know it was not so, He says, "the Son of man who is in heaven," and could, as to the external fact, have had twelve legions of angels. This is not the question. But even as to us it is not simply that it was needed, but that was the way and state in which He entered in: not He, got in by that means even as to us, but He went in in that way. The glorious work, according to the importance. and character of the place, would not otherwise have been, suitably done, but He did so enter in δια, for it is the force of δια I inquire into here. Χωρις αἱματος, there could have been no fitting association, however small, between Israel and the most holy place, and He entered in thus offering it (προσφερει). Christ as our High Priest, and representing us, could not enter thus without blood, or, as regards us, God would not have been glorified, so He entered, δια His own, showing, indeed, His own worth and perfectness not only to be there Himself, but to obtain the entrance of others and (before that) guilty ones; and as Priest He enters in with this, to present in its power and efficacy for others. It was the witness that He had put away their sins, so that they could come to God, and God was fully glorified. The holiness of the place required this blood-shedding, seeing sin had come in, but according to a holy redemption, in which the innocent never would have been. So He entered in δια His own blood. Man could have had that place in no other way. And He had taken up man's cause. (Christ's personal place is more in the cloud of incense, which is not in question here.) This is a little obscure, but right. It was His act, not His necessity; He entered in with that in its power, and not (as I have said) got in by it.

Εις is in general simple. The direction towards; reaching, if not hindered. I am going to Rome.' It is well known that where it is used with verbs of rest it implies arrival there by motion. "Thou wilt, not leave my soul εις ἁδου," where it had gone on leaving the body. What is said (Acts 8:23) of Simon, that he was; (see 2 Thess. 2:4, where it depends on the active force of καθισαι, sets himself down there). εις χολην πικαριας is different in sense from εν. Εν would have been a mere state; here there was will, and the bent of his own mind; 'given up to' would not express it. That implies another, possibly final possession by it. But his mind was gone that way; 'your heart is gone into the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity:' οντα is its state, but its then state was to have given itself to that. Mark 8:19 is plain enough, it is the direction of the act; he broke it to them, giving it to them, the act was towards them. So, ἁμαρτανς εις, Matt. 18:15, against thee, as to thee, that was the direction his sin took. So Luke 12:10, speak a word against, as to. It is used also for time, ver. 19, "laid up for many years." As we say against winter, as provisions, or for. So for an object, aim, or purpose, Matt. 26:8, εις τι ἡ απωλεια (Mark 14:4;15. 34), " to what purpose is this waste." (Where it is a contact of violence επι is used; nation shall rise επι nation.) This use of as to as an object is common. " She has wrought a good work εις εμε," and in several forms, as the baptism of repentance εις αφεσιν ἁμαρτιων. Mark 1:4,38, εις τουτο εξεληλυθα. In connection with the object to which the mind or faith is directed, we have πιστευω εις. So Ελπιζω εις, 2 Cor. 1:10; as in John 6:47; 7:38; 12:44, and frequently. When it is the believing simply what a man says, it is the dative, as x. 37 and 38, and elsewhere. 1 John 5:13, πιστευω εις το ονομα; and to the same purport, βαπτιζω εις το ονομα, εις Μωσην, εις το βαπτισμα Ιωαννου, εις Χριστον. It is that at which they arrived, to which they were attached by the baptism as they went to Christ. Here morally, as to Rome materially. See 1 Cor. 12:13, Matt. 28.19, with Jesus. It is επι τω ονοματι in Acts 2:38, εις το in Acts 19:1; so 1 Cor. 1:13, etc. A singular use of this is in Matt. 10:41, in the name of a prophet, εις ονομα. Εν ονοματι would, it seems to me, be in another's name (επι, Matt. 18:5, Mark 9:37, as the condition of reception), as John 5:43, where the end of the verse has the same force, pleading, presenting himself, his name, as warrant for reception, as Jesus did the Father's; whereas here εις ονομα is not the warrant for receiving, but that to which they were received, i.e., according to the honor due to a prophet he was received into that place. Εν ονοματι is bearing it as a character and warrant of reception, εις the place and title in (into) which he is received. Where we have εις το γενεσθαι (Rom. 4:18), it is no purpose in the person, nor so that it so resulted, but the bearing of the act, "he believed in hope to the becoming." So εις το ειναι δικαιον,3:26: so 1:20, Acts 3:19; 1 Cor. 8:10; 2 Cor. 7:3; Eph. 1:18; see 1 Thess. 4:9. This idea of an effect or the bearing of any act takes some times a very peculiar form. "The Ninevites repented εις το κηρυγμα." They met the preaching by repentance, Matt. 12:41. So 14:31, εις τι εδιστασας, "to what [end] or to what [purpose]." In the first passage it takes the form of a cause, but having an effect characteristic of the cause. In the second, cause is supposed, wherefore, for the question why supposes a cause, here the want of one. What was the good of it? But it never loses its etymological sense. The idea of towards' requires little notice: in the sense of for, in favor of, διακονιας εις ἁγιους, 2 Cor. 4, and 9:1: so λογιας, 1 Cor. 16:1. The use of it in 15:54, is striking; "death is swallowed up εις νικος," not in,' as if it was lost in a sea which subsisted, but absorbed into' a victorious power and gone. The end and object is apparent in Phil. 1:5, "your fellowship, εις το ευαγγελιον," so 2:22, εδουλευσεν εις το ευαγγελιον; 4:15,17, εις λογον, 'to put to the account,' I apprehend. Col. 3:10, ανακαινομενον εις απιγνωσιν (comp. 1:10, αυξανομενοι τη ε). So ver. 12, ἱκανωσεν ἡμας εις την μεριδα, where the force of εις is the same. It is the goal reached, or to be reached, by ανακαινουμενοι and ἱκανωσεν. I remark on Gal. 3:17. It is to Christ, not in. The covenant was confirmed to Him, the seed (according to Gen. 22), and then we have an example of εις το, as the bearing, ουκ ακυροι, ις το καταργησαι την επαγγελιαν, to the making of no effect. In 2 Cor. 10:16, besides εις το, we have εις τα ἑτοιμα; so in ver. 13, 15, εις τα αμετρα, and 16, εις τα ὑπερεκεινα. (See Gal. 6:4), 2 Cor. 2:9, "obedient εις παντα"; Phil. 2:16, εις ἡμεραν. All these, and other like cases which present the same difficulty, I apprehend flow all from the idea of reaching to the object looked forward to, so as to be up to or fail in this. See a peculiar case, Luke 13:9. As to time this is common. So I suppose "the law a schoolmaster εις Χριστον," reaching unto Him as its object (compare Eph. 1:14), εις τα αμετρα, εις τα ὑπερεκεινα, and εις τα ἑτοιμα, with some irony; 2 Cor. 11:3, εις τον Χριστον. But it has the general sense of as to, concerning, as the object of thought, thus 1 Thess. 5:18, Eph. 5:32; but in both with "you," with 6° Christ," with "the church," as the object in view. See Gal. 5:10. So above, 2 Cor. 2:9, Luke 16:8, 1 Thess. and Eph. are the strongest, for the mere sense of concerning 'as to,' but they have the force of application to, as applying to. Τενεσθαι εις is simple in structure, to become anything, what is produced. Δογιζεσθαι 'esteemed such,' is pretty nearly as plain. See the difference of ελλογειται and ελογισθη, the former putting so much to account, Rom. 5:13, Phil. 18; only, I believe, in these two places. λογιξομαι, 'to esteem, or account as such.'

Επι, with genitive, dative, and accusative. The two first, upon; the last, to, towards, to direct oneself; επι anything, as usual with the accusative, motion, not rest. I state here generally that the genitive is the fact, the dative is more characteristic or permanent connection. With the genitive it signifies on, or before (as before magistrates, etc.); επι Τιτου, 2 Cor. 7:14. aupres de. Most cases where the sense is not physical still have the sense of on. Miracles on the sick, επ'εσχατου των ἡμερων, the last of the days. It is always 'at,' or 'approximation,' but as added, or upon.

It is used for time, hence Matt. 1:11, επι της μετοικεσιας; so Luke 3:2, Acts 11:28. I doubt as to Mark 2:26, and 12:26, whether it do not mean the section of Jewish Scripture. The general sense is adjunctive apposition, without fixed relationship, with the general thought of super-induced. This connects it with the sense of before. Hence we have over anything, in the Genitive, or upon, as, ὁ ων επι παντων Θεος, Rom. 9:5. But here peculiarities have to be noticed, and shades of thought in the writer. Eph. 4:6, we have again Θεος ὁ επι παντων: so with βασιλευει επι. Matt. 2:22, καθιστημι. Acts 6:3, οὑς καταστησομεν επι, της χρειας ταυτης: Acts 8:27; 12:20. We may add Rev. 9:11, 11:6. In Matt. 24:45, the genitive (καταστησω), but in ver. 47 the dative. So in Luke 12:42, the genitive, and ver. 44 the dative. Matt. 25:21,23, genitive with καταστησω (επι πολλων). The general sense of επι is at, and so upon, before, at, over, against. All these are forms of juxtaposition. But the dative gives more closeness of connection, as in a relative place of charge, when used in the literal sense. As to over, the fact is expressed in the genitive, it is mere place; so of before; 'over many things,' 'over his household,' the fact of being, living, or placed above, suffices. With the dative it is not the fact, but the relation conferred. One was over the θεραπεια, in a place of course, but in a superior one. So over many things. That is in the genitive. So where God is spoken of, it is the genitive. Of course He is above-or over all things. But "set him over all his goods " is a distinct, relative, permanent place, definitively given. There it is the dative. Locality is genitive, 'before magistrates,' 'on a hill '; but επι with the dative characterizes a state, and in such cases without an article, and denotes the state or character not merely the locality, επι πινακι, Matt. 14:8. Acts 9:33, κατακειμενον επι κραββατω (comp. Mark 2:4), that was his state. In Mark 6:55, we have carrying about the sick, επι τοις κραββατοισ, the dative; it was their state, but the article chews the beds the sick were lying habitually on; in 7:30, we have βεβλημενην επι της κλινης; it was the fact. Sitting on horseback,' Rev. 6:2,3,5, is the dative. It was a fixed characteristic relationship; given as such. 4:2 on the throne, genitive, it was a fact, a locality. Often sitting has the accusative as if the act of him who sits, sets himself on. One must not press the grammar as to language in Revelation, but so it is in 4:4. The constant use of the dative is to present the condition, occasion, cause, circumstance, which gives its occasion to the existence of what it refers to. This in a multitude of shapes, but always that, by reason, or occasion of which the act takes place, sometimes a formal condition, sometimes a mere occasion. The cases are very frequent. Matt. 4:4, "man lives επι παντι ρηματι." It is the condition or occasion of his living: 7:28, "they were astonished επι τη διδαχη." It was the occasion, what led to their astonishment; as we say, at.' This is often found. I add a considerable list; -Matt. 19:9, by reason of; 22:33; Mark 1:22; 3:5, " He was grieved επι τη πωρωσεις' 9: 37, επι τω ονοματι μου: his name was the occasion and motive for receiving: so, v. 39, and chap. 10:22, Luke 1:14; 5:5, 9:48, 13:17. Acts 3:12,16, the second case worthy of remark, επι τη πιστει (see Phil. 3:9), or faith, we might say, iv. 21, v. 35, is also a special case, "take heed," επι τοις ανθρωποις τουτοισ, it was the occasion or object which was the occasion, what the) were was a motive. It is a more unusual case, Acts 8:2. I suppose, by his occasion," by reason of him.' So we should say in English over him. It is almost literal. It is not ὑπερ αυτω. 14:3 (see Heb. 1; Acts 5:35, 2 Cor. 9:14), as to the last the Lord being the occasion and motive, the moving object. As to is the nearly resulting sense, but weak. Acts 15:31; 20:38; 26:6, Rom. 5:2; 10:19, 1 Cor. 1:4; 9:10, moved sustained by hope. 13:6, 14:16, 2 Cor. 1:4; 3:14 the occasion, but the force of occasioning is small: still it is at, on that occasion. 12: 4, 7, 13, the first is again 'occasion' ('as to') without motive; second, its common use; third, the same again, επι Τιτου v. 14 in aupres de, analogous to before a magistrate. The sense very general, 'my boasting in the case of Titus, my Titus boasting. 9:13, 15, simple cases: as to 14, it is more doubtful; but I believe it to be 'in your case;' see 1 Thess. 3:7. I doubt its being upon. Eph. 2:10, with that in view, under that condition -I do not mean as a condition to be fulfilled, -but he so created us, that being the state and character which entered into the ( conditions of the creation in God's mind (see 1 Thess. 4:7). Phil. 1:3, 5; 3:9; again επι τη πιστει, moyenant Acts 3:16;1 Thess. 3: 7, 9, 4:7. These are as to, by occasion of,' by reason of,' what comes in as at occasion or ground, Titus 1:2, επ'ελπιδι; this calls for attention. It is in view of having that as his object. As the good works or holiness, so this hope was it God's mind (now revealed), one of the conditions o existence of this gospel scheme. Philem. 1:7, Heb. 7:11, under that condition and order of things. The law being the condition of their existence with God their raison. d'ךtre. So Heb. 9:10, 15,17,26, (8 seems to me a case we have had, amounting in sense to in respect of, taking these into view, as to these this is the sum: the summing up to be attached to them; see Acts 5:35, 2 Cor. 9:14, Acts 14:3), Heb. 10:28. This connects with another branch of the same general meaning, but the two or three were the condition of conviction, James 5:1, Rev. 18:9, this is, as to her, on her occasion; so verse 11. I have dwelt on this, because the general idea of the condition of existence of that which is expressed in the verb is, where it is not physical, the main use of επι with the dative. The accusative, as ever, puts the object farther off, and supposes or states movement towards it. Some cases may appear singular, and, as with as, verbs of rest are so put, if movement has led to it: and the difference depends on what is in the writer's mind. Some cases remain; duration of time, ' till,' has επι with an accusative; it looks forward to it as a point for time to move on to. As Acts 17:2;19: 8, 10, 20: 9, 11, Rom. 7:1, Gal. 4:1, Acts 18:20, and doubtless others. When it is a given point attained we have the genitive, as Heb. 1:1; 2 Peter 3:3 (comp. Luke 3:2, Acts 11:28). As to falling and sitting, genitive and accusative will be found, I apprehend, as the writer looks at the act of falling (accusative), or to the result and to the ground (there genitive). One would be, fell to,' the other on '; compare Matt. 26:7, the act, with accusative: 12, the result when on the body (genitive); Luke 22:44, accusative. In Acts 10:11, we have both: the sheet was καταβαινον επ'αυτον, and καθιεμενον επι της γης there it was actually on it. Rev. 4:2,4, you have both with καθημενον. Luke 22:30, it is genitive (so as to eating at table). Rev. 20:4, accusative: sat ' is more active here. Acts 12:21, genitive: ' being set down επι του βηματος.' Matt. 23:2, genitive: "sit on Moses' seat." 25:31, genitive, ' on the throne of his glory.' In Matt. 24:3, we have the genitive; Luke 21:35, accusative. Then with καθημαι, Acts 8:28, genitive, John 12:15, accusative. Perhaps we might say 'seated on' for genitive, sitting on' for accusative. The genitive is the fact of locality, the accusative more the activity of the person. (In Rev. 6:2,4,5, αυτω should be αυτον, accusative). Matt. 9:9, accusative. In chap. 28: 2, αυτου επανω being locality always, has always the genitive. The only apparent exception is 1 Cor. 15:6; but that is attractively governed by ωφθη. There are a few other cases to notice: John 8:7, επ'αυτη; 59, επ'αυτον. The latter, simple and physical, "cast stones at him:" 7, "let him first cast the stone in respect of her, with her in view, as to her." In Matt. 16:18, "on this rock," dative. 1 Cor. 3:12, "build on this foundation," επι (accusative). The former, I apprehend, fixed relationship, as we have-seen. It is the object to which his activity tends in the actual fact of building. The rock is there; he builds on it. In the second he actively adds materials to the foundation. Heb. 10:21; 3:6, 12, 13, and 8:8, are all accusative, which may be noted. 'Over the house,' etc., is always the accusative. There are other passages, as Acts 7:10, Luke 1:33. It is not locality, not proper relationship as connected with it, but set over.' In the case of superiority necessarily and permanently abiding over various things or persons, it is genitive, as we have seen (Matt. 24:45, Luke 12:42), and when set over in formed determinate relationship, dative (Matt. 24:47, Luke 12:44). Here with setting over a house or people,' accusative. He is at the head of the house; I could not say at the head of all his goods, but over them. You could not have the immediate relationship with a house, and it falls into the government of what has set him there. (I doubt the word own' in Heb. 3:6; it does not affect this question). There remains: πιστευω επι, ελπιξω επι, etc. Thus, we have 1 Tim. 4:10, ηλπικαμεν επι Θεω; v. 5, επι Θεον; 1 Peter 3:5, ελπιξουσαι επι τον Θεον; 1 John 3:3, ελπιδα εχειν επ'αυτω; Heb. 2:13, εσομαι πεποιθως επ'αυτω; Rom. 15:12, επ' αυτω ελπιουσι. In these counting, reckoning, leaning on Him, as in English. 1 Tim. 6:17, dative, riches. The difference is the same, the accusative looks out at the object of trust (often εις), the dative rests in Him on whom we lean. The difference of idea with the same fact is seen in. Matt. 26:7,12, the act and the result, when it was on his body, the first accusative, the second genitive. The general idea of adding with a dative is frequent, επι πασι, επι τουτοις "Besides these I have gained ten, or five, talents more," Matt. 25:20, 22. "Besides all this, shut up John in prison," Luke 3:20, and in many ordinary cases, as Eph. 6:16. What is Rom. 4:18? The condition or state of his mind in believing, as in 1 Cor. 9:10, and Rom. 8:20. (The first, Rom. 4:18, only doubtful because of πιςτευω) we say on trust,' or credit,' in the same way (not on hope). It characterizes the state or condition.

Κατα, save in a few isolated cases, does not present any difficulty in its application. It means literally down with a genitive; and with the accusative, down along, primarily; but it seems to me to have more the sense of going through the governed object; even in the genitive it is not down to an object, but down along,' as a hill. Its secondary meaning in the genitive, and more frequent in N. T. is against. In the accusative it has more distinctly the sense of along, through, amongst, throughout, when literally used. Its secondary meaning is the object governed by it measuring the action which is connected with it by κατα, according to the sense of the word governed by it, as καθ'ἡμεραν, day by day, or every day: κατ'οικον. It is much oftener used in the accusative than in the genitive, and in most cases can be translated according to. It has always the same sense, though it cannot be rendered the same in English, but the action of the sentence is measured or estimated by the word governed by κατα, whatever comes under that category; thus καθ'ὁδον, κατα πασαν αιτιαν, so far as for every cause. Here the every cause measures the action: κατ'επαγγελιαν ξωης, this measured the Apostleship and so gave it its character. He was an Apostle by the will of God in a service morally measured and characterized by that: περιπατειν κατα αγαπην, ξην κατα την αἱρεσιν; according to love, and the principle of that sect were the measure and character of his walk and life. It is always the same fundamentally, as κατα τας πλατειας, his walk was measured and characterized by the streets of the city, or ὁγην την χωραν, 'all the region.'

Hence it has the sense implicitly of through or thorough, and this is the origin of its use in composition, κρινω, κατακρινω, καταχρωμενος, where the sense is not abusing,' but using' it as ours.

A few questions arise. What is 1 Cor. 15:15, "borne witness κατα Θεου"? We find also swearing by God, Matt. 26:63, and Heb. 6:13,16. But I believe the sense to be reaching to and embracing all through' its object. When the swearing is merely the fact of bringing a person in, it is εν, not κατα, as in all N. T. examples,- I believe, but Matt. 26 and Heb. 6, where the solemnity of the case gives κατα, and against has the same radical force. The connection of the two is seen in 1 Cor. 15:15, we have testified of God, κατα του Θεου. It reached to and embraced even God, so as to comprise Him in the matter; we have said that He raised Him. Hence we can have καθ'ὁλης της περιχωρου, and ὁλην την πολιν; the general idea being the same,' reaching to and embracing,' going through,' only the genitive being more of local rest, throughout,' and the accusative connected with motion, or objective, his walk reached to the whole city and took it in; the καθ'ὁλης is more complete and absolute, more pervading than καθ'ὁλην; but this, though seemingly a nice difference, is distinct enough when the mind expresses it. "A fame went throughout the whole region," gives the idea of pervading; " he went through all Galilee," the country he traversed as a general fact, going to different parts of the whole country. Yet these things form the power and beauty of style. I could hardly say "he went καθ'ὁλης της πολεως." It fills the place too much, unless he went to every house in it, and then there is too much the object of activity. But 'reaching to,' embracing,' and so measured by it materially or morally, is always the leading idea, taking in that and measured by it in the sentence in which it is used, against, according to, down, are the general English translation. Hence we have καθ'ὁμας with the sense of apud; see Rom. 16:5, 1 Cor. 16:19, Col. 4:15, church in his house. In English, your' being the sense, "a poet of yours." Acts 17:28, "your faith," Acts 17:28, Col. 4:7, Eph. 6:21, Phil. 1:12, Eph. 1:15, faith found with you' It is still carrying the mind on to them and taking them in; what precedes is found there, it singles him out as belonging to them, the measure of his character was that it was theirs. See 1 Peter 4:14; here measure.' We say in English, as far as they are concerned,' Rom. 11:21,24, κατα φυσιν κλαδοι natural branches, or according to nature,' it was their measure, estimate, and character; other branches were not that, but παρα φυσιν. Hence καθ'ὁδον, Acts 8:36, journeying characterized the place of the vision, it was not κατ'οικον, but καθ'ὁδον.

Μετα is simple enough; it is juxtaposition; o-vv is connection. Hence, μετα with the genitive is among, with; but in the accusative, still juxtaposition, but what is μετα is removed on, and at the end of what it is placed in juxtaposition to. Practically it is always with, when the noun is in the genitive, and often when in the accusative. I know but one sentence where the sense is doubtful, Luke 1:72. The English can hardly be borne out. The fathers are looked at as those with whom mercy was in exercise, but in the blessing confirmed in their children, according to the promise made to them.

Παρα is always by, by the side of, and, in genitive and dative, as far as I am aware, near a person.' In the genitive 'from with a person,' in the dative, with or near him. In the accusative having the force of movement withal it refers also to places, but still with the force of beside: hut hence may mean beyond, outside of, out of the way, along, besides, but always with the same radical force: πιπτειν παρα την ὁδον, 'by the way side,' περιπατειν παρα την θαλασσαν, ἁμαρτωλοι παρα παντας beyond all, ἡμερα παρ'ημερας, beyond, i.e., as better, παρα φυσιν, 'unnatural," not according to nature,' something beside and beyond it, παρ'ελπιδα, beyond hope: παρα τον κτισαντα, more than, besides, and beyond. 1 Cor. 12:15, is the only difficult passage I am aware of; I do not think it can be on account of ' παρα has also thus the force of comparison, excellent; παρα because it is beyond the thing compared with. Παρα τουτο is I apprehend assuming this to be so, if I set this by the side of the other, supposing it is not a foot, is it therefore not of the body?

Περι is simply about, the accusative, giving as usual more the idea of activity as to the object, even where the sense is substantially the same, of οἱ καθημενοι περι αντον: περι εμε Phil. 2:23: αἱ περιθυμιαι περι τα λοιπα.

Mark 4:19. The only thing to remark is Acts 25 where it may be a question whether it is to be connected with σταθεντεσ, which is hardly the case, and so used physically (compare 7), or with επεφερον, concerning him. It runs into the sense of in reference to. It answers to about in English pretty exactly. There is the well known peculiarity of οἱ περι τινα being used for the person himself as Acts 13:13, 'including;' προς τς περι (M. scat M.), John 11:19, where it is the persons themselves, hence Tas. If Acts 25:18 be not so there is no example of περι governing the genitive in the N. T. in a material sense. With the noun in the accusative it is frequent. The different shade of meaning may be noticed in Phil. 2:19,20,23, περι ὑμων. In 20, it was the actual circumstances that surrounded them, the state they were in. In 23, it was what related to him, what was going to happen to him, what referred to him, not what he was then in. But these are mere shades of thought, yet sensible ones, and give beauty and tone to speech. As regards things and places to which the things which are περι refer, we have seen that in N. T., if it be not the one exception, the word after περι is always in the accusative.

Προ, genitive only; before, as to time, place, and hence in front of, as in English. It calls for no particular remark.

Προς, gen., dat., ace. Its common us is the accusative with, as ever, the thought of motion towards a remote object, or rather an object not in connection already with that which acts by the preposition. There are but six exceptions (two, new readings) in the N. T. to the objective case, in die Richtung hin. Five have the dative, where it is at, connection, proximity. Thus Luke 19:37, εγγιξοντος προς την καταβασιν would be " drawing near the descent," but τη καταβασει, "as he drew near (i.e., Jerusalem) at the descent," etc. The only case that requires any notice is the one instance of the genitive, Acts 27:34, in which the genitive force is remote at first sight, but it was towards the side of connected with, their safety that their eating took place. With the genitive it seems to me there is an ellipse; προς τινος, by some one, that is, by, at his side. The text is the same; it was on the side of; associated with their safety. It was προς, in the direction of the accomplishment of their safety. Hence 'for' is quite right in sense. Προς always directs the thought to; hence the accusative is its natural case, but it may show me something directing me towards another as its cause or source, and then it is genitive. If directing my thoughts to it, as at, it is dative; if as towards, the accusative προς το ὁρον, 'towards the mountain;' προς τω ὁρει still so, but at it, an der, an die. We have προς ἑαυτους, προς αλληλους διελογισεσθε, because it was in addressing, speaking to, each other. So Acts 28:25, a more striking case. The objectivity is less sensible in some cases, but still is there, as in περι. " Are not his sisters all προς ἡμας," Mark 6:3; so 9:19, προς ὑμας (so John 1:2, Mark 2:2;4: 1, 1 Cor. 16:6,7,10, 2 Cor. 12: 21) 'with you,' not μετα associated, but 'apud,' not cum.' So προς καιρον πιστευουσι up to a certain time,' a more unusual case is Luke 12: 47, προς το θελημα, not κατα taking it as the rule or measure, but up to it, reaching it, acting with a view to it, as an object to be attained, had it as his object. It was not failure in measure merely, but in purpose, and taking it as his measure, the object of his mind and will; and this sense (practically' according to') goes far in its use. 2 Cor. 5:10, " received according to what he has done," προς ἁ. Gal. 2:14, προς την αληθειαν, according to the truth, keeping it in view as an object; Eph. 3:4, 2 Cor. 3:4: so, "we have peace towards God," Rom. 5:1, looking at Him as the object. Acts 24:16, conscience, and Rom. 15:17, a more peculiar case, but the same. Hence it may be comparative, as the object to which we refer, Rom. 8:18. Hence Matt. 19:8, "Moses in view of the hardness of your heart." So προς τους αγγελους, Heb. 1:7,8, as to, speaking with them in view in his mind. As to time we have προς, towards, προς ἑσπεραν, Luke 24:29, 1 Cor. 7:5, προς καιρον 'up to a certain time,' for a season.' It is used as to swearing to any one. Mark 9:10, some ' kept it to themselves.' Mark 13:22, note, in order to seduce' the object; in Matt. we find ὡστε πλανησαι.

It practically has the sense of against with certain verbs. They murmured against the disciples,' Luke 5:30, they were the objects of their murmur; Luke 20:19, with them in view. 'At' would do in English. Acts 19:38; 23:30; 24:19; 25:14, 1 Cor. 6:1, so Eph. 6:12, but still as the object in view; thus in Col. 3: 19, towards would do as well as against, or better. Another use of it still with the sense of having the other as an objective view is found 2 Cor. 6:14,15, fellowship of light with darkness, concord of Christ with Belial. If I bring one to the other there is no concord or fellowship, nothing in common. In Eph. 4:12, the object is the perfecting of the saints, a result to be attained as a second consequence was ministry and the body. It is to be noted that the individual saint comes first in Ephesians, though the epistle be full of the church. Eph. 5:31 is somewhat peculiar joined to, not with. He was to "leave father and mother and be joined to her."

The object is distinctly seen in 1 Tim. 4:7,8, 2 Tim. 3:16,17, 2 Peter 1:3. In Heb. 1.13, it may be, doubtful if to or as to be best, on account of its common use after speaking, see vers. 7, 8. See 1 John 5:16,17: we see that object does not mean always mental intention, but προς in fact, and here James 4:5 comes in.

Συν needs no comment. It is with governing a dative. It is different from "hem in that it is not only accompanying as to being together or near so as to mean after, as we have seen, with the accusative; but association, Connection. There is no passage requiring observation. It naturally governs the dative, which is the case of close connection or relationship, as the accusative is of object in view. I add, it is together in something common to both, not mere proximity as μετα.

'Υπερ requires more attention: over is its natural meaning; only over, not on-that would be επι. Then with the accusative, which always gives an object or motion, over in place,' i.e., beyond; ὑπερ in the genitive in the moral sense, in which alone it is used in the N. T., has the sense of for, in favor of, and as for also has in English, in the place of, in that place in which another would have been, if the one who is there for him had not, or at any rate, taking that place when lie cannot. Thus, to pray for, or in favor of,' it takes hence the sense of for in general in favoring or having any good (i.e., what is favorable) as an object, 2 Cor. 1:11, "by prayer ὑπερ ἡμων:" 2 Cor. 1:6, "for your consolation ' ὑπερ του ονοματος αυτου: Rom. 8:31,32, Θεος ὑπερ ἡμων: Rom. 1:5, ὑπερ του ονοματος ςυτου: John 17:19, "ὑπερ αυτων, I sanctify myself." Hence it runs into the sense of on our account, as 2 Cor. 5:12, " to glory on our behalf;" so vii. 4, and even into in respect of, but still in the sense of favorable feeling: 2 Cor. 7:4,7,14.

All this is sufficiently plain. It is the same in English with for.' The remaining point is that as it descends to what is, in respect of,' so it rises to the sense of ' instead of,' in the place of so, in English, I could not do it, but he has done it for me.' It is in my favor,' but means withal, in my stead.' Its being in my favor does not drop out of the sense, but there is the added idea of its being done in my stead. Thus in 2 Cor. 5:20, ὑπερ Χριστου πρεσβευομεν, with the context which precedes.

In 1 Peter 3:18, "'Christ suffered περι ἁμαρτιων," so 1 John 2:2; but 4:1, ὑπερ ἡμων, and in 1 Peter 3:18, itself ὑπερ αδικων. So 2:21 and often. Nor is it merely on our account, through us, that is &a, 1 Peter 1:20. He has been manifested δι'ἡμας; so Christ was περι ἁμαρτιας "a sacrifice for sin," the technical word therefore for the sin offering, Heb. 10:6,8, and Rom. 8:3. But in Heb. 5:1, and 7:27, we have ὑπερ ἁμαρτιων, also in the former case in the same sentence with ὑπερ ανθρωπων. This is the extreme case noticed of descending to the sense in respect of.' Still it is in the sense of an object which the favor of the actor or efficacy of the instrument would obtain for us. Nor is περι ἁμαρτιας or περι ἁμαρτιων and ὑπερ ἁμαρτιων the same thing: περι may be to God, according to the exigency of His righteousness and glory, ὑπερ ἁμαρτιων is always, I apprehend, in view of some one in whose favor, to whose advantage, it is done. The cases are 1 Cor. 15:3, Gal. 1:4, our in both cases. Heb. 5:1,3; 7:27, 9:7, where the connection of the two, persons and errors, is most complete; 10:12, the most abstract of all and like περι, but I do not apprehend ὑπερ ἁμαρτιας, is to be found in the N. T. nor would be put. In general it is the object of interest, favor, or action, not merely a subject, but an object, and in the heart of' the agent, or purpose of the instrument, and hence different from περι or δια.

'Υπο, under, genitive and accusative. The meaning, where not physical, as ὑπο της γης (in Rev. 5:3,13, it is ὑποκατω), is under the influence or effect of,' under the power of,' and so the effect of a cause. The accusative, as usual, introducing motion towards an object, at least of thought; thus 1 Cor. 10:9, ὑπο των οφεων απολεσθαι; Acts 15:4, αποδεχεσθαι ὑπο της εκκλησιας; John 14:21, αγαπασθαι ὑπο του πατρος. The reception, the love (flowed from Him), was the effect of an influence corning out from Him; πασχειν ὑπο, which gives its essential force, for it is used with the passive, as we say, suffer under' a thing or person; Mark 5:25, 1 Thess. 2:14. 2 Cor. 11:24, the sense is this with ελαβον. So Heb. 12:3, with ὑπομεινω). 2 Peter 1:17 is more peculiar; it is the principal thing under the effect or influence of which the other happened, though not absolutely a cause or instrument, which directly is not, the force of ὑπο, though it amounts to it in common parlance, as 'spoken ὑπο των προφητων,' the person ὑπο whom being the agent or vessel, which is its very common use; but it is the effect of their action on, or it is under their hand or mind in it, in its being done. There is a receptive passive condition in the person or thing which is ὑπο. Whereas with δια,the person or thing which acts δια is viewed actively: a man is baptized ὑπο John, tempted ὑπο Satan, loved ὑπο του Πατρος, surnamed ὑπο the apostles, and hence it is so constantly used with the passive. The most peculiar use in this respect is Rev. 6:8, εν till you come to the beasts; these being distinct agents, it is ὑπο as to them under which men suffer. It may be said of its use in the N. T. that when the sense is passive, when another thing is acted on by what is governed by ὑπο, the word governed is in the genitive: where the sense is active, that is, when the word governed by ὑπο-is that under which something is placed or set-; and even with the verb substantive, when the sense is being placed there, or no verb of the sense be such, the governed noun is in the accusative. A man set under authority, who is under authority, not acted on by it, but so placed under heaven, that is, when the subject of the sentence is referred to it objectively, then it is the accusative, and it signifies under. When it is acted on by the word governed by ὑπο the genitive is used, and it signifies by, of, or with, in the same sense as 'loved of the Father,' delivered to me of my Father,' 'vexed with the conversation'. The accusative is the relative position towards the governed word (the universal force of the accusative); the genitive a subjected or receptive condition to or from the action of the governed word. The subject of the sentence is the object of the governed word's action. I am set under authority;' authority would be accusative, it is my relationship to it. So Matt. 8:9, I am oppressed by authority;' authority would be in the genitive, because I am subjected to its action. Generally, therefore, with the genitive the sentence is passive in form, always in sense. If the governed word be that towards which the subject is in relationship the form is immaterial. As, ye are under the law," under sin.' It is accusative. It may be expressed thus-when the subject which is ὑπο is referred to that ὑπο which it is objectively, this latter is in the accusative; when the former is passively under the effect of this latter, this is in the genitive. One is ὑπο τον νομον την καταραν. It is his position towards the law, the curse destroyed. ὑπο των οφεων, the destruction is the effect of this latter.

Χωρις. Genitive, without, apart from, wholly unconnected with,' as not in relationship, so as that, as to the subject, it is the same as if it did not exist. But there is no case requiring any particular notice. Compare ανευ.

N*. Well, M., if you are so disposed, I will come and see you, and look more into this matter. If Mr. o. still deign to visit and seek to keep you, or recover you to his communion, we shall have the matter fairly discussed; and if not, we have "Milner," the book which led you to go over to the Roman communion, and which is commonly used to lead others the same way.

Bill M. I shall be very glad to see you, sir, for I feel more in confusion than ever I did, and begin to feel it is not such a light thing to settle the ground of one's faith. There are things I never heard or knew of; I do not see clear, but may be I acted hastily. I do not think I could, do so now. I think James has a kind of happiness, and a certainty, too, that I do not know anything about. I do not want to doubt the Word of God, but I have not the kind of faith in it he has, which makes him so sure of everything he finds in it. I do not understand how he can be; yet, to be sure, one ought if it is the Word of God. But, to say the truth, 1 never studied it; so it is no great wonder perhaps. Any way, I should like to know the bottom of it; and I am sure Father O. will come to call me to account, and he will hardly come here again; so if you will kindly come, sir, I shall be glad.

N*. You need the grace of God with the Word, M. -just as Christ opened the disciples' understanding-to understand the Scriptures. If you look to Him, He will give it to you. It is written, " If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."

, Bill M. Is that in Scripture?

.N*. Yes; in the Epistle of James, 1:5.

Bill M. Well, it gives comfortable words, any way; it is not hard on you, like the priest.

N*. It would be far happier to look directly into the contents of that blessed Book, where God has given us His own thoughts in the midst of the darkness of this world, and told us, especially in these last and evil days when there is a form of godliness and the power of it denied, to have recourse to it; but I suppose we must go into all they have to allege as the ground of faith, and see whether it is solid. That the Scriptures are, they do not deny, remember that; and we can examine all by them, as we have already done as to many points. The Scriptures we are sure are divine; they do not deny it, only they say you cannot understand them. Why unwritten traditions should be easier or surer, it would be hard to say. The Lord treats traditions in His day as most mischievous and evil. However, we can go into all this if we meet. I shall be very glad to come and see you, and we will examine all that is to be said for the system which they uphold. Good night to you all now.

Bill M. Good night, Sir.

James. Well, Bill, I should have liked to have heard it all; but if it is useful to you I am content, and my mind is at rest, and it might be curiosity on my part; for I see now that it is not the true doctrine of salvation they have, and the rest is not so much matter. They would save us by works and ordinances, and that is not God's way; and, after all, they do not know whether they are saved or not, and God never meant us to be in misery that way; and a man that has his conscience awakened and judgment before him, must be miserable till he knows he is in God's favor-till his conscience is purged and he has peace with God; and Scripture is as plain as can be as to that, just as plain as it is that we must lead a godly, life. But there was a thing Mr. N*. said to me which made plain where that came in, as plain as anything can be, only we have no sense, really, in the things of God till He teaches us. It was this, Bill: that a man's duties flow from the place he is already in; they cannot be the means of getting it, or they would not be duties. A man's child, or his servant, or his wife, has to obey and be dutiful because they are his child, and so on. What they are bound to do could not be their duty if they were not children, or servants, or wife. Now, if I am a child of God, as Scripture speaks, and know I am one, that is the very reason I am bound to behave as a child. That is my duty, and cannot be my duty till I am one, and then we get strength as well as the duty. Scripture says, " Sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under law, but under grace," and, "My grace is sufficient for you." So it is just when I know I am a child of God that my duty becomes clear.

Bill M. But you do not mean to say we may do as we like till we are what you call children of God?

James. Nay, nay; but we have done what we liked, a deal too much, little else when we could; but on that ground we are lost. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. But I vas answering what has been said; that if I know I am saved I can go on as I like after; whereas, if I am saved I am a child of God, and all my duties as a child of God just begin then. Instead of doing as I like, I am bound to walk, not merely as an honest man, but as a child of God, because I am one; and then that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and delights in the things of God, though he may have to resist temptations from within and from without, and if he is not watchful he will fail. And then they that are after the Spirit mind the things of the Spirit. But I speak of duty.

Bill M. -Well, that is plain enough, that if we are in a place the duties of the place belong to us, and we are bound to fulfill them. But as for me, I want to know how to get into the place. Not that I understand well what it is either; and I do not understand how you can be so sure of yourself.

James. Not of myself, as you mean the words, Bill; God forbid! but I am sure of what God says. True, the grace and spirit of God must work to dispose our hearts to care for such things, and to give us understanding with such hearts and minds as we have; but the thing in itself is very simple. As Scripture speaks, when 1 receive the Lord's testimony, I. set to my seal that God is true; hence am fully assured of what I find in His Word.

Bill M. Of course what God says is true; that is plain enough.

James. Well, if Christ, or even his Apostles have said anything, it is God's word, and we have to believe it.

Bill M. Of course, if we know what they have said.

James. Well, there it is. The Spirit and grace of God bring the Word of God home as_ His word to the heart. It is not my poor its setting up to judge about it or teach; a great deal I do not understand yet, and I must wait and hope to get on; but the Word comes down on me and tells me what I am (and I know it is true) and what God is, and His holiness, and love, and judgment of sin are revealed to my soul. Now I find there that by Christ, all that believe are justified from all things; that He was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification; that he that believeth on the Son bath everlasting life; that God will remember their sins and iniquities no more; and many, many more comfortable words, and I believe them-I am sure they are true, because God has said so-just as sure as I am that if God had entered into judgment with me for my sins I should have been lost. I know I was lost in my sins, but Christ came to seek and to save what was lost, and died for our sins according to the Scriptures. I believe in Him. I know He is the Son of God, and God has pronounced his judgment on those that believe in Him, that they are justified and have eternal life; and I believe Him with all my heart. And it is because I see that He has His own self borne our sins in His own body on the tree that I have peace with God. That I could not say till I believed in Him; but I can say it now.

Bill M. Well, I can't say it. Of course if you can you must be happy; anybody would.

James 1 understand that, too; I could not myself once, but God is very gracious, Bill. I was no better, and in myself am no better than you. I do not say you see clear, but I believe you are a changed man, Bill,

thank God for it.

Bill M. Well, I do not see that 1 am changed, unless it is to be worse and more unhappy than I was.

James. That is the very reason I say you are changed. You have found out somehow that there is badness in you, and it makes you unhappy. It is not flippantly judging me because I trust with assurance in the Lord Jesus, nor talking of the Church that you.. know nothing about for yourself, only repeated it from others who had got hold of your mind. Now there is a real want in your own soul of something better and of peace; that is what the Holy Spirit always produces in us. It is not levity and judgment of others He puts into Ili, but a want in our hearts, and tenderness of conscience; and the gracious God will surely Meet such a want, and make all plain in His own wise time. Doubtless you may get help from others as I did; but the work within is all His own. Till that is done, nothing is done; and He will do it for you, Bill. I feel confident the Lord is leading you on in His own blessed grace.

Bill M. I hope He may. I am not there yet; but I do feel different towards you, and in myself, too; and somehow my confidence is shaken in Father O. Still, I am afraid of denying the true Church. The Lord guide me right.

James. He will, He will, Bill; trust Him for it.

Bill M. Well, good night now; I must be home. But I'll let you know how it all goes on.

James. Good night, Bill. The Lord be with you.

Bill M. Good evening, Mr. o., will you kindly sit down. I am thankful to you for coming to see me; and Mr. N*, as I mentioned to you, is here.

Father O. I am sure it is of very little use arguing on these subjects; but I was willing to make one effort to save you from abandoning the Church, and ruining your soul forever. For it is certain, as the holy fathers have said, that he who has not the Church for his Mother has not God for his Father. But I have little hope of you; for when once a person has begun to judge for himself, and despise the faith of all holy men in all ages, to say nothing of the authority of the Church, he proves himself to be in a state of pride which makes him incapable of receiving the truth at all. However, the good shepherd will care for his flock, and I have consented to make one effort more. I had, indeed, much rather have seen you at my house, where I could have spoken seriously to you without any controversy; and this gentleman-I say it without wishing to be guilty of any offense-is a confirmed heretic, which makes it a still more unsatisfactory way of treating these holy subjects. However, -I have consented to-make a last effort-to rescue you from falling down the fatal precipice, on—whose edge you are standing; only remember that eternity is before you. This world will soon pass away, and if you are not in the true Church, then where will your soul be? Remember what a solemn and terrible thought eternity is, and think of your soul's salvation, and let no carnal or interested motives come in competition with that.

Bill M. Well, Mr. o., I have just begun to get really anxious about my salvation. As to interested motives, I can honestly eat my bread any way, and nobody has offered me anything to go back to where I was. And one thing that greatly attracted me to the Catholics was that they were so kind to me. I am much obliged to them, but that won't save a man's soul. As to eternity, I begin to feel it is a very solemn thing; and it is not only dread I feel, for that is all it was when I turned Catholic, but I want to be saved. Now, James and this gentleman tell me, and bring Scripture for it, that if a man believes in the Lord Jesus Christ in his heart he will be saved; and that if any one has the Spirit of Christ, he belongs to the true Church; that all such are united to Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and that their lives will prove whether this is really so; and you tell me that I must belong to the one true Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, or I cannot be saved, and I want to know the truth of it. I see what this gentleman says, is in Scripture; but then I have been brought to think there must be a true Church, and I should not like to be out of it; and. what is the true Church is the very thing I have to learn.

Father O. It is just this pretending to read and judge of Scripture which will be the ruin of you. How do you know whether it is true, or how can you get at the right sense of it. St. Augustine says he would not have received the Gospel but for the Church. And then, besides that, you have only got a false translation.

Bill M. Excuse me, Father o., I have got the Catholic Testament as well as the Protestant one, and it is what has troubled me more than ever, because though there are bird words I do not understand in the one you approve of, and it is not such fine reading as the Protestant, yet one sees in a minute it is the same thing in the main -different words sometimes, but the same book. I do not pretend to judge all about it, of course, but I can see that the truths they insist upon are in your Testament as in theirs. I found where it was said in the Protestant. Testament, there is no more offering for sin, it is said in the other, there is no more oblation for sin. And then, too, that he should not offer himself often, for then he ought to have suffered often; arid that dashed me greatly about the mass that I used to think so much of. And it says in your Testament, too, that by one offering He bath perfected forever them that are sanctified; and that is just what James tells me. And then, too, I found in your Testament that it is said, he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life; and I believe in the Son of God, sure enough, and why should I not believe I have eternal life too. I do not see clear, that is true; for I know I am not what I ought to be, but there is what they tell me in what you say is the Word of God, and the true translation.

Father O. How should you be clear, pretending to judge all these things, and perplexing your mind with what you are quite unable to interpret, ignorant as you are. We had better see at once what the true Church is, and then you will be rightly guided. There is no end of disputing out of Scripture. Why, there' is no end of sects and heresies, and all come from the Bible.

Bill M. If you please, Sir, I shall be very glad to hear about the Church; but you will allow me to say, Sir,. that I do not find what I was saying so hard to understand, not harder than many things you say, nor so hard. When it says he that believes on the Son bath everlasting life, it is a great comfort, but it is not hard to understand. I may doubt sometimes do I really believe, when I see how bad I am, though I do not think I can doubt. it; but the words are plain enough. And when it is said there is no more oblation for sin where there is remission of sins, it is plain enough too, and I do not see how the mass can be true; and I see then that if there. was another oblation, it must have been a real one, and that therefore Christ must have suffered; and He cannot do that in the mass. As' to Augustine, I do not know anything about him, but these things I read in the Scriptures that the Church has given us.

Father O. Who gave them to you? You are not properly prepared to read them; you are not in a state of mind docile and subject to the Church, to do it properly; and so are perplexing yourself. And the Council of Trent very justly forbids any having them without a written permission from his pastor, and I never gave you one; and we may see in your case the wisdom' of the Church making such an order.

Bill M. And why may I not read them if they are the Word of God, and I have read them in a copy approved by the Church? There it is with Archbishop Troy's sanction. And the Pope says there that we should above all, read the Holy Scriptures. And I cannot see, if God has written so many blessed things for us, so many good words of the Lord Jesus, and the letters of Apostles, why those who want to be saved, and know God's will, should not read them. It looks strange.

Father O. They are given to the Church, and she dispenses the food in due season.

Bill M. But am not I in the true church if I am a catholic, and yet it is only we that are not allowed to read them.

Father O. You will get from your pastors meat in due season.

Bill M. But I want to know what God has said Himself, and why may not I know that? Why should my pastor keep that from me.

Father O. Because there are things you cannot understand, and will pervert; as St. Peter says, "which the unstable and unlearned wrest to their own destruction."

Bill M.. That is a very solemn warning surely, Sir, not to let one's mind be prying and judging beyond one's depth; but if we only want humbly to learn, and not to twist anything, may not one trust in God's goodness to keep one from rashness, and pretending to go out of one's depth. I only want to know God's truth; and will He not give me it? I remember hearing of Mary that sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word. May not I do that and believe He will teach me too? Surely His words will not lead me astray, if I only listen to Him, to learn from Him.

Father O. But you do not know what part of His words to take; He could tell Mary just what was fitting for her, and how do you know what is fit for you. It is this wilfulness and presumption that is ruining you.

Bill M. I do not wish to be presumptuous, Sir; I shall be very thankful to be helped, and I do not doubt a great many could' do that. Only I do not want to be shut out from the Word of God, and not hear what Christ and his Apostles say.

Father O. Well, if you listen to the Church, you will get just what is fit for you; and you will be helped. It is just what I have been insisting on with you.

Bill M. Yes, but you want me to hear the Church, instead of having what God says for myself, having it direct from Himself; and that is what I feel I want, and begin to have a great desire for, though very thankful to hear what you, or any that knows better than me, can say to help me, only so as I have the Word of God itself; and what even as your own Archbishop says is the right reading. And forgive me, Sir, if I make bold to say a word as to the twisting the Scripture. That warning comes from Scripture, does it not?

Father O. Yes, from 2 Peter 3:16; and do you take heed to it.

Bill M. But then the Scripture comes to save us from the danger. The Scripture itself stops us, and corrects us, if we are willing to mind it, where we might otherwise go astray. If I began to pry into things too deep for me, and hard to be understood, the Scripture itself is there, if I mind. it, to stop me. It does not tell the people not to read them, but God writes in the Scripture what is necessary to guard them against the danger; So I see it is good to read it all, though I may not be able to understand it all, as I am not; one learns nothing all at once. And I begin to feel one may trust to the grace of God to help one. You will forgive my saying so much, but my. heart is getting concerned in it;- and I have found, now I have read in the Testament, a great deal I cannot understand, and I am obliged to leave it, hoping I may; but a great deal that is very plain, and holy, and very comforting; which shows how gracious the blessed Lord Jesus is to poor sinners, and how He never turned them away; and a great deal that is uncommon comforting, though it pierces one's conscience through too, very often. But I beg your pardon, Sir; I was just letting out what was in my heart, and I will listen to all you have to say.

Father O. It is little use when once you have got into this sort of confidence in yourself, and talk about the Word of God as if you were a learned man, when you can know nothing about it. But I came to speak of the Church, and the right it has to be heard and obeyed. It just shows what you are; pretending thus to reason and teach those who must know better than you. But I will show you what the proofs of the Church are; and as I have told you, if you are not in that, there is no salvation for you. You ought to know all this, and you have learned it, and that is what makes me tremble, for you. And I must beg not to be interrupted, neither by you nor by this gentleman,-though I do not know if I ought to have consented to speak before one who is evidently rooted, (if any such falsehood can have a root), in his heretical views-while I set before you the plain irrefragable proofs of the one true Church, and that that Church is the Church of Rome.

./V*. I will not interrupt you, Sir. It is quite fair you should have opportunity to say all you wish, and as fully as you please. I will examine what you say on each point, when you have done.

Father O. I will proceed then to state the grounds on which everyone is bound to receive the. Catholic Church as the only true one; and out of which there is no salvation, as the Fathers all testify. So says Irenmus' so Cyprian, so Augustine, so St. John Chrysostom. All declare emphatically that salvation belongs to the Church alone * And if you take the views which. all Christendom acknowledge, we shall easily find the marks by which it. is known.

The Apostles' Creed says, " I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and the Nicene " one Catholic and Apostolic Church." The Church then is one, Holy,, Catholic, and Apostolic.

*("Milner's End of Controversy," lib. 2., 100. 13.) Now if we look amongst the rival communions, we shall have no ground to hesitate a moment as to which is the true. Church. In the Catholic Church alone, you find unity of doctrine, of all that is essential in her worship and in her ecclesiastical constitution and government. Her doctrine. is the same from the Council of Nice to the Council. of Trent. Every Catholic-English, Indians, Canadians, and of whatever nation under the sun, will join in the same worship in any Catholic chapel here. So, wherever they are, the faithful submit to their pastors, the pastor to his Bishop, the Bishop to the supremacy of the successor of St. Peter. Take the most ignorant Catholic,. they are alike in doctrine substantially; and however ignorant, will declare their belief in this-I believe. whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches.. Whereas Protestants are split up into a hundred sects.; and the same sect varies in its doctrine from one century to another. I must be brief; but the statements I have made are corroborated by facts which everyone can take cognizance of; he has only to ask the first Catholic he meets, or attend the service in any Catholic place of worship.

Holy Catholic The next mark is that it is the Church.

That the Church should be holy, no Christian can deny; as belonging to God, and sanctified by Christ, to present to Himself without spot. Eph. 5: 25-27.

The Catholic Church is holy. in doctrine, in the means of holiness, in the fruits of holiness; and lastly the divine testimony of holiness. She is holy in doctrine; especially in that of the Unity and Trinity, the Incarnation, Death and Atonement of the Son of God. And she has always been the. same. If she was holy in doctrine in the Apostles' age, she is holy in it now.

Next she is holy in the means of holiness; and the 'principal-and most efficacious means are the sacraments; which the Protestants-have reduced to two; but all other communions, Greek, Nestorian, Eutychian, Russian, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, before, as after their defections, agree with Catholics in making them to be seven. By these, all the wants of Catholics are supplied; and the faithful having free will, and not putting an obstacle in the way, through them have justification, or sanctification conferred and increased. The fruits of holiness are to be seen in a multitude of saints, in all ages, whose names would 'be far too many to enumerate here; but whose sanctity has been attested by the miracles they have performed. These last are a Divine attestation of sanctity, and have been the stamp of approval and Divine recognition put upon the Catholic Church in all ages. I might add other marks, as antiquity, the confession of enemies; but they would only be the development of those I have noted, and it is needless. These are a sufficient proof to a reasonable mind that the Catholic Church alone is the Church of God, out of which there is no salvation; a doctrine which, however obnoxious, is held by St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and the early fathers; and is stated in the strongest language. It is this one only Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; called Roman, because the supreme pontiff and successor of St. Peter has his see in Rome; into which you, M., had been graciously brought, out of one of the various sects of Protestants which condemn each other, which are confessedly of yesterday have no pretension to be Catholic, confess they have no miracles; and whose doctrine, or at least what it was at the outset,-for they fall into every sort of opinion-is utterly immoral; that no matter how great a sinner any man is, if he believes, he is saved; who have rejected five sacraments, and of the two they profess, have made one a mere memorial, contrary to Scripture; and if the other remains, it is administered with such carelessness that we can hardly practically say whether anyone among them has the benefit of it or not. And it is not only antiquity, to which I briefly alluded, but an uninterrupted succession. of Prelates- in every see, and especially at -Rome; from -the Apostles and their successors; at Rome, from the -Prince of the Apostles down to this day; and we have the record of all their names, preserving the transmission of both grace and truth to us. Take care you do not fall from this one place of safety into the uncertainty and darkness of that from which you have been delivered. My object is to warn you; I might multiply proofs; they may be seen in Milner, more largely in Bellarmine; one you have read, and your very catechism teaches you the same. If you do not receive proofs so plain, no reasoning of mine could hinder your ruin. I have done. Of course, Sir, you can now say what you wish. But I must beg you to keep to the point, and not launch out into vague charges; but show where Unity, Catholicity, Sanctity, and Apostolicity, are found elsewhere than in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

N. Well, Mr. o.; we have patiently listened to you,- and you have given us a summary of Milner, or indeed what may, as you say, be found briefly in any Roman Catholic catechism-the common doctrine of the Roman Catholic body, though of course more fully developed in one book than in another. As to Indians, Americans, Canadians, etc., all coming to the same worship, there is a very simple reason for it; they are all on the same ground. Not one understands a word that is said, for it is all in Latin, and where the service is only an outward form, kneeling to a wafer when a bell rings, of course all can do it together. But there is a point which you have assumed, which, when I have answered your -statements, I shall touch upon. Whether God has not shown us in His Word that through the sin of man the Church outwardly in this world would lose this Unity and Catholicity of character and sanctity too. Not surely that the unity of the body of Christ as built up by Him for eternity would be lost. That cannot fail, nor the gates of hell prevail against it; but does that blessed security, assured by Christ's power to what He builds, affirm that as an outward body and whole system in the world trusted to man's faithfulness it would continue in its integrity to the end. I affirm that God in His word teaches us the contrary. There is another point which presses very strongly upon me, which I will with the Lord's help touch upon. It will suffice to speak of it. at the close as a most weighty one, and as to which the ground on which the Roman argument stands is profane.

Father O. Profane!

.N. I do not use it as a hard word, but as the one which expresses strictly my meaning. We shall see whether it be just when we come to it. But I will first reply to the pretensions of Unity, Catholicity, etc., directly.

Father O. That is the best way. And I must beg you to be as brief as you can. I cannot give up all my time to a fruitless discussion.

N. I will try to be brief. But it takes more time to disprove a statement than to assert it. When you say that the succession of Roman Pontiffs, of which Milner gives a list, is known from Peter to Pius the IX., it is easy to say it, and Dr. Milner may make a fair show of it without betraying the weak points of it, but I cannot reply without showing them.. It is to me quite indifferent whether they have so succeeded or not. Truth is in God's word, not in a succession of Prelates. Still I am to answer you, and consequently must go into the facts. However I will be as brief as I can. And forgive me if I use- the word ridiculous. The statement as to Unity and Catholicity seems to me to be such. You tell me we are to see which of rival communions is one and Catholic. Now if there are rival communions, there is neither Unity nor Catholicity. I do not say that the fact of heresies existing, where individuals have been excluded for denying fundamental truths, in the least affects Unity or Catholicity, because the one Catholic body, if such there be, has done its duty, and rejected a sectarian head of error. There is in such case a one Catholic body out of which he is put. But that is not the case we have to consider. You call upon our friend M. here to leave the body he was in, and to choose, on certain grounds, another. He has to choose between rival communions. If he takes his own sphere of knowledge he finds your sect a very small minority, and your place of worship called a chapel, and. the one he is leaving, the Church. If I go beyond his field of view, then I find rather the majority of Christians condemning your sect, and the Pope's claims as corrupt, false, and unfounded, and by a vast body of Christians held to be the corrupt Babylon of Scripture. If he goes to the United States every place of worship is alike called a church. The greater part of Europe and Asia hold your pretensions to be false. Not only that, I find the most ancient churches as to which you often allege that they agree with you against Protestants, the churches founded by the Apostles, and before Rome, refusing communion with you, denying some- of your doctrines, refusing your claims of supremacy for Rome altogether; you call them schismatic. But if they are more ancient than you, and some 60 millions of Christians, and a hierarchy pretending with good reason to be yet older than yours, and even as to St. Peter insisting that they are in possession of his most ancient see, Antioch, how am I to know you are not the schismatics? One thing. is certain, that besides some 80 or 90 million Protestant—professing Christians, there are all the Greeks, more ancient than yourselves. I do not here decide who is right, but this is a clear matter of fact, that there is no Catholicity to be found, nor Unity. It is a palpable falsehood as to fact if I look at the outward professing body. You insist on the word Catholic, and on your adversaries admitting the term; this is equally false. The Greeks never call you Catholics, nor intelligent. Protestants either; and were it otherwise it would be no more than calling Protestant places of worship churches, and yours and others chapels; it proves really nothing.

To use a lawyers maxim Allegatio ejusdem rei cujus dissolutio petitur, nil valet (to allege that as proof which is the thing sought to be disproved has no force). There is the Greek body, the Latin body, the Established Church, the Lutherans in Germany, each established in different countries, in America all on the same footing. Unity or Catholicity does not exist. You know as well as I do that all I say is the simple fact.

Father Q. Yes, but the Catholic Church.. maintains unity in itself.

N. You allege you are at Unity among yourselves.

A little body like the Moravians could say as much. It proves nothing. This I admit, that the Roman system is admirably organized, that. Centralization (which was in no way the case in the early ages) has been carried out with admirable skill.

That its leaders have known how to draw into its effective force the means at its disposal, in an admirable way as to skill, that it has used its power over the populations to make kings and the Civil power subservient to it, is all true. Every intelligent person is aware of and owns this. There have been serious divisions within itself, as Gallicanism, Jansenism, etc. It does not hold on some really important points what its greatest doctors once held, and as to many of its own dogmas, there have been great changes. I do not mean from original truth now, from which it has fatally departed, for that is not our subject, but on the seat of religious authority which, in its present form, dates only from the council of Trent; upon the doctrine of Election, as to which Thomists and Scotist, Dominicans and Franciscans have been altogether divided, as they were upon the immaculate conception. I do not insist upon them because the Papacy has succeeded in reducing them all to order. Centralized power has prevailed. As to Infallibility and the seat of certain truth, surely an important point, the Roman creed is not quite one year old at the present moment, and general councils confirmed by Popes held to be in error. On the immaculate conception some 8 or 10 years old; on transubstantiation same esc. Still the Pope has succeeded in bringing all the Roman body into unity of dependance on himself, and he can decree what he likes as a matter of faith, but only for his own body. The Greeks reject his authority and doctrine, the Protestants look with horror on his taking a place which belongs to God only, that is the greater part of professing Christendom. Unity and Catholicity do not exist. But you seem to wish to make some remark. It will not interrupt me.

Father O. Merely that while you admit the Catholic system has resulted in Unity and Subordination, and I add to Christ's vicar upon earth, the Protestant has issued not merely in a multitude of sects, but in rationalism so called and infidelity.

N. Forgive me, I deny the contrast altogether. Protestantism has produced such fruits; that is, the mind of man, breaking loose from the authority of God's word, has taken its own thoughts as its guide, and pretends to judge God and the revelation He has given of Himself. But the mind of man in popish countries has done the same with the authority of what you call the Church, and with the word, too. Infidelity is far more general, I do not hesitate to say, in many Roman Catholic countries, than in Protestant ones. I am not at all denying the great evil that exists in the latter. It is more published perhaps in Protestant countries because there is more intellectual activity and greater freedom. Nor is it only my own judgment that I express. Not only the French Revolution was in a Roman Catholic country, and spread its principles over such; but, in more modern times when the violent reaction against the Papal system was over, Gregory XVI. gives us this account in his Encyclical letter of 1832, " We speak venerable brethren that which ye behold with your own eyes; which therefore we deplore with united tears. An unrestrained wickedness, a shameless science, a dissolute licentiousness, are triumphant. The sanctity of holy things is despised... After stating that the Church was exposed to the hatred of the people, he adds the academies and schools resounded in a dreadful manner with new and monstrous opinions, by which the Catholic faith is no longer assailed secretly and by mining, but a horrible and impious war is now openly waged against it, and then refers to attacks on the order of the Church by members of the clergy and associations of them." You see, while I recognize the deadly evil of infidelity and corruption, the Roman Catholic -nations-are not more exempt from them than the Protestant. Nay, no man acquainted with Roman Catholic and Protestant countries but knows that faith and morality are more common in the masses in Protestant than in Roman Catholic countries. Abject superstition, devotion if you please to call it so, is to be found in the darker parts of the land in Roman Catholic countries, but closely connected very commonly with violence and corruption. The Italian brigands are most devout, and in Spain houses of ill fame supply the needed certificate of priestly absolution to commercial travelers who never troubled themselves with priests, when these documents were needed for their journey off the great routes. Whether the recent revolution has made a change I cannot tell. But no one can have been in Western Papal Europe without knowing the universal spread of infidelity where there was any energy of civilization, and the degradation and corruption which pervades those countries. This is not in the same way the case in Protestant Europe. Plenty of evil I fully admit. Scripture predicts an apostasy and I doubt not we. are in the high road to it. But if we are forced to compare them, the evil is greater in Roman Catholic countries. I have replied to your remark, but we were speaking of Unity and Catholicity. Wherever external Christendom exists, the Greeks, whom you call schismatics, but who are Older than you, have the same succession to boast of. They do not call you Catholic, but the Latin or Western Church, and declare you have departed from the truth. It is in vain

to say they hold, as against Protestants, the same truth as you do. It only strengthens my argument, that Unity is gone, and consequently, Catholicity. And your friend, Dr. Milner, knows it well and feels it, so that, as I said, what he says is plain self contradiction even to absurdity. He tells us the true Church is Catholic or universal in. three several, respects-as to persons, as to places, as to times. It consists of the most numerous body of Christians. It is more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails, and it has visibly existed ever since the time of the Apostles. Now this last it partakes with a body half as large as- itself, the GreZic Church the- more ancient of the two. This therefore gives me no help in discovering which is right. But we seek what is universal, and I am told it consists of the most numerous body of Christians. That is, it is not universal as to persons. Nay, very far from it indeed. As to places, it is more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails. That is again it is not universal. In fact, in many countries, it is a very small minority. But on the face of the argument it breaks down altogether. It constitutes the main stock of Christianity. But if it is only the main stock it is not Catholic. T conclude, what every one who is acquainted with the facts knows, that Unity and Catholicity are not to be found embodied anywhere in Christendom. Whoever be right and whoever be wrong, the Unity does not exist, and the Roman or Latin body is not Catholic because it is Roman or Latin, as constantly called by itself, by Popes, and Councils. When it insisted on Rome's being supreme, Catholicity and Unity departed, even in outward form, from Christendom. All the tirade of Dr. Milner on free will and Calvinism I pass over as being a question of doctrine.; only saying that he is here really dishonest, for he knows as well as I do that Augustine, the most eminent and influential perhaps of all the Latin fathers held it, and that it was the doctrine of T. Aquinas and of all the Dominicans, that is of all the greatest doctors of Rome in her most flourishing state. Dr. Milner treats it as something frightful, and spends pages on it in order to attack the Protestants. I offer no comment on the question now.

But if it be so horrible 'no impiety can be more execrable' he tells us; he condemns the most famous Doctors of Rome; the most famous father of the Church, and till the Jesuits arose, the most famous order of the monks. This is strange Unity. I might quote a host of the most celebrated Prelates of those ages who held it.

Father O. But the Church never held it as her faith.

N. I did not say she had, I only say that Dr. Milner conceals the fact that the most famous doctors and ecclesiastical body, the judges of heretical pravity, held this view„ which he charges_ on Protestants as baying held and given up. If it be SO.' which universally they have not, they would only have done what, according to you in point of fact, though there may be no decree upon it, Rome has done.

But we were speaking of Unity and Catholicity, and on these points I have done. It is clear from facts that there is none such to be found in the external body of Christendom.

Father O. Then the gates of hell have prevailed against it, which is impossible.

/V. By no means, Christ will build His Church in spite of all this sad and humbling failure of man. Of this I will speak. All we have found now is that by your own admission, and by the force of facts, Rome is not that Church and because (mark it) she is Rome. The existence of the Greek Church, to say nothing of the claims of Protestants, or the English Episcopacy, is a standing protest against the claims of Rome to Catholic Unity. I only add here that I have accepted your four marks of the true Church which are those of Milner, and generally given. Were I to search further, my objections on the one hand, and if I were inquiring, my difficulties, would be proportionately multiplied. Bellarmine Lib. 4. cap. El. 3, 4, tells us that these marks are variously designated and enumerated by different persons, for Augustine there are 6, for Jerome 2, Vincentius, 3. Of the Moderns, one gives 3 others; Cardinal Hozius 4, Sanders 6 others, Medina has given 10, adding an eleventh in another place, another he thinks 13. Bellarmine himself gives 15. Now, if a sincere soul is seeking to find the true Church on your plan, in what confusion he finds himself'. How can he find the grounds of a divine faith here? Your doctors give him different marks of the true Church, and if he has found out half, perhaps he cannot make out the rest. But, further, to say that he has found the Church by them, either he must take for granted the whole matter, or know the history of the Church in all ages, or how can he tell they are there? How can he tell whether Rome has had always the same doctrine? How can he tell whether Vincentius' rule "what everywhere, what always, what by all " has been verified?- The- last-statement of the rule he knows cannot be true, for common doctrines are not held by all now, or he would not be inquiring. And in all the North of Europe, and North America, all the most learned men will tell him Rome, as to her distinctive doctrines, does not hold what was held at first. And when he looks into his bible he finds the truth for himself. At any rate he is lost in finding that the greatest doctors have different sets of marks, some of which he knows do not hold good. And this leads me to the point I said I would touch upon, and which I have already alluded to in our conversations, but which comes in naturally here and I return to it as of all importance. Rome, by the confession of her own teachers, has no divine ground of faith at all, and this in a way I call profane if God has given a testimony. Thus Bellarmine on the marks of the Church, Lib. 4. cap. 3, " They do not make it evidently true that it (the Catholic) is the true Church of God, but they make it evidently credible." " We say, therefore, that the notes of the Church which we bring forward do not give evidence of the truth simply, since otherwise it would not be an article of faith, that this Church is the true Church. Nor would any be found who would deny it." Now the words which Bellarmine here uses prove distinctly. that, on Roman Catholic principles, no article of faith can be founded on the simple evidence of truth. That is, in

Roman Catholic faith, there is no divine faith; for it would be a simple blasphemy to say that if God had spoken what is said is credible but not simply true. How I thank God that I believe simply in His word as his servant John the Baptist teaches. " He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that God is true."

Nor does Mr. Newman, who became a Romanist, give any other ground for his having changed from Anglicanism to Romanism; no other ground for faith. Keble had told him it was probability as put to account by faith and love. These moral, qualities, or what is called the pious affections of believing, (see Pet. de Inc.,—12-16). I make no difficulty about, that is, a divine disposition given by grace, inclining the will, as Augustine also teaches; but their belief is only probability. Mr. N. says, " My argument is in outline as follows:- That that absolute certitude which we were able to possess, whether as to truths of natural theology, or as to the fact of a revelation, was the result of an assemblage of concurring and converging probabilities; and that both according to the constitution of the human mind, and the will of its maker, that certitude was a habit of mind, that certainty was a quality of propositions," (Apo. pro Vita sue, p. 70.). " I say that I believed in God on a probability; that I believed in Christianity on a probability; and that I believed in Catholicism on a probability; and that all these were about the same kind of probability, a cumulative and a transcendent probability, but still probability; inasmuch as He who made us has so willed, that in mathematics, indeed, we arrive at certitude by rigid demonstration; but in religious inquiry, we arrive at certitude by accumulated probabilities; inasmuch as He who has willed that we should so act, co-operates with us in our acting, and therefore bestows on us a certitude which rises higher than the logical force of our conclusions." (232.) His faith, then, does not rest on divine testimony, but on logical conclusions.

Mr. Newman has since written a book (Grammar of Assent) in which he speaks of a transcendent adhesion of mind, intellectual and moral, when assent follows on a Divine announcement, and a special self-protection beyond the operation of these ordinary rules of thought -but adds-which alone have a place in my discussion. He quotes some Roman Catholic Divine that Faith is more certain than even natural truth; and that concerning those things which it is certain (constat) are revealed by God, no one can be disturbed; (Gram. of Ass., 180, 2nd Ed.) But we have not a word how it is certain they are revealed by God, or on what faith rests. The quotation is happy as far as it goes, it would be blasphemy to say the contrary, but it does not touch the question how we get the faith. I notice it because it sounds well. But nobody in his senses would say if it was certain that God revealed anything; anyone could doubt it. " It is impossible for God to lie," as the Apostle says; the question is, what is the ground of faith, how is it certain to us. But even this question, Mr. Newman, in his new book, declares he is not writing about; but the laws of thought on which I think him exceedingly poor and illogical, though right on some points,—but that is not our question now-but he does not get beyond what he calls concrete certainty; that is, practical certainty for matters in this life, which nobody denies.

Dr. Milner assures us distinctly of the same thing; though he, sensible of where it placed him, seeks to

smother it up in a note, to make it less apparent; calling it a vulgar objection, (Letter xi. on True Rule). " believe the Catholic Church; and, therefore, everything which she `teaches, upon the motives of credibility, namely, her unity, sanctity, &c., which accompany her. Nothing can be clearer than that these statements show that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM HAS NO DIVINE GROUND OF FAITH AT ALL. All rests on motives of credibility, that is, the rules of ordinary human thought where we may be misled; not on any divine testimony. There is no divine faith. I do not deny individuals may through grace have it from God, though in the system, and in spite of it; but Romanism has no divine testimony or faith as its basis' for my soul, but motives of credibility only.

I am aware that Mr. Newman objects to requiring an infallible proof; i.e., one as to which no doubt can exist for the infallibility of the Church. But there can be no divine faith without [not indeed an infallible proof (which has no real sense); proof is only the ground of inference, which Mr. Newman justly distinguishes, but] a testimony we know to be infallible; or rather without absolute truth.

In his account of himself, (Apologia pro Vita suit,,) he openly-and his Grammar of Assent carefully, but not openly-confounds the certainty on which men have to act, and must act, with the certainty of divine faith, which is quite another thing. Chillingworth was perfectly right; but Mr. Newman never bad, or has lost, the idea of what divine faith is; what it is to say, "impossible for God to lie." Not that he would deny this; but if I am not certain, with divine faith, that God has spoken, I cannot be certain of what is said, that it is divine truth. There can be no divine faith. He argues very hard for concrete certainty; i.e., practical assurance on which to act; but so as to exclude divine faith. The Church, I am told, tells me a book is divine; and so I have divine faith in what is said in the book. But I have, on their own showing, only human grounds for believing that the Church tells me the truth. I cannot, therefore, have certainty which is of a divine order, that God has said what is in the Book; I have only a fallible, or human ground; for believing it. Remark further, that the Church, on its own confession, reveals nothing. It professes to be preserved in the faith, and to define it when it is called in question. It is only infallible in knowing and expressing what is revealed already; that is, its representatives, or representative, and head are. The question is, ought not the Church to have directly what is revealed? That is what is objected to. The faithful are incapable of understanding what Paul, and Peter, and John, or Christ, himself, said, to them; though they did say it and address it to them expressly. This is the real- point. The faithful who do believe, that is the Church, cannot have, without a written permission, what the Apostles said and. left written for them; but of this we have spoken. Infallibility belongs to God. God has spoken, and left written records of what He has addressed to the Church; 'the Church professes to reveal nothing: but only to hinder the faithful from having what God has revealed. And remark further: that this is to get in authoritatively between God and the soul; so that God should have no direct authority over it. It is admitted that a mass of truths revealed are the matter of.. faith, always accepted and taught; only definition is necessary, when heresies or questions spring up; but the thing defined was always believed.

Father O. Just so.

N. But the Church can have none of them, directly; not even the undisputed truths, unless by written permission. Besides, I deny the fact. The Pope's infallibility was never dreamed of, but denied by the early Church; though when disputes as to worldly precedence began, a wholly unchristian and antichristian thing, precedence was allowed to him because he was the Prelate of the ancient capital city of the Empire, and expressly on this ground, and his prescribing in matters of faith, or even order in the council, or Rome's rank is expressly denied in the Council of Chalcedon.

But this is not my object now, and has been spoken of. But, if it defines what was always the faith of the Church, still these things were not held as of faith before; though, if revealed to be faith, and that is what is defined, they were always of faith in nature and obligation. Yet never really held and possessed by the Church; nay, often denied. Thus, the infallibility of the Pope is now alleged to be a matter of faith. This was denied by the assembled hierarchy representing the whole Church at Constance and Basil,-to say nothing of Pisa was denied formally by the Gallic Church, synodically; never held by the Greeks; and in fact denied in every possible way by the acts of all the various parts of the Church; for theoretically it was never dreamed of for centuries. The Council of Chalcedon would not accept of Leo's famous letter defining the faith, when required to do so; but, because it agreed with other more authoritative documents. Now I am not discussing the infallibility, but using it to show that the pretensions to define the faith by the Church, is really a proof that on matters of faith, the Church, at least what has been called such, has been in error as to matters of faith; the whole, or very large parts of it, for centuries.

For the defined point was, it is alleged, matter of faith always, but not believed; often denied, till defined. As for instance, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; which the greatest body in the Church-the authorized judges of heresy-constantly denied, and openly wrote against for five centuries,— that is almost as long as they existed-and to our own days.

Father O. Yes, but they were not obligatory as matter of faith, till they were defined.

N. How not obligatory? Were they not always revealed, and really articles of a faith which never changes?

Father O. Yes, but till they were defined the faithful were not bound to hold them as such.

N. Worse and worse. This is terrible; here it is acknowledged that truths were revealed of God, always part of the faith in themselves; but though God had revealed them, the faithful were not bound to hold them till they were defined by ecclesiastical authority.

That is, God's truth, when revealed, is not obligatory till the Church makes it so.

Father O. We do not say that. But it was not put forward as such till the Church was obliged to define it by its being called in question.

N. But it was revealed; and if held, the authority of the Church is not necessary to receive the truth. But further, the contrary to what has been since defined has been held by- large bodies of the Church, or even all of it; so that the subject was before the minds of the faithful, and before doctors, and even assembled councils; and they have been in error as to matters of faith, when the question was before them. And now tell me this, Was not every soul bound, for its salvation, to believe in the divinity of the blessed Lord, before the Council of Nice? That, when truth is denied, godly care should be taken, individually and collectively, to maintain it, is all very right. But that is not the question; but whether the Church's definition makes it obligatory. Were not souls bound to believe in the divinity of Christ before the Council of Nice, as a truth their soul's salvation was concerned in?

Father o. 0f course they were. It was always the true faith.

N. Very well-they were bound to believe what is Divine truth before the Church so called defined it. But they were not bound to believe in the immaculate conception or the Pope's infallibility, and in point of fact very large bodies counted orthodox now hold these to be wrong, or the whole Church did not hold these doctrines. Yet there was no peril of their salvation. Now there is. Nay, there were those, and many called saints among those, who openly denied what is now necessary to salvation as being of the faith, and, it is alleged, always was. It is thus evident that the whole system is false; that, according to your system, the Church so called gives Divine authority to these doctrines, an authority which they could not claim before, though God had revealed them. The persons might be wrong, as you say. Be it so. But the doctrine they denied had no Divine claim on their faith till the so called Church gave it. They died,

denying it, in the odor of sanctity. You hold the faithful are bound to believe in the infallibility of the Pope because the Church has defined it. But that it was revealed before always really a matter of faith, yet nobody bound to believe it. That is, God's. revelation gave it no authority; the Church's statement of it does. Yet even you dare not deny that there are truths which a man must' believe at the peril of his soul's salvation, before even they are defined at all. You know very well that there is a faith that saves, and notions convenient at times to be established as such. And here I have to accuse your writers of want of honesty, even in their statements in these matters. Thus Dr. Manning says, quite quietly, there had been eighteen councils before this last at Rome; but says nothing of Pisa, Constance, Basil.

But he cannot honestly leave them out; for parts at least of them were confirmed by the Popes. They are called general by Bellarmine. Pisa deposed two Popes and appointed a third, Alexander V.; and the next Alexander calls himself VI., so that Bellarmine says its authority is so far owned. It is neither approved nor disapproved, therefore. But then its authority was superior to the Pope. The same is true of Constance. The Popes have no existence but by its authority; and, as I have said, parts of it at any rate are confirmed. Many allege, from positive historical documents, that the Pope did confirm it as a council. The facts are. these. When all was ready for the dissolution of the council, the ambassadors of Poland and Lithuania demanded the formal condemnation of certain errors. Then follows, in the Acts of the Council, (Sess. xlv.), " Our most holy lord the Pope said, in. replying to the aforesaid, that he would hold and inviolably observe all and singular the things conciliarly determined, concluded, and decreed, and never go against them in any way, and approved and ratified the things themselves so conciliarly done, and not in any other way. And that same he caused to be said by the organ of Augustine de Pisa, the aforesaid fiscal and advocate of the sacred consistory, who, in the name of the Pope, sought public instruments to be made (acts to be drawn up) by the proto-notaries, and notaries ordained and deputed to write the acts of the said council." He further, formally, by a public act, confirmed, not only the condemnation of Huss, Jerome, and Wickliffe, but the following test of faith to whomsoever was suspected of favoring them:-It contained (in what he confirmed) "whether he believes that that which the sacred Council of Constance, representing the universal Church, has approved, and approves to the advantage.(favorem) of faith and salvation of souls; that. this is to be approved 'and held by all the faithful of Christ, and that what it has condemned and condemns as being contrary to faith and good morals, this is to be held, believed, and assented by the same for condemned." This the Pope confirms of his proper movement and certain knowledge, with all the usual papal formalities. (Hard., Con. ix., 914.) That he was an intriguing, unprincipled, tyrannical man, so that his own cardinals. were against him, is true, and it was only by word of mouth he confirmed all conciliarly done, though the instruments were called for. But the testing question which owned Constance fully is signed. No honest man could deny he confirmed it. He may have meant to play fast and loose, and deceive. Did Martin declare this to be a general council or not? That he did, in writing. As to order in the Church, he was not Pope if the council had not title to make him so. Nor is there any true succession at all. Why does Dr. Manning say there are eighteen, and keep a profound silence as to this? There are twenty-one more or less owned by Roman Catholics; but these three are (as Paul Sarpi says of one of them) one of the secrets kept close at Rome. The councils are above the Popes if they are councils; the Popes are not Popes if they are not. I do not go further into Basil. Bellarmine. recognizes that some particular decrees were confirmed, and that it was well begun but badly ended; a singular thing, if it was under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, which, if well begun, it certainly was; and if Pope and council, and all can turn away from the Holy Ghost's guidance, how can we trust them. The conduct of Pope Eugenius as to it was a miserable tissue of political intrigue, and we have already spoken of it. He set up another council, and the council set up another Pope, and there was a com-

, promise. My object now is to show that you cannot trust the statements of Papal advocates, even if they are archbishops. There is no real doubt that Eugenius's friends stole the seal of the Council of Basil to use it for a decree to suit his purposes. But we may return to the marks of the true Church. We have found-little Security in them as yet. We have still to look at holiness and apostolicity.

You first allege doctrines, and speak of the Trinity, the Incarnation, death and atonement of the consubstantial Son of God. Now these are most holy and fundamental doctrines. We cannot esteem them too highly, or hold too fast to them, through grace. But where is the person, according to your system, to have learned them when he has not yet got the Church? Your whole system fails in its base here. Either the seeker after the true Church has learned all these immensely important, saving, and vital doctrines without the Church; or he cannot use them to find it. Your ground of reasoning is absurd. I can understand natural conscience making a man feel that what professes to be of God ought to be godly. But that such doctrines as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and consubstantiality of the Son are the means of judging of the true Church, if the true Church is to teach and give authority. to the Scriptures, is simply absurd. Upon the face of it you suppose a person to be a true orthodox Christian, holding fast the deepest doctrines of Christianity, so as to use them for a test before he has found the true Church, according to your view of it. He is a true, good, orthodox Christian, and all Dr. Milner's talk about finding a book printed by the king's printer, etc., is nonsense, an attempt to throw dust in people's eyes; for he supposes a man to have learned the most important truths of Christianity without the Church at all, and to use them as a means to judge which is the true one.

But then he is in a greater difficulty. The Greek Church holds the doctrines, the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Lutheran, the Presbyterian.

So that as a means of learning which is the true Church, the confession of these truths is of no avail, for many rival communions hold them. I have already remarked that the distinctive doctrines of Popery are very unholy, as that the Church has provided an easier way for remission than contrition, and that penance can be commuted for money. Our friend Dr. Milner next comes to the means of holiness. Here we are in greater perplexity, for L must hold, not only fundamental truths, but all the Roman Sacramental system, to be able to find the true Church. This is the cart before the horse, with a vengeance. Now the early Church called a hundred and fifty things a sacrament-every, solemn truth mysteriously expressed. And as to what is now called a sacrament, if I look at Justin Martyr,(1*) Tertullian,(2*) Chrysostom,(3*) Cyril of Jerusalem,() Augustine,

Anointing accompanying baptism is spoken of as fully by Cyril or Tertullian, but no other such ordinances are taught; and Lombard does not attempt, nor does T. Aquinas (De Sam, lxv.); nor I am assured (for I do not pretend to have read them all) the rest of the schoolmen, who make seven, attempt to quote the fathers for them. It was Lombard defined them as seven. (Lib. iii., Dis. 2, etc.) If I turn to Scripture, which alone has authority with me, I find distinct reference in 1 Cor. 10:1-4, and an allusion in 12: 13, to these two ordinances as characterizing Christians, while their institution by the Lord is unquestioned. Thus if I take ancient authority even -still more if I take the sure Word of God-I find you

wrong as to the sacraments; if I would take modern, you allege the Greek Church. But this is an additional difficulty; for then how am I to choose between you by this sign. I find two who have it, and both unscriptural.

Father O. And what do you make of extreme unction?

N. Anointing was used not for the dying, but as a sign when people were healed. Your sacrament of extreme unction has-not the least ground to stand upon. Thus, in Mark 6;13, we read, the disciples sent forth to work miracles, anointed many that were sick with oil, and healed them. So in James, the elders of the Church were by the prayer of faith to restore to health, and the Lord should raise them up. But if your anointed sick man, on the contrary, is raised up, the unction goes thenceforth for nothing; it is only pretended to wipe away the remains of sin when men are dying; and yet people go to purgatory after all.

But we may have a word on another point-miracles as a proof of holiness-before we turn to the real question. I speak of them only as a proof of the true Church. I deny entirely, in the first place, that miracles are the criterion of truth. Many believed in Jesus when they saw the miracles that He did; but Jesus did not commit Himself to them, for He knew all men. That is, a faith founded solely on miracles was of no Value whatever. Again, in the times of the great tribulation there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that if it were possible they should deceive the very elect. Again, of the man of sin, the son of perdition' whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Jannes and Jambres wrought many, though God confounded them before Moses. So in Deut. 13, the case is put of a man giving a sign or a wonder, given as proof and happening, to lead away from the truth of the Divine testimony and Jehovah Himself; and it is said, " Thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." It is certain, then, that miracles are positively not a criterion of truth, and, indeed, a number of fathers insist on this.

When truth, and especially the revelation of Christ came, God graciously gave miracles confirming the Word; but He begat souls by the word of truth, never by miracles, though when the truth was received and the heart disposed by grace, the works surely confirmed the Word. So Scripture puts it, Heb. 2, " confirming the word by signs following." And in John 15, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin," and then adds, " If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but," etc. And elsewhere the Lord says, " Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very works' sake." In a word, the. Word testifies of Christ and the Father's love, and to establish its efficacy and claim, the works are added. And the character of the miracles is of all. importance here., Christ's miracles (the cursing the fruitless fig tree alone excepted, which only confirmed the truth of what I say, for there rebellious Israel, man under the old covenant, was figuratively judged as having leaves but no fruit) were the expression of the power of Divine goodness present in the world in man, the incarnate Lord, who, by a word, removed every fruit and effect of sin. Again it is striking in Israel; signs are wrought to establish God's religion under Moses, they were wrought by Elijah and Elisha in the midst of Israel, when Israel bad departed from Jehovah; but in Judah (save one sign given by Isaiah) where God's Word was already owned, and His temple as yet stood, no miracles whatever are wrought. The effect of the Word in the conscience is what is looked for. Further, if we compare saints' pretended miracles, or other legends of the kind, the difference in their nature strikes the heart and conscience at once. In Christ, or even in His Apostles by His power, we find a perfect conformity in the miracles to His person and mission, and word, the hungry fed, or, as He says to John's messengers, the sick healed, the dead raised, the lame walk, the blind see, demons are cast out, the Gospel is preached to the poor," the effect, "blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me." As I have already said, His Divine power present in goodness, setting aside in men the power of Satan already vanquished. The strong man being bound, his goods Were spoiled, as the Lord expresses it In that He, as man, in His sovereign goodness, had entered into conflict with him in the wilderness, after His baptism by John, the outward effects of sin, being in the world were set aside. Now if we compare legendary accounts, what do we find? I am almost ashamed to recount such things of the blessed Lord. I do not speak of the Roman Church receiving all the miracles I refer to, but I cite them to show the taste of early ecclesiastical writers and their frauds. The Lord and other boys were playing, and one fell from the top of the house, the rest fled, and the Lord remained. The parents of the dead child came and charged Him with throwing him down; He approached the dead child and said, Zenuine who threw you down? The dead child answered, You did not throw me down, but such an. one did. His mother sent Him to the well to get water, and when He took the vessel up full it was broken, and so He brought up the water gathered up in His cloak; and His mother hid all these things, and kept them in her heart. He was with other boys making fish ponds and mud sparrows. A boy came to destroy them because it was the sabbath; he destroyed the children's fish ponds, and the child Jesus laid His hand on the sparrows, and they fled away piping. The boy came near His fish pond, and the water disappeared; and He said, "As the water has disappeared, so shall you," and immediately he dried up. Another boy met Him as He was returning home in the evening, and knocked Him over in running hastily; " As you have knocked against me," said He, " so fall, and do not rise again;" and the boy tumbled down the same hour and expired. A master was teaching Him his alphabet, and the child asked him the meaning of." aleph;" he stretched out his hand to strike Him, and his hand dried up, and he died. And then Joseph and Mary would not let Him go out any more; for whoever opposed Him„ they said, was struck with death. Other stories of many boys bitten by serpents also, and healed by His clothes: by the hand of Divine Mary; but I suppose we have enough... But Dr. Milner has quoted, among others, those of the great St. Martin of Tours, and of St. Francis. Xavier. Let us take these two patterns of Romish miracle-eminent examples, and at different periods some 1,000 years apart, and surely men devoted to the cause. they had at heart. I will recount some alleged miracles-of St. Martin, called the Apostle of Gaul, as St. Francis Xavier is called the Apostle of the Indies. I quote from the same book as Dr. Milner, his life, by Sulpitius. Severus. "When Martin put his foot out of his cell, a couple of miles from the church, all those possessed with devils in the church showed he was coming, so that the. others knew the moment. I saw," says the historian: biographer (Dial. iii. 6) " one caught up into the air as Martin was coming-suspended on high, with his hands-stretched out, his feet unable to touch the ground. St.. Martin prayed for them. There were those who, their.. feet being carried -up on high, hung as if from a cloud,. yet their garments did not fall down over their face lest. the naked part of their body should put people to shame:. He met a furious cow that had gored several; she was-rushing at him. He told her to stand, and she did; and.; then he saw a devil on her back, and ordered him off; and he went, and the cow was quiet. The cow knew very well what had happened, and came and knelt down before Martin, then, on Martin's order, went and found the herd (Dial. ii. 9). He was very familiar with demons, knew when it was Jupiter and when Mercury, -the most troublesome of all; and when Sulpitius and Gallus went to see him, they had to wait outside-he -was talking, as he told them afterward, with Agnes and Thecla and Mary (deceased persons held to be saints);

he said he was often talking with Peter and Paul. Then suddenly a whole lot of devils came, whom Martin denounced by their names. Jove was a brute, he said, and stupid. They beset his dying bed (Let. iii., to Bassula). " Why are you standing there, bloody beast? he said. (He did not imitate Michael the archangel, at any rate.) Thou shalt find nothing in me, 0 fatal one." In these conversations he had promised pardon to the devil if he repented, telling him the judgment day was near, crimes were pardoned by the conversation of a better, life", and if he even then left off following after. Men and repented of his deeds, he himself, trusting in the Lord, promised him the mercy of Christ. Now compare this with the Lord's life and words and the miracles themselves, and let any Christian man say, have they the least similitude? Are they a testimony to the Son of God, to the very nature and dealings of God toward the world in grace, or are they vaunting an individual by absurd exploits? One of the anchorites in Egypt was visited by an enormous lioness; the anchorite followed it; her cubs were blind, the anchorite stroked them and gave them sight, and the lioness brought him the skin of a curious beast to wear (Dial i. 9). Another lived naked on Mount Sinai, and when at last seen said, " He who was visited by men could not be by angels."

I may mention another, as showing the character of the miracles and the credulity of men's minds when once this system was given in to. Paulinus, the same that complains of their mixing drunkenness with their celebration of his patron saint, St. Felix, relates that a countryman had two capital bullocks; they were stolen; the countryman sought them in vain; no marks were to be found where they had been driven. He goes to the said St. Felix, pleads with him to send the bullocks hack; that he had trusted him, he really had kept his bullocks, and he was answerable for them; that as he kept them he should hold him for being in league with the robber if he did not bring them back; that he saw and knew all things, and, therefore, could do it, for he knew where they were. He might pardon the robbers, but he must have the bullocks; the pardon belonged to the saint, but the bullocks to himself; he would not go after them nor leave the place; he would give up his life on the threshold if he did not bring them back; and so spent the whole day praying. The martyr heard him joyfully, and laughed with the Lord at his reproaches. He helps him. He is thrust away from the face of Felix to shut the doors at night, and goes and lies down in his stable, crying still on the saint, and, frightened by a noise outside, there are the oxen come' home without a guide. It may be said this is only the credulity of a rustic. But the account is of Paulinus of Nola, a saint, a prelate, a correspondent of the famous Augustine. (S. Paulini opera, 433. Ed. Mur., Verona, 1736.)

It has been remarked by others that up to 350 the heathen ridiculed the Christians for worshipping a dead man; after that, for worshipping saints' and martyrs' tombs; and Augustine tells us that, above all, the monks drove a lively trade in relics. We have already seen it forbidden. Strange to say, the heathen insisted on the one universal God and Father, reproaching the Christians with going to martyrs and their memories, as they were called.

Father O. But they did other miracles than these.

N*. Which rest on the same authority and spiritual discernment as these do, and no one can read the accounts of them without seeing that they are legends adapted to the taste and spirit of the age in which they are related. And remark, dear Sir, you are increasing the difficulty to a sincere soul, because in saying this you admit that instead of incontrovertible miracles proving the word (and Martin you cannot deny was quite unsound, too, in doctrine, for he offers pardon to Satan as the day of judgment was near), the miracles themselves have to be proved which is quite another thing. Christ's miracles were done openly when no man could deny them, and day after day, always, uniformly the power of Satan quailed before him, and so of the Apostles. Fleury admits the quantities of miracles and false relics that credulity believed in, and Dr. Milner admits they have to be proved. He says indeed Rome proves them carefully. But Rome, who proves them and approves them, accredits herself by them. That was not so with Christ's. He appeals to all the world, to his adversaries. They were open, constant and accrediting God's glory not man's fame. The name of Jesus was made glorious by it. Not Ignatius Loyola, or F. Xavier. Did giving sight to a lioness's cubs, and a lioness bringing the spoils of some poor slain beast glorify God's nature and character, or set up an Anchorite and his wonderful doings? And, remark, Rome's provings are after the miracle doer is dead, and it is not a living power which. constantly proves itself, and the present interference of God's goodness to everybody around. It is accrediting the man, and the party he belongs to, nothing else. You and Dr. Milner are using it to that end. And the court of Rome approves the miracle in order to its being approved itself. I admit, says Dr. Milner, that a vast number of incredible and false miracles, as well as other fables, have been forged by some and believed by other Catholics in every age of the church. They then have to be proved, and all is still uncertain. Not only so that many false miracles have been forged by Roman Catholics, but the fathers admit that the heretics have done miracles. Irenזus tells us that heretics cannot do miracles of goodness, nor cast out all devils, only those they have introduced themselves, though one might think these were all, (Lib. ii. xxxi.) and in Lib. i. 13 he states that a certain Marcus wrought miracles, and made others prophesy. Cyprian tells us that miracles are no proof in themselves of any one being in the right way though admirable things, quoting Matt. 7:22 (De Unitate, Ec. 114, Ed. Fell). So Jerome in his Commentary on Gal. (Lib. i. c. iii. v. 5) distinctly states that heretics do many miracles and think they have a proof of their faith by it, and appeals to Matt. 7 as the Lord's testimony that they do not prove that they are right. So Augustine, referring to Pontius and Donatus working miracles, and saying if they removed mountains and had not charity they are nothing. He refers to Mark 13 that false Christs and false prophets shall arise doing signs and wonders, therefore he says the Bridegroom has warned us that we ought not to be deceived by miracles (Esh. Joh. Tract 13).

But others of the Fathers are still stronger. I do not quote the imperfect work of St. Chrysostom, which says that miracles are wholly done away (levata). It is accused of being Arian, and Baronius rages against it for more reasons than that, I suspect.*

But the statement of the author as to the fact may have weight as having no connection with his heresies if guilty. He declares, as a notorious fact, that miracles had wholly ceased. But the true Chrysostom says that in his time signs were not to be looked for, were restrained (συνεσταλμενα), and were no criterion of a saint according to Scripture. That in the beatitudes they are not spoken of, and in the reprobate whom he rejects they are (vol. i. 136, 7, Ben. Ed.). And again Augustine (De Uni: Ec. c. 49 or xix.) He says, Do not let him say it is true because Donatus or Pontius has done such and such wonderful things, or because he has been heard at the memories of our dead, or has had such a vision in dreaming. Let such rather figments of lying men or portents of deceiving spirits be removed. For either they are not true, or if any wonderful things are done by heretics, we ought to be the more on our guard, and he then quotes Matt. 24:25; 1 Tim. 4:1. Again, Bernard, proclaimed after his death by others, as the greatest miracle worker that ever had been (Life by Philip de Claravalli Opera, Vol. ii. 1176, and Bellarmine De Nat. Eccl. 4:14) declares himself that miracles were not wrought in his age or by excessively few at any rate (perpauci); lie comforts the monks as to the text, these signs shall follow them that believe,' that then nobody would be saved, if believers were to work these signs, for-they were not wrought, but that new tongues were spoken when pious language replaced vicious, and holiness, poisonous lusts, and so on (Sermo. i. de Asc., Dorn.. vol. i. 918, par. 1719). Mr. John Henry Newman goes further, he tell us that no Catholic is bound to believe for the most part any particular miracle, only in general that the Church has power to do them. His words are these: " Though it is a matter of faith with Catholics that miracles never cease in the Church, still that this or that professed miracle really took place is for the most part only a matter of opinion, and when it is believed, whether on testimony or tradition, it is not believed to the exclusion of all doubt whether about the fact or its miraculousness." (Gr. of Assent, 2nd ed. 193, 4.) Here clearly the miracle is an object not a means of faith. In his hands they cease wholly to be a proof. For supposing I doubt of each particular one, my belief in the Church's power to do them is gone, or rests on wholly different ground. In the first life of Ignatius by Ribadeneyra there was no hint of miracles,* when Ignatius was to be canonized, the account of his life is full of them.

Among the rest he raised a hen, accidentally drowned, to life. Xavier invoking him in India, and the hen remained in absolute celibacy ever after; and Xavier routed a great army by his presence. Within, a few years, it was alleged that the Virgin had visited a little peasant girl on a mountain in France. The local prelate issued a pastoral against it, but it was attractive. The government took it up and proved the fraud in open court, but then the wind turned round, and Church authorities made a great deal It is asserted that he died in terror. I daresay it is disputed, too, but certainly he died without the sacraments. of it, and pilgrimages were made there. But we must have a few words on St. Xavier, surely a self-sacrificing man, one would fain hope from the best motives, but if so, only proving the evil of the system lie was in. He carried on his work by the force of the arms of the Portuguese; one of his miracles was Ignatius's miraculous appearance in India, heading the troops, and routing the infidels. The first multitudes whom he is said to have converted already called themselves Christians, but had been made so by the arms of the Portuguese without knowing a word of what it meant. They did not understand the Portuguese nor the Portuguese them. Xavier got some who knew his and their language a little, and translated the Creed, the Commandments, Lord's Prayer, and. a supplication to the Virgin, learned them by heart (though subsequent statements give him the gift of tongues) himself, made them repeat them, and say, Lord give me to believe, and then a short word to the Virgin, and then, as sufficiently tested, baptized them. It went so far both in the conduct and relapses of the converts that Ignatius himself was dissatisfied. " Sometimes," writes Xavier, " I baptize a whole city in a day. Much of this success is to be attributed to the Viceroy of India. By his endeavor we have now thirty cities of Christians on this coast. He has lately given 4,000 pieces of gold to those who with all diligence profess the truth in the cities of the Christians." Xavier promotes in the same way the Viceroy's efforts, organizing expeditions, and enforcing the Christians to behold Jesus Christ crucified before their eyes during the battle. And he announced far away from the scene, " Jesus. Christ has conquered for us, the enemy is routed with very great slaughter." But what was the result? He left India in a few years disgusted, and avowing himself useless, and went to Japan. Now as to some of the miraculous events:-One night as he was praying to the Virgin the Devils attacked him in crowds, and beat him so that be was half dead with the blows, and forced to keep his bed for some days. He spoke so that in one sentence people of ten languages understood him all at the same time. An island was infested with tigers. He sprinkled holy water on them and ordered them to leave and never come back, and so it was. I may remark here that Ignatius Loyola himself is stated to Have been horribly beaten by devils so as to cry out, and another ran in twice to see what was the matter, and then was forbid to come. But to return to Xavier. On a voyage a -child fell into the sea, Xavier asks the Mahometan father if he would believe if his child 'were restored? he said yes. Three days after, the child appeared on the deck; neither he, nor anyone, knew whence he came. Again, he gave a chaplet of the Virgin Mary to an infidel. The ship was wrecked; they made a raft; he thought himself with Xavier as in ecstasy; and when he recovered his natural sense, found himself safe on shore, all his companions lost. It is said he raised the dead several times. It is stated he spoke with tongues; but it is quite certain, both in India and Japan, by his own statement, that he used interpreters to begin his work. His conversions were really none.*

He converted a whole island, and built churches, in some three years, and left; when gone, through the influence of the chief of another island, the churches were pulled down, and all turned idolators again.. The Portuguese sent an expedition, and they all turned christians again. That he was a man of indomitable energy, and rare courage, is unquestionable. But, all his work in India, Japan, and in general the Jesuits work there and in Abyssinia, has come to nothing. Where European dominion has been established, the Roman Catholic system has continued, as in Brazil, and similar countries. Now that God can do miracles at any time, if he pleases, no christian can deny as to His power to do it; that He should interfere extraordinarily for faithful men, or martyrs sacrificing their life for Christ, would be no surprise to me. That He answers the prayer of faith, so that the sick should, be healed,—where the prayer of faith is—I do not doubt a moment either. James tells us so, and John likewise. Nay, that one having the spirit of Christ, should control the power of Satan, and cast him out, ought to be the case. But when I find in Scripture, that true miracles confirm the truth and Word of God, and the truth is not present; that faith, founded on miracles, the Lord accounts of no value; that there is no testimony in these to Christ, but to the Virgin Mary, and Ignatius, or some other ambitious human being, or head of a party,' to make good his party claims, when I find them multiplied continually in the accounts of these persons, as occasion called for them; when I find, that instead of having power over demons, it is alleged that Satan had dreadful power over them, and the demons beat them furiously; when I find the miracles suited entirely to the superstitions of the age, and the object not to be the truth of Christ and the Word: I see ground to disbelieve the most, altogether; and if power be manifested in some, to judge that it is not the power of God. That, if a devoted man, — if even superstitious men were devoting themselves to God in sincerity—God should extraordinarily help him in difficulty, I have no disposition to deny. God gives counter checks that His people may not be deceived. Miracles must be for the truth, or they are not to be received. If they are for what is not the truth, the worker of them is to be utterly rejected (Deut. 13.). I add that it is revealed that Satan will work wonderful signs, to deceive, if possible, the elect; and further, that it is only on the side of Satan, that signs and miracles are stated to occur in the last days. Then they will. It is the sign of the coming of the man of sin. It cannot therefore indeed by itself be the test of truth. Further, false and pretended miracles began early in the professing Church, because there was this desire to aggrandize men by wonders. In the earlier history of the Church, this was resisted. An imperial edict. of 386, forbad carrying and selling a martyr. At a council held at Carthage in 401, it was ordered that all false martyrs' memories, and unauthenticated relics, should be destroyed; and if popular tumults hindered it, the people should be warned (Can. xiv.); and the connection is pretty evident with Can. xv., when the Emperors are to be begged to destroy the similar remains of idolatrous holy places, fixed by dreams or like superstitions. We have already seen how deliberately, by Gregory Thaumaturgus, and in Africa, the martyrs' relics, and memories, so-called, were deliberately substituted for pagan holy places, to draw the people off from them; And they got drunk in church to their honor; as they had to Theseus or Hercules. And the Virgin Mary, mother of God, displaced Cybele, the mother of the gods'; with the Church's, so-called, full sanction. Our friend, Martin of Tours, was useful in this, in Gaul. A martyr altar, consecrated by bishops, and frequented by the pious, he suspected, as old priests could not tell whose it really was; so he went to it, and asked the Lord to show whose it was, and then saw a sordid fierce ghost, on his left. He commanded him to tell his name and deserts; and he confessed he was a thief and no martyr: he in punishment, and the martyrs in glory. I add another, that follows in Severus, (Sulp. Sev. Vita Martini, viii., ix.). He met a crowd, which he supposed to be an idolatrous procession, with an image. It was really a funeral. At some distance, he lifted up the cross and commanded them to stop and lay down their burden. They could not move, with all their efforts, and at last rolled round with a ridiculous vertigo, and laid down their burden. Finding that it was a funeral, he lifted up his hand and gave them the power of going away and taking the body. This is astonishingly like mesmerism.*

I forgot to add, that in imitation of Saul, in the thief's ghost case, his companions heard the voice of him that spake, but saw no person. The present use of miracles is not to testify of Christ, but to what is called the Church; and individual glory is the fruit of superstition, used to confirm false teaching; and many are confessedly false, so that the civil power had to forbid hawking about relics for sale, once opposed by the ecclesiastical authority, now gloried in, in its most absurd and superstitious shapes. But, I repeat, I wholly reject miracles as a test of the truth. They confirmed the Word, but the Word is the test of truth. When it was settled* that no church could be consecrated without relics, a supply was to be found. The catacombs at Rome supplied it; and when no one knew anything about the bones they got, they gave a saint's name to them; and it was called baptizing them. (Mabillon Posth. Works, ii., 257-287, quoted by Maitland, Catacombs, 181.)

And now allow me to suggest that there is another witness of holiness, which it would be important to have, if we are to judge of the Church by it; and that is, the Church itself being holy, really and practically. That, there is something in; for "by their fruits ye shall know them." But I never find this in the holiness alleged as proof of the true Church by Romanists. Dr. Pusey reminds Mr. Newman that it is only by faith we can know the Church to be holy. What a bitter sarcasm If it is to be a proof, would it not be a nice way to know it by fact, not by a few individuals of questionable sanctity; but, the body being taken in the mass, by the practical holiness produced by the Spirit of God. And here I shall be brief, for it is dismal to think of: but the Church of Rome has been the unholiest body of persons probably ever found in the world; and their leaders, the clergy, the worst of them; and the Popes, perhaps the worst of them all. Even so early as Cyprian, he declares (De lapsis, 124, Ox. ed.) that the Decian persecution was a light chastisement for nominal christians. Jerome (Ep. ad Nep., lii. ed., Vall. 1.2 261) has to mourn that the Emperor has to make an edict to prevent the clergy surrounding dying beds, to get money from the sick by legacies, an edict not needed for heathen priests; and declares that they were characterized by excessive Luxury. Drunkenness in church to celebrate the martyrs' memories, was common. Augustine speaks of it (Ep. xxii. xxix., ed. Ben.) in Africa and elsewhere; and Prudentius in Europe, both testify it. Not only does he state the fact that they mixed their cups with the holy thresholds (Natal: ix. and elsewhere); but though regretting and disapproving it, he thinks such errors are to be pardoned, because error breaks into rude minds; fancying the saints delight in it. A strange holiness for teachers and taught. This was in the fourth century. Long before this, the pretended holiness of great saints was sleeping with the other sex; proving how holy they were, above sinning. And this was common enough to have a, name given to it; and, at last, to be forbidden.*

I mention so sad a thing here, with reluctance, only because it came in quite early in the primitive church, as it is called. It was prevalent in the second and third centuries, and is freely' spoken of as excellent, in a book read in the churches (the Shepherd of Hermas, iii. Torn. ix., 11,) in the middle of the second century, long believed to be the Hermas known to Paul. Irenmus charges the Gnostics with it. Later down, what pretended to be the Church, became a sink of corruption. Thus, in the tenth century, 'lathering, Bishop of Verona, charges the clergy with corrupt avarice, and universal incontinency; the popes, he says, many being married, were warriors, perjurers, heretics, gamblers, and drunkards. There were among the clergy, bigamists, concubine-keepers, conspirators, perjurers, drunkards, usurers. The cause of the ruin of all the people was the clergy. The Italian clergy despise the canons the most, because they are the most given to impudicity and minister to this vice by ragouts, and excess of wine (Dupin, vol. viii., 19, Fleury, xii., 193.). Damianus, a great champion of Rome-who reduced Milan, till then independent, under its authority, declares the clergy were given up to unnatural crimes. And it was alleged they could not be deposed, as people must have the sacraments. He demanded they should be deposed. The Pope answered, they deserved it; but he would depose (out of clemency) only the most immoral. The canons imposed only trifling penances for fornication, Damianus insisted they must be forgeries. Fleury remarks on the Pope's answer, which leads is to suppose that the numbers were too great to treat them with rigor." Pope Alexander II., got Damianus' book, and hid it; of which he complains bitterly. In the Romish Council of 1059, he wished to take the matter up; but it was refused, as likely to produce scandal (Fleury xii., 532, Dupin.). Already in 888, in two councils, (Mog. and Met. Hardouin vi.), canons were made against the danger of incest among the clergy; and in the Council of Œnamheuse, like, and as it is said there, worse disorders are denounced. In 1045, Rome was full of robbers and assassins, who drew the sword at the altar, to carry off the offerings to use for wickedness.

The Pope threatened and excommunicated in vain, and at last met it with arms, and drove them away.

Father O. But these were the dark ages, when everything was in disorder and confusion.

/V*. The last. things I have spoken of were. But this is the Church, to be proved such by the mark of holiness, and never to fail; and allow me to ask, was it not in these very ages that the Popes and their Church had the greatest power and influence?

Father O. And if they had, they used it to great blessing, establishing the truce of God, and protecting the weak.

N*. They may have balanced, as the only central power, the rude warriors of feudal times; but after all, history shows them using it persistingly, and with constant craft, for self-aggrandizement; till the Pope made the Emperor give his' neck to mount on his mule by But with this I have nothing to do here. We are looking for holiness as a mark of the true Church. Can you honestly say it was found here?

Father O. You see, yourself, there were holy men condemning it all, and the Pope too; and canons were made against it.

N*. Canons imposing trifling penances on habitual fornication, and the ecclesiastical authorities not daring to enforce them even; and a Roman Council refusing to take it up, for fear of scandal. I have quoted your own authors for these statements.

Father O. Dupin and Fleury were very far from respecting the chair of St. Peter as they ought.

N*. But they are sincere and respectable Roman Catholics; and refer to contemporary writers, partizans of the Roman see; and Baronius, whom you cannot deny to have been as attached to it as possible, we..have already seen declaring that, for a hundred years he must quote the Popes to date his history by; but how could he own as Popes people put in because they were sons of powerful mistresses of the Marquis of Tuscany, or of the Popes themselves. No, if holiness is to be taken as a mark of the true Church, the Church of Rome is not that true Church. If you allow me, I will say a word of what Scripture says as to the whole subject, before I close; but I am now only following what is alleged as to the true Church. That there were those inside and outside the Romish body, who sighed and groaned over the abominations committed, is true. Your Saint Bernard declared that all that was wanting in his day, was to have Antichrist revealed; and hunted saints, who left Rome, were a witness to the revolt of consciences against these enormities.

Father O. But they were heretics and Manicheans.

117*. I think it can hardly be denied that one class of the Albigenses were, another not. But the Waldenses were not at all so. That is evident by the sentences pronounced by the Inquisition itself, who only treat them as schismatics. * There were many of whom no certain

judgment can be formed, as may be seen by the letter of Evervinus of Cologne to Bernard, and Eckbert's tract.

Those who came to England, led by a certain Gerard, were, says William of Neuberg, sound in substance as to the Supreme Physician, but unsound as to the remedies; that is, they were sound in faith as to Christ, but rejected Roman superstitions as to the sacraments *

The state of professing Christendom was such, that it gave occasion to convulsive efforts for good, and for evil under protest of good. Waldo sought what was good; and somewhat later, such men as Gerard Groot, Thomas-a-Kempis, and the fratres vitז communis; even Wickliffe, Huss, Jerome; and, on the other hand, there were the Brethren of the Free Spirit, who were very bad. Beghards, Beguines, Lollards, whose real character it is often hard to determine. But all these-generally persecuted indeed, were they good or evil, if not subject to Rome-did not alter the general state of Christendom, which had in every way become intolerable, though nobody knew how to mend it.

Bill 119. I beg your pardon, Sir; I would not, of course, interrupt you; and I wished to know if Mr. o.

would reply to what you say of the Catholic Church. But, your Reverence what is the meaning of the Church being holy, if all this be true, and Mr. N* quotes. from Roman Catholic books which I do not know, but which you do not deny to be such. If these things are true, it was not holy at all. I am all upset by what I hear..

Father O. I told you you would be. You cannot judge from- all these things, collected to blacken the Church, which must be holy. Indeed, when you set about to judge for yourself, you cannot but go wrong; and I see plainly you are on the high road to infidelity.

Bill M. Well, such conduct in the Church is enough to make a man an infidel. But you told me that I should look for the marks of the true Church, and Dr. Milner, which you approve so highly, tells me so; and how can I know whether it was holy or not, without knowing what it was, and what it did; and surely all this dreadful wickedness was not holiness. It might turn a man an infidel; but I begin to think the Word of God is something more than ever I thought of, and that there is something I can believe there surely. There are the words of the Blessed Lord, and the Apostles, and the rest, as you do not deny; and if I believe them, I shall not be an infidel.

Father O. Well, you must go on your own way, and be ruined, I suppose. I do not know whether I should stay and listen to any more, only that I hoped to save you from ruin.

I do not understand what pleasure Mr. N* can have in raking up all the wickedness he can find of unfaithful men, who are found everywhere, instead of looking at the bright and blessed examples of sanctity that are found in the Catholic Church alone.

N*. Pleasure, I have none, nor have I searched out the course of wicked men. The history would have been insupportable if I had. I have taken Roman Catholic accounts of the general state of their own body, and merely broad general statements-what you cannot escape if you read ecclesiastical history. You give holiness as one of the marks of the Church, the best you allege. Truth you do not attempt to give, as a mark, though you slip it in under the head of holiness, because, if a mark, then we must seek the truth first outside the Church, to know what it is, and see if your Church has it; but holiness, which natural conscience, if not corrupted, seeks in that which is of God, at least when the true God is at alt known, you call one to judge of the Church by, in seeking the true one. How can I do this, but by inquiring if the body you present to me as such, is holy. That is what I have done; and not by accusations from without, but by complaints of honest men within. If you can prove it to be a body characterized by holiness, you have only to do so; but the shameless corruptions are written on every page of her history. These awakened Wickliffe and Huss to denounce the state of things. These put Wessal in prison. You would refuse their testimony to the evil, however notoriously true; one was burnt for his pains by the Council of Constance, after it had pledged its faith to him, because faith was not to be kept with heretics; the other, defended during his life by the Duke of Lancaster, had his bones dug up and cast away. But I have quoted your own writers. As to saints being only found in. the Roman body, I wholly deny it. That there were some godly men, I do not deny, though generally persecuted, and very dark as to truth; and many called saints, anything but such; but the truest saints were hunted down on every side, then burned by your prelates and inquisition for the truth they held, giving their lives rather than give it up. There were many such, whose names live, though often in hidden archives, but whose record is rather on high. And as to the kind of saints you pretend to-those canonized by men-the Greek Church have a full complement of them, and some of them as far from sanctity' as need be, and those among the most famous, too, as St. Cyril, a most violent and unprincipled man; St. Jerome, the bitterest, and most unforgiving and abusive; others, as Cyprian, independent of, and opposed to, Rome; or Augustine, who led the way in an African Council in excommunicating all who appealed to Rome after they had decided anything in Africa. The pretension to have all the saints, may do very well for ignorant people, who know nothing about the matter, but will not do for those who do. If a calendar is a proof, the Greeks have about as full a one as you. I do not know if they. have St.

Veronica too.

Bill M. Who is that, Sir?

N*. It is a curious history enough. There was a story, as there are many such, that some woman gave a

handkerchief to wipe the face of the Blessed Lord on His way to Calvary; and, as a reward, his likeness was imprinted on it. This was copied and sold everywhere in Italy, at any rate. The word Veronica is a corruption of true likeness, and then was taken to be the name of a woman; and she is in the Calendar, and worshipped as such; and the handkerchief exposed to the worship, I must call it, of the multitude at St. Peter's, at Rome. One dreads mixing up the very name of the Blessed Lord with such things; but it is well to know how that blessed name has been brought down to profanation by the system of Roman superstition.*

Sure I am, if any one did so serve in truth that Blessed One, she will not lose her reward. Happy she to have been permitted such a service. But it is not in having a handkerchief worshipped in St. Peter's, and what is a fable in itself, turned into the name of a woman. Roman superstition debases really all it touches. Forgive me, Mr. o., if the feeling which bringing the holy name of the Lord into such things has led me to, expresses itself severely.

But I will pursue, as briefly as I can, what remains of this sad history, and see if holiness is a mark to be found in the Roman ecclesiastical system, in order to recognize it as the true Church. One of your own saints, Bernard, says, in his sermon on the conversion of Paul, " The whole Christian people, from the least to the greatest, has conspired against God. It is not the time to say, as the people, so the priest;' for the people are not even as the priest is. They are the ministers of Christ, but serve Antichrist. All that remains is, that this ' man of sin' should be revealed." I refer to this because it attests the universality of the corruption; and, further, that what you look up to as the church-namely, the clergy-were the source of it. It was about this time that the celibacy of the clergy began to be enforced, giving occasion to endless and universal corruption. Still, many priests were married, though the Popes treated their wives as concubines. And people were desired to receive the sacraments from them if they were dying; only their sons were not to inherit their parishes, for they were even given as portions to daughters. In England it is admitted all the best priests were married; but the king took money for it, and so did the bishops in different countries, for allowing them to live, as they said, in concubinage, so that councils had to forbid it; but it continued (Hard. Cone., vii. 1147, 1804, 1807, viii. 31). Canons as to it are found in Hard. from A.D. 1217 to 1302. Thomas Aquinas advises them to have a wife secretly, as being better than general fornication. In the canon law (Distinction lxxxi. c. 6) a clergyman convicted of. having begotten children in the presbytery was to be deposed. But the gloss says, it is generally said a clergyman is not to be deposed for simple fornication, for few can be found without that sin. All this system of corruption went on increasing if possible; and in an address to Pope Leo, the very year of the Reformation, W. F. Picus, Lord of Mirandola, nephew of the famous Pic de Mirandola, states that the priests having got into the state described in Rom. 1, parents gave meritorious boys to them, and these, when ruined, afterward became priests. At an earlier period than this, before the Council of Pisa, during the schism in the Papacy, Clemangis, the rector of the University of Paris, says, after a general description of the avarice and debauchery of the highest clergy, " if any one is lazy-if any one hate to work, he flees to the priesthood. As soon as he has attained to it, they diligently frequent brothels and taverns, and spend their time in drinking, eating, dining, singing, playing at dice and games; gorged and drunken, they fight, cry out, make riots, execrate the name of God and His saints with their most polluted lips." And he, as was commonly done, complained of their going from their nightly wickedness to serve at the Divine altar. Clemangis further states that the nunneries were brothels of Venus, and that to make a girl take the veil was to give her up to prostitution. This is the testimony of a most respectable Roman Catholic, the correspondent of kings and popes, laboring to heal the Papal schism, the rector of the first university in the world. In Innocent IVth's time, Matt. Paris, p. 319 (a citation I cannot myself verify, not having his history) gives the parting address of Cardinal Hugo at Lyons, where a so-called general council had been held, saying that they had been very useful to the city; for that when they came there were only three or four brothels in it, now there was only one, but it was the whole town, from the eastern gate of the city to the western. That the Popes were no better I shall quote only Baronius to show. That reprobate Sergius (908 ii.,), the slave of all vices, the most iniquitous of all men-what did he leave unattempted? Again (912 vii.,), one Pope undid all the acts of another. "What, then, was the state of the holy Roman Church? How filthy, when the most powerful and basest harlots ruled at Rome, at whose will sees were changed, bishops given, and, what is horrible and unutterable to hear of, their lovers were introduced into the See of Peter, who are only to be written in the catalog of Roman Pontiffs to mark such times. For who can say that persons intruded without law in this way by harlots can be said to be legitimate Roman Pontiffs. The clergy never elected, nor is there afterward any consenting mention." I shall have to touch on this as to apostolicity and succession; I only refer to it now as to the mark of holiness. Is it not a solemn mockery to say, " What, then was the face of the holy Roman Church," and then to give such a description? What is " filthy " holiness? I have done; one has only to consult the canons of councils to see the horrible state things were in, or the complaints of the laity, or any sober Roman Catholic writer. The laity tauntingly said to the clergy, sin is one thing for you and another for us; for us to have one wife is no sin, but to have to do with another woman is; for you it is a sin to have one lawful wife, but you can have a hundred others. And for a century or two it was an outcry for reformation in head and members. If holiness is a sign of the Church, the Roman body is not the Church of God. It is not holy in doctrine, teaching that God provides by the Church an easier way to get forgiveness than true contrition, because that is too hard;* and that alleged wholesome discipline for sin' or proportionate pain in purgatory can be remitted for money. As to holy practice, we have seen what the facts are. Can you deny the statements I have made?

Father O. I do not deny that there was evil, or that these statements exist; but it seems to me a sad thing to pass over all that is good, and fasten on the corruption, and specially that of those dark ages. No doubt there were times when the Church sunk very low; but it has been kept and preserved through all. They were the manners of the age.

.N*. Is that-that they were the manners of the age -an excuse for the Church when holiness is in question, and we are referred to it as a proof of the true one. I have not turned to accusers, as I said before, but to the most respectable Roman Catholic writers, and, among the rest, the great Jesuit historian Cardinal Baronius; and I have not gone into details, of which many are to be found, edited with biting sarcasm; but quotations which show the awful depth of depravity to which all were sunk under the influence of Romanism, its universality, the clergy being the worst, and the Popes, if anything, the worst of all. Has the Roman body the mark of holiness to prove it is the true Church. It is more decent since the Reformation, but still frightfully corrupt through enforced celibacy.

Bill M. But is all this so, Mr. o. It is terrible to think of. Please tell me, is it true?

Father O. You have heard what I have said to this gentleman. But I do not see what is to be gained by continuing the discussion on such a ground as this. I came in hopes to rescue M. Of that I have no hope; and you must excuse my pursuing the argument any farther. If it is only to throw reproach on the only true Church in the world, it is a scandal to a true Catholic, and shakes the foundation of all faith.

N*. Well, Mr. o, we can still take Milner, and see what he has to say. You will please to remember that it is the ground you put it on yourself in presenting holiness as one of the marks of the true Church. I have followed you on your own ground, which is, indeed, that of all Roman Catholic controversialists and catechisms. Only you give a proof of this, that the Roman body has no ground of faith at all. No believer could speak as you do. They know the Word of God is true; have received it as God's Word. You have only the Church; and when your boasted marks, only affording us, at best, a human ground of judgment, break as a reed and pierce your hand, you have no ground of faith at all, but are cast on the wild sea of infidelity without a compass. We remember the loving apostle's word when he foresaw the evil that was breaking in upon the Church: " I commend you to God and the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified." To that grace and to that word we trust. You trust the Church, which he said was going to be invaded by wolves, and even corrupted by those within, commending the individuals to God and the word of His grace. We trust not the professing body, assailed by wolves from without and corrupters within, but God and the word of His grace, which is able to build us up (Acts 20:29-32). As I see you are preparing to go, though I have to acknowledge your courtesy in so long listening to what must have been painful to you, and, indeed, to every one, though you doubtless know something of it from your own writers, I should have been glad to state what it seems to me Scripture states of this sad moral ruin of the professing body of Christendom. We have already seen what the apostle says in Acts 20 and in 2 Tim. 3 He describes its state pretty nearly in the very terms which he applies to heathen depravity in the first of Romans, adding the form of piety, and tells us to look to the Scriptures as our sure resource.

Father O. I have no wish to have your biblical expositions. I am content to hear the Church, as its Master directs us. If you and M. will go After your own minds, you must answer for it yourselves. I have felt it useless replying to a system of calumniating what is holy. It is just the way with you Protestants. I will wish you a good evening.

N*. Good evening. You will only remember that I have quoted only your own writers, attached to the Roman hierarchy and system, on the point you raised yourself.

Bill M. Good evening, sir.

N*. Well, M., I must go, I think, too. Mr. o., I suppose, will not return. If so, we can follow Milner with James; and Mr. o. could give us no more, only I was glad you should have been here. It was a very sorrowful and painful part of the inquiry; but when they make holiness a mark of the Church, it must be inquired into. Happily I could only go into the general statements, which are full enough; for if details were given, it would be endless and every way unprofitable. But Mr. o. could not deny it, because the state of things is described by their own contemporary writers and admitted by their historians.

Bill M. Well, I am confounded. I never thought of such a thing; and then they seem so holy and devout.

N*. That is what the apostle says, having the form of godliness, telling us to turn away from them.

Bill M. I see that the mark of holiness is wanting, for they avow it in these past ages; and they all say it is always the same. Church. I do not know how they can dare to give holiness as a mark.

N Good evening, Mr. O.; I am glad to see that you are come. You are already aware of what is occupying us; we shall get on more satisfactorily by your being here. Up to the present we could meet the case fairly, because I was only answering Dr. Milner's statements; but now I have to refer in turn to historical facts, and our friends here are not learned, of course; and though, I trust, I should deal fairly with them, yet you can tell them if what I quote is not just. M. insists on our listening to the true Church, and tells us it is infallible. We ask, Where is it? Where are we to find this infallibility?

Father O. I do not see what an ignorant person, such as Bill M., has to do disputing about religion: he has only to mind the direction of his pastor. How can such an ignorant person as he is judge about controversies that the most learned men discuss, and that the authority of the Church alone can decide? He had much better have minded his religion, and shown charity and good works in his life. However, as I found he had difficulties I did not refuse to come and show what the judgment of the true Church is; otherwise, as Tertullian says, heretics are to be rejected, not discussed with. And I do not think it is a gentlemanlike thing of you, sir, to be coming and troubling my flock about their religion.

N. We have been looking into that passage of Tertullian. As to troubling your flock, dear sir, you will kindly remember that our good friend, Bill M., had recently changed, as is commonly said, his religion, and, I suppose, gentlemanlike or not, someone had been troubling him, though I do not think he has much to say about a great deal of religion he had before, nor indeed since. However he is very zealous for his new opinions, and tells us he is so happy now that he could not but try and get James to turn to what he calls the true Church, and he had succeeded in perplexing James. Now, I suppose, you hardly blame his zeal in this: there is a good deal of it going.

Father O. I do not blame his zeal; it is the natural fruit of charity and the peace that the true Church always gives.

N*. Very well, then, you can hardly blame our meeting his arguments. We had procured Dr. Milner's End of Controversy, and we have examined that hitherto. Now, I deny entirely that Rome is the true Church, or the Catholic Church in any sense; and Bill M., however zealous, was at a loss and went to you; you can hardly blame him for that, and we are much obliged to you for coming. We will not ask you to go into all the marks of the true Church: we can take them from Dr. Milner and the Catechism of the Council of Trent; but we want to know where the infallibility is. Here Bill M. and James, ignorant and sincere men, one a Roman Catholic and the other a Protestant, want to know (though James, like myself, is satisfied that the Scriptures alone are certain truth, and of absolute authority and sufficient) where this infallibility is to be found. I affirm that you have no certain source of truth at all, and no infallible guide to refer to.

Father O. Pardon me, you are to hear the Church. God has promised to preserve it from error, and all it binds on earth is bound in heaven.

N*. The last is not said of the Church, unless a particular assembly, two or three gathered together in Christ's name, be considered such; but let that pass, now. Where is the Church?

Father O. That is a question easily answered. It is the holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.

N*. Well that is just what we deny; but where is the seat of infallibility, or, if we do not adopt the Scriptures, the certain rule of faith? I met a Jesuit priest abroad: he told me there were three.

Father O. You must have mistaken him.

N*. I do not think you will reject what he said. He said the authoritative decision as to truth or infallibility was in the Pope and the whole Church; the consent of the Church universal with the Pope; or the Pope and the whole Church represented in a general Council; or, lastly, the Pope speaking ex cathedra..

Father O. All that is still the Church itself, or the Church by its divinely appointed organs.

N*. Very well, we may accept this then, and, by your permission, we will inquire whether certain truth is to be found by their means, and where. The first itself comes short of Vincentius Lirinensis' vaunted rule, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, What was held always, everywhere, by all, and the rule itself invalidates the decision come to at any given epoch, and obliges me to inquire what was always held. But man's holding anything is no proof of its truth. Nor even is all Christians, simply as such, holding anything. To have certain divine truth we must have God's revelation. Till Paul arose, or, at any rate, till the case of Cornelius, all Christians held the perpetual obligation of the law of Moses. Yet they were all wrong. God was obliged to give an express revelation to Peter, Wand the same to Paul, to lead the Church from what all held. And even after that, the Jewish Christians held so ardently to their traditions and sought so diligently to force the Gentile Christians to receive them, that the question had to be settled by the Apostles and Elders coming together at Jerusalem. Nor even did this suffice; for so little unity after all was there on the subject, and so perverse is the human mind in its adherence to ceremonies and legal righteousness, that St. 'Paul had to resist him of whom you make so unholy a boast, the Apostle Peter, to the face, because he, and through him Barnabas and all the Jews, were carried away by dissimulation on this point. And those at '',Jerusalem maintained their views and harassed the Apostle Paul unceasingly in his ministry, and finally induced him at Jerusalem to follow that course which, under God's over-ruling hand, ended in his imprisonment and death. Yet this was a point in which, according to Paul himself, the truth of the gospel was concerned. So little, even in Apostolic times, is the unity of the Church in its views to be depended upon, or even Peter himself. But the teaching of Scripture, whether in the decrees in Acts 15 or in the Epistles- Galatians, Romans, Colossians, Timothy, and elsewhere-is as plain and as decided as possible. Revelation decides it simply; what is held by the Church gives no certain sound at all. And this, remark, upon a vital point, which half fills the Epistles of Paul, and at a time when we are told that nearness to the Apostles must make us sure of their doctrine. The Word of God is quite clear; but even an Apostle, and a great Apostle, stumbles in his walk as to it. There cannot possibly be a stronger case.

Father O. But it was settled by the council at Jerusalem.

N*. Undoubtedly what was settled as truth, by the decision of the Apostles, none of us are disposed to question. The authority of councils, as a foundation for the truth, we will consider in its turn. We are now upon the consent of the whole Church, including the Pope. Now, this fails at the first step; and if we are to take Peter at Jerusalem even as the first Pope he was to be publicly reproved by the Apostle Paul, so that your great champion, Bellarmine (De Summo Pont. Lib. I. 38. 29-31), is embarrassed to the last degree by the case; tries to make the sin venial, etc., but is obliged to admit that the Latin Fathers hold it for sin. It is quite certain Paul did. But let us seek this unity and consent of all later down in the history of the Church. Were all agreed as to re-baptizing heretics?

Father O. They all came to an agreement and submitted to the Pope.

N*. I admit the Pope prevailed at last, as he has on many points more evil than this, but has broken up and divided the Church by his pretensions to do so. But we are looking for the consent of the Church to secure truth.. Did not the godly martyr, Cyprian, and all Africa, Egypt and Syria, and Asia Minor-that is, all the most ancient Apostolic Churches-reject the Pope's dogmas on this point?

Father O. Yes, they did; but it did not succeed.

N*. Did they ever yield till the death of Pope Stephen removed the difficulties?

Father O. No, they did not.

N*. You uprightly admit what is a matter of notorious history; and then they came to a middle term-of not baptizing again if they owned the Trinity, and baptizing them again if they did not (Canon 8, Council of Arles). Now, I do not blame the concord thus established; but as a source of truth the common consent of the Church failed thus early in the Church's history. In a very large portion of the Church, if subject to their bishops, they must have differed from Rome. Now, I might multiply instances. In the case of the Donatists the African bishops applied to the Emperor Constantine, and the civil authority interfered to settle it. For alas! when the Emperor turned Christian, so servile was the Church that he for a time was the true Pope. Yet, when Constantine called councils and regulated everything, he was not even baptized-was so only on his death bed, to be sure to be clear of his sins.

Father O. Do you think it right to cast a slur upon the whole Church of God thus?

N*. I think it right to examine facts when you make such a body as this an authority for the truth. But we will go to more serious points than even the re-baptizing of heretics. I suppose you, as I do, abhor the principles of Arius.

Father O. Surely; and he was condemned by the Church, and especially in the council of Nice.

N*. He was justly so, we all admit; but did that settle the Church in unity on the point? You know that Athanasius was the great and able champion of the truth. Did he not die, excommunicated and banished?

Father O. Yes, but that was through the intrigues of a wicked Arian emperor.

N*. I agree with you; but, then, how can the consent of the Church secure the faith? Here was, if any be, a fundamental article-the true divinity of the blessed Lord-given up (save by some honored and blessed confessors) by nearly the whole professing Church, instead of its securing doctrine. But further. The Pope himself, though for sometime faithful, at last signed a semi-Arian formulary. Constantius had banished him from Rome because he would not be an Arian. In this he was to be honored, and Felix was appointed Pope in his place. The Emperor, on entering Rome to celebrate a triumph, found he was loved, saw him afterward, and he signed a formulary which omitted the testing word, and got an acknowledgment from the prelates who were with Constantius that they should be condemned who said Christ, as to substance and in every way, was not like the Father, and then he was restored, and there were two Popes till Felix's death. Further, was not Arius restored by Constantius's order to full communion at Jerusalem, and recalled from exile to Constantinople?

Father O. Yes; but he died miserably at Constantinople before he could be restored there.

N*. Be it so. I know it is said so. If that were God's judgment upon him, what are we to make of the Churches who, on Constantius's order, restored him? Is it not as plain as can possibly be that in the very foundation truth of our religion, the professing Church, Bishops, Pope and all, failed wholly to preserve the truth. Indeed Constantine, who had first condemned the Arians, falling under the influence of Eusebius, the prelate of Nicomedia, an able and learned man, but a semi-Arian and worse, recalled the Arians everywhere, and, as we' have seen, Athanasius was excommunicated and banished; then Constans, who held to the Nicene creed, ruling in the west, and Constantius in the east, the east was Arian, and the west held to the Council of Nice; but Constantius having defeated the usurping assassin of his brother Constans, held a council at Milan, where Athanasius was condemned. He banished those who would not subscribe its decrees-Pope Liberius, Hosius, Lucifer, and others; but, as we have seen, Liberius compromised the matter and returned, and the aged and respected Hosius, alas gave way. Lucifer remained firm, and became the head of the sect of Luciferians, whom Jerome wrote against. Now, mark that all this confusion was on the very essence of the faith.

Father O. No doubt it was a sad time; but do you not see how God has been with His Church, and preserved it in the faith notwithstanding all this.

N.* That I admit and bless Him for with all my whole heart. The gates of hell shall never prevail against it. That is the comfort of one's heart in reading its history. But our point now is, can the professing Church secure our faith by its maintaining with one consent any doctrine? The history of Arianism clearly proves that this is not so, and that it cannot be trusted for it. We shall have to touch on this again when we speak of councils. Take again the case of image worship. Was there universal consent as to that?

Father O. There is now; Romans and Greeks unite in it.

N*. But if now, what comes of the rule what was always, everywhere, and by all. Is it not true that for centuries there were none? Your great dogmatist Petavius admits that none were used for 400 years, and gives as a reason that there was danger of their being confounded with the heathens, but that in the fifth, when she got her liberty, she began to have them openly (Pet. de Incarn. 15. 13, 3). Epiphanius finding an image on a curtain in a church tore it with his own hands as contrary to Scripture. He charges their introduction on heretics, as does Augustine, and declares that the Church condemns such habits (Epiph. in Jerome lit. LL. Ed. Vallar 1.253.)

The Council of Eliberis, in Spain; A.D. 305, decreed that pictures ought not to be in churches. For a length of time they were rejected in the East, and insisted on by the Popes; solemnly condemned in a council of 338 prelates at Constantinople in 754 A.D.; approved by a council of 350 in 787 A.D.; condemned in England in 792 A.D., and by a great council of prelates at Frankfort, under Charlemagne, 794 A.D..

Now this will come before us under the question of councils. But how am I then to learn anything sure from the consent of the professing Church, or hold what is held always, everywhere, and by all. These are only examples on the most important points of doctrine and practice. The truth is, for some hundred years, from the third to the sixth and seventh centuries, there was an endless war of opinions, and the Emperors trying to keep the peace by their own decrees or by convening councils. Then, if we come down lower, after bitter and prolonged conflict and mutual excommunication, the Greek and Roman, or Eastern and Western Christendom, finally separated in the tenth century, and all the most ancient Apostolic Churches condemn Rome; so do the Nestorians and Eutychians. And now the majority of professing Christendom stands apart from her. Where am I to get this general consent. And remark, Mr. o., I am not now speaking of the doctrines or practices referred to; for instance, as to the wrongness of the heathen practice of images: our inquiry is, if the universal consent of the Church furnishes a sure ground of faith. My answer is, it cannot in principle, because it is not a revelation of God; and, secondly, that in vital points it has totally failed, and in fact is not to be found, and does not exist. Let me ask you, Do you believe in the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary.

Father O. Undoubtedly. The Pope decided upon it a few years ago in an assembly of several hundred prelates.

N*. And was it an article of faith before?

Father O. No, but it was celebrated by pious Catholics.

N*. I am aware of that. But can an important dogma be introduced above 18 centuries after the Lord?

Father O. It is promulgated then as an article of faith; but when an article of faith is promulgated it is not new; all that is maintained is, that it was always the faith of the Church.

N*. But is it not true that the Dominicans and all their doctors held that this doctrine of the immaculate conception was contrary to the truth?

Father O. They did, but it was not determined by the Church then.

N*. They were the inquisitors of heretical pravity, were they not?

Father O. The inquisitors were taken from that order.

N*. That is what I mean. But is it not strange that so celebrated an order, to which the maintenance of sound doctrine was specially confided in the Church, should have been for centuries diligently teaching what now turns out to be heresy? I do not blame them, but how can the universal consent of the Church secure our having the truth if this be so; and it was not merely a notion. They insisted on it, and used such scandalous means to make their cause good against the Franciscans that four of their order were burned at the stake for it about the time of the Reformation.

Father O. You mean the history of Jetzer at Bern.

N*. I do. They had someone to personify the Virgin Mary in an apparition, and carried it so far that the fraud was discovered.

Father O. Of course I do not excuse them. It was in dark and ignorant ages, and they were punished by the Church for it.

N*. They were, they were burnt for it, because it was found out. But our question is, what is the security for the truth when your greatest lights, your maintainers of sound doctrine and judges of heresy have brought us into ages so dark as this, and are now judged to be maintainers of false doctrine all the time.

But we will now turn to the other means of infallible knowledge of the truth. The Pope speaking ex cathedra as they say, and councils. The first is soon disposed of. In the first place we have seen Peter himself rebuked by Paul on the gravest question that could occupy the Church of God. It is not possible to think of the first Popes who- ever they were, for this is uncertain, as the authorized sources of truth, for the Apostle John lived during the time of those who first occupied the see of Rome, and they were clearly bound to listen to and be subject to the Apostle-that very Apostle who says, " He that is of God heareth us." And if the first chiefs had not this authority, its descending down to others is all a fiction. But the case of the Popes goes further, and without multiplying cases which would carry us too far, there are the plain cases of Marcellinus, who was a traitor, that is, gave up the Scriptures in persecution, and offered incense to the gods. Honorius, who was publicly condemned for being a Monothelite by the sixth General Council confirmed by the Pope. Liberius, who signed a semi-Arian deed. These we will notice a little more fully.

First, then, there is the sad case of Marcellinus, who, when Pope, Offered to idols and apostatized from Christ. Bellarmine says he taught nothing against the faith, nor heretical. (De Sum. Pont., 4. c. 8, 25.) Augustine is on safer ground he says, " whatever he may have been it is no prejudice to the Catholic Church, and in the threshing-floor there may be good and bad." But where is security for infallibility.* Bellarmine tells us it is not of much consequence if he lost the Papacy by it, as he abdicated soon after, and died a martyr. I trust the poor man's weakness may have been graciously forgiven, but we are looking for infallibility and security for faith. It is easy to understand Bellarmine's motive for making it no matter, because either there would have been an apostate Pope or one deposed by a local council for unfaithfulness. Marcellinus did the best thing he could do, if he abdicated, and we may trust all was right with him after all. Augustine's ground for its being no matter is a better one.

Father O. St Augustine was right to say the Church's faith was unaffected by it; and, indeed, as Bellarmine says, he taught nothing dogmatically wrong.

N*. Well, I should have thought it wrong every way to worship idols. A worshipper of idols is a strange security for faith. But we will turn to some other instances equally notorious;-Pope Vigilius in the dispute about what are called the three chapters, two of which were sanctioned by the great General Council of Chalcedon. In truth, Vigilius was elevated to the see of Rome on purpose to favor Monophysite heresy,* and restore Anthinus, the heretic, to the see of Constantinople, the Empress putting him in by force, by means of Belisarius, and banishing Silverius. When once in he turned right round, but quailed before the Emperor as soon as he got to Constantinople, and intrigued in vain. Then he condemned the three chapters as the Emperor had done. Then, when the Fifth General Council was called, though at Constantinople, he defended the three chapters. The Council of Constantinople broke communion with him, and approved the Emperor's condemnation of the three chapters, and Vigilius, the following year, assented to the decrees of the Council, and his successor, Pelagius I., acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Council. Where is the security for faith here anywhere? The Council of Constantinople condemned the Council of œcumenical, nominally saving its credit, and the Pope, ex cathedra, condemned, approved, and then condemned the same doctrine, what all held to be a vital question as to the person of the Lord. You cannot deny this.

Father O. I do not defend Vigilius; the persecutions of the Emperor on the one hand and the voice of the Western Church on the other made him vacillate. And see how, after all, the Church was preserved, as Baronius says, " God's hand was seen in his refusing to support the heresy when once he was really Pope."

N. But his condemning, and approving the three chapters, and then acknowledging the synod which had condemned him and them was when he was Pope. It is a plain example that the Pope's judgment, ex cathedra, is just worth nothing at all. I admit that God has preserved the faith and the Church, but it is in spite of and not by the hierarchy. But take another example, you cannot deny Liberius acquiesced in Arianism.

Father O. He never taught it.

N*. He subscribed an Arian creed, and in the largest council ever held, of some 800 prelates, and communicated with Arians and condemned Athanasius. Bellarmine says he was deceived by ambiguous terms, but if he was he was no security for our faith. The truth is he did it to free himself from the persecutions of an Arian Emperor, who sought to unite all by vague expressions, but which gave up the word on which all then depended. And, as Jerome expresses it, the world was surprised to find itself Arian. But if Bellarmine is right, and he was deceived, it is just the proof that the Pope is no security for faith, nor, indeed, a Pope and council together. To say he did not teach it when on the solemn discussion of the question with the assembled hierarchy he signed the creed, is a miserable subterfuge. Others, of course, if he was any authority, were to believe what he signed. Ought a simple Christian to have followed his faith, then, when he subscribed the Arian Creed?

Father O. No; he should have abode by the faith of the Church.

N*. How was he to know the faith of the Church when the. Pope and by far the largest council ever held had subscribed deadly heresy. No, the broad fact is there. The Pope and the largest body of prelates ever assembled in council signed and promulgated an Arian-creed. Nor did the Church, as a body, recover itself at once. I now turn to Honorius. Bellarmine labors hard to free him also, but then he cannot deny that he was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by not one but two general councils, the Pope's legates taking part in one case. Bellarmine says they wanted to secure several Eastern patriarchs being anathematized, and so, that they might succeed, threw Honorius in with them.* Moreover the Pope, his successor, undertook he should be anathematized. And then, says Bellarmine, if it cannot be denied in the least that the Pope was anathematized the council made a mistake; but then the Pope's legates were there, and it is accounted an (Ecumenical Council amongst you. So that either the Pope was a heretic, and he was struck out of what were called the Diptychs (those whose names were remembered in the public service) as unfit to be there, or Pope and council confirmed by him can err, and nothing is certain. It is really a flat denial of your own history to pretend Popes and councils, and both together, cannot err. There is no security for faith to be found in them. I might mention a multitude of cases and statements of Fathers, but I take only notorious cases, which may be found in Bellarmine, Baronius, and all Church histories. John XXII. I have mentioned; his case may be seen in Bellarmine, and John XXIII. deposed by the Council of Constance

I might insist on the absurdity and ungodliness of making infallible in faith, men of whom Baronius says he must use their being in the see as a date; but how can we own as Popes persons who were illegitimate sons of the Marquis of Tuscany's mistresses, put in by them into the see.' But I leave all this, and a great deal more, and confine myself to notorious cases, known by everyone who has read Church history at all, though the general point of what the Popes were is of great weight in the matter. I ask you, solemnly, if a Chinese or a Hindoo were seeking, with a sincere heart led of God, for the rule of faith and means of discovering the true religion, would he find it in the most licentious, depraved, wicked series of men that ever were found; and while 1 admit they were not so at first, what is to be a rule of faith must be always one, to 'say nothing of there being two or three Popes at a time.

If we take history we find there was no such doctrine in the early Church, and further that Popes have grievously erred. Thus Cyprian, and all the African and Asiatic and Egyptian bishops, resisted Stephen's doctrine. Before that, when Victor refused communion with the Eastern Churches on a question of keeping Easter, the godly Irenæus rebuked him, many bishops concurring. "This did not please all the bishops," says Eusebius, some of them speaking pretty sharply to him (the Pope) (Eus. v. 24). And till the Council of Nice, the East and West continued their own observances as to what Victor excommunicates them for. So Augustine, in the case of Marcellinus (which, strange to say, Baronius quotes with approbation, thinking only of Catholic doctrine), says, " Whatever Marcellinus may have been, it is no prejudice to the Catholic Church diffused in the whole world. We are in no way crowned by their innocence, nor condemned by their iniquity... In the threshing floor (of the Church) there can be good and bad (De Unico Baptismo, Cont. Pet. xvi., or Ben. 39). He had not the remotest idea of infallibility in a Pope. If he was a bad one and sacrificed to idols, the faith was not affected by it. So indeed Tertullian asks triumphantly in respect of such falls, Do we prove faith by persons, or persons by faith?" Listen to the plain language of Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, the great friend of the Pope, the great stickler for orthodoxy and Church authority in his day. " Nor is the Church of the Roman city to be esteemed one, and that of all the earth to be another. Both the Gauls, and Britons, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all barbarous nations adore one Christ, observe one rule of faith. If authority be sought, the world is greater than a city. Wherever there is a bishop, Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tunis, he is of the same worth, he is of the same priesthood. The power of riches and the humility of poverty make neither a more exalted, nor an inferior bishop; but all are successors of the Apostles."

This is a poor way of treating infallibility. Cyprian expressly declares that when Paul rebuked Peter, the latter never thought of insolently and arrogantly pretending to have the primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed (Litt. 71.). Accordingly, as we have seen, the African bishops maintained their views against the Pope. The thought of infallibility did not exist. When we come lower down in history the claims of the Popes increase, and their authority extends; but the effect was that all the most ancient part of the Church, that is the East, broke off from them altogether, and remains opposed to Rome to this day.

The University of Paris solemnly condemned John XXII. for heresy, and the Council of Constance charged John XXIII. with saying that the soul died with the body. Now this shows how little infallibility was supposed to be inherent in the Pope. The Council of Basel says: " many of the supreme Pontiffs are said, and so we read, to have fallen into heresy and error. It is certain that the Pope can err. A Council has often condemned and deposed a Pope as well on account of faith as morals." Now, I quite understand that you will say this Council has no authority, but we are looking for a sure ground on which to found the authority of the Church; and surely when the assembled Prelates of Christendom declare that the Popes may, and have, erred in faith and morals, the infallibility of the Pope is no longer a very sure ground. Their claiming it, which we all know they do, does not give it to them. We will enter on the ground of Councils when we come to that point. I turn to the history of the Popes that we may understand what happened at Constance. There were two Popes and even three from the Council of Pisa, till after the Council of Constance; were they both infallible, both heads of the Church? Half Europe obeyed one, half the other. Did not they mislead, one or both, the Church of God? Where was certainty to guide the faithful here? They anathematized each other. Is this what the faith of God's Church, or the saving of souls is to rest upon? But, further, the Council of Constance, after exacting the resignation of the principal but most wicked of the three, ( which, after some tergiversations, he gave on being threatened to have his awful wickedness exposed,) on his running away fearing the consequences of his crimes, deposed him, and chose another; the two others lingered on a little while, and then died out.

Father O. But the Council of Constance was not ratified by the Pope.

N. It created the Pope, and all your alleged spiritual authority flows from hence, that is from its acts; you have no Pope at all if its acts are wrong. But we will speak of this when we come to Councils, we are now on the Popes being infallible. But here, I will add, Martin the V. did confirm the Council of Constance, and not only so, but Eugenius, though he afterward found means to break it up, recalled his three bulls (one he said was not genuine) which condemned the Council of Basel, and gave in his adhesion, and recognized it and its acts as met in the power of the Holy Ghost, which acts fully confirmed the decrees of Constance.

M. But is all this true, Father o?

Father O. The facts are true, but I must beg you not to interfere and enter into what you cannot possibly judge of. When Mr. N. has done I will show how fallacious all this is. I only now say, it is just a proof how, if men have been individually wicked, God has preserved the Church. The faith of the Church has remained the same, and that is all you have to say to.

N. That the excessive wickedness of the popes and clergy, which we shall be obliged to look into when we speak of the marks of the true Church, is a proof that the blessed God has preserved His Church, and the faith of God's elect in spite of them, I admit fully and bless Him for it. But we are examining, not if God has preserved the faith for us in spite of them, but if they are a warrant and security for the faith. But if these facts are true, the Popes are no kind of security for the faith, and that is our question now. Let me add, dear Sir, that your rebuke to M. is the best possible proof of the untenableness of the ground he and you are upon. You say he cannot possibly judge of the validity of this ground of faith. But that is what you want us to do-only you want us to do it without honest examination. Dr. Milner says we believe the Catholic Church, and therefore everything which she teaches, upon motives of credibility, and Mr. John Newman (who turned Roman Catholic) avows he has only probability, though of a high character. Now, in no case can this be a divine foundation for faith. It is upon the face of it merely human. It would be blasphemy to say that what God said was probably true. But so utterly futile is your rule of faith, that when we begin to examine it, you tell our friend M. here that he cannot possibly judge of it. Now, where is he to get his motives of credibility? And though it may be difficult for a poor man to examine for himself folios of Fathers and councils, as of course it is, yet, according to your rule of faith, he must, or be led blindfold by a man. But the facts which are brought forward by those who can examine them, show that your rule is a dreadfully false one, and when they are thus honestly furnished to him, he can judge that the foundation you build on is utterly worthless. If the Pope be a sure foundation of faith (a thing not thought of for hundreds of years) God has given a premium to the most horrible wickedness that ever disgraced human nature, for such wickedness characterizes the Popes above all men on the earth. Do you deny the wickedness of John XXIII. of whom we have just been speaking, or of Alexander VI., and many others. You cannot, you dare not, with any one who knows history. Even your Pope Gregory VII., who built the grandeur of the Papacy, raising it above the Empire, and established the celibacy (that is, the corruption of the clergy) died away from his see, having been first deposed by a council of

German bishops at Worms, and afterward condemned as a heretic, and sentenced to be deposed by the Council of Brixen, and a new Pope chosen, Clement III., who was consecrated at Rome. Now, I attach no authority to this council, or their Pope (though, in supporting the Emperor, to whom God gave authority, against the Pope, to whom God gave none, the prelates were right) but what sort of foundation for faith and salvation is all this?

James. Well, to think of all this being called the Church of God and authority for our faith. I am glad I have the Bible and know nothing about all this. There one has holiness and truth, and not wars and ambition for Christianity. It is terrible to think what the professing Church came to, if all this is true.

.N. It is terrible, and the thousandth part of it has not been told, but we must pursue our inquiry soberly. Our point is the Pope's infallibility being the source of certainty as to the faith. Now, the second point I stated was that they had confessedly erred. And we have cited examples. For it is perfectly well known that plenty believed nothing at all. But I have selected cases that have been brought out in history as to the faith. Marcellinus offered incense to idols, Liberius signed a semi-Arian creed. Honorius was condemned for being a Monothelite by a general council sanctioned by Pope Agatho. Zosirnus I may add here corrupted artfully the canons of the Council of Nice to found the authority of the see of Rome, and was detected in the East and in Africa. John XXII. was charged with heresy as to the state of souls after death. John XXIII., deposed by the council of Constance, was charged there with denying the immortality of the soul.

Father O. I do not admit all these cases. It was never proved against Marcellinus; John XXII. was only condemned by a council of divines at Paris. And Zosimus' act at any rate was a fraud, not a heresy. He quoted Sardica and said Nice. And it is a question if these canons of Nice were not burnt.

N. There is this much obscure in the case of Marcellinus, that the deacons and presbyters who bore witness to it only saw him go into the sanctuary of Vesta to do it, and did not see it done. I admit the acts of the Council of Sinuessa, in which it is fully stated, and where he is said to have confessed it on his knees, may be, and are possibly justly called in question, and I do not depend on them, though even Baronius, your great historian, did not wholly give them up, and all. St. Augustine ventures to say is, that we ought not to hold him guilty till it is proved. But the account is as circumstantial as possible. It is said that he resisted the Emperor's violence, but gave way to blandishments and money, and that he said he did not sacrifice, but only put a few grains of incense on the fire to the idol, the names of the priests and deacons who went with him to the door being mentioned, so that it is impossible to believe it is a mere fable. Moreover, he gave up the popedom in consequence.* But is this what faith is to rest on? As to John XXII, there is no doubt whatever. Your own historians relate it, and say he coldly retracted the error before he died, and that his successor, Benedict, condemned it. So that, as a foundation for faith, we see a pope cannot be trusted. As to Zosimus, I admit that it was a fraud and not a heresy; but it was a fraudulently citing as the canons of the council of Nice what were no part of them, and what was put forward as the foundation of the whole jurisdiction and authority of the Pope. The Council of Bishops in Africa, in which the famous St. Augustine took part, denied their genuineness, sent and got the true Greek copies in the East and rejected Zosimus' claims. And the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, did the same thing, sending full copies of the canons of Nice. Is not this true?

Father O. Yes. But they were the canons of the council of Sardica which he cited as those of Nice.

N*. That is, he attributed the resolutions of a little petty conclave of his own partizans, assembled to give him this power (from whence all the bishops of the East had separated when they found what they were about, meeting elsewhere, and condemning the Sardicans), to the first great general council in order fraudulently to set up that authority of the see of Rome which it now claims: and Rome has ever since built largely on this fraud. It is well to refer a little to this history as elucidating the supremacy and alleged appellative jurisdiction of Rome. I will go a little further back, as, among other things, our allegation is that we can trace the origin of these pretensions. In Cyprian's time, besides the case we have already spoken of, about rebaptizing heretics, another question arose. In A.D. 252, two Spanish bishops guilty of being Libellatici (that is, having received certificates of having owned heathen idols, obtained by money from heathen magistrates without having really done so) were deposed by a provincial synod of the country. One was re-admitted to communion but not to his see, but went to Rome and complained to Pope Stephen. The Pope, always glad as Popes were to augment their authority, ordered the Spanish synod to restore both to their sees. Meanwhile, Cyprian being everywhere known by his activity, the bishops of the synod laid the affair before him. He summoned a local council, and they declared that Stephen had been evidently deceived, and that Basilides and Martialis (the other bishop) had greatly increased their crime by appealing from the local judgment. He declares the judgment he communicated to be conformable to the understood practice of the Church. There the matter ended. The great Romanist historian is careful not to notice this transaction. It may be found in other histories (see Cyprian's letter 67, Oxfd. Pam. 68.) Cyprian in every respect maintained the independence of the Episcopate against Rome. He says: -"Among us there is no one who will arrogate to himself any authority over those of his own order or claim to be a bishop of bishops... inasmuch as every bishop has equal liberty of judging and determining upon all questions that come before him, and can no more be judged by, than he can judge another. Therefore, it should be our resolution to await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all our powers to govern His Church are derived, and who alone has authority to call us to account" (Prologue to judgment of 87 bishops in council of Carthage). So when Pope Cornelius had received Felicissimus, who had been excommunicated in Africa, Cyprian writes to blame him severely, and says the crime ought to be judged where it is committed, and where the witnesses are, " unless to some few desperate and lost persons the authority of the bishops established in Africa seem to be inferior. There cause is already taken cognizance of, the sentence already passed on them," and declares a special portion of the flock is appropriated to each shepherd, which each is to rule and govern, having to give an account of his acts to God (Epist. 58, Oxfd.).

The history of Sardica, which was subsequent to this, was the following:-

When Athanasius had been condemned by the Councils of Tire and Antioch, and banished, he first fled to Julius, who held a small assembly at Rome, and acquitted him; then to Treves, and the. Emperor Constans got Constantius, Emperor of the East, to call a council. This was held at Sardica. Athanasius, whose cause was to be tried, sat there. The Eastern bishops claimed that he should be excluded. This the others refused. The parties were equally divided, and the Eastern prelates seceded; the Western ones remained. The Eastern half at Philippopolis condemned Athanasius; the Sardicans acquitted him, and then gave for the first time an appeal to Rome. These latter canons Zosimus sought to foist on the African bishops as canons of the Council of Nice. But they were never heard of as being those of a Council of Sardica as of any authority, nor ever received in any way in the Eastern Church. And note, the giving then, which is what they do expressly in honor of St. Peter, a title to Rome to require a re-examination on the spot in case of an appeal, or to take other measures, proves that he did not possess the right before. It was very convenient to Athanasius, as he had been thus acquitted by Pope Julius and condemned in the East, to set up this power in Rome. This Council of Sardica and its canons were, however, no way recognized in the Church, for three general councils, Constantinople, 381 (34 years after), Chalcedon, 451, Constantinople, 681, all decree what is entirely in opposition to the Sardican, namely,-that causes should be heard by the provincial synods with appeal to the Patriarch to whose jurisdiction they belonged. It was Julius's successor, Liberius, who signed the Arian or semi-Arian creed, when Constantius, the Eastern Emperor, had all his own way, and so did Hosius, one of the alleged presidents of the Sardican Council. I will now return to Pope Zosimus. A certain presbyter, Apiarius, had been excommunicated by his bishop and others for ill conduct. He goes off to Rome. Zosimus pronounces him innocent, and sends Faustinus and two others to Africa to a synod then gathered about it. His messengers were to see Apiarius reinstated, and to urge that any presbyter might appeal to Rome. The African prelates answered there was no such rule in the Church as that. Zosimus's messengers plead the canons of the Council of Nice. The prelates said these canons were not in their copies of the canons of the Council of Nice; but they would send to Constantinople, and Alexandria, and Antioch, the three great patriarchates and see. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople replied, and it was found that there were no such canons of the Council of Nice at all. Zosimus was now dead, and his successor, Boniface, who pursued the claim, was dead also, and the African prelates write to Pope Cælestine to say that the Council of Nice had committed these things to the Metropolitan, or a local council, or even to a general one. It is worth while, though it be long, to recite what the prelates say in what they call the universal African Council of Carthage:-" No determination of the Fathers has ever taken this authority (of judging its own clergy) from the African Church, and the decrees of Nice have openly committed both inferior clergymen and bishops themselves to their Metropolitans. For they have provided most prudently and justly that every matter should be terminated in its own place where it arose. Nor is it to be thought that to each and every consideration the grace of the Holy Spirit will be wanting by which equity may be prudently perceived by the priests of Christ, and firmly maintained, especially because it is allowed to every one, if he be offended by the judgment on the charges, to appeal to the councils of his province, or even to a universal one. Unless, perhaps, there be some one who may think that our God may inspire justice in examining, to a single person, whoever it may be, and deny it to innumerable priests assembled in council.... For we have not found it established in any synod of the Fathers that any should be sent as legates of your holiness (tuæ sanctitatis a latere, the common name since for popish legates). For that which you formerly transmitted by the same Faustinus, our co-bishop, as on the part of the Nicene Council, in the truer copies of the Council of Nice, which we have received, sent from our co-bishop, Cyril, of the Church of Alexandria, and the venerable Atticus, prelate of Constantinople, from the authentic copies, which also had already been sent by us to Bishop Boniface of venerable memory, your predecessor, by the hands of Innocent, presbyter, and Marcellus, sub-deacon, by whom they were forwarded to us from them (Cyril and Atticus), we have not been able to find anything of the kind. Also do not think of sending nor granting upon any of ours requesting it any of your clergy as executors (agents to enforce decrees) lest we may seem to introduce the smoky pride of this world into the Church of Christ, which offers the light of simplicity and the day-light of lowliness to those who desire to see God.”*

And then the council declares that Africa could no longer endure the presence of Faustinus if brotherly charity were to be preserved.

Apiarius was already put out. Now here Papal infallibility is treated with scorn by all the African bishops in council; the Pope's sending legates declared to be utterly unlawful, and the canons he pleaded as his justification declared to be a fraud, and that he must know it, for they had sent the true ones from Constantinople and Alexandria to his predecessor, Boniface. But Zosimus had had some other transactions with these African prelates, among whom was the famous Augustine. Zosimus fully sanctioned the confession of faith of Pelagius, and his teaching. Now here was the very essence of Christian grace in question. He reproves severely the African prelates for condemning him, owned him and Celestius as in communion. His predecessor had totally condemned him just before. The African prelates having done so, and communicated it, as was the custom, to Innocent, he had returned an answer condemning and excommunicating the two heretics, and claiming, I freely admit, all manner of authority in the case for the popes were at this moment striving hard to establish their power, and profited by every opportunity. However, Innocent condemned and excommunicated them by his full authority ex cathedra. Zosimus, to the said African prelates, declares them sound and in communion. And note, this was on an essential doctrine of the faith. The Africans did not, of course, remonstrate with Innocent for agreeing with them. But Zosimus' pretensions set aside their judgment, they met at Carthage in May, 418, Augustine presiding, and condemned and anathematized Pelagius and his disciples, and not content with this, took the opportunity in the Council of Milevis, of republishing the Nicene canon, and, in their 22nd, decree that the appeals should be to local synods or metropolitans, and that if any appealed across the sea (i.e., to Rome) he should be received into communion in no African church. Zosimus gave way, summoned Celestius, whom the Africans had condemned, and condemned him too. So much for the Pope's infallibility and authority. I have dwelt more on this because just at this time the Pope was seeking to establish his authority over the West; had succeeded, through a quarrel of two prelates, to do it in the southeast corner of France, and in a measure in Eastern Illyria, naming the Archbishop of Thessalonica there as "executor," what the Africans call the introduction of smoky pride into the Church. This had been done already some 40 years before, when that country was politically transferred to the Eastern Empire and the ambitious Popes were afraid it should be ecclesiastically under the influence of Constantinople, the Eastern capital. But all this was ambition, not infallibility; and when there was moral courage the pretensions of the Pope were entirely rejected as wholly contrary to the canons, as, indeed, they were, before the canons of Nice were made. Thus did Cyprian, thus Asia Minor, Egypt, and Syria in his day; thus Spain, thus Irenmus in Gaul; while the Popes have been openly proved both fallible and heretics. In the Councils of Basel and. Constance these bodies were openly declared to be superior to them, and in the last, three Popes (all infallible, we are to suppose) were set aside, one as a heinous monster. Nor has this doctrine been given up in later days. The Gallican Church, i.e., the Roman prelates in France summoned by Louis XIV. declared publicly that the decrees of the Council of Constance, which maintained the authority of general councils as superior to the Pope's in spiritual matters, are approved and adopted by the Gallican Church, and that the decisions of the Pope in points of faith are not infallible, unless they be accompanied by the consent of the Church. Now here, by the authority of the clergy of that great kingdom, a person who holds the infallibility of the Pope is judged to be in error. Now, in what a sea of uncertainty you plunge people if they are to discover the true rule of faith in this way, to say nothing of its being impossible for a poor man to get at it at all.

Father O. Yes, but the poor man has the voice of his pastor, who will not lead him astray.

N*. But that is admitted to be no security. Thus, the faithful in France would be led to hold that the Pope was fallible in matters of faith.

Father O. But that is no longer the case.

N*. Where, then, is your rule of "what is held by all, everywhere, and always.' Moreover, many do hold this still,* and it was favored by the Bourbons, and was, even often, by the Emperor, who can do so because he names the different prelates. But see what you have brought us to. Your rule of faith in 1682 for France at least, was different from your rule of faith in 1862. Is this its certainty and clearness? Now when I turn to Scripture I find that which I surely need the grace of God to understand; but what is of admitted certain authority for all (except for infidels, with whom we have nothing to do here), and the same at all times? The Word of God, the direct revelation given by God by prophets and apostles and inspired men, and that with a holiness, plainness, graciousness of love, and divine love and authority which acts on the mind of the poorest, and which the poorest can appreciate. You hinder his having any rule, or else he must have councils and Fathers, and read through folios in Latin and Greek, and when a man is able to do that he finds, as we have seen, contradiction and heresy, and no sure rule anywhere. If he cannot do this he must resign himself blindfold into a man's, perhaps a wicked man's, hand. With Scripture he listens to Paul, and Peter, and the rest; he finds and knows in his own conscience that he has to do with the Word of God, which discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. You have no certain rule of faith, nor any living word of God in what you call such which can judge your thoughts and heart.

Father O. But the very word you quote declares Peter to be the rock on which the Church is built, and that whatever he bound on earth should be bound in heaven.

N*. I do not admit that that Scripture says so at all, but I have already enlarged on history, proving that the Popes are not infallible, so that it is quite right you should have ample opportunity of stating your views.

Father O. It is written, "Et ego dico tibi quia to es Petrus, et super hanc Petram edificabo ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prevalebunt adversus eam." "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

N*. Forgive me if I interrupt you. Where does this come from?

Father O. From the 16th of Matthew, from the Scriptures.

N*. But we have not got them yet. You tell us we must first find the Church to enable us to receive the Scriptures, and we have not found the Church yet. You must, on your own showing, find that for us first. You cannot quote the Scriptures before you prove them to be such-before you believe in them.

Father O. Well, but you do believe in them.

N*. Nor am I going to hinder your appealing to them. But as you have not made good the Church's claims, the Scriptures must have authority of themselves, and be intelligible too.

Father O. I receive them from the Church, and the interpretation of them also.

N*. No doubt you do, but that is your private opinion. You are occupied with proving what the true Church is, and have not done that yet, and therefore cannot, if the Church alone can authorize them, say anything is Scripture. And this is really practically important, not only to chew the unsoundness of your views, but because, in fact, the Romanists receive as Scripture what other parts of the Church do not receive as such, the ancient Church and Fathers included. I am not bound to listen to anything you quote from Scripture, because Scripture cannot have authority, you yourself tell me, till the Church has declared it to be so, and we have not the Church yet. But proceed, I shall not make any difficulty. But I take it as an admission of the absolute authority of Scripture in itself, for otherwise you cannot thus quote it.

Father O. This passage, then, shows clearly that the Church is built on Peter, and that the Church built on him can never be overthrown. To him, also, the keys are given, and what he bound on earth was to be bound in heaven. And it could not be to him only, and then the Church fail, for it was never to fail. Hence his successors must have this same authority. that is. all admit

the Pope. In confirmation of this, we find him always named the first among the Apostles, as he was the first called also. Thus it is as clear as anything can make it that he had the pre-eminence, and so his successors. He always spoke the first, and took the lead. He was the President of the College of Apostles, as we see all through the Acts. In the same way, after His resurrection, the Lord committed His sheep to Peter, saying, " Feed my sheep," giving him universal dominion over the Church. And this was always recognized by the Church as the testimony of the Fathers proves. Thus Origen so very early says (Horn. v. in Exod.), " See what is said by the Lord to that great foundation and most solid rock upon which Christ has founded His Church, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt."' So Athanasius, in his epistle to Felix, and, indeed, the Alexandrian Synod with him, "Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation the pillars of the Church, that is the bishops, are established." Gregory Nazianzen says, in his oration on moderation in discussions, " Peter is called a rock, and has the foundation of the Church trusted to his faith." Again, Epiphanius (in Ancorato), " The Lord constituted Peter the first of the Apostles, a firm rock, on which the Church of God is built." So Chrysostom (Hom, lv, on Matt.) " The Lord says thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church." So Cyril, "Commodiously showing by that word (Peter), that on him, as on a rock and most firm stone, He was going to build His Church." So among the Latin Fathers; Tertullian, in his remarkable book on Prescription, says, " Was anything hid from Peter, called the rock of the Church which was to be built." And Hilary, " Oh I in the gift of a new name, happy foundation of the Church. Oh rock, worthy of the building of it which should dissolve the laws of the infernal regions." And the martyr Cyprian, " The Lord chose Peter first, and built his Church on Him." And Jerome, " According to the metaphor of a rock it is rightly said to him, I will build my Church upon thee." So Ambrose. I might add a crowd of other Fathers, as Augustine, but I refer to these as both ancient and of just renown in the whole Church. Only I would remark to you that Jerome refers it not only to the person but to the see of Peter. And to close all with a still greater authority the whole Council of Chalcedon (Action 3) of 630 fathers declares Peter the foundation and basis of the Church. The words which follow this declaration that he is the rock, skew the extent of dominion conferred upon him. " Et tibi dabo claves regni cœlorum, et quodcunque ligaveris supra terram erit ligatum et in cœlis, et quodcunque solveris supra terram erit solutum et in cœlis." " And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

M. Well, that is clear; what do you say to that, James? Is it not plain Peter had the first place, and was the foundation? And all he bound was to be bound, and sure the Pope is in his place.

James. Of course Peter had the first place in a certain sense. He was blest by grace above others, as Paul says: God was mighty in him to the circumcision. No Christian denies that. But as to his being the foundation save as a mighty instrument in God's hand, I do not believe it a moment, because Paul says, "other foundation can no man lay, save that that is laid, that is Christ Jesus." So that, though I do not pretend to reason with learned men, and I had rather hear what these gentlemen have to say, yet, I am sure, if I were all alone, for my own soul, that Peter cannot in any true sense of the word be the foundation, because the Word of God tells us there can be none but Christ. In a general way all Christians own the Apostles to be foundations, and the prophets too; but if we make one real foundation, it can be only Christ. As ordained servants of His, and inspired witnesses of the truth, they are all foundations. But I could not trust my soul to any foundation but Christ. None has died for me but He. None is the truth but He. Besides, if Peter was the foundation, how can the Pope be so now. The foundation of the Church cannot be laid now. But I would rather hear what Mr. N*. has to say; only these gentlemen will excuse my speaking as I was asked the question. I have no pretension to answer about Fathers and all that. But I know what my own soul's hope is built upon, and on what alone it can be built, and the Church, if it be the true one, too. It cannot have, as the real rock, two foundations.

Father O. You had much better hold your tongue, M., and not make your observations when you cannot know how to answer on such difficult questions, nor pretend to interpret Scripture which the most learned men find hard to interpret.

N*. He did but put his amen, Mr. o., however, to what you said. He does not, alas, know the Scriptures, or he would not be where he is, and I fear he will not learn much of them now. What James has said is really the true solid answer for a soul taught of God. It knows that a Church built on Peter would be a Church that would be a ruin, or rather be no Church at alb and that no mortal sinful man can be personally the foundation of the Church, and that none such could be the rock on which the Church is built, if it is to stand. In the same chapter the Holy Ghost is careful to record that the Lord calls him Satan; and, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, Paul had to withstand him to the face. And I suppose the Popes cannot pretend to be better than he. Still, you have said the utmost that can be said. The arguments naturally are not new, and while referring to what James has said as showing that a divinely taught soul has its answer from the Word for itself, I will take up what is, after all, the inferior part, the reasoning on Scripture and quotations from the Fathers, but just to learn that they are no security for anything, which indeed it would be a sin to think them. And, first, as to Scripture. " Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." You say this is on Peter, and that it gives him, with what follows as to binding and loosing, to be the foundation and to have the primacy. Now setting aside Paul for the moment,, who was called later, I admit in certain respects a personal pre-eminence in Peter; no official one, nor one which could go to a successor, if he had one, which in office he had not, for he was an Apostle, and they had no Apostles to succeed them, and could not have, for none were eye-witnesses of Christ, and sent by Him to found the Church. Paul was, and so he was in the fullest and strictest sense an Apostle. I admit a personal pre-eminence in certain respects, because Scripture teaches us there was; James and Cephas and John seemed to be pillars. All three were pre-eminent in gift and energy, and all three given names by Christ Himself. But, even among these, Peter was pre-eminent. Paul tells us that God was mighty in Peter to the circumcision as in Paul himself to the Gentiles. As the Fathers note, he was the first to make that particular confession, and specially noticed then by the Lord. His ardent character made him forward sometimes in a sad way, for he spoke not knowing what he said, and had to be called Satan, and the too great confidence it led to brought him to curse and swear he did not know Christ. Yet even this energy when he was humbled, and ceased to trust himself so much, as taught by his fall, and was filled with the Holy Ghost, served to fit him, as a vessel of God's choice, for the special ministry he was appointed to. We see this pre-eminence in service, and how he was fitted for it by being humbled when the Lord says to him, " When thou art converted (restored from his fall) strengthen thy brethren." This kind of pre-eminence Scripture gives him, and we find him using the keys, not of heaven, but of the kingdom of heaven, i.e., administering in the kingdom. He was the first in admitting the Jews, and the first in admitting the Gentiles, to found the unity of Christians in one company on earth. All this Scripture teaches us, and we bless God for His holy wisdom and sovereign pleasure in it. But he never was the Apostle of the Gentiles at all, though employed to receive them first; on the contrary, when the relationship of Jews and Gen tiles was settled, it was agreed by the Apostles that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles and themselves to the Jews (Gal. 2:9). He was the Apostle of the circumcision, God mighty in him to the circumcision, and in Paul to the Gentiles. Nor do we ever read in Scripture of Peter, or indeed any of the twelve, going to the Gentiles. There are vague traditions, and they are very vague, but no Scripture and no history for it. It is certain from the Acts of the Apostles that the Lord employed other instruments than they to send the Gospel forth into the world. First, those who were scattered by persecution, when the Apostles all remained at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-4;11. 19-21); and then by Paul specially called for that purpose, and sent to that work by the Lord (Acts 26:17, Rom. 11:13, Eph. 3:7, 8, Rom. 1:5 where he refers to, Rome), and his companions, who could say it is come unto you, as it is in all the world, bearing fruit and increasing (Col. 1:6); and the same Paul positively declares, when the chief Apostles "saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me as the Gospel of the circumcision was committed to Peter... they gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision (Gal. 2) How the commission in Matt. 28 was not fulfilled I do not stop to discuss, though I have thought of it too; but we have the Apostles' authority in Paul's account for saying that what was settled by the Apostles was, that Paul should take the Gentiles, and Peter and the others the Jews, as their sphere of work, and so Paul tells us elsewhere a dispensation was committed (Eph. 3:2) to him; he was debtor to Greeks and barbarians, and to those at Rome too (Rom. 1:14). He was a minister of the Gospel to every creature under heaven, and besides that, specially, a minister of the Church (Col. 2); and it is found on examination that he only, in all the epistles, speaks of. the Church (John once of a particular Church, not of the whole body). The divine account, therefore, that I have of the dispensation of the Gospel and the establishment of the Church among the Gentiles is that Paul, not Peter, was the instrument in the Lord's hand for this work. And Paul very assiduously contends that he derived no fresh knowledge from Peter, and that he did not get his Apostleship from man nor by man; and he resisted him to the face when it was needed (Gal. 2) So that I find from Scripture that he to whom the dispensation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and especially Rome, was committed by God, and the ministry of the Church, too, was in no way subject to Peter, got nothing from him, and owed nothing to him; that God was mighty, indeed, in Peter to the Jew, but in Paul to the Gentiles, and we know by the Acts that in fact the world, as Paul says, was filled with the Gospel by his labors, who rejected diligently all subjection to Peter, without having a hint in God's history of the matter that Peter ever went to a single Gentile after Cornelius, while we have him agreeing that Paul should, and he to the Jews. Further, neither in discourse nor in his Epistle does he ever speak of the Church as a body on earth, while Paul enlarges and teaches on it everywhere. No doubt this left him free to preach it to anyone, as it did Paul to preach to Jews, but the mission, the official relationship of Peter was with Jews not Gentiles, while the Gentiles were committed to Paul, and he carefully, in the Epistle to the Galatians, sets aside any superior authority of Peter. Is not this strange if Peter was to be the head of Gentile Christendom and the rock and foundation of the Church. It seems as if God foreknowing what man would corruptly make of him, had taken pains for those who own the truth and authority of His Word to spew it was impossible. Just as He has never given a case in which the blessed Virgin applied to Christ that she was not refused. The authority of Peter, and deriving ecclesiastical position from him, and the rest of the twelve was a work of the enemy with which Paul had specially to contend, and which he wholly rejects.* But further, in particular, we are certain that at the first Peter had nothing to do with establishing Christianity in Rome. Numerous Christians were there before any Apostle was there, so that Paul addressed a letter to them, and speaks in it of a Church gathered there (Rom. 16:5), and not only so, but he claims it as a part of the measure which God had allotted to him, part of the sphere of work committed to him. He was the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the seat of Gentile power came within his prescribed apostolic district. He never hints at Peter's having any right or title there, or even at his having been there at all. He teaches, lays the foundation for them, as an apostle to whom they were confided as his sphere of work, showing them the relative position of Jew and Gentile, all real difference, being, as sinners on the one hand and by grace on the other, done away. " By whom," he says, " we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations (all the Gentiles) for his name among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1:5,6). And so goes on to show the ground of his connection with them without a thought of Peter, and really to the exclusion of their being his sphere of work, or Peter's ever claiming any apostolic relationship with them, or with any other than the circumcision. Nor that only, but Paul came to Rome and labored, though a prisoner, for two years, and we never hear of Peter. If he ever came to Rome he must have come when the. Church was already long founded by another. I am aware that afterward there was a tradition that he did it jointly with Paul, but that is certainly false, because we have the history of the Acts to prove he did not. If he came, he came into another man's measure, to use St. Paul's expression. Rome liked, no doubt, foolishly, to give itself this credit; it is just possible he visited the Jews there, which was his sphere, as he did apparently everywhere, addressing two epistles to the believers of the dispersion in Asia Minor. The tradition given by Eusebius from Dionysius of Corinth is clearly false, or has nothing to do with the matter, for it states not merely that Peter and Paul went together to Rome, but that they had also been at Corinth together, and taught the same doctrine, and then gone on to Rome to be martyred together (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 2:25). Now either this is false, as the Acts prove, if it be taken literally-for it is said, " having planted," which the Acts and two epistles to Corinth prove to have been the work of Paul alone, who declares that in Christ Jesus he had begotten them all by the Gospel, a fact fully maintained in the epistle-or if it be not false it is only a flourish of words referring to some visit to Rome, (and Corinth on the way when on their way to prison), and in that case the Churches were founded long before. That It is a remarkable fact that Popery and all ecclesiastical unity refers itself formally to Peter, never to Paul; he merely, at the utmost, comes in by the bye; the see is Peter's see, the unity is founded on him who as never an apostle to the Gentiles at all, but gave it up to Paul.

Peter planted the Church of Corinth is undoubtedly false, for not only have we, in the Acts, the history of its planting by Paul, with Silas and Timotheus exclusively; but he says, in his epistle to them, that if they had ten thousand instructors they had but one father, for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them all by the Gospel (1 Cor. 4:15). Thus, as to the founding of the Church, Peter certainly did not found the Church at Corinth, and as certainly did not found the Church at Rome. This we are perfectly sure of, as we have, besides the absence of all trace of it in Scripture, Paul's Epistle to the Romans and two to the Corinthians, and the history of the Acts, which exclude any possibility of Peter's having done so. If it be true that they both suffered martyrdom there under Nero, that would say nothing of founding the Church there, nor of any official place they had there. If we turn to those who followed in the see of Rome, the case is, if possible, clearer, for the Apostle John survived Peter and Paul some thirty years, so that the first three Popes governed one of the pillars among the Apostles, which is as absurd as it is wrong. The notion of the beloved Apostle being subject to the supremacy of the possessor of the see of Rome is monstrous.

Father O. Of course the Apostle was not subject to him, but this did not hinder others being so.

N*. Pardon me. The Church of Ephesus, where John dwelt, could not be subject to the Bishop of Rome when John was there to guide them, and indeed the Bishop of Rome must himself, if the case arose, have been subject to the. Apostle, for the authority of the Apostles was confessedly supreme. Thus the pretended supremacy of Peter, and of his successors too, is clearly shown to be false, unscriptural, and impossible. We have already seen, in part, when you were not with us, that other prelates, the most eminent of their day, as Cyprian, Augustine, while showing the greatest respect for Rome, and treating it, as tradition then did, as Peter's chair, utterly refused to be subject to it or own its supremacy, and asserted the independent jurisdiction of the different sees. The Jewish Christians sought to set up Peter in this way, but Paul resisted everywhere the Judaizing of Christianity and the supremacy of Peter with it. Alas, how has it overflowed the Church since.

But, farther, how came it that the Apostles never suspected that Peter had received this supreme place by these words to say nothing of Rome? They were afterward continually disputing who should be greatest. This was strange, if, in presence of them all, Christ had conferred it on Peter.

Father O. But they had not yet received the Holy Ghost.

N*. True. But they acknowledged the authority of the Lord, and when the Holy Spirit was given we find pre-eminent activity, as we have seen, in Peter, (and the blessed Apostle cared more for serving his Master then than for supremacy), but we never find him claiming supremacy. Nor could he have done so, because the Lord had forbidden it:-" It shall not be so amongst you, for whosoever will be great among you let him be your servant." How would this do for the Pope. And how could Peter, with the Holy Ghost bringing, as was promised, these words to his memory, have set up to be great among them. Your Papal system denies the precepts of the Lord, as well as the history which Scripture gives us. In the Acts Peter and John are sent by. the Apostles to Samaria. So in the meeting to settle the solemn question of how far the law -was binding on Gentiles, much discussion took place. Then Peter, ever, forward, relates the case of Cornelius, and gives his thoughts as to the burden of Judaism. Then Barnabas and Paul are listened to, giving an account of the blessing among uncircumcised Gentiles. Each takes his place freely and suitably, and James closes the whole discussion as president of the Church at Jerusalem. Peter has no place at all but what his gift and Apostolic place gave him. He fills up that place rightly, and we hear no more of him in the council. In the decree we read, " It pleased the Apostles and elders and the whole Church." There is not a trace of any supremacy of Peter. If of any it was of James. He says, " my sentence is;" and this place of James was so marked, that when Peter was at Antioch, and had eaten with the Gentiles, " when certain came from James," it is said, " he withdrew and separated himself," so that Paul had to rebuke him to the face, and accordingly when Paul speaks of those whom he found pillars at Jerusalem he does not put Cephas first, but says, "and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars," and then it was that they gave up the work among the Gentiles to Paul. It is therefore' as clear as noonday that Peter had no supremacy anywhere. Personal pre-eminency in energy and service till Paul was called he had. After that it was not the case; even as to that Paul labored more than all the Apostles (1 Cor. 15:10). He tells us he was not a whit behind the chiefest of them (2 Cor. 11:5), and in particular had to rebuke Peter to his face. Nor was Peter even the first called. Andrew, who had followed Jesus, brought him to Him. As regards what he bound on earth being bound in heaven, it is incontrovertible that all he apostolically pronounced _upon or established was sanctioned in heaven; that is in Matt. 16 but in Matt. 18:18, it is said to all His disciples, and indeed to the Church, going so far as to any two or three gathered together in His name. So as to forgiveness, as far as it is administration in man's hands (though I agree with Bellarmine, who furnishes all the arguments used on this point, that binding and loosing goes much farther, and includes all he established as divinely ordained), St: Paul forgives, and recognizes the assembly's title to forgive too (2 Cor. 2:5-10). And the Lord confers the title to do it expressly on all the Apostles (John 20). As to feeding Christ's sheep, it was most gracious of the Lord to commit this to him thrice after he had denied Him thrice. And that he had this charge eminently as regards the circumcision we have already seen. But he desires the elders in his Epistle to do the same thing. So Paul, when he sent for the elders of Ephesus, charges them to feed or shepherd the Church of God. And this leads me to another remark, that is, whatever place Peter had, an Apostle can have no successor. Those who had the authority of the twelve and Paul were invested with it immediately by the Lord, and sent of Him as eye-witnesses chosen by Him. And Paul and Peter both distinctly confirm this. Paul declares that after his decease grievous wolves would enter in, and commends the disciples to God and the Word of His grace. Now, if he was to have a successor, 'why should he speak of the state of the Church as deprived by his death of any such care as he bestowed on the saints. So Peter, in writing his epistle, says he would take care they should have what he taught always in remembrance. He has no idea that he was going to have a successor of great authority and infallible. And your own Bellarmine, the first of your controversialists, says plainly, " The bishops have no part of apostolic authority" (4. 25). And again, " There can be no succession properly but to one who precedes; but there were apostles and bishops in the Church together." I am aware that to avoid the consequence he distinguishes between Peter and the other Apostles, and says the Pope succeeds not to their extraordinary power, but to Peter's ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church. But where is this ordinary jurisdiction to be found? Not in binding and loosing; that all had: not in finding that others did not exercise independent jurisdiction as it is called, for Paul exercises it in the most entire independence of him, names elders, sends Timothy, Titus, where he pleases,-James, and Cephas, and John having agreed with him that he and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles, they to the Jews. And we find Paul, not Peter, exercising over the Churches this wide care, with authority, not derived from Peter, for he very carefully disclaims this. He was not of nor by man, and withstood Peter to the face. It is all a fable. It is never said Peter had this authority, or that he exercised it, or named one elder in his life. Whereas we find Paul exercising what is called ordinary supreme pastorship (though it is really Apostolic authority, and nothing else, directly received from the Lord) constantly and everywhere, and among the Gentiles, whose conversion and care the Lord had committed to him as a dispensation. As a wise master builder he says he laid the foundation (1 Cor. 3:10). He planted, others only watered after him (Eph. 3) It is the dispensation of the grace of God given to him.

As to " Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church," Peter had by grace confessed what none ever had, that Christ was the Son of the living God. As entitled to be called Son of God according to promises to Messiah he had been owned, but Son of the living God He had never been called. This the Father revealed to Peter. The Lord owns the grace conferred on him, and declares that his name should be called Peter, a stone, partaking by grace through his confession of that which he confessed, for it was upon that truth so confessed (that is, on Christ's being the Son of the living God) that He would build His Church. Hence it is said that the gates of Hades, of the power of death (Satan as having the power of death) should not prevail against the Church. For Christ, by resurrection, was declared to be Son of God with power, above all the power of Satan; and the Church being built on this rock of His being the Son of the living God, Satan's power, that of death, could not overthrow it. So Chrysostom repeatedly uses it. As James has said, to suppose any real foundation but Christ is denying the Lord. And it is in this character of a divine person having the power of life over death that He can' build the Church. But your statements that the Fathers are agreed on this explanation, though you are borne out by Bellarmine, is quite unfounded. Some of them say it is Peter, some say it is Christ, some say it is the confession of Christ. St. Augustine says, " I know that afterward I have very often expounded that upon this rock' should be understood of him whom Peter confessed." And so he had. As, again, "' Upon this rock," he says, " which thou past confessed will build my Church. So Chrysostom in Matt. 16:18, "' on this rock,' that is on the faith of the confession." I do not quote as his, " Upon this rock;' He did not say upon Peter,' for He built His Church not upon the man but upon his faith," for it is generally considered spurious, but it is, at least, some very ancient writer under his name.

The famous passage in Iren. 3., 3, does not apply to the supremacy of Peter, but deserves a short notice here, as it is used as a foundation for the authority of the Church of Rome. Irenmus is not speaking of the authority of any church, but of security as to doctrine, found in the teaching of all apostolic churches, and then says, as it would be tedious to go through all, he will refer to Rome, with which all must agree as having " potiorem principalitatem." Then he states it to be founded by Peter and Paul, Linus following, &c. No one reading the passage, of which we have only a poor latin translation, and comparing the context, and in the least acquainted with Irenæus, but must see that in Greek there must have been αρχην, and the real meaning of the writer to be, "a more excellent origin," namely, two apostles themselves. He is using the testimony " of the faith manifested in all the world," as a proof that these hidden mysteries of the Gnostics would have been known somewhere, if the Apostles had taught them, and the rather at. Rome as the two great Apostles were there. Of course this has nothing to do with the supremacy of Peter. So Hilary, "Upon this rock of confession is the building of the Church." Origen says " Every disciple of Christ is the rock." Pope Gregory the Great says, " Persist in the true faith, and establish firmly your life in the rock of the Church, that is, in the confession of the blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles." Now it is quite true Chrysostom also says that Peter confessing his being a sinner was made the foundation of the Church. But this shows only the vague sense they use it in, for when interpreting the passage he declares it to mean his confession. Be it that he contradicts himself, or with Augustine leaves, as he expressly does, to the reader, in his Retractations, to choose which sense he likes. It only shows what the authority of Fathers is worth, and that what the Council of Trent requires teachers to be bound by in finding the sense of Scripture. The consent of the Fathers is not to be had. But it will be well to give a specimen of the interpretation of the Fathers here, which will prove that it is anything but true that they uniformly speak of Peter as the rock, and further, what the value of their authority in such matters is. You will find almost all you have quoted. My first quotations shall disprove your assertion; the second prove that each contradicts himself; only, you will mark, it is rhetoric when they make Peter the rock, sober interpretation when they say he is not.

Origen says, in his commentary on the passage, Tom. xii.c. II," If you think that the whole Church is built by God upon Peter only, what shall we say of John, the son of thunder? Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell were not properly to prevail against Peter, but that they will prevail against the rest of the Apostles and the perfect. Is it not also of all, and of each of them that is spoken what is said before,-` the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and that on this rock I will build my Church.' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter alone, and shall no other of the blessed receive them. And if that also is for others also in common: I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now is not both all that is said before, and what follows as addressed to Peter," and says much more to the same purpose, referring to its gift to all in John's Gospel, and then adds, "as the letter of the Gospel says it to that Peter, as His Spirit. teaches, it is to every one who is as that Peter," and in the whole chapter applies it diligently to every true Christian. If you want a totally different interpretation, where every faithful Christian is made a Peter, and the keys given to him, you may see Com. 12,14. Hilary de Trin. vi. 36, says, " Upon this rock of confession, therefore, is the building of the Church (37). This faith is the foundation of the Church, through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it. This faith has the keys of the heavenly kingdom," etc. So on Ps. 140., " We have known no rock but Christ, because it is said of him, ' that rock was Christ.'"

There is quoted from Origen, to support the Romanist view, the following passage, Hom. v. (De la Rue 11. 145.) " See what is said by the Lord to that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock on which Christ founded the Church, 0 thou of little faith where-fore didst thou doubt." This is, however, only a translation of Ruffinus, in which he professes to have added what was necessary, because Origen touched on questions often, and did not answer them, which might annoy the Latin reader. Hilary in the treatise on Ps. 131., says Peter to whom above he had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, on whom he was about to build the Church against which the gates of hell should not prevail, and as to whom what he should bind and loose on earth should be bound and loosed in heaven; and what you have quoted already. But then he is really insisting on his confession,

As regards Athanasius, the passage quoted, of which Bellarmine speaks as so beautiful, is a notoriously spurious letter, and placed among the spurious ones by his Benedictine editors; the proofs you can see in Dupin on this Father, and it is a proof only of the practices resorted to by Papal advocates to clothe their pretensions with the authority of great names, and -which have acquired the name of pious frauds. We will therefore leave Athanasius, who affords you no help, though he resorted to Rome to help him against the Arians. It is strange Roman Catholics should quote a letter to Felix, moreover, for Felix was a Pope thrust in by the Arians, while Liberius was banished by the Arian Emperor; and Athanasius says it was a deed that bore the stamp of antichrist. Cardinal Baronius, the great Roman Catholic historian, will not admit him to be Pope at all, as there cannot be two. Bellarmine says he was a fresh instance of how solid a foundation Popes are for the Church to be built upon. Roman Catholics cannot agree whether he was or was not a Pope. When the Emperor let Pope Liberius back on his agreeing to communion with the Arians and signing an Arian or semi-Arian creed, Felix and he had to rub on together, two Popes and two heads at a time, till Liberius died. As to Gregory Nazianzen it proves, orator as he was, what I maintain; though in rhetorical language, without exactness, he says Peter is called a rock, which is not exact as to fact, for in the text Simon is called Peter, or a stone. But his explanation of it every Christian would allow, and it is what the Fathers often say, that the foundation of the Church was trusted to his faith. No doubt it was under God's grace. But, in this figurative sense, Paul also declares that he had laid the foundation, and that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the corner stone. So in the heavenly Jerusalem, the twelve foundations have the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In this general way no reader of Scripture could for a moment make any difficulty. But it proves that the Popes can have nothing whatever to say to it. For since that foundation was once laid, all others, who have that blessed privilege, are built upon it. To lay the foundation of the Church now is simply to deny it and its foundation as originally laid. It is perfectly clear that no Pope nor any Christian in after times could have this place. Next as to Epiphanius

.. _ He does exalt Peter abundantly in the place quoted, and in the book on heresies also. In the former with much else nearly as you say. "It became the first of the Apostles, the solid rock on which the Church should be built, and the gates of hell not prevail against it, by which gates the founders of heresies are meant." Here, however, I will add a passage further on, from the same section ix. of the Anchoret:"He (John) learning from the Son, and receiving from the Son, the power of knowledge; but he (Peter) obtained it from the Father, founding the security of faith."

But the same Epiphanius says (Heresy of the Cathari (lix.) vii.): -" Upon this rock of a solid faith I will build my Church." Here the faith is the rock. And note, that even in the passage in the Anchoret, the difference is founded on the immediate revelation by the Father, so that it applies only to Peter personally. Indeed, even where Peter is stated by the Fathers to be the rock, it is always on the ground of his personal faith.

Epiphanius therefore does not much help you out. It is Peter's faith one time, Peter himself another; but then because of the immediate revelation made to him by the Father. You next press Chrysostom on us; we will examine him too. You quote him on Matt. 55.

_ " The Lord says, ' Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church."'

This is a very unfortunate quotation of Bellarmine's. Because in the Commentary on Matt. 55, Chrysostom says just the contrary: he is insisting on the special blessedness of Peter as having owned Christ to be the Son of the living God, and directly taught there the consubstantiality of th e Son. And thereon says: " Therefore He adds this: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," that is, upon the faith of the confession. The Sermon. on Pentecost, which is as strong as possible in the same sense, I do not quote, as the best editors consider it spurious. There it is said, " He did not say on Peter, referring to Petra, a rock, for He did not found His Church on a man, but on faith." At any rate, it is an ancient testimony.

However, Chrysostom's testimony is exactly the opposite to what it is alleged for.

I next take Cyril.

" That in him as in a rock and most firm stone, he was going to build his Church." What I do find in Cyril nearest to this is [Christ] most suitably from the rock, changed his name to Peter (petra, petron), for he was about to found his Church on him." That is in Commentary on John I.—(Paris, 1638.)

But Cyril in his dialog on the Trinity IV., vol. ii., p. 1, 507, says on the verse: " Calling a rock, I think, by a change of word, nothing else, I think, but the immovable and firm faith of the disciples upon which, without possibility of falling, God has established and fixed the Church of Christ.".

We have not thus made much progress with the Fathers yet. The Greek Fathers do some of them speak of Peter, but I have taken up those presented by you, and all but one say the' contrary of your interpretation, though they several of them contradict themselves, which it is important enough for us to remark. We have not only Fathers against Fathers, but Fathers against themselves. That is a poor foundation for faith. The Council of Trent will not allow the consent of the Fathers to be rejected in interpretation; but we find no such consent, not even, in most cases, of one Father with himself. But we will turn to the Latin ones. You quote them also. You quote Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, and refer to Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose. I will follow here also. For one has only to know the Fathers to know what their authority is worth. Of Tertullian it is somewhat difficult to speak, because after having been a very great stickler for ecclesiastical authority (not for Rome) he became a very violent opponent of it. So that what was declared by him to be a sure foundation proved to be none in his own case. One could hardly have a more solid answer for one who would rest on his or on any Father's authority.

Father O. But any one may fall.

.N*. No doubt, but it is a proof that what he has pleaded as a security from falling is not a very solid one. Tertullian pleaded the prescription of the Church, i.e., tradition, as the grand security. He abandoned it all as carnal (physical). But I add it never was the authority of Rome on which he rested his case. Not only when a Montanist (de Pud.) he charges his adversaries with overturning the manifest purpose of Christ who conferred authority personally on Peter-" I will give to thee...;" " whatsoever thou...;" in which he is perfectly right; but in the book " de Præscriptione," and the passage so much relied upon, he makes doctrine the test. " In the same way they, the heretics, will be tested by these Churches, which, though they can allege no Apostle nor Apostolic man as their founder, as having a much later origin, yet, agreeing in the same faith, are accounted Apostolic by reason of consanguinity of doctrine." This we are quite ready to accept. Of Tertullian's system we have spoken. Strange to say even this book is held by many learned men, Romanist and Protestant, to have been written when Tertullian had become a Montanist, as Dupin does on the one hand, and Allix on the other. Nor has he a thought in the treatise of setting up the authority of Rome. He insists that in Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, or Rome, you can trace up the doctrine to an Apostolic source, and thus confute the heretics who have introduced new doctrines. Now, we hold entirely that what was at first-not early merely, but at first-was right, and that only (see 1 John 2: 24). Therefore we condemn Rome, who has innovated. But it is evident that an inspired epistle of an Apostle is a better evidence of what the Apostle taught than a tradition after the lapse of centuries of uninspired men. What was first was and is right. But the Epistles and other Scriptures are what was first, and therefore we receive them only. To show Tertullian's mind and how little he referred exclusively to Peter, I will quote another passage of his. The Apostles were all sent forth, he says, after the Lord's resurrection, " and promulgated the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations, and then founded Churches in each city, from which other Churches have borrowed, and daily borrow, the descent of faith and seeds of doctrine, that they may become Churches; and by this they also are accounted Apostolic as offspring of Apostolic Churches. The whole race is necessarily referred to its own origin. Therefore so many and so great Churches are that first one from the Apostles from which all are. Thus all are the, first and Apostolic, while all prove unity together." How far this is from having anything to do with Roman supremacy or Rome's being a security for truth, save as part of the whole, or Peter's being the one who ruled over all and secured truth, I need not say. It shuts out any such thought wholly. This was the common ground of those who plead prescription.

I turn to Cyprian. You quote from him, " The Lord chose Peter first and built the Church on him."

I will complete the phrase. " But custom is not to be used as an authority, but one must be overcome by reasons. For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom he built His Church, when Paul afterward contended with him about circumcision, claim anything insolently to himself, or assume anything arrogantly, so as to say that he held any primacy."

This is a strange passage to quote to prove Peter's primacy by; but, the truth is, Cyprian was the stern and successful resister of the commencing pretensions of Rome, and maintained an active correspondence with Asia Minor, Spain, and other parts to consolidate the whole Episcopacy, for that was his system against any pretensions to a primacy. He expresses himself thus: " One Episcopacy diffused in the accordant multitude of many bishops." So with the whole synod of Carthage, speaking of the Apostles, he says, " to whom we succeed, governing the Church of God with the same power." By no one, while acknowledging Peter as a center of unity, is the equal power of bishops and their independency more stoutly maintained.

In his fifty-fifth letter he says: " The bond of concord remaining, and individual fidelity to the Catholic Church maintained, each bishop disposes and directs his own acts, rendering an account to the Lord of his course." And writing to the Pope, to whom he never yielded, he says: "In which matter we neither do violence to any one, nor give the law, as each one who is set over [a Church] is to have in the administration of the Church the free judgment of his own will, having to render account of his conduct to God." The history of what passed between him and Popes in this respect we have referred to already.

You quote Jerome. " I will build my Church upon thee."

Jerome does say so, and in a letter full of flattery and servility flies to Pope Damasus to know whether he is to say three hypostases or three persons; and he says, " I know that the Church was built on that rock," that is the see of Peter. And says pretty much the same in his commentary on Isaiah, Lib. I. ch. ii., though he makes all the Apostles mountains. But then on Amos, Lib. III. ch. vi., he says: " Christ is the rock who granted to His Apostles that they should be also called rocks-' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Whoso is on these rocks,. the adverse powers cannot pursue him." And this application of it to all the Apostles is common in the Fathers, as Ambrose and Augustine. So Jerome himself,' in his violent letter against Jovinian, in favor of celibacy, says," Thou sayest the Church is founded on Peter, although the same in another place is so upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and the stability of the Church is established. equally upon them." Then it suited him to say so. He says that John was more loved of Christ and dared to ask when Peter did not; knew Him when Peter did not, etc.

You cite Ambrose. He does call Peter a foundation. Let us see how far his statements make for your cause.

" He acted in the first place (took the primacy), the primacy of confession truly, not of honor; the primacy of faith, not of rank."

And, after saying he was thus a foundation, he goes on, " Faith, therefore, is the foundation of the Church;. for it is said not of the flesh of Peter but of his faith that the gates of death should not prevail against it. But confession. conquers hell. And this confession does not exclude one heresy. For, as a good ship, etc., the foundation of the Church ought to avail against all heresies." He is speaking just as. Hilary in the same case of Peter's owning Christ to be the true Son of God, his subject being the incarnation and the eternal divinity of Christ. Augustine comes next. In his Psalm against the Donatists, a poor production-poor in thought and morality-which he says he wrote for the poorest that they might commit it to memory, and be able to meet them-he presents Peter as the rock and a sure center of unity to these poor people. He did the same (he tells us in his Retractations) in a book also against the Donatists, not now extant. Augustine is not happy in his spirit or reasonings with these Donatists. They had resisted one who had given up his Bible in the last persecutions, being a bishop. A, vast number of bishops and their flocks sided with them, and the schism lasted a very long time, more than a century. The Catholics, as they called them, appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperor, and the Donatists were cruelly. persecuted and put to death. Their passions were roused, and many of them took arms and fought, and used violence against the other party-a wretched scene in the so-called Holy Catholic Church. But so it was. Augustine cannot justify the party he espoused, but says there must be evil in the Church, and the Donatists were worse. But he was every way embarrassed with these people. For, contrary to Cyprian and the East in earlier times, their baptism was held good. Now Augustine. believed the Holy Ghost was conferred by baptism. They said to him, " Well, then, we confer the Holy Ghost, so we must have it." Yet he said they were not in the unity of the Catholic Church, and so had not got the Holy Ghost; and here he toils and labors to get out of the net he had got himself into, so as to make anyone pity him. But I pass on, only it is well to keep in mind what this so-called Holy Catholic Church was. Now hear the same Augustine when he is soberly seeking to edify souls in his sermons. In one of them we have an elaborate statement on the point, which I can only quote the kernel of. It is on Matt. 14:24 (or de verbis Domini 13 in some editions). He quotes the passage xvi. 18, and says, "But this name that he should be called Peter was given him by the Lord. And this in such a figure as that he should signify the Church, for Christ is the rock, Peter the Christian people, for rock (Petra) is the principal name. Therefore it is Peter from Petra (rock), not Petra from Peter, as Christ is not from Christian, but Christian from Christ. Thou, therefore,' says he, art Peter, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast known, saying, Thou art, etc., I will build my Church,' that is, upon myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church. I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee." And again, " Thus they were baptized, not in the name of Paul, not in the name of Peter, but in the name of Christ, that Peter might be built upon the rock, not. the rock upon Peter." That is plain enough. Faith was at work, not controversy or servile theology. In his sermon on Pentecost (or ex Sirmondianis 22) he is equally plain. " For I am a rock, thou Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, not upon Peter which thou art, but upon the rock which thou 'last confessed." So in the sermon on Peter and Paul's day (ser. 295, or de Diversis, 108): "Upon this which thou hast said, `Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church. For thou art Peter, from petra (a rock) Peter, not the rock (petra) from Peter. Do you wish to know from what rock Peter is called? Hear Paul." He then quotes 1 Cor. 10:1-4, ending " and that rock was Christ" as whence Peter comes. He goes on then to say, " These keys not one man but the unity of the Church received," and quotes John 20:22,23 to show that it was to the whole Church to whom Peter was given, there to represent in its universality and unity, all the other Apostles having then received it; and then Matt. 18:15-18 to show that it applies to all the faithful saints, concluding "the dove binds, the dove looses, the building on the rock binds and looses." His words are, " That you may know that Peter stood there as representing the whole Church, hear what is said to herself, what to all the faithful saints."

Such was the teaching of Augustine. In his Retractations he mentions that in the lost book against the Donatists he had called Peter the rock (he refers to the psalm, but not to Peter's being named in it), and then says, "I know I have very often afterward [he had written the book against the. Donatists when only a presbyter] expounded it as meaning him whom Peter confessed;... for it was not said to him Thou art a rock, but Thou art Peter, but the rock was Christ." " Of these two opinions the reader may choose which is the more probable."

, That makes a solid ground by the consent of the Fathers for your theme of Peter's being the rock. What I have cited proves two things, that is, that the Fathers generally contradict you, and that their authority is worth nothing, for they contradict themselves. No one taught of God would hesitate which to choose, the blessed Lord or Peter, for the rock on which the Church or his own soul is to be built. It is evident that the Lord rests on the word, as Hilary and others say, of the blessed truth, that Jesus was the Son of the living God. Over what was founded on that, he that had the power of death could not prevail. Nor will he. Happy those that are built on Him. But I will quote one more so-called father, because he was a Pope, and an eminent one-Gregory the Great. Of all the earlier Popes, save Leo, he, while condemning the present Papal claim of universal jurisdiction as the act of a forerunner of Antichrist, most pushed on the Papal power. Yet he says, Lib. 31.,39. Job 97, " Where rock in the sacred language is used in the singular number, what else is understood but Christ, of which Paul is witness-`But the rock was Christ.' In Lib. 35. 42, 13 of the same book, he calls it the solidity of faith of which solidity the Lord says, " On this rock I will build my Church." And refers the whole thought to the incarnation. There is a passage still stronger in his letters, which I cannot lay my hand on, where he says, " Persist in the true faith, and establish your life on the rock of the Church, that is, the confession of Peter, the prince of the Apostles." it is said forty-four Fathers and ten Popes have given it the sense opposite to the one you say all give it. So Felix III., Nicholas I.; and. John 1 have never verified the accuracy of this assertion. What we have examined suffices to show that not only do the Fathers contradict your assertion, but each other and themselves. And we have two points where they refer to Peter. Very many make Christ or. the confession of Christ the rock. When they make Peter the rock it is individual-his own faith and the grace personally given to himself; many to his personal work in founding the Church. Two you allege carry it into the see of Rome; of these, one states the contrary also, and it is only in a most servile correspondence with his patron Damasus that he says what you quote him for, when he was attacked as a heretic, and wanted the Pope to back him up. The other case, Augustine, was an effort in controversy to gain the poor among the Donatists, while in his own expositions he carefully and elaborately taught the contrary. What kind of a foundation of the truth is this, what security for it; for that is what we are seeking. And we have learned another thing, that is, that the boasted Fathers are a security for nothing at all. But you have said that the famous Council of Chalcedon composed of 630 prelates declare the same truth. So Bellarmine says. But, alas, we have always to examine the assertions of your party. It is quite unfounded. What is said there of the prerogative of Rome is solely and exclusively the pretensions of the Papal legate in giving his voice. Paschasinus, his two colleagues joining, after going through Dioscorus' misdeeds* says, " Archbishop of the great and elder Rome, Leo, by us and by the present Synod, with the thrice blessed Apostle Peter, worthy of all praise, who is the rock and base of the Catholic Church and foundation of the right faith, has deprived him of his dignity,". etc. Then Anatolius, Archbishop of Constantinople, gives his voice, and so on the rest. But the Council was very far, indeed, from admitting the pretensions of Rome. Indeed, I am surprised that you should quote the Council of Chalcedon, only that your writers reckon on people's ignorance.

(**" The Greek is wanting here, and in the Latin the sense is not very clear.)

Note another point here. The Patriarchal and Metropolitan authority really followed the civil divisions when. Constantinople became an imperial city. The Council of Constantinople, professedly for that reason, made it next in honor to old Rome, declaring that Rome had the first place, because it had been the ancient seat of Empire. So the prelates who sat at Antioch and Alexandria respectively, as the great cities of Africa and Asia were Patriarchs there. And this was the case with all metropolitan cities. The Eparchies had Patriarchs; the provinces, Metropolitans, and the chief cities, bishops.. All followed the civil order. This is a historical fact. Two general councils state it in establishing Constantinople, which before was not even a metropolitan see, but subject to Heraclea. And the different Metropolitans were forbidden to outstep their provinces, only in the Council of Chalcedon, the dioceses (which at that time meant large civil divisions, including provinces) of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, were made subject to Constantinople. This aggrandizement of Constantinople led to unceasing war between its Ecclesiastical chief and Rome, ending in the separation of east and west, and still more jealousy between it and Alexandria, which, till Constantinople was given the second place, had enjoyed that preeminence. To end this sad history, John of Constantinople took the title of universal bishop. Gregory writes to the Emperor that such pride proves the time of Antichrist was come, and to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to stir them up against him because their authority was gone if they allowed this; and, he says, the faith too. He quotes Matt. 16:18, " on this rock, ' and says, " Yet Peter never claimed to be universal apostle." (Letter to Maurice, p. 300; \Ten. 1770, to the Patriarchs, p. 325.) This Maurice, whom he relates as the most pious Lord constituted by God, had just murdered his master, and predecessor, to get the empire. He says in both that Chalcedon had offered Rome the title, and Leo had refused it, which was a great untruth. Who would think that we are occupied with those who profess to be the followers of the blessed Lord, who forbad, withal, any to be great among His disciples, or that such authorities could be alleged as a foundation and security for divine faith. Rome as a great center did early acquire great power, and sought greater. The Emperors leaving Rome left them free. The setting-Up Constantinople as a new Patriarchate above Alexandria and Antioch excited the jealousy of those sees, and they often appealed to Rome to help them. Rome profited by this too. In the west there was no other Patriarch, so Rome had free scope, though for centuries Africa openly and positively condemned and rejected all appeals there, decreeing, so late as Augustine, that if any one did so appeal, he should be excommunicated, as we have already seen. When the Emperors lost the West, the German nations having overrun the Western Empire, the Popes formed the only center, and these nations being heathen or Arian, they extended their influence, gradually over them. Ireland and Britain, strange to say, remaining entirely independent till much later, the eighth century. The evangelization of Germany and Switzerland was by British missionaries, though the Pope got hold of Boniface, and so of Germany, making him Archbishop of Mayence. But this was not all; actual and deliberate fraud, as is now owned by all, was the great means of the Popes establishing their authority in the Church.

There was a collection of canons, that is of Church rules, by Dionysius, containing various decrees of Popes. These were continually added to, and among the rest a collection of them by Isidore of Seville in Spain, a widely respected man. This last dated from 633 to 636, as its contents proved; but in the ninth century a new edition of the Isidorian collection appeared, with spurious decretals

Of early Popes, containing, as a matter of acknowledged right-all they now pretended to-others interpolated to the same purpose. It was a regular system of fraud and forgery. This the Popes constantly used as proof of the legitimacy of their claims as having subsisted from the earliest days. No one questions the forgery now. They quote a translation. of Scripture then current as cited by Popes, who lived long before it was made; they make false dates of 200 years and the like. The French Bishops, in the question between Pope Nicolaus L. and Hinemar about the excommunication of Bishop Rothad by the latter, looked up Dionysius, and called them in question even then; but Nicolaus persisted, and reminded them they often quoted them for their own purposes, so it passed into authority till later and more critical ages. Only think of resting the foundations of faith and on such materials as these. It was on these spurious decretals and subsequent forgeries that the fabric of the Pope's authority was all built.

Father O. Nobody pretends now that these decretals are not forgeries, but it was in the dark ages they were current, when there was very little critical discernment anywhere.

N. All true, but they were used by the Pope as giving him his true position and sustaining his loftiest claims. He gave away kingdoms and hemispheres, and had, he said, the world entirely at his disposal; he rested his title on these decretals. And if there was an infallible teacher and rule, how came there to be such dark ages? how did they get so dark? And how can I recognize as a security for truth one who either could not discern imposition from truth, or was rogue enough to profit by it because people were in the dark? One or other of these was the case of the Pope. There is no doubt or question that their pretensions to authority and power were founded on and justified by these spurious documents, forged in order to give it to them. A dark age could not detect the falsehood, but that does not affect the question of the forging them, and the use of them by the Popes. And they did so as long as they could. It was only at the Reformation the fraud was detected, and at last Romanist writers were obliged to give them up, and bow their head to the shame of it. Is all that like Christ, or the truth, or security for the truth_, as it is in Jesus? The Popes founded their authority and rights on these forgeries of their friends. Either they knew they were spurious, or they did not. If they did know it, they were unprincipled impostors; if they did not, their pretended infallibility is not worth a straw. They pronounced things ex cathedrci continually on the ground of these decretals being genuine, and appealed to them, and they were all false forgeries, forged to give them this power.

However, what gave them the West lost them the East, and the Greek Church remained. independent to this day, so that a Catholic or universal Church—has never subsisted in unity since the ninth century.

Father O. But how can these poor people judge of all this history or found their faith upon it? I do not see any good in pursuing such questions.

N*. They can see that the pretensions of Rome founded on Matt. 16:18, alleged to be so interpreted by all the Fathers, are false pretensions, and that Fathers contradict it. As to founding their faith upon it, they surely cannot. But that is exactly what I am contending for. It is perfectly ridiculous to have a poor man founding his faith on ponderous folios of Fathers, and on a consent which does not exist. The pretensions of the Pope, your pretensions, are no foundations for the Church to be built on. As to feeding sheep, the Fathers insist that it applies to all pastors.

We have Councils to consider, to see if they are infallible, though how some dozen and even thirty folios in Greek and Latin are to help an inquiring soul to the truth of doctrine is hard to tell. They are an entangled web of questions and ambitions of every. kind. They were never begun till the Emperor, being Christian, called them to settle disputes, and quite as numerous ones and more so, decided for error as for the truth. And who is to decide which is general. The Pope never called a general. council while the Church was united; he has only called such as he calls general since the East and West have been' separated and hostile, so that a general council, whatever it was worth, was impossible. The early ones referred their decrees to the Emperors, and the Emperors held the chief place and authority in them. Next, they were not reckoned infallible by the gravest authorities among Fathers and Popes, so that they can be no foundation for faith. They were gathered to settle points in question, not to lay any foundation. There were none for 300 years after the Apostles' days, and never any till the Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, who thought of, called one, and _directed it. Thirdly, their history will tell us what a poor foundation they are for faith, for Romanists cannot even clearly tell us which are general councils, nor show any unanimity as to their authority.

The truth is there never was such. All the first Councils in the East were called by the Emperors, and under their authority, and at the council in which the greatest number of Western prelates were found, there were not more than six of them. The later ones were called by the Popes in the West, and no Eastern prelates were there. The Empire was then in rapid decay, and had wholly disappeared in the West. In the ninth century the Eastern Church was entirely separated from Rome. The only council where both Easterns and 'Westerns were found, was that of Florence in the fifteenth century; the Eastern Emperor had need of the West, being pressed by the Turks; and sent some Eastern bishops; but the steps they took were protested against then by the most eminent among them; Mark of Ephesus, and were repudiated by all the Greeks on their return.

It is extremely difficult to say what constitutes a general council, as we shall see when we come to their history. Those who plead their divine origin appeal to Acts 15; but here there was no general council at all. The Apostles and, if we look beyond Apostolic authority, the elders of one Church assembled to consider the matter. At this time there were churches throughout 'Palestine, in Syria, where the question arose, and in the south of Asia Minor, and settled in full order by the Apostle

Paul where he had been. They do not hear a word of the said council, only some went from Antioch where the question had been raised, to propose it at Jerusalem. The truth is it was a question whether Judaism was to be forced on the Gentiles. God in mercy did not allow it to be rejected at Antioch and prevail at Jerusalem, so As to split the Church in two at once; but in His gracious wisdom, under the Apostolic guidance, led the Jewish part of the Church to decide that the old ordinances they clung to were not binding on Gentiles. This was most gracious. But most certainly there was no general council, but the Apostles and a single church. And the Epistle sent out so declares.. Under the heathen Emperors there were constantly provincial councils, and all was regulated within each province. When Constantine had succeeded in finally subduing the heathen Emperors, he took up the Church finding it distracted about Arianism and the time of celebrating Easter; he sent Hosius, his very particular friend, to Alexandria, the great scene of conflict, and wrote a letter to make truce between Alexander and Arius, saying they were disputing about trifles, but in vain. He then called the bishops from all parts to meet and settle the question.* The ecclesiastics were not the movers in it. Constantine appointed the place of meeting, which was in his palace at Nice, and when they were assembled, came in, in a splendid dress, on which Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, expatiates, and on his fine figure, and with great airs of modesty took his place amongst them. He over and over again says to bishops in his letters, it was his

pride to be their fellow servant, and declares that he had undertaken with all the bishops to settle the question. It has been discussed who presided. It is a vain discussion. Constantine did. He had a little modest golden seat at the top of the room, and the bishops sat on seats down the sides. The first on the right said a few words of compliment to him, how happy they were to see him there, and then he opened the session with a long speech. Nor was this all. As soon as he had done, neither his fine figure, nor purple robe and jewels, restrained the bishops; they began disputing fiercely. He soothed some, reasoned with others, encouraged and approved, others, and so got all to sign the creed but five, who were banished, though some of them came round. And on a very strange explanation of consubstantial' by the Emperor himself, Eusebius also signed the word. Strange to say it had been positively condemned in a considerable Eastern Council before. Afterward, a subsequent Emperor turned' Arian, and all the bishops Arian with him. One Emperor was Arian in the East, and another Nicene in the West. The Easterns were all Arian, the Western, Nicene; a few rare exceptions were true to their conscience. The Pope was not at the council, it is said through old age, but sent two presbyters; not only did they not preside, but never signed; first, Hosius, the Emperor's private friend, did that. Constantine, in his letter to Egypt after the council, recommending unity, repeats his having called the Council and undertaken the business. Though this Council under God's good providence may have been in some respects helpful in stopping so horrible a doctrine as Arianism, yet a vast number of prelates, sound in the faith, were far from being satisfied, especially when Marcellus of Ancyra, a great stickler for the Council, and who assisted at it, was condemned as a heretic and deposed, having run, through his views on the subject, into denying the eternal sonship of Christ, and suspected of Sabellianism. However, our point now is the Emperors calling the Councils, and here the Emperor managed it altogether. The next Council called general is that of Constantinople. Yet here we are at a loss to know why it is a general one. There were only 150 Eastern bishops. The Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory rejected the Canons, only accepted the doctrine. Yet the Canons were always received in the early and are in the code of the canons of the universal Church. The Popes took no notice, and had nothing at all to say to it when it was going on. Up to this Arianism ruled under Valens. Now, Theodosius turned all the Arian bishops out. Here again Theodosius convoked the Council, chose the bishop of Constantinople, and the Council formally refer all its acts to his ratification. (See the first document in Hardouin Cone., Vol. I., 807.)

As to the Third so called General Council, it is quite certain the Emperor Theodosius the younger called it.

It is well, perhaps, we should look into the character of this Council and the principal figure in it a little closer. If it were not for the heartless and relentless persecutions he underwent, there is nothing in Nestorius' character to attract regard. An eloquent, it would seem a vain, man, on whose character there was no reproach, he had a reputation for sanctity as a monk, and thought himself perhaps a great theologian.. He came from Antioch whence Chrysostom had been called to Constantinople, and was called to that see to the bitter disappointment of two others who aspired to it.

In judging the expression " the mother of God" (a monstrous and really offensive expression), although he fully admitted the two natures and one person, he used expressions justly objected to, and which his enemies did not fail to take hold of; but he did not really swerve from the truth as far as Cyril, who over and over again asserts that Christ had only one nature. At Ephesus, at the instance of John, Patriarch of Antioch, he consented to use it even as capable of a good: sense, as he had indeed already stated in his reply to Proclus' sermon. I now leave him till he appears in the history of the Council, and turn to Cyril the great actor in it, a man who is the very stay of modern high church notions.

The Church of Alexandria was a very powerful Church indeed, and its patriarchs had been always counted next to Rome in dignity. But Constantinople having been made the seat of empire, began somewhat to eclipse its grandeur, while the Pope was left by the same fact freer than ever.

The jealousy of Constantinople was great at Alexandria, which continually looked to. Rome as a

support equally jealous of Constantinople, which originally had been a subordinate city. The predecessor of Cyril had got Chrysostom banished, now counted a saint, but who died, banished from his see, and put out of church records, as unworthy of being recognized among Christians, in what were called the Diptychs, a kind of ecclesiastical record of bishops' names: Rome had restored him, Alexandria not, so that there was a breach of communion between them. Cyril began by persecuting the Novatians, a body separated from the general church, and seizing their property. The Jews, very numerous there

since the time of Alexander, having raised sedition against the Christians and slain many, Cyril put himself at the head of his adherents and the Parabolani kind of military monks whose nominal office was to visit the sick, etc., in seasons of plague or the like), attacked the synagogues, and drove the Jews out of the city, and gave up their houses to be sacked. Recourse was had to the Emperor. The monks, so famous and so numerous in Egypt, attacked the governor and wounded him. The individual who wounded him was executed. Cyril canonized him, and ordered him to be honored as a martyr. Other violences took place, and brought on the intervention of the Emperor. At Constantinople, one of Nestorius' clergy preached against the expression "mother of God," and then Proelus, previously candidate for the see, made a famous sermon for it. Nestorius then answered him, and the controversy was commenced. Cyril wrote to the monks on the subject, and this letter Cyril sent to Constantinople by his agents, then pretending in his letter to Pope Celestine that it had been brought by some to Constantinople. The Pope now became engaged in the matter, and sided with Cyril, finding the court against him. Cyril wrote then, and particularly to the Emperor's sister, for which the Emperor rebuked him severely, as sowing divisions in the Imperial family. She was ill disposed to Nestorius, who had charged her with two great familiarity with some great man about court. At last, Nestorius, it seems, proposing it, a Council was called at Ephesus by the Emperor, and the Patriarchs ordered to bring only a few bishops to settle the question. Cyril came at once with as many as he could bring. Meanwhile, the Pope commissioned Cyril to act for him in carrying out the Roman judgment against Nestorius, who was summoned to retract within ten days from receipt of the monition; and Cyril published twelve anathemas as to the doctrine of the incarnation, containing his views. The Emperor, in. calling the Council, put Cyril on his trial as well as Nestorius, and the former, not only as to the doctrine, but as to crimes committed at Alexandria. Cyril had at the same time excommunicated Nestorius, and sent to him the denunciation, and exhorted the monks of Constantinople to be firm. These and those in Egypt were main agents in the violence that took place. The Patriarch of Antioch and the Eastern Church were opposed to Cyril's views, and he wrote a work at this time against one which had been approved by a Council at Antioch. It is attempted to be said that Theodosius summoned the Council by advice of the Pope; but all honest Roman Catholic historians admit it was not, and could not be so. The Pope held a local council at Rome, excommunicated Nestorius, and commissioned Cyril to carry it out, and Theodosius' notice to the Pope of the Ephesian Council came first from the Emperor to Celestinus after that. The dates prove it. Cyril presided at the Council, such as it was, and all was over as to Nestorius before the legates arrived, and they then agreed to what had been done. Nestorius, and those with him, and John of Antioch, never -took part in it at all. Nestorius came first with the ten bishops from Constantinople, Cyril with some fifty from Egypt. The Emperor's Lieutenant ordered them to wait for the 'Oriental bishops who could not yet arrive. This did not suit Cyril. He met with his party, which was the more numerous, on the 22nd June, summoned Nestorius, who did not go, nor some 68 bishops who were now with him. Cyril went on, suspended and degraded Nestorius from the clergy without further ceremony, and his twelve anathemas were read, approved by silence, for there is no other positive decision of the assembly found as to them, though it be asserted by their adversaries, and not questioned till afterward, when they were used by the Monophysites, and all was finished on this main point. Cyril drew up the acts of the council, and it is admitted dressed them as it suited him, and there are gaps hard to understand. Candidius, the Emperor's lieutenant, protested against it as well. Memnon raised a tumult in the city, so that Nestorius was protected by troops, nor did his partizans, as it appears, refrain from violence. A few days after John of Antioch came; he would not receive Cyril's deputies at all; met with the bishops who came with him-he had only, it is said, brought three from each province-and he deposed and excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. The result was, both parties appealed to the Emperor, who sent a commissioner. The Emperor confirmed the depositions of the three. Then eight deputies went from each party. The Emperor ordered Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon into custody, and they were kept prisoners. Meanwhile matters went against Nestorius at court. A mob of monks had beset the palace. Cyril found means to escape and get to Alexandria. Nestorius's mainstay at court died. The Emperor sent Nestorius back to his monastery at Antioch, and let the bishops go home. Cyril was already gone back, having escaped from his confinement; the Emperor peremptorily refused to condemn John and the Easterns, and they went home. Cyril spent all the treasures of the Church of Alexandria, which was very wealthy, and brought it into considerable debt in bribing the courtiers, and even the Emperor's sister. This we know, not only from the accusations of his enemies, but from the statements of John of Antioch, of Acacius of Bema; and the letter of his archdeacon and Syncellus states that Cyril had sent the presents, and the list is given to whom the presents should be made. This sister of the Emperor, made a saint of afterward, married a nobleman, on condition of not living with him as a husband, to raise him to the throne. But Cyril and Memnon remained excommunicated by the East, which denounced his anathemas as heretical. The Emperor sent an officer to make peace. The Easterns refused to the end the anathemas of Cyril, and would not condemn Nestorius, nor indeed say anything about him. The Emperor's officer finally succeeded as to John and the majority. But they would not accept Cyril's doctrines. They drew up a document which condemned Cyril's anathemas; he explained then, but would not retract them, but signed the Eastern confession of faith which set them aside; then John and most of the Easterns came into communion with him, and they condemned Nestorius. But a great many, firmer than John, would not, and two or three whole provinces separated from Antioch. Then John got the Emperor to persecute.

Those who would not yield were driven from their sees. These provinces after some time were reunited with Antioch, and the greater part of the unyielding bishops went into Persia, where the Emperor's authority did not reach, and Nestorianism remained a large body with a hierarchy, and though now over run by Mahometanism, still subsists. In the sixth century it had christianized large tracts of Asia, and China itself was in the main nominally Christian, Nor was this all. The successors of Cyril held that Christ, after the union of the divine with the human, had only one nature, and this has subsisted with its hierarchy in Alexandria ever Jacobite or Coptic Church of Egypt, Abyssinia, etc., though also oppressed by Mahometanism, but having its hierarchy, like Nestorianism, the Patriarch of Alexandria being its head. Nor was this the only result. The term "mother of God" pleased the heathens as Nestorius alleged. And in the West they flocked in swarms into the paganized Church, the heathen temples, and worshippers were turned into Christian Churches and congregations without more trouble. I add the account given by a Roman Catholic of this result in the West, in an,, essay crowned by the French Royal Academy:-" They [the peoples] received this new devotion [to the. Virgin] with a sometimes too great enthusiasm, since for many Christians it became the whole of Christianity. The Pagans did not even endeavor to defend their altars against the progress of this worship of the mother of God. They opened to Mary the temples they had kept shut against Jesus Christ. It is true they mingled often with the adoration of Mary, their Pagan ideas, their vain practices, those ridiculous superstitions from which they seemed unable to separate themselves; but the Church rejoiced to see them enter into her bosom because she knew well that it would be easy, with the help of time, to purify from its alloy a worship whose essence was purity itself. Thus some prudent concessions [he had before spoken of these] temporarily made to. heathen manners (or morals), and the influence exercised by the worship of the Virgin, such are the two elements of force which the Church used to overcome the resistance of the last Pagans." He adds in a note, " Amongst a multitude of proofs, I choose only one to show with what ease the worship of Mary swept before it the remains of Paganism, which still covered Europe. Notwithstanding the preaching of St. Hilarion, Sicily had remained faithful to the ancient worship. After the Council of Ephesus, we see its eight most beautiful Pagan temples, in a very short space of time, become churches under the invocation of the Virgin." He then gives the list, " The ecclesiastical annals of each country furnish similar testimonies." (Beugnot, Histoire de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, Lib. 12, Chapter 1, Vol. 2., 270-1.) Nor was this Council held then for an Ecumenical Council. No Western was there unless a deacon from Africa, and the Pope's legates, after Nestori us was condemned. Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote against the twelve anathemas. The Eutychians always appealed to Cyril's famous sentence. The union was made out of two natures; but after the union there was one nature of the word incarnate in Christ.' I give it as Petavius states it I have already given the words from Cyril. No one can doubt that Eutychianism (the doctrine of one nature in Christ) and the Jacobite Church of Alexandria were the fruit of Cyril's doctrine. He says positively that Athanasius stated expressly, and quotes it, that there was only one nature after incarnation. A century afterward this was denied, and is still uncertain. But that Cyril does not really deserve confidence, it would be hard to refuse his testimony. The truth is, both Nestorius and Cyril were 'meddling with matters beyond their depth, and both used unjustifiable language. But the orthodox East never received Cyril's anathemas. He signed their creed. The subsequent Council of Chalcedon alone gave credit to this Council of Ephesus, but declared Theodoret and Ibas orthodox, who had written books favoring Nestorianism; but a general council after that, Constantinople, declared these same books heretical, saving always the authority of Chalcedon. The Cyril party- very probably the Emperor's sister, St. Pulcheria, who, was charged with incest, and had great power over the Emperor-persecuted Nestorius; he was banished to the desert and died in want. For the authorities for the details I have given, the reader may consult Baronius (who, of course, condemns Nestorius, and approves Cyril), Tillemont, a great favorer of Cyril, also Dupin, who is much more moderate. If he can read German, Walchs' Heresies, Vol. 5., where the subjects and documentary evidence are fully investigated, and which judges Cyril. more severely, as indeed every honest man and humble Christian must, though not accepting. the doctrines which Nestorius held or was accused of. accepting these come the collection of Councils and Mercator. The English reader may find a full summary in Gisseler's Compendium I., 393 following. But I have not used Protestant writers for the history, save as an index to the various authorities. Cyril and Mercator, both bitter enemies of Nestorius, and the Council itself, with something on ecclesiastical authorities and collections of letters at the time in the Synodium, are the original sources. With these I have used the Roman Catholics, Baronius, Bellarmine, Petavius, which last is full as to the doctrine of Cyril.

It is difficult to speak of this Council, it was conducted with such fraud and violence. Cyril the open. enemy of the person charged, and himself charged too, and to be judged by it, began it before the Eastern bishops, or even the Pope's legates were come, not in this heeding the protestation of the Emperor's lieutenant, who protested publicly and left a Some  70 bishops who were come protested also against beginning. Then, with those of his party, he cited Nestorius twice in one day, judged the case, and pronounced his deposition. Both parties appealed to the Emperor, who banished Nestorius. and desired all the bishops to return to their dioceses. The Eastern bishops had on their arrival excommunicated Cyril and Memnon, and Cyril and Memnon excommunicated them However Cyril's party gained the court,

and the Emperor had some one consecrated in the place of Nestorius, who was banished.. And the Easterns and Cyril, -a 'layman having been sent to bring them to terms, had years of negotiation before any peace was made, and then only by Cyril signing a creed drawn up by the Easterns, which condemned his doctrines promulgated and tacitly accepted at Ephesus, but without his publicly condemning them, and a large number of bishops were after all deposed by the Emperor, and the doctrines of Cyril became the seed of endless disputes and controversies, and in truth led to Eutychianism, and were its greatest stay. The Papal legates never presided in this Council. The Emperor's lieutenant, when he came to Make order, turned Cyril and Nestorius out; and Juvenal of Jerusalem presided. This let me add in passing is a pretty thing to call a general Council to found faith upon. The doctrines of Cyril have never been accepted. It is quite certain that Athanasius largely condemns in his second book against Apollinarius the expressions on which Cyril so much insisted. Would anyone think we had to say to Christians, the Emperor's lieutenant had to have guards mounted to prevent acts of violence.

Father O. I do not see what we can gain by going through all these points, but allow me to remark that though Theodosius called the Council of Ephesus, it was on the demand, and by the advice of the Pope. The Emperor did it administratively.

N. Not only is the historical fact admitted by all, even by Bellarmine and Baronius, that the Emperor did call the council, but it is impossible that the Pope could have anything to say to it, because he had held a Council at Rome and condemned Nestorius, and written to Cyril that he was to publish his deposition if he did not retract in ten days after notification. Cyril assembled a local Council at Alexandria, the 3rd of November, to carry this into effect, and on the 19th the Emperor issues his order for the Council to meet, writing to the Pope as to others; and the Pope in answer recognizes that the Emperor had convoked the Council, and that it was his business to care for the peace of the Church. Hard:, 1473: You will find the facts I have alleged as to the Councils in this book. Socrates, Sozomen, Baronius consulting Bellarmine, Dupin and Tillemont. Baronius, it is true, tries to call in question the canon of the Council of Constantinople, but his well-known annotator, Pagi, shows it is impossible to do so. It only shows fie felt how it pinched. I pursue my history.

As to the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth General Council, the Pope wanted to get one in Italy to condemn Eutychus. The Emperor Theodosius refused, saying all was settled at Ephesus, that is at a

second in that town, of which hereafter. So little did Popes call General Councils then. His successor was well disposed, but refused peremptorily to have it in Italy, called it at Nice, and then, in order to manage it better, brought it to Chalcedon, close to Constantinople. His commissioners sat in the Council save one day, suppressed the violence of the prelates at the beginning, saying they ought to show a better example, and made propositions, gave their consent, in fact presided actively all the time in the Council, save one day. On that day, on which they left the prelates to settle about the creed, the Council deposed Dioscorus, also Patriarch of Alexandria for his crimes at the previous Council of Ephesus. On their return the next day the commissioners said they must answer for it, they had not been there. In truth, their consciences need not have been much burdened. But even as to the creed to be signed, one was proposed. The papal legates opposed, and said they would go if Leo's letter was not assented to as it was, along with the creeds of Nice and Constantinople. The letter was in point of fact in many respects an admirable one. But what was done? It was referred to the Emperor, who decided what was to be done, and the Council stated their views in detail for themselves, though approving Leo's letter, but would give their own definition of faith. Afterward Constantinople was put on an equality with Rome, the legates craftily keeping away, they protested on their return; but the bishops maintained it, and the commissioners declared it had passed, and the Council said,We remain in this judgment.

In this Council Ibas and Theodoret, favorers of Nestorius' views, were declared' orthodox. They

publicly recognize the Empress Pulcheria as the person who had put down Nestorius.

The Fifth General Council is too plain in its history to need more than the plain statement of facts. There had been a great contest about the merits of Origen, and the monks had been breaking into each others' monasteries, and in the course of the disputes which followed, blood had been shed in the churches, indeed, it was far from being the first time. However, they got the Emperor to condemn Origen's doctrine. As to the merits of the case, there was reason enough. He was a powerful prince, and recovered Italy and Africa from the barbarians, and liked his own way. A certain Theodore of Caesarea, a great favorite with the Emperor, was fond of Origen and of Eutychianism, and determined to have his revenge, and he engaged Justinian to condemn three persons' writings, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas, and Theodoret, all three opposed to Cyril, who had had his way in the Council of Ephesus. These three persons had been pronounced to be in full communion in the Council of Chalcedon, which had rather tended to set up Nestorius's reputation again, whom Cyril and Ephesus had condemned. Justinian published a long decree condemning the three chapters as the writings of the three prelates above-named were called. He had a kind of Council, and the Oriental patriarchs and prelates were obliged to condemn them too. Pope Vigilius condemned them and excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople and all who had condemned the three chapters. However, Justinian thought he would be more tractable at Constantinople, and made him come. There, in fact, he joined in communion again with the excommunicated ones, and condemned the three chapters.

But then all the prelates of Illyrica and Africa., in fact of all the West in general, separated from his communion as unfaithful-a bad business according to modern Romanist notions. To get out of the scrape he acceded to the proposal of some of these prelates of a general Council, and withdrew his condemnation of the chapters, and forbade any resolution till there was a Council. The Emperor persecuted him (indeed he had exiled him and afterward brought him to Constantinople)' he fled to Chalcedon, and the Emperor compromised, and he came back. He then pressed for a Council in Italy. That did not suit the Emperor, and he refused, but called one at Constantinople. Vigilius would not go there, and he signed his private judgment with eighteen other Western prelates, while 160 or 170 sat in the Council under the Emperor's authority. This letter of his, called constitutive, was given to the Emperor, but is taken no notice of in the Council. To say the truth, it was on the whole the most sensible paper in the whole miserable business, and he forbade, by the authority of the Apostolic see, in any way to contravene what he then pronounced. However, the Emperor went on with his Council when, save a very few renegades, there were no Western prelates. The Council condemned altogether the three chapters, which was quite different from Vigilius' constitutive.. And Vigilius refused to sign as he had refused to be present. Justinian banished him again, and he gave Way, and signed; and it became thereby, says Baronius and the Romanists, a General Council. If that does not make a sure foundation for faith, what will? Yet universal confusion was the result: The Nestorians established a patriarchate at Seleucia, were favored by the Persians in opposition to the Roman. Empire, and spread over all the East, Christianity becoming very nearly the established religion of China at that time. And the Eutychians, raising their head through the activity of a monk, Jacobus, spread too, and the patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, such as they are since Mahomedanism overran the East, are in their hands, spread as far as India, and have a primate in Abyssinia. Both subsist. Not long ago violent persecutions were set on foot against the Nestorians, it is said, at the instigation of the so-called Bishop of. Babylon in connection with Rome, the Consul of France.

James. But where are we got, Sir? Is all this really the history of what they call the Church? Why, there is no Christianity in it. At any rate, the Bible is simpler than all this. I had, Sure enough, rather have the plain holy words of Paul and Peter, which are really the words of God.

N. No wonder. I go through. it because it is well we should know the difference. Mr. o. cannot deny these facts. They are drawn from the authentic histories of the day, from his own historians, such as Baronius, a great stickler for the Pope; Dupin, a most honest _Romanist historian, whom, perhaps, he might not like so much; Tillemont; Hardouin's Councils-books you cannot of course judge of, but Mr. o. can very well. I have referred to Protestant books merely to assist me in collecting the information.

Any one can judge whether such proceedings can be a foundation for a Christian's faith, or whether it is by wading through all this instead of reading the Lord's and the Apostles' words a poor man will get at the truth. Here the Pope contradicts himself, and one General Council, let them say what they will, contradicts another, for Chalcedon had acquitted and Constantinople condemns the three writers we have spoken of.

Here is Baronius' remark: " If you compare this synod with all that of which a synod ought to consist in order to be called a General Council legitimately congregated in the Holy Spirit, things standing as the acts plainly show they do, you will agree that it does not merit the name, not merely of a General Council, but not even of a private one, being one which was gathered, the Roman Pontiff resisting, and judgment pronounced by it in like manner against his decrees." " We will say further on how it came to obtain the name of a General Council." He then abuses it, his annotator, Pagi, approving it, and cites Pope Gregory and others as disapproving it too; however, though he says certainly Vigilius did not consent to it by letters, as either he or his successor, Pope Pelagius, consented to it, it became (Ecumenical, as the first of Constantinople had done, which was gathered in spite of Damasus. (Bar. Ace., 553,220.-224.)

The Sixth General Council will furnish us with some curious elements as to papal infallibility and the progress of Church history. Eastern Christendom was always discussing points. Rome pushing its power. In the East they got a new point, on which it is surely not my purpose to dwell here.. Christ had only one will, or at any rate his divine and human will coalesced, though he had two natures. The Emperor adopted, and Pope Honorius wrote a letter approving it. However, there was a change, the Roman legates opposed it at Constantinople, and one of them, Martin, became Pope; he then denounced all holders of it. The then Emperor published a rescript forbidding discussions, and all men to be left in peace. The Pope denounced his as sanctioning evil. The Emperor tried to get hold of him, failed the first time, but succeeded the second, and brought him prisoner and kept him so till he died. The Roman clergy, less staunch than the people, gave way, and elected another Pope, whom the Emperor confirmed; he never had confirmed his stern predecessor, Martin. So now there were two Popes. The one at Rome soon after. died, his successor was on good terms with the Emperor. The Emperor, who had always' maintained his rescript, died, too, and his successor was a gentler prince. He proposed a conference to settle it. Four Popes had succeeded one another rapidly during his reign, and at last Agathon assembled a Western Council, at which, however, no prelates from Spain, Britain, or Germany were present, save one on his own affairs, and three from France. However, they put themselves forward as representing the whole Latin Church. In truth, save Scotland and Ireland, and the north of England, it was at this time pretty well papalized. However, as the Council of the Apostolic See, as they say, they condemn the Monothelites, as they were called. Legates went from the Pope to Constantinople, but they were not to discuss, the Pope said, nor a tittle to be altered in the Confession. The Emperor had removed a stiff patriarch and put in a milder one, and formed an Assembly at Constantinople, and ordered. Macarius, the patriarch of Antioch, the Monothelite leader, to assemble as many as he could of his party. Thus, besides other prelates, the Eastern patriarchs, or their legates, were present. The West was only represented by the Pope's legates. Macarius was deserted by, most of his partisans, who found the tide against him, for the Emperor sought peace, though they had pretty well reviled each other. Macarius, however, insisted on the authority of Honorius, of Sergius, previously Patriarch of Constantinople, and of Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, but he was all but unanimously deposed and excommunicated. But now comes the strange result. They condemn all the writings of these heretics, and their memory they anathematize-that is, deliver over to the curse of God-Theodore of Pharan, author of the mischief, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and two of his successors; Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Macarius of Antioch, and all following them. In the thirteenth session they are declared out of the pale of the Catholic Church, that is, lost forever; and, in the sixteenth, anathema is pronounced on the heretic, Sergius, etc., etc., on the heretic, Honorius, Pope of Old Rome. This Council was accepted and confirmed as the Sixth General Council, when the result was notified to him by Leo, the Pope who succeeded to Agatho; and he anathematizes expressly Honorius and the others.

Father O. But Baronius rejects this letter.

N*. He does; but his annotator Pagi, as do others, treat this as folly, as indeed it is worse, for all the acts of the Council, the letters to the Pope, the Emperor's edict, the reading of Honorius's letter, which gave occasion to his condemnation, the acts of subsequent Councils, and the old Roman breviary, and every other possible roof exists to show that it is a mere foolish effort to get rid of what he cannot deny. He pretends that it was the Patriarch Theodore of. Constantinople, and that his name was scratched out everywhere and Honorius's put in. But why read Honorius's letter to condemn Theodore. You must know that. Baronius' notion as to this is rejected by everyone. Now mark the result. Constantine, the Emperor, presided with his court and judges in person at the Council during the first twelve and the last session, and, excusing himself in the interval by public affairs, left his representative. The acts of the Council declare it called by his command and recognize his presidence. The General Council declares the Pope a heretic, and condemned forever for it; and this sanctioned by another Pope (Leo II.), who confirms the Council and anathematizes his predecessor. Nor is this all. What Pope Gregory the Great called the See of Peter in three different cities, that is Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (which he was uniting against. John of Constantinople, who claimed to be universal bishop), three (he declared) derived from one (Peter), and which were one, all three were in this same heresy, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, and now Macarius of Antioch, all successors of Peter, we are assured are anathematized as heretics, and held to have no place in the Catholic Church, and that by a General Council and another Pope. How am I to get security here. In the Pope as successor of Peter, or in the Council who sent him to hell as a heretic (happily the poor man was dead)? If you blame the Council your security for the faith is gone by any Council, or in the Pope either, for they acted very much on the letter of one Pope, and all their definitions were accepted by another. If you accept the Council then all the fine theory about a successor of Peter fails, for his successor was a condemned heretic.

Father O. But I think Pope Honorius may very well be defended against the charge of being a Monothelite, and Maximus, a martyr, did so.

N*. Well, I should not be indisposed to accept your excuse. There is certainly something to be said for him, though he went very far. But if you are right what comes of the authority of the General Council and another Pope's condemnation of him and his doctrine. No, great as their influence was become-quite paramount in the West at this epoch-no one dreamed then of the Popes being infallible. As to General Councils, it is rather hard to tell what they were. No Western bishops were in this, only the Pope assured them that what he wrote was the judgment of all the West. But that did not make their assembling in the Holy Ghost. Agatho's Roman Council was composed of Italian and Sicilian bishops. Only two bishops signed as deputies of all France and England; a queer way, too, of assembling in the Holy Ghost. At any rate the Emperor gathered and presided in the Sixth General Council, and the Pope was condemned as a heretic by the Council and by his successor. In this Sixth General Council there were at first some 30 or 40 bishops, at the end 160.

I will now go on to the Seventh General Council, if we can find out which it is. An Emperor, Leo the Isaurian, who had long known the Arabs, and seen them despise the idolatry of Christendom, had a strong desire to reform the abuses of image worship. He issued a decree in 726 forbidding them to be worshipped, and the pictures and images were directed to be put high up, but were not ordered to be taken away; but Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory II. opposed vehemently; the Greeks rose in insurrection, and advancing to Constantinople were defeated. The Emperor now went further, and in 730 had the images and pictures destroyed. Thence tumults, murder, and reprisals by the Government. Germanus and the Popes sustained their cause by appealing to the most ridiculous fables, which no one believes now, that Christ sent a miraculous picture of Himself to Abgarus, King of Edessa, insulted the Emperor in the grossest possible language, and Gregory the Pope says that Uzziah,

profanely removed the brazen serpent which David had sanctified, and put with the ark into the temple—a confusion a child could have avoided who had read a little Scripture. Hezekiah is commended for doing it. He says, where it is said, " Where the carcass is there are the eagles gathered together," the carcass meant Christ and pious Christians, living men flocking to see Him at Jerusalem, and that so strong was the impression of the figure of Christ on their minds that at once they made portraits of Him, and carried them about to convert people with. However, he says they did not of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But now even that is done.

Strange to say, however,. he looked for the Emperor to preside in a council. The Emperor had called, he says for one, but where was a God-fearing Emperor to preside. However the Emperor persevered, and the new patriarch went with him. His son Constantine called a Council in 754 of 338 bishops of the East, and they condemned images; they called themselves a General Council. This went on till one Irene, a widow of his son, remained with a young child. She wheeled round; and now 377 bishops and the Pope's legates authorized image-worship. This was at Nice in 787. There were no Western bishops, but the Pope ratified it. But the West were not, after all, such image-worshippers as the Pope. They held to what the great Pope Gregory had written to Serenus of Marseilles, when he had broken images there, which were then coming in, that all worship of them was wrong, but that they might be useful for the ignorant to recall the mind to those represented by them. Here, then, superstition had made progress, and the Popes had changed with the times, but it seems the West had not. In the Western Empire, under Charlemagne, the Council of Nice was rejected. First of all this great founder of the new Western Empire assembled his bishops, and put forth a book in his own name, in which he condemned the Council of Constantinople, which suppressed all pictures and images, and equally the Council of Nice, which allowed them to be reverenced and worshipped. He went through Scripture and the Fathers, and proved that this worship and reverence was all wrong. But the Emperor's and bishops' book goes farther. Pope Adrian had sent them the decisions of the Council of Nicæa (or Nice), to which they had never been called, and they say, " We receive the Six General Councils, but we reject with contempt novelties, as also the Council held in Bithynia (that is, the so-called Seventh General Council of Nice), to authorize the worship of images, the Acts of which, destitute of style and sense, have come to us;" and then they refute seriously all that

the Pope had said to the Eastern Emperor. They declare that the Council of Nice is not a general one,

because it was not gathered from all parts of the Church, and appeal to Gregory the Great's letter to Serenus. But this work of the bishops of France and Germany, then one empire, issued in Charlemagne's name, was not all. In 794 he had a Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main, at which were the Pope's legates and 300 prelates of Germany, France, and Spain. This Council refers to the Council of Nice as the Council of the Greeks, and rejects entirely, unanimously, and with contempt its doe-trine and decision. All this was sent to the Pope. He replies in a long letter on the doctrines, and adds, " We have received the Council of Nice because conformed to the doctrine of-St. Gregory (Gregory the Great, which it was not), fearing the Greeks might return to their error. However, we have yet given no answer to the Emperor as to the Council." So here we have an alleged General Council received by the Pope, disowned publicly by all the West, except Italy, and its doctrine condemned. All the assembled bishops of the West, with the Pope's legates, declare that the Council of Nice is not a General Council, and reject with contempt unanimously (these are their words) its doctrines and authority; and accordingly it was not for a great length of time received in the Western empire as a General Council, and this the Council of Frankfort was. The Pope's legates were at both. The Pope received and defended Nice, but said he had not written to the Emperor, so he only half agreed to Nice either; but urged Charlemagne to come and help him to get back his territory, which the Eastern Emperor had seized on. Gradually superstition advanced, and Nice was in credit, and Frankfort went down. In Frankfort the Emperor is recognized as President; Louis le Debonnaire's commissioners, prelates of France, condemned the Pope in the matter; and they, as Charlemagne, that is the western prelates, had before done, do not admit any Council or the Pope to be universal or Catholic, unless they hold the Catholic truth according to the Scriptures and Fathers. Indeed, it is curious enough, for those that cry up the Fathers, that Augustine, a Father of perhaps the greatest authority of any in the Western Church, thus speaks of Councils, showing how little he thought them an infallible security

for the faith. All Councils, be it remarked, not merely, so-called, general ones, claimed the guidance of the Spirit. After stating that holy canonical Scripture is superior to all writings of bishops, " so," he adds, " they can be corrected by wiser discourse or reproved by Councils if in anything they have erred from the truth; and Councils themselves, in particular districts or provinces, are without any doubt to yield to the authority of plenary councils, formed out of the whole Christian world; and prior plenary Councils themselves may be amended (emendari) by later ones, when by due experience of things, that which was shut was opened, and what lay hid. is known, without any inflated arrogance, or any elation of sacrilegious arrogance, without any contentions of livid envy with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity" (De Bapt. con. Don. ii. 3.) It is singular if what is infallibly taught can be amended. The passage is fully given further on. Now, where is the foundation for the faith here. Which was right, the General Council, or Gregory the Great, or Gregory III.? What a sea of confusion and contradiction we are in here; 338 prelates, all of the East, calling themselves a General Council, vote against images; 375, with Pope Gregory III., vote for them; 300 of the West and the Pope's legates, appealing to Pope Gregory the Great's authority, and following his instructions, condemn- both, and the then Pope, and declare in the Most solemn way that the former Council of the two they condemn was no General Council at all, but a Greek one which they reject. The Pope takes it easy, because he wants his territory defended. You cannot deny the facts I quote. The Greeks contended about it for a length of time; sometimes one, sometimes the other party prevailing. And now note another important point. In the Council of Nice there were no Western prelates, in the Council of Frankfort no Eastern. Really General Councils had ceased, if ever they could have been called so, for in none of the first was the West represented by prelates; they were convened by the Emperors in the East to settle heretical disputes. The only exception was Sardica; and there East and West were so opposed that they separated, and the Easterns sat at Philippopolis, and the Westerns at Sardica. The 300 at Frankfort, remark it fairly enough; they reject it, as they say, with contempt. Further, these 300 prelates do not hold the Pope's authority in any way final. He had approved the Council of Nice, though he shuffled about it when he wanted Charlemagne to secure the territory the see of Rome now possessed. Yet they reject what he had approved. And Louis Debonnaire's episcopal and ecclesiastical commissioners declare the Pope to have been quite ' -wrong.—Again, the Emperors had always convened the Councils up to the present time, and presided in them; and as soon as there is an Emperor in the West again he does the same thing, nor does the Pope question it, they assist, and the Council states that the Emperor presided. At this time the English and Irish Churches were not under the authority of the Popes at all, nor for long after.

But another important matter to remark here is that the breach which ambition on both sides had brought about between the heads of the Roman and Greek ecclesiastical bodies now became complete. They anathematized each other, and no universal ecclesiastical body ever subsisted since. The Emperor's power in the East was reduced to a shadow by Saracens and Turks. The Western Empire, founded by Charlemagne, in which the prelates acted, as we have seen, independently of the Pope while it subsisted, fell to pieces by the weakness of his successors; and the Pope gradually acquired, through violent struggles with the German Emperors, at last in the person of Gregory VII. the desired supremacy. Yet he died, driven from leis see by the Emperor. And mark, there was from this time, confessedly, pitch darkness in everything, as Romanists themselves con.- fess; they are called the dark ages. And a vast number of the Popes were the greatest monsters that ever disgraced the name of man, and the clergy the most corrupt of the whole population. But we have touched On this point, and what is necessary we will speak Of when sanctity as proof of the true Church is spoken of.

What now "remark is, that no serious man can find a foundation for the faith of his soul in all this. The Word of God is operative by the power of the Spirit of God. " He begets," says Scripture, " by the Word of truth," but prelates' disputes in councils never begat any- one by the truth.

The Eighth General Council is important to us in this respect, that the Greeks hold one, the Romanists another, for a general one. The-Greeks one in 879, the Romans one in 869, the latter with very. few prelates and pretended envoys from the patriarchs, condemned Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, and set up Ignatius, who had been driven away. The legates of Rome were at the former, and it was so far owned of the Pope that he agreed to -Photius being patriarch, Ignatius being now dead; but as Constantinople would not give up Bulgaria to the jurisdiction of Rome, the Pope excommunicated Photius, and he the Pope, and all pretension to a Catholic Church ceased. The schism between East and West was complete.

From this time out, beginning with 1122 A.D., under Callixtus, there being no imperial power of any sufficient weight remaining in the West, the Popes held councils of their own and for their own interests. The first of them passed decrees about the Duchy of Benevento belonging to the Pope, and forgave the sins of those who would go to war to recover Jerusalem from the Saracens. They were Western Councils, and I freely admit entirely under Papal influence for some centuries-centuries, as all admit of utter darkness and Wickedness. That is, as long as there were emperors, emperors called them, (it was first an idea of Constantine's to make peace in the Church), and when emperors ceased to call them, their power being gone, the schism between East and West was complete, and no universal Church ever externally existed since. The East was overrun' by the Mahomedans; the West by darkness and atrocities.

James. But what came of true Christians all this time; for all this is very little like Christ, Sir. I do not know what to think of such Christianity.

N*. There were hidden ones all through no doubt, who took no part in all these painful and ambitious contests; some in the midst of them who mourned over them. At the time we are speaking of mysticism began to come in, that is the seeking for a hidden life of God and love to Him in the soul, and leaving. outward things to go on as they may, with very little clearness as to redemption. The propagation of the Gospel was chiefly carried on in the East, indeed almost exclusively by the Nestorians, whom the so-called Catholic Church had cast out, and by the Scotch, who were entirely independent of Rome. What was done elsewhere was done by force of arms, as the Saxons, conquered by Charlemagne, and forced to become Christians in name, and the Saxons, in England, still earlier through Ethelbert. This was from Rome, but with distinct orders to leave them their heathen habits in many things and connect them with Christian profession. Bulgaria and Hungary were brought in by the Greek Church, and it was the dispute about that with Rome which brought about finally the division which ended the history of h Catholic Church, and constituted a Roman and a Greek one.

James. It is a sad history; but, I remember, Paul says the mystery of iniquity was already at work, and

that things would wax worse, and that in the last days perilous times would come.

N*. It is just there that he tells us that the Scriptures are our security, and able to make the man of God perfect.

M. But, Mr. o., is all this true? I thought you said the Catholic Church was so holy and there was such unity.

Father O. These facts may be true; but all that supports the authority of the Pope, and all the good they

did, and how they maintained sound doctrine is left out. How can a poor man like you understand all these questions?

N*. I do not deny there were some godly men among the Popes, though all were ambitious as to the power or the see of Rome. Our object was not to record the history of their lives nor to deny that there were some true saints during all this time. Even in the darkest ages many separated themselves and protested when it was darkest, as the Waldenses and others; many protested and remained where they were, saying Antichrist was already at Rome, and even persons held to be saints;* but our point was how Councils or Popes, or Councils and Popes could be a foundation for a poor man's faith, or any man's faith as a Christian; and no one can deny the facts I have quoted: I have taken them from Hardouin, That is the Councils and original letters, Petavius, Baronius, Dupin, Fleury, and similar histories, that is, of Romanists, the three first were zealous Papists.

And note here, when the schism took place the Greeks charged the Romans with adding an important article to the creed, what is called the filioque clause, the proceeding of the Spirit from the Son. This came in very late, had been adopted in no creed in the ninth century, came, perhaps, from Spain, and when Pope Leo was consulted about it he said it was right, but forbad it to be put in the creed as general councils had forbidden anything to be added to their creeds long before, an order equally despised by subsequent ones. Now, I do not deny that M. cannot judge well of all these things we have been speaking of, nor understand the bearings of all of them, but he can understand that neither he nor anyone else can build his faith on such a quagmire of confusion and wickedness.

M. Why, I do not know whatever my faith can be. These Councils seem to be only disputes and violence and striving to get uppermost.

N*. And so they were, and really used by the Emperors who presided in them to make peace among fighting ecclesiastics. Providence may have used some of them to maintain important points of truth.

I shall have to notice a few more General Councils when the Papacy grew so wicked that the universal body was obliged to interfere, but I will close this part with a statement of St. Augustine on this point. The schismatic Donatists quoted St. Cyprian against their adversaries. " Who is ignorant," says Augustine, " that holy 'canonical Scripture, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it is so set before all posterior letters of bishops, that as to it it is wholly impossible to doubt or discuss whether whatever is found written there be true or right; but that

letters of bishops written, or which are now written, after the canon was settled, may be blamed by the wiser speech of perhaps one more skilled in the subject or the weightier authority and more learned prudence of other bishops, and by councils, if there be in them perchance any deviation from the truth; and that Councils them selves which are held in particular districts or provinces without any question to the authority of plenary councils gathered from the whole Christian world (called general or œcumenical), and that often previous plenary ones are corrected by later ones, when by any experience of things, what was closed is opened out, and what lay hid is known, without any puffing up of sacrilegious pride, without any inflation of arrogance, without any contention of livid envy with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity" (De Bap. ii. 3), Excellently well said, allowing even all his high opinion of councils; but if this be so, how can anything but the Scriptures be a foundation of faith. Everything else may be corrected, as Cyprian might be wrong, as Augustine held him to be, but no one can at all doubt or discuss if what is found in Scripture is true or right. That is soundly and well said; and though I may not have so high an idea of councils from the history we have of them, we could not have sounder principles than Augustine's.. But they are not the principles of Rome. It may be well, as we are passing through the councils, to mention the Fourth Lateran Council, under innocent III., at a time when the Papal power was at its height. It was a General Council of a very particular kind, a large number of Western bishops, 412 it is said, and some 800 abbots and priors, others, such as ambassadors, assisting at it. But there was no consulting about anything. The Pope had prepared seventy canons or rules, read them out ready-made, and silence was supposed to confirm them. They were simply decrees of Innocent III., graced by the presence of prelates, abbots, and ambassadors. At this Council, for the first time, transubstantiation was decreed to be a Church doctrine, and confession required yearly to the parish priest. At this Council the horrible iniquities of the crusade against the Count of Toulouse, who protected his subjects, the Albigenses, were sanctioned, and the Inquisition began, perfected soon after as a system by succeeding Popes. We come now to some important Councils, omitting several by which the Pope sought to strengthen his power ecclesiastical and temporal. The Papacy got so bad that disputes arose in its own circle, and in 1378 there were two Popes; this state of things lasting about forty years. But this only made matters worse; Europe was divided, and they could only get money from half, and every sort of ecclesiastical corruption and oppression was introduced to have it, which some spent in dissoluteness in their courts, some heaped up. The University of Paris strived to heal the matter, and after long negotiating and intriguing on all sides, the cardinals of both parties. summoned a Council at Pisa for March, 1409. The Council deposed both the Popes, and after the cardinals had solemnly engaged themselves to reform the abuses which existed, Alexander V. was elected, the effect of which was that they had three Popes instead of two.

James. What are the cardinals, Sir?

N*. A body formed originally of the principal ecclesiastics of Rome of different ranks in the hierarchy by a decree of Nicolas, in 1059, to elect the Pope, a right enjoyed up to that time by all at Rome, and which had led to all sorts of tumults, violence, and bloodshed and to appease the opposition of the rest added to by Alexander III. Others, perhaps, have added to them, and now many out of Rome are named. They form a kind of court to the Pope, they have the highest rank in the Papal system, though not necessarily in the episcopacy, as they are from the various orders of the his archy. To return to my history. Alexander V.'s successor, John XXLLL. or XXLL.,* was such a horrible monster, and a King Ladislaus, of Naples, whom he had provoked, having forced him to fly from Rome, the Emperor took advantage of it to get him to summon a Council, which was called for November, 1414, the famous Council of Constance.

Already the state of the Popedom and the writings of the famous Gerson had prepared men's minds to consider a Council superior to a Pope. The Council declared its superiority to the Pope, tried to get him to resign, which he promised, fearing his conduct was going to be inquired into, evaded, and they deposed him. One of the other two, for there were three, Gregory XII., resigned, and the third was deserted, and though he had a kind of successor the schism thus ended. But little reformation was effected, the Council leaving it to the Pope whom they chose, Martin V.

_Father O. But the Pope never confirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance, so that you cannot appeal to it as a General Council.

N*. You are somewhat bold to say that. It is as Romanist historians say, the wisdom of Rome to approve nothing at Constance and to change nothing at Con, stance. It is a kind of bridge, but such a broken one for them, that though it seems to enable them to cross the river, it is likely to plunge them only more dangerously into it. If Constance had not the authority it claims, what comes of the Popedom. You have no right to call anyone a Pope, there is no legitimate Pope at all, for the Council deposed John XXIII. and chose Martin V., besides setting aside the two other Anti-popes. Where are we to find the foundation of our faith here? On the other hand, if the Council had the authority, your doctrine as to the infallibility of the Pope falls to the ground. And in point of fact you are reduced to this, because since then you have no Popes but those who derive their authority from the Council.

But then you have another difficulty, your living judge disappears. Popes, save perhaps for an interval of two or three years, you have had, but Councils only from time to time, and as your Popes actually exist only in virtue of the Council's authority, which declares that it holds that authority immediately from Christ, the infallible judge is not a living one. There was none for near 300 years. Yet no Roman Catholic scarcely now would recognize the authority of the Council of Constance, or what it has pronounced to be the true doctrine. Yet if it be not, the Popedom has no legitimate foundation at all. But I must beg leave to deny even what you affirm. John XXIII. confirmed expressly its decrees before he was deposed, whatever his confirmation was worth. At any rate it was the confirmation of a legitimate Pope. Not only so, but Martin V., though he avoided making any reformation in his court, yet owned the Council expressly as a General Council met in the Holy Ghost. Nor was this all. He recognized as valid all that had been done in the sessions, though not what had been done separately in the meetings of the nations, for the bishops of the different nations met first among themselves, and then there was a general meeting. Now the famous decree and the setting aside of the Pope were decided in the sessions, so that the decree was confirmed by John XXIII. before he was deposed, and by Martin V. when he was made Pope. This decree declares that the Council is legitimately gathered in the Holy Ghost, has its authority immediately from Christ, represents the Catholic Church militant, and that everyone, even the Pope, is bound to obey it, even in what concerns the faith, and threatens punishment to the Pope himself if he does not.

Father O. But this, as to faith, was introduced by the Council of Basle, as well as another paragraph of the decree.

IV*. I know Schelstrat has tried to maintain this, but this is all a fable. It is quoted and referred to subsequently in the Council. Not only so. The words he attempts to invalidate in the Fourth Session are beyond all controversy in the Fifth Session. In Hardouin's Council they are left out in Session IV.; but he does not pretend to leave them out in Session V. The Council of Constance was the re-action of the universal conscience of Christendom against the state to which the wickedness of the Popes had reduced the Church. Nor did it close the open wound.. The Council of Constance had decreed that another Council should be held at 'Pavia. Martin called it. It was removed on account of the plague to Sienna; hence, few were there. However, they began to reform, and the Pope ordered the closing of the Council. The prelates protested; he said it was not to be considered broken up, it would be continued. Basel was the place chosen, the Council to be held in seven years. It was held; but soon began to be refractory against the Pope. They renewed the two decrees of Constance, subjecting the Pope to a Council, word for word, and declared they could not be dissolved. This was in the Second. Session. The Pope decreed their dissolution. They rejected it and summoned him. The Pope was in great trouble by his local wars, and sent legates to say he recognized them as a General Council legitimately continued from the time they had commenced. They received the legates on condition that they swore they approved the decrees of the Council of Constance as to the authority of a General Council. The Pope Eugene decreed the removal of the Council to Ferrara. The Council declared the decree of a removal void. The Pope, however began at Ferrara with some of his own Italian bishops, the Council of Basel remaining where it was. The Council of Basel deposed Pope Eugene after long delay, the princes seeking some way of peace, and chose another, Felix V. The princes re' mained neutral, and when the -Popes censured each other, received the decrees of neither, though many held to the Council of Basel as a legitimate General Council, as France and England, and would not own that of Ferrara, and sought to transfer it elsewhere. To this the prelates of Basel agreed. Felix went to Lausanne. Gradually the interests of Eugene gained the upper hand. Eugene's Council, already transferred to Florence, was moved to Rome. The Council of Basel dissolved itself; calling a future Council at Lyons or Lausanne. Felix and Eugene remained Popes. Eugene died, and Nicholas V., at the instance of the princes, agreed if Felix gave up the papacy to revoke all censures against him and those engaged in the Council of Basel, confirm all its other acts as well as those of Florence, and make Felix first cardinal and perpetual legate in Germany; and this was accordingly done. Felix, on his part, revoked all his censures and resigned, and thus this schism terminated.

But is not this a strange foundation for faith? .

M. Well, but Father o., is all this true?

Father O. We do not own the Council of Basel at all.

111. Well but I have been listening attentively, and the Pope recognized it as a legitimate General Council. And if all this be so, how can a man build his faith upon such a foundation as this? Why, I do not know. what. I am to build on. The Council condemns the Pope, and the Pope condemns the Council. No body dares condemn the Apostles, and it is much simpler to believe them than all these disputes. Why, they cannot agree among themselves. How can I tell which to trust?

Father O. All this comes of your pretending to discuss these things instead of, in a humble spirit, listening to the Church. Are you wiser than all the holy and blessed men who have done so, and taught the truth from Christ downwards, yea, obeyed Christ himself, who told them to hear the Church?

M. Yes, Sir, but you were to show us where was the Church. Most people in this country don't think yours the true Church. Besides, how can I tell who was holy and who was not hundreds of years ago. It seems one Pope was deposed, he was so wicked. And now let me ask you, Sir, for I want something certain for my soul, you will excuse me, but it is a serious thing after ill, what a man is -to build upon as sure ground for his soul-Are you infallible?

Father O. No, of course I am not; but I teach you infallible truth; if I did not the bishop would look after -it.

M. Is he infallible?

Father O. No, he is not; but he has a sure rule, and even he would be called to account if he did not teach according to it.

M. Who would call him to account?

Father O. Why, finally, the Pope.

M. 'Well, but here was a Pope deposed; and two or three Popes at a time; so he is not infallible. And we were hearing of one who was condemned as a heretic-two, I think, I forget their names.

N*. Honorius was condemned publicly, and Liberius signed an Arian creed.

M. Aye, well, they are not infallible, and they are not the Church. And a Council you, Father O. do not hold to be infallible, for they have condemned 0., Pope, aye, and deposed him, so that, after all, you have no right Pope, if they are not. And what is the rule?

Father O. The decrees of the Council of Trent and the creed of Pius IV.

M. Well, but I cannot understand them better than I can understand the Bible, if that is all. Why cannot I understand the Apostles Paul and Peter as well as that, and both must be translated, for all these rules are written in Latin, arn't they, Sir?

Father O. To be sure, and they are for the clergy. You must receive what you are taught-what the Church teaches.

M. But you see, Sir, we were looking for the Church, it is the very thing I want to find out; we have not found it yet. I took your word for a great many things, that all were agreed since Christ's days-all handed down the same doctrine, and there was a living judge to decide. And now I find it was far different. They were disputing and condemning each other, and the Popes had to be put down, they were so wicked; and it makes a wonderful difference to get at the facts, to be sure, and hence I find I cannot trust what you want me to trust on. You made me think all was unity, and was everywhere, and always, and by all (as you said) held, the holy Church that every one could depend on. And it is not so. Can you deny the Scriptures to be the word of God?

Father O. No, the Church honors them as such; but you cannot understand them, and they are written in Greek and Hebrew.

M. I know, but I am no better off with your rule; and I know the Scriptures must be the truth, for God had them written. I never cared much about them, to be sure, but that is my fault; and as to understanding them, I can try. I see James, that has no more learning. than me, understands them wonderful, and I will try. I will see what they say, if' I cannot understand all I can leave what I do not, and I dare say I shall some.

Father O. Well, if you are determined to go your own way and set yourself above holy men and the whole Catholic Church, I must only leave you to yourself as an obstinate heretic, and put you, if you remain obstinate, under the Church's curse, that you may be a warning and a terror to others.

M. Well, I did not mean any offense, Sir; I am an ignorant man, and I do want to find some sure ground for my soul, and, begging your pardon, Sir, I do not think that cursing me because you have not been able to show me one, is the way to do me good; nor do I believe Jesus Christ would curse me for looking for it in his Own words; so, though I am sorry to offend you, I cannot think He curses me, nor see that it is like Him to do so, and I do not think yours will hurt me if He does not approve it.

Father O. But He has promised that what is thus bound on earth He will bind in heaven. It is the Church curses you through her unworthy minister for the good of others, if not for your own; but be wise, M., give up this searching into religion. You have what has brought millions to heaven, and is the mother of all holy men that have belonged to Christ. Go and earn your bread quietly, and take care of your family, and leave these questions that you can never settle for yourself.

M. But that is not what was said to me when they got me once to be a Catholic. Then I was told what a solemn thing it was not to be in the true Church, out of which was no salvation, and that I must look. seriously to it, and see if I was in it, and so on, and they gave me books to show it me ail, as Milner's " End of Controversy," and so on; and now I am told that I cannot inquire or judge about it, and am to be cursed if I do not obey.

Father O. And did not that book make it as plain as possible? You had better come and speak to me at my house, and I will make it clear for you.

M. Well, I thought it was all plain enough in Milner, to say the truth; but then I had only heard one side of the story, and if I go to your house, Sir-no offense-I shall only hear one side then, and of course I cannot answer you, I am too ignorant; but here I can hear -both„ and. I like that;- and I have begun to get anxious since I have heard, and I see James is happy in a way I am not; I do not understand it; he is happy with God and I am not, and he is a changed man, that I see, and I am not, though I have done every penance and said all the prayers you bid me, I am kept from something; but I am not changed in what I like. I will be very glad to hear what you have to say, for I only want to go right, and I do not know where the real truth is yet; but I want to know, and I hope God will show me.

Father O. Well, I must leave you to your own obstinacy.

M. Do not say I drove you away, Sir, for I only wish to hear all you have to say. And if you won't we must only go on with Milner as we did before, if Mr. N*. will be so good.

Father. 0. No, it is no use. You are a heretic in heart already, for you refuse the authority of the Church already, and are trusting your own judgment and searching out what you cannot understand, and will certainly plunge into error-indeed, you are, as I said, there already. The Church will have to disown you, the only Mother, as God is the only Father, of souls for life, and he who has not the Church for his Mother certainly (as a holy father has said) has not God for his Father.

.N*. There is a sense, though I do not like the terms, in which that is true; but you forget, Mr. o., that we have not yet found the true Church, so that your warnings can have no effect at all. Every true Christian belongs to the Church of God, and has to seek to live in its unity; but Romanism you have not shown to be that Church. As yet we have found, outside Scripture, no solid foundation for anything. Popes and Councils have striven for superiority. The Popes seeking ambitiously for the universal authority, the pretension to which they once condemned, and when the progress of Mahomedanism in the East and the decay of the Greek Church left them free, plunging into such wickedness and oppression, as roused. the clergy supported by the princes of Europe to seek to assert the superiority of a Council over them, which they confirmed because they could not help it; evaded; as soon as the Councils were over, and by their wickedness, and at last specially by their sale of indulgences, which was really selling permission to sin, brought about the Reformation, that is the breaking loose of half Western Europe from their sway, Eastern Europe having never been under it. This brought on the Council of Trent, which, in fixing the Romanist in his errors, gave a deeper character of apostacy from the truth to Rome, and left the separation of Northern Europe where it was.

Father O. Well Sir,' I think I must wish you a good morning.

N*. Good morning, Mr. o.

James. Well, I never could have thought that what they say such great things about could have been like this. But how can people build their faith on such things. But the history of the Church seems a terrible history.

N*. Well, James, you must not boast much, you were very near running into the snare yourself. If redemption is known and the Word of God believed in, it is impossible; but how many are living simply by tradition themselves; and hence, when what seems an earlier and more reverend tradition comes, are led away by it because they have nothing for themselves in their own souls. I have gone through so much of the history of their Councils with Mr. o. in your presence that I have only a very. few details to refer to. We have seen they were always called and presided over by the Emperor, as long as the East had any part in them: that they condemned the Pope when needed; that when there was no Emperor in the West, the Pope got them into his hands there, and as power is a corrupting thing, after getting the upper hand, in a great measure, of the new Western Emperors, the Popes became so wicked, and afterward, through disputes, two at a time, anathematizing each other, and so oppressive and despicable that the clergy at large in a General Council first deposed both at Pisa, electing a third, and, as the two did not yield, had three, and then succeeded in deposing all and naming one at Constance: but that he, once named, avoided the reformations demanded, but, forced by circumstances, his successor was obliged to yield and hold another Council at Basel; that this made many reforms; and then the Pope, alarmed, called the Council, first to Ferrara,- then to Florence, the Council deposed him and named another, and at last both being tired, and the succeeding Pope conciliatory, he confirmed the decrees of Basel and Florence, and the anti- Pope resigned. Since then till the Reformation the Popes had it pretty much their own way; but their excessive wickedness destroyed respect for them, and the oppressions were so great that God, arousing not princes nor the hierarchy, but simple individuals, brought about the Reformation in His own way;;he selling pardons in the grossest way to get money to build the Cathedral at Rome, being, in Germany and Switzerland at least, the exciting cause. The last Pope before the Reformation poisoned himself in seeking to poison his cardinals to get their money.

James. Well, to think that any one should make' all this a foundation for faith and salvation. It is more likely to make an infidel.

N*. It has made, and does make thousands and millions. Seeing all this connected with the name of Christianity, the mass of men reject it altogether with disgust where they think at all for themselves.

James. But what do you say to this, M.? You used to talk so much of the holy Catholic Church.

M. I do not know what to say. But what can a man believe?

James. He can believe what Christ and His Apostles have said, and, of course, inspired men before them. These Popes and others were nothing like this.

M. That is plain enough.

James. Well, see what they have said then, and if you read it you will find it upset all the Romanist clergy say. But you were going to tell us something more of the Councils, Sir.

N*. What you were saying, James, was much more important. The only object of referring to them is to show the false pretensions of Rome, who would deceive us by them. However, I will finish what. I had to say, and we will then return to Milner, from which Mr. o. has diverted us, on a point Milner was, of course, careful not to touch.

In the Council of Nice, Hosius presided under the Emperor, not the priests sent by Pope Julius, who, says the historian, was absent by reason of his great age. It was decided that Alexandria should have jurisdiction over its district as Rome had over its own. And so at Antioch the old customs were to be maintained. It commanded that bishops should be judged by their own metropolitan. The reason I refer to this is that the Popes attempted by forgery to introduce the words, " The Roman Church has always had the supremacy." In the great Fourth General Council of Chalcedon the Council decreed that Constantinople should have equal honors with Old Rome. The Pope's legates protested, and cited the above sentence, and it was shown by the authentic acts to be a forged interpolation, and rejected. The Pope would not receive this; but it remained part of the Council's acts for all that. The Pope had a Council of his own at Sardica, of which I have spoken, and it was there decreed that if there was wrong complained of on the part of a metropolitan it should be brought to Rome, and the Pope decide (not the cause, but) if there should be a new trial. This was cited as the acts of the Council of Nice, and rejected by Africa and the East as a fraud of Rome. The Second General Council, that of Constantinople, decided that the patriarch of that city should have priority of honor after Old Rome, because it was New Rome, resting the precedency of honor on the importance of the city only. A thing impossible if it had been an idea of necessary supremacy as Peter's chair. But let us only recollect the Lord's words, "But it shall not be so among you, for he that will be great among you let him be last of all, and servant of all," and we shall soon feel what the true character of these claims is-the world and Satan, and nothing else.

Ephesus, the Third General Council, decreed that nothing should be added to the creed. The great doctrinal point on which the Greek Church split from Rome -,was-the addition of filiogue, "and from the Son," made to the creed. It appears to have come from Spain, and the eminent Pope Leo, a very able man, when consulted about it from France, said the doctrine was right, but that it ought not to be added to the creed. Yet this remains one great point of difference between East and West to this day. So little is there any certainty of faith to be found in this way, so false is it, that if we leave Scripture we can have what was held always, everywhere, and by all, unless they departed from the faith once delivered to the saints. The rule is true, not because that universality gives authority, for the Church only receives truth, but if it was always held it was held by the inspired authors at the first, who received the revelation from God, and hence, and hence only, has authority. And the simple way of knowing what they held is by seeing what they teach. Holding gives no authority. Revelation does. Hence we have what is certain in Scripture, and nowhere else.

I might go into a mass of details, but I do not know that we should gain anything by it. We have seen enough to understand clearly that Church authority is no security in matters of faith, though we may rejoice when its teachers teach the truth, and listen to them according to their gift with thankful deference. But there is no rule of faith to be found here.

M. Well, I am sure I am all at sea, excuse me, Sir.

N*. It is no wonder. You have no faith of your own; a Romanist as such never has; he believes by another whom he calls his pastor, or the Church, with out knowing what it is. When he is shaken in that lie has no foundation for anything, and that is just now your case. But you had never any faith of your own; you thought what the Church taught was right, but you had nothing from God-no real faith.

M. I see James has a certainty about what he believes that I do not understand-that I used to call presumption. I used to be certain that what Mr. O., or the Church, taught must be right, and so I received it; but I did not know anything as believing it from God, as if God had taught me.- And the Scriptures were a dead letter for me a book for the clergy to explain.

N*. Look for it now, M. " If a man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." On this point Rome is infidel and contemptuous. God has ordained gifts of ministry, pastors and teachers to be helpful to His saints, as evangelists to preach to the world, and we should be thankful for them, and pray to Him to send out laborers into His vineyard. But it is one of the distinctive promises we enjoy, " they shall be all taught of God." Rome confines the action of the Spirit to the clergy. Now God has given a ministry; but if a man be not personally taught of God he knows nothing with Divine faith at all, supposing even he heard it rightly from his clergy, and took for granted it was true and never doubted it. It is to all the saints, yea, especially to the babes in Christ, that the Apostle says, in order to encourage them and throw them on their own responsibility; "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." The doctrine of the Holy Spirit's working in grace in the soul that our faith may be real is of vital importance. To deny it is to deny that grace-is what is called in theology the Pelagian heresy, and of that Rome is guilty. If it does work, it works holily, it makes us humble because it applies the Word to the conscience, does not give us opinions or make us judge the Word, but makes the Word judge us. It is by this 'it is an " engrafted Word" " effectual in them that believe," faith mixed with it as the Scripture speaks. The Word without the Spirit remains a dead letter. If we speak of the Spirit

without the Word, we may be taking our own imaginations for a guide. The Word by the Spirit is saving, and brings Divine light into the soul. We have discussed the truth of this point. I refer to it here for its practical importance. A man may be orthodox without it, but he cannot have faith. The Word cannot be a living Word without it. " Whosoever," says the Lord, " hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me." Grace, remember, M., is needed. With this, the Scriptures, the Word of God, will be alike living and certain for the soul.

M. Well, I think I will read them, at any rate. But should I read the Protestant one or the Catholic.

N*. Read both. The authorized version is incomparably superior. They have left hard words on purpose in the Douay, and in some passages mischievous expressions and inconsistent with their own doctrine. Thus, " do penance and be baptized," for in their system penance is a sacrament that comes after baptism. It is a translation of a translation; but I say read both, because you will soon see, with God's grace, what the truth of God is, and the Douay will show you that the truth is in the other, too.

But we must now separate; if spared we will go on on other points to find the true rule of faith.

M. and James. Good day, Sir.

N. Well, Mrs. James, good evening. I suppose James will be here.

Mrs. James. He will; for he went to see Bill M., and they will come, I expect, together. Sit down, sir, if you please. They will soon be here; and the two gentlemen will, too, I suppose.

N. Well, Mrs. James, and what do you say to what you have heard?

Mrs. James 1 am very thankful for my husband, and for Bill M. It would have been a great grief if James had been led away from the truth. I could only look up that he might be kept. But to think of his being led into what I knew was false; and then the children! It was terrible! but God is very gracious. I was astonished at some things I heard; and it is a. sorrowful thing to think that what the blessed Lord planted so fair and lovely by His Spirit, should have become so awfully corrupt. But I think, sir, when persons have known redemption and forgiveness themselves, and rest in Christ, they do not want all this. They have found a sure resting-place themselves in the work and person of the Lord Jesus Christ-can cry, Abba Father, in the consciousness of the present grace wherein they stand. They know that what they have got is the eternal grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave Himself for us; they trust that love; they have known and believed the love that God has to them: and their spirits are at rest in the love and favor of God. And I have found that these Romanists (but I do not say but some of them love Christ) are for slaving to gain His favor, and by penances, as if God wanted to torment them; and prayers, as if praying was not a delight and comfort, and none like it; and, after all, it ends in absolution and purgatory. It is not Christianity in which by divine love and God's righteousness we are reconciled to God and have peace. They Seem never to have real peace. Satisfied some are, but no true peace with God, or they could not want to be working so to make it, seeing that Christ has died for us and we know God's love.

N. It is most true; still I do not doubt that some of them love the Lord, There is piety, but no knowledge of redemption.

Mrs. James 1 see some of them pious, but their piety is all mixed up with looking to the Virgin, who is not God, and never died for us, and of course could not; and to penances, and mortifying the body, and voluntary humility, as you know the scripture says, sir. Their piety is not true christian grace and happiness, any more than their doctrines are christian. I never saw one that had the liberty of the Spirit; and pretending still again to offer Christ must keep them there. They do not know what it is to believe that God has said " their sins and iniquities will I remember no more," because of Christ's precious offering of Himself, by which He has perfected forever them that are sanctified. It is a blessing to think what the love of God has been to us.

N. And is, Mrs. James: we dwell in it; at least that -is the Christian's abode, even here below.

Mrs. James. It is true.

.N*. But you are right; " He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." Well, we must pray for them, and that the word may be blessed to them; for it is sorrowful to think that the pious ones you speak of should be kept from the blessed liberty of divine favor in which Christ set us in Himself, and which we enjoy through the Holy Ghost. The last point you referred to is the one we are to take up this evening. But it is true that when a person. really knows redemption, Romanism is at once to them a fable, and the very denial of Christianity; but how many pious persons, and not only among Romanists, but Protestants though mercifully preserved, who do not know redemption! I do not mean they deny it, perhaps have professedly no other hope, but who do not know it so as to possess its present peaceful effect by faith. How many there are who truly own Christ to be the Savior, who think it presumptuous to be assured of forgiveness and salvation! Yet, scripture is plain enough. In that day, when the Comforter would be come, they should know, it is written, they were in Christ and Christ in them. How can they cry, Abba Father, which is what distinguishes the christian state, if they do not know they are children?

But here are your husband and Bill M. Good evening.

James and Bill M. Good evening, sir. I see the gentlemen are not here, so we are not too late.

N*. We were speaking, while waiting for you all, of the assurance of salvation, or at least had got on that point, when you came in.

Bill M. I wish I had it.

N*. Well M., it is the plain privilege of every simple believer. It is written, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;" and again, " By him, all that believe are justified from all things."

Bill M. Well, I suppose then, I do not believe, for I cannot say that I have everlasting life, nor that I am justified.

N*. Your conclusion is not just. Do you not believe in your heart that the blessed Jesus is the Son of God?

Bill M. That I surely do; that is not what I doubt, but I do not know I have any part with Him; and the more I see the blessedness of it, and the more I know myself, the more I doubt.

./V*. All this searching of heart is very useful; but, as to the truth, you see, God has pronounced in your case. You believe on the Son, and the word of God declares that whoever believes on Him has eternal life and is.. justified.

Bill M. I see; at least in my mind, I see it clear.

.N*. What we are going to speak of may clear it up, still more for you; still it must be a faith wrought by God in your soul. This doctrine of justification by faith was just what was brought out at the Reformation; and indeed they went too far then, so as yet to cloud it a. little. They held that personal assurance of one's own salvation alone was justifying faith, and that is just what your reply amounted to; and this was condemned by the Council of Trent, as the vain confidence of the heretics. But this was the believing something about oneself, not about Christ whereas scripture presents Christ as the object of faith, and tells us judicially that he who believes on Him is justified. But Christ, not our own justification, is the object of faith, and we know it when we submit to God's judgment about it, instead of forming our own about our state, which must leave us in doubt. And we have to be humbled, and, as to this, emptied of self and self-righteousness in its subtler forms, to bow to God's way of justifying.

Bill M. But it is said somewhere we are to examine ourselves whether we are in the faith.

N*. The words are there; but it is only half a sentence, and cutting off the first half entirely changes the sense. The whole sentence is, "since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." " Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me " is an unfinished sentence; and before concluding it, there is a parenthesis which is evidently such, and then the original sentence-is concluded with " examine yourselves," &c., as already quoted. 'And the apostle immediately appeals to their certainty that they were Christians to show their folly in questioning his apostleship. " Know ye not your own selves, how that Christ dwells in you except ye be reprobates?" How did he come there, if Christ had not spoken in him, for he had been the means of their conversion? Paul had been proving he was an apostle, which the false Judaizing teachers had called in question, because he was not ordained and sent by Peter and the others. Paul appeals to his miracles and labor amongst them, and every other proof of his apostleship. And at last, reproaching them for their folly, says, "If I am not an apostle, how are you Christians? Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, examine yourselves.' If Christ did not speak by me you are not Christians, for, as he says, I have begotten you all by the gospel." It was an unanswerable argument to them. They denied their own Christianity if they denied his apostleship.

James 1 see plain enough; I never noticed that. Why, Bill, it is no precept to examine ourselves at all, but to them a confounding proof he was an apostle.

N. It is all well to examine if we are walking up to it; but that is another thing. But tell me, M., how should you like your children to inquire if they were your children?

Bill M. Nay, that would never do.

N*. Surely not. It would be ruinous. But if they were to examine themselves, and judge themselves as to whether they were dutiful children, walking up to the the place and duty of children?

Bill M. I wish they always did.

N*. We see the difference clearly; and the latter is all right, provided it is done because we are children, and in the true confidence of a child in his father's love. We all pass through the other; and it is very natural, when we are in earnest, till we see redemption clearly; because we are inquiring what we are for God, not believing what He has been and what He has done for us. Now judging 'ourselves as to holiness of walk and living to Christ is all very right; but if I connect this with my acceptance, I have not learned God's love to me when a sinner, nor the efficacy of that work in the value of which I stand before God. It is in principle self-righteousness, though very useful to make us find we cannot make out any true righteousness. So the prodigal talks of being a hired servant before he met his father; once there and the father on his neck, that was all over; his place depended on what his father was for him, not what he was for his father; his fitness to go in was the best robe-Christ. Yet he was going right from the time he came to himself. Never forget, M., that our duties flow from the place °We are already in. The duties are not the means of winning it, for they are not duties till you are in it. You cannot have the duties of a servant to me, because you are not such. Your children are bound to obey you, because they are your children.

M. That is plain, but we have a deal to get rid of.

N*. Get Christ as a Savior and you get power too, and liberty from sin: " Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace." But here are these gentlemen. Good evening, Mr. R., Mr. D. good evening,

Mr. R., Mr. D. Good evening.

N*. We were waiting your arrival, and have not entered on our subject, but were speaking of the peace we have through Christ.

R. We are about the hour fixed, I think, Peace is a happy thing no doubt, but we must take care we do not deceive ourselves. Presumption is a dangerous thing, and we may most easily deceive ourselves. " No man knoweth love or hatred by all that is before him."

N*. Assuredly we may deceive ourselves, and there are cases where warning may be timely; but that is the comfort of resting on God's word. This cannot deceive us. Your quotation from Ecclesiastes has no application to our Christian place. " Hereby know we love that he laid down his life for us." Do we not know evil in the world's rejection of him, man's hatred against God? We know perfect love, and alas! perfect hatred in the cross. To say nothing of our own enjoyment of it, it is monstrous to apply this to the gospel or to the Christian. John says "we have known and believed the love God hath to us." " God bath commended his love to us, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us;" surely we ought to believe in it. Ecclesiastes takes up what is done under the sun-whether mortal man can find satisfying happiness here, and learns that all is vanity and vexation of spirit. It is not the revelation of grace in the Son of God.

James. Pray be seated, gentlemen. We are all anxious to hear you on the subjects you spoke of. Bill M. knows more about it than I do; but we are both glad to hear what you have to say, and to know the truth.

Bill M. I should above all, if you are so kind, desire to hear about the Mass. It was made so much of with me, and seems the great point with the Catholics. They go to hear Mass, and say it brings people out of purgatory, and is for the remission of sins. I shall be glad to hear about transubstantiation, but this is a darker matter for me, which I do not much understand. But everything was made of the Mass with me; and if there is still a sacrifice for the remission of sins, it is a wonderful thing and no one should despise it. I see a great deal more than I did of the good of Christ's one sacrifice, but about the 'Mass I am not clear.

N*. If these gentlemen have no objection, then we will begin with the Mass, and speak of transubstantiation afterward. " He goes to Mass" is the very definition of a Roman Catholic, so to say. I do not think, important as it may be and is, it will keep us very long.

R..I have no objection, nor I suppose Mr. D. either.

.N*. Well then, we will take up the doctrine of the Mass; we have ample authority as to the Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject, but we had better let Mr. R. make his own statement.

R. We must approach so holy and solemn a subject with reverence, but the proofs of the truth of it are as simple as they are strong. No religion in the world was ever without a sacrifice, and when men left the true God to worship idols, they still kept up this thought, identified, as it is, with the instincts of human nature, and sanctioned by the revelation of God, beginning with Abel, who was surely taught of God as to it, and developed in the sacrifices commanded to he offered under the law: It is impossible to believe that Christians true religion of God-should be left without any. Moreover it is contrary to the plain revelation of prophecy. Malachi declares as plainly as words can express it, "From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." This is express. So we find in Gen. 14 that Melchisedec brought forth bread and wine, and (or indeed for) he was priest of the most high God. And Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec; so that bread and wine in connection with priesthood according to the order of Melchisedec is fully confirmed. I might adduce 1 Cor. 10 where we read, " Ye cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils; you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils," &d. Now the table of devils was their altar; hence we must clearly conclude that what is called the Lord's table is also an altar. This makes the institution of it by the Lord very plain which took place on the words, " This do:" in which the sacrifice was instituted, and they were consecrated priests with the command to offer it: for "doing" is a sacrificial word. We have also the uniform testimony of the Fathers from Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, all of whom speak of this sacrifice and in the strongest terms. And it is not merely Catholics, but the whole professing church has accepted it—Greeks and all sects which have sprung up-outside the pale of the church.

.N*. Well, Mr. R., you have fairly given the proofs alleged by Bellarmine and even the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Milner does but repeat the same more briefly. One would say, he felt weak on the point. He refers back to what he had said in his letter on the means of sanctity as a motive for being brief-a convenient cover for having little to say, if people do not refer to the letter for there he has said nothing at all, save quoting Malachi, the universal resource, and the words of institution which he does in this letter on the Mass. Again Dr. Milner's definition of a sacrifice is clearly false and poor. He says, " it is an offering up and immolation of a living animal or other sensible thing to God in testimony that He is the master of life and death, the Lord of us and of all things." Now, not to say that there were sacrifices Which were not of living or sensible things under the law, as the meat offering, and confining myself to what was sacrifice in the full sense of it, all that he speaks of leaves out the question of sin altogether. The majesty of God is owned as having power over life and death, but upon the face of his definition no thought of sacrifice for sin has any place. The Council of Trent gives us no definition of sacrifice, but states pretty fully its doctrine of the Mass: only that the church has a visible sacrifice to represent 'Christ's bloody sacrifice, and that was to be permanent (Sess. xx. cap. ii.), referring to the institution of the Lord's supper and Malachi's- prophecy.

Into what is said of the sacrifice of the Mass itself, 1 will go fully though briefly. I only note here how the idea of sacrifice is lost in its true value. Bellarmine's definition is " an external oblation made to God alone, which in acknowledgment of human infirmity and profession of the divine majesty, the object of the senses and permanent, by a lawful minister, is by a mystic rite consecrated and transmuted." (Bell. de Sacr. Such. X. Lib. v. cap. ii. § 26.) This would lead us very little to a just thought of the sacrifice of Christ. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, De Eucharistiז Sacramento, cap. iv. 71, gives its being offered to God as the essential difference between sacrament and sacrifice in the Eucharist. But leaving these generalities, valuable only as showing the vagueness and unsatisfactoriness of the Roman Catholic idea of a sacrifice, I turn to that on which it is precise enough, the sacrifice of the Mass. That is a propitiatory sacrifice available for the sins not only of the living but of the dead-truly propitiatory. (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXII. ii.) Christ is unbloodily immolated there. The decree of the Council, after grossly misapplying Heb. 6:16, which speaks of Christ's priesthood in heaven, not of sacrifice, adds, " for by the offering of him [Christ] the Lord is appeased granting grace and the gift of penitence, forgives crimes and sins, even very great ones [ingentia]: for it is one and the same victim, the same one now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different. Wherefore it is rightly offered according to the traditions of the apostles, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities. of the faithful who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged." So in the Catechism of the Council of Trent somewhat more fully. (Part II. De Eu. Sacr. 76.) " The Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same The bloody and unbloody are not two but only one victim whose sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist.... The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord." And alleges as proof that the priest does not say This is Christ's body,' but This is my body.' " It is a truly propitiatory sacrifice by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us.... For so delighted is the Lord with the odor of this victim, that, bestowing on us the gifts of grace and repentance, He pardons our-sins. Hence this usual prayer of the church as often as the commemoration of this victim is celebrated, so often is the work of our salvation being done.' "

It is even more distinct in expression than the Council of Trent. Its benefits extend "to all the faithful whether living with us on earth, or already numbered with those who are dead in the Lord, but whose sins, have not yet been fully expiated." This is very plain. Christ offers Himself visibly, permanently, or renewedly (both expressions are used); often, daily renewed, is the expression in the Catechism. This sacrifice, offered by Christ, appeases God, is propitiation for the sins of the living and of the dead in Christ when they are not fully purged, says the Council of Trent; 'expiated,' says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, confers pardon of sins,' besides many other graces.

Does Christianity recognize this? It not only does not do so, but with diligent care expressly denies it in every part. It is instituted, we are told, that the church might have a perpetual sacrifice by which our sins might be expiated and our heavenly Father turned from wrath to mercy. Let me make a remark in passing that the statement that the priest's saying This is my body' shows he represents Christ is a mere fallacy. It is in the Mass a recital of what Christ said at the last supper. The canon of the Mass says, "who" (Jesus Christ) " the day before he suffered took bread in his holy and venerable hands.... saying, Take and eat all of this, for this is my body." They are clearly and only the words of Christ the day before He suffered.

To clear my way I would say that sacrifice lies at the basis of all relationship of man with God. But at the same time such an expression as turning our heavenly Father from wrath by it is not by' itself a true. or scriptural way of putting it; though Protestant confessions have continued it on from Rome. God is a righteous Judge, and the atonement was absolutely necessary that grace might reign through righteousness. But the origin and source of all is left out in this statement. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. The Son of man must be lifted up, the holy victim be offered up. But where to find it? The love of God saw us all lost sinners, and did not spare His own Son for us. Christ "through the eternal Spirit offered himself up without spot to God;" nay, in the same love, said, Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God." But if righteousness required the propitiation, love provided the victim. " Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." And this changes the whole character of the gospel; God's love was the source and origin of it all, though it became God to make the Captain of our salvation perfect through suffering. As the apostle John states it, " But we have seen and do testify that the Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." The Father's wrath indeed is not a scriptural expression at all; God's. wrath is. A Father is the Father of His children.. That the heathen took up sacrifice from corrupted traditions of the truth and the necessity of the human heart, I believe with Mr. R., and do not doubt that Abel's offering was by God's will, for Abel we are told offered it by faith. (Heb. 11) That in Christianity there is a sacrifice, I admit as truth and vital truth, the. basis of our relationship with God, as what I need for my own salvation. Indeed, I do not doubt a moment that all other sacrifices from Abel on rested on divine and divinely taught reference to this, the heathen sacrifice, being corruptly derived from this original source, connected with false ideas of God, namely, that the gods were hating and jealous beings who had to be won, a thought which still exists in corrupted Christianity.

But you will remark, Mr. R., that the early sacrifices were bloody sacrifices. The law, in special figures of Christ, introduced meat-offerings along with these, and most interesting is the instruction they afford; but what was essential was that death and the shedding of blood should come in, because therein man owned that sin and death by sin had come in, and that only by the death of another could man come to God. Abel came with this; Cain with what cost him far more toil and labor, but which did not own sin and death, and separation from God, and was rejected with his offering. What first effectually covered man's nakedness was that God clothed him with the skins of slain beasts. Man's state in sin, death, and separation from God was owned, and met. This (which is of the essence of the one true sacrifice and carefully set forth in the earliest types to -which you and I both refer, as making the essential 'difference of what was necessary and acceptable to God, as all their sacrifices, and peremptorily the difference of Cain and Abel's demonstrate) is wholly left out in Milner's and Bellarmine's definition of a sacrifice. When we remember what the sacrifice of the Mass is, it is not difficult to understand why. If death and the shedding of blood be essential to an acceptable sacrifice, the Mass, avowedly an unbloody sacrifice, and so called, is not really one at all. A commemoration or memorial of such it may be, but not itself such. It fails in what is essential, and, I must add, denies the whole true ground of relationship with God; it legitimates Cain's sacrifice which God rejected.

Bill M. That is true, though I believe we must have the death and blood-shedding of Christ itself for forgiveness. How dark one is in one's thoughts I

R. But the blood is consecrated apart, expressly to show forth the shedding of the blood.*

Bill M. To show it forth, it may be; but you do not mean to say, sir, that there is a real shedding of the blood of Christ.

R. Not materially of course. It is an unbloody sacrifice, and so the church teaches.

Bill M. Then I do not see what it is worth. But I should let Mr. N. go on. I beg pardon for interrupting.

./P. You are quite free, M. I am glad you noticed this truth distinctly. As to its being commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, and I will add, of Himself, giving Himself in love, and a blessed one too—this is surely true and held by all Christians; but the seventy-.ninth Article of the Catechism of the Council of Trent is precise on the other doctrine. " It is not a mere commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, but also a truly propitiatory sacrifice." It is propitiation and remission without blood-shedding. We have seen it is a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living, and for those of the dead in Christ not expiated; appeases God and obtains pardon is daily renewed, Christ Himself being the offerer. Now what does scripture say? It declares positively and in formal terms that there is no more sacrifice for sin. The whole Romanist system is founded on, has its practical existence from, that which is formally denied by the word of God.

James. That is true though.

.N*. But I must be more precise. We are told that it is the same Christ that offered Himself upon the cross that offers Himself daily in a renewed sacrifice. I read in the word of God-I quote your own translation (Heb. 9:25-27): "Nor yet that he should offer himself often.... for then he ought to have suffered often froth. the beginning of the world; but now once at the end of ages he hath appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself." You tell us that the sacrifice is renewedly offered, permanently in the church. The word says (Heb. 9:28); " So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation:" and again (chap. 10: 18), " Now where there is a remission of these [sins], there is no more an oblation for sins." And He gives the blessed reason in chapter 10: 14; " For by one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified." The word of God teaches that by His one oblation He has exhausted the sins of many, and appears the second time to take them to glory; and that the sins being remitted, there is no more oblation. You tell me there is, and that for the remission of sins, and truly propitiatory. If we take your translation—" exhaust the sins of many "-it makes it still more clear, that if exhausted, they cannot be brought up again against the Christian, or any other sacrifice be needed. You tell me that it is an unbloody sacrifice, that blood is not shed there. The word tells me (Heb. 9:22) that " without shedding of blood there is no remission." That is; in every point the word of God teaches me the exact contrary of what Rome teaches, and teaches too in what is the center and substance of all her worship.

Bill M. Well, Mr. R., I am astonished. This Mass was their great subject with me, besides the church; and I see the word of God condemns it altogether, and I see too that the abiding efficacy of Christ's blessed work is in question.

R. But Mr. N. interprets the scriptures, and we are not capable of doing that; we must learn what the church teaches from it, and in all ages it has held that the Eucharist was an offering made to God.

N*. Excuse me, Mr. R., I do not interpret at all; I set your authorized statements in simple juxtaposition with your own scriptures.

They say Christ does not offer Himself often. You say He does.

They say that there is no more oblation for sin. You say there is.

They say that without shedding of blood there is no remission. You say that it is an unbloody sacrifice, but there is remission.

I need no interpretation; the statements contradict one another. A great deal more might be said, were I to reason and expound; for Hebrews ix., x. discuss the point fully, and elaborately, and blessedly, I will add,, for us; but it is not necessary. These chapters insist,. all their reasonings for blessing and for judgment are. founded, on Christ's offering being one only, and once for all,. never to be repeated. Nothing can be stronger. or plainer. Either the scriptures are false, which God forbid, or the Romish religion is, in the very heart and foundation of its worship, and of its teaching on the foundation of all our hopes, the work of Christ.

Bill M. Sure it is not interpreting, Mr. R. Teaching is not wanted. If the word of God says Christ is not to offer Himself often, and you say, He is and does, both cannot be true. It is plain enough how the matter stands. I was somewhat puzzled about the church, but this is plain enough. But what it is to be ignorant. of the word of God! But then, to be sure, my soul was not right with God. I do not say I am all right now, but this about the Mass is clear enough.

D. But it is a commemorative sacrifice or offering.

N*. You forget, Mr. D., that we have seen that the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the highest possible authority, tells us that it is not a mere commemorative sacrifice, but a truly propitiatory one. The Mass is a, denial of the abiding value of Christ's work once for all and completely accomplished and accepted of God, so that He sits at the right hand of God, when, as the Rhemish Testament expresses it, He had been once offered to exhaust the sins of many.

James. But what do the Roman Catholics say to this,„ sir?

N*. The Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Council of Trent prudently say nothing; they are wholly silent as to it. Bellarmine however takes up the objection as to Christ's not offering Himself again; he replies. that He was not to do so in the way of dying, coming out of heaven and dying again, and that the apostle refers to this, for he says, "Then must he often have suffered." But this wholly misrepresents the apostle's argument; he does not say He was not to offer Himself in a bloody way, so as to suffer, but that He was not to offer Himself often, for then He must have suffered often. It is an additional proof. The apostle had no idea of an offering of Christ without suffering. His statement is that He was not to offer Himself often; for that if He did He must suffer: the strongest possible testimony against the Mass. To the point of no remission without blood-shedding, he replies, That speaks of. Jewish sacrifices. But to what purpose is the apostle using the witness of these sacrifices? In themselves he declares the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sins, and makes the general and absolute statement that there is no remission of sins without blood-shedding, and applies it to Christ, saying that He has suffered once for all, and gone into heaven itself, not with blood of others, but by His own blood entered in once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption. (Heb. 9:22-25.)

Dr. Milner states that the apostle is barely proving to the Hebrews how infinitely superior the sacrifice of Christ is to those of the Mosaic law, particularly from the circumstance which he repeats in different forms, namely, that there was a necessity of their sacrifices being often, repeated, which after all could not of themselves, and independently of the One they prefigured, take away sin, whereas the latter, namely, Christ's death on the cross, obliterated at once the sins of those who availed themselves of it.

Bill M. But that is just a proof that it had not to be repeated. Ah I it is all plain enough.

N*. He adds that this does not militate against the Mass, because it is the same as to the victim and as to the priest, the manner only being different.

Bill M. But even so it is repeated, and according to them has need to be repeated, only in a manner that takes away its reality, for there is no suffering for sin, no blood-shedding. I see through it all. But it is awful to think they should have invented it.

N*. It is awful, but I do not know that we can charge them with inventing it all at once. The Fathers, so-called, though often falsely quoted as to this, used the most glowing language as to the Eucharist, and talked of tremendous mysteries, to act on the superstition of the people who had no real faith. So soon as the full efficacy of the sacrifice of the blessed Lord was lost to the church's faith, and the testimony that all sins were put away from him that believed by the sacrifice, they were obliged, even for those who really loved the Lord, to have some means of quieting the conscience. Persons of severe habits of mind allowed no known forgiveness after baptism; others allowed it once. The church, with growing superstition; provided means for it in a 'system which gradually developed itself; as the Eucharist turned into the Mass, and absolution. Then purgatory was invented, at least its first germ, in the seventh century. The Mass was not fully developed till a great deal later; but when once perfect acceptance in Christ was unknown, souls could not find rest, and sought it in superstitious observances, and heathenism was deliberately introduced into Christendom. I have said, " Lost to the church's faith;" but the language is not exact: the church never had it since the apostles. In the word our acceptance is clear enough; many a poor soul whose record is on high may have enjoyed it; but in the history of the church our full acceptance in Christ is never found.. D. What do you mean?

N*. What I mean is very simple. The apostle Paul tells us that the mystery of iniquity did already work. He tells us too, that as soon as he was gone both front within and from without the evil would break in, or develop itself. And it is a matter of historical fact, that truth such as Heb. 9;10. afford us, to go no farther, and true faith in the presence of the. Holy Ghost were never found in the historical church. Objective truths (and I fully admit their importance), what we may call orthodoxy, were maintained, taking the history as a whole; 'but the relationships of a 'true believer with God as perfected in Christ, and the sealing with the Holy Ghost which gave him to know it, and his place as a son with the Father, and the union of true believers with Christ as members of His body, is not found in church history.

For example, take Heb. 10, to which we have referred. The worshippers once purged having no more conscience of sins, that Christ is forever* at the right hand of God. because by one offering He bath perfected forever* them that are sanctified through the offering of His body once for all; not like the Jewish priests, who stood, as priests do now, to offer often because the work was never really done; the consciousness that we are in Christ and Christ in us, by the Comforter given to us, of which we are assured by the Lord Himself in John 14, " In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you:" and blessed it is to know that we are perfected forever in Christ, and in Him; and in Him our being sons with the Father, and that He is gone to His Father and our Father, His God and our God: all this is lost, never found in church history, but a system of ceremonies to make good the loss of it. In scripture it is plain enough.

D. But is it not dangerous to say, however sincere,, that we are perfected forever?

N*. Is it not so written in the word? Is it not very presumptuous to say that what God says is dangerous for the soul? That sinful man will abuse every favor God has given him if he trusts his own heart is quite true; but it is not in denying the truth he is secure. We are sanctified by the truth. One truth too guards another, and, remark, every one who. professes to be a Christian professes to be perfected forever, unless he makes a gospel for himself; for Christ's gospel so speaks. Indeed, Dr. Milner, in terms, is forced to admit it; he says, as we have seen, “ Whereas the. latter," namely, Christ's death on the cross, " obliterated at once the sins of those who availed themselves of it." Now every true Christian has, and every professing Christian professes to have, availed himself of it.

R. But he must use the means the church affords.

Ν*. I fully admit, and am thankful that God has. furnished us with means, as prayer, and the word, and the ministry, the Lord's supper, and fasting if rightly used; but these add nothing to the value of Christ's work; and you will please to remark that Dr. Milner says-is obliged, in commenting on Heb. 9;10, to say-" Obliterated at once;" but if so, it is all settled, and the conscience purged, and if I am to believe thee word of God, we are sanctified to God, by His offering,, and perfected forever. Remark another thing; there can be no spiritual affections without this. How can I feel as a child and a son if I do not know whether I am. one or not? How even can I be thankful for acceptance' before God, if I do not know whether I am accepted?' _ But however this- may be, the Mass is formally condemned by Heb. 9;10 There is no more oblation for sin. Allow me, Mr. R., to ask you, Does Christ die in the sacrifice of the Mass?

R. Of course He cannot.

N*. Surely not; He dieth no more. But then your Mass sacrifice is of no worth at all, for to redeem and put away sin He poured out His soul unto death; He made. His soul an offering for sin; and He does no such thing-in the Mass. It is utterly without value. There is, says scripture, of necessity the death of the testator. I need hardly insist on the death of Christ being the ground and basis of all hope and of the very essence of His sacrifice. (Isa. 53:10-12; Heb. 9) Is Christ made sin for us, now in the Mass?

R. No, He cannot now; He is in glory. That was on the cross.

N*. Then the Mass is no true sacrifice. It is Christ being made sin for us that gives the sacrifice its value,.. that we may be the righteousness of God in Him. The cross alone is a true sacrifice. Does Christ bear our sins in the Mass?

R. That cannot take place now; He sits on the right hand of God.

. IV*. Then the Mass is no true sacrifice, and can procure no true remission. It is by bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, that He has obtained forgiveness, and has obliterated them at once, as Dr. Milner says. Again, you admit that it is an unbloody sacrifice; that there is no shedding of blood in the Mass.

R. It may be mystically figured in pouring the wine into the cup; but we all own there is no actual shedding of His blood.

N*. "Mystically figured" we shall not quarrel about. We all own the blessed value of it as a memorial and commemoration, but if there be not, as you admit, and it is evident, the Mass is nothing worth-gives no remission of sins nor makes peace with God; for without shedding of blood there is no remission; He has made peace by the blood of His cross. (Co. i. 20.) Thank God, He has made it. Further, is Christ made a curse in the Mass?

R. He cannot be made a curse now.

.N*. Then it is no redemption from the curse, for that is by His being made a curse for us-another thing that is so wholly and evidently wanting that I do not ask you about it, but yet is essential to the true sacrifice. There is no redemption in the Mass; for we have redemption through His blood: and if Christ were put to death in the Mass-and the thought would be absurd and blasphemous as a present thing-where is resurrection? As a memorial, I need not bring that in; I commemorate His sacrifice consummated in His death; but if you will have it a real sacrifice, there is no resurrection, and we are yet in our sins. The whole thing is false. No one element of true sacrifice, the sacrifice of the cross, is there. No death, no blood-shedding, no curse, no cup to drink, no bearing of sins, no being made sin, not suffering the just for the unjust, no forsaking of God-not one single element of what makes the wondrous cross of the blessed Savior an accomplishment of redemption, on which our salvation rests secure-a perfect and finished atonement through which we have remission, and a perfectly purged conscience, and acceptance with God. It is a mere return to the repetition of Jewish sacrifices, which proved that nothing was really done, only denying thereby that Christ's work is accomplished, instead of pointing to it, as those sacrifices did. If a sacrifice is still needed, the work of redemption is not accomplished. It is only a vain delusion to say it is the same, it is a repetition, not a thing done once for all, as the Epistle to the Hebrews insists, and is not the same in a single element which gives value to a sacrifice, which makes it true and really—such. That is found in the cross and in the cross only.

But allow me to ask you another question, since we are speaking of the value of the sacrifice, Is it not your—doctrine that the body, blood, soul and divinity are in the one species, as you call it-what I should call the bread, but which you, of course, would no longer call such after the. words This is my body' are pronounced. over it-but in the one kind? and that it is on the ground that it is so in the body, that you declare the communicants at large lose nothing by not having the cup, because the blood is in what you hold to be the body-a whole Christ, as you would say-or what is called the doctrine of concomitancy?

R. Surely we do.

N*. But then, if He be a whole Christ, there is no redemption or remission; for, for this the shedding of His blood was needed. " Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die; it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit." A whole Christ is the perfect blessed Son of God even if in humiliation on earth, but there is no redemption while He is such. And further, if the pouring the wine into the cup figures the shedding of the blood how have you the blood still in the body in the one species of bread?

D. But is not this somewhat sophistical?

.N*. No, Mr. D.; it is merely exposing. the sophistry. which is found in the attempt to reconcile what is utterly false in every respect, and to satisfy those whom the system you now delight in deprives of half the institution of Christ, and persuade them they have still all... What is false will never stand examination, though it may puzzle. You speak of sophistry because you have no answer.

R. But we do not deny it is a memorial.

N*. It cannot be a memorial if it be the thing itself.. And you make it a true propitiatory sacrifice, denying-that Christ finished this, and that it was done once for all.

D. But why cannot we consider it as offered to God so as to present to Him, and call to mind what Christ once did?

.N*. Then do not call it a true propitiatory sacrifice; but call to mind to whom? If it call it to mind to us, it is all well, we do it in remembrance. But such a view gives wholly false thoughts of God as forgetful (God, forgetful!) of Christ's work, or an unpropitiated God who has need to be put in mind of what has been done to appease Him; and also sets aside other parts of truth. For scripture speaks of the efficacy of that blood being always under God's eye within the veil, and Christ always appearing in the presence of God for us; so that the eternal efficacy of the one sacrifice is always before God. And explain it as you will, it is a repetition of the sacrifice, if it is a sacrifice at all, as if the value of Christ's sacrifice were not so present to God. But more than this: the offering to God, though needed, is not the sacrifice properly; the Roman Catholic definitions deny, by omission, what is essential. Christ did offer Himself through the eternal Spirit to God, as a victim, but then when the spotless Lamb had thus given Himself to God for this purpose in endless love, God made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin: that was not His offer of Himself, but God making good that for which He offered Himself. The Lord hath laid on Him our iniquity. He offered Himself spotless to God, and God laid the iniquity on Him. (2 Cor. 5:21; Isaiah 53: 6.) We may look at it as a whole, but when scripture takes up the question distinctly, it does not confound these two things. Even the Greek words are different: προσφέρω and ἀναφἑρω. The first part is Christ offered Himself, προσένελκε; secondly, He bore the sins as a victim, and was sacrificed as on the altar-bore the sins there, ἀνενέλκε. Commonly the Roman Catholic doctors confound these to save the credit of the Mass, but usually they in general take up the first part only, and so really does Bellarmine in his definition, leaving all the true sacrificial part out. Subsequently Bellarmine, feeling the difficulty, treats the question of death when offered: I will speak of it in a moment. Dr. Milner uses the word "immolation," but then it is only to own God's title over life and death; no question of sin is raised in it.

But what do you say then to those passages to which Mr. R. already referred, as for example, Malachi?

Let us take the passage: " For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith Jehovah of hosts." Is that fulfilled? Is Jehovah's -name great from one end of the earth to the other? Has not the great mass of the world remained, and do not some three-quarters of it still remain, heathen? Your prophecy, according to your own interpretation of it, is not fulfilled. It is vain to allege that the gospel went out into all the world, as the Fathers sometimes do. In a certain sense nobody denies it; but the essence of the prophecy is, not that it should go forth, but that Jehovah's name should be great everywhere among the Gentiles, and this is not so: no pure offering is offered.

R. But it will be.

.N*. That is no answer; but who told you it will be? That this prophecy will be fulfilled, I am fully assured, but that is another thing from saying it refers to the Mass, for it is not true in fact as to that. Nor is that all; do yοu own that we Protestants have a pure offering?

R. You have none at all.

N*. Then. here is a very large part indeed of Christendom where you would say it had been, where it is not. And the a-reeks?

B. Well, they are nearer, but they are heretical as to the Holy Ghost and are in schism.

N*. Is their offering pure?

B. Well, I cannot say it is.

Ye. And Mahometans in Asia and Africa, where once there were numerous churches?

R. They of course have nothing to say to it.

Ν*. Your pure offering then has largely lost ground.

D. But there it is in the prophecy, and you profess to prophecy, to receive the scriptures.

N*. What is in the prophecy.?

D. That Jehovah's name will be great among the Gentiles everywhere and a pure offering offered.

N*. That I fully believe. But that it is the Mass is another question. Of that it is not true, the limits even of Christendom have receded. Nor is there the slightest ground for saying that the spread of the gospel will accomplish this work. "When thy judgments are in the earth," says Isaiah," the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." (Isa. 26:9.) And Zephaniah is as plain as possible. " Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent." I might multiply quotations, but it would be going too far. These show distinctly that it is when God's judgments are executed on the earth that the universal blessing will take place. The Son of man will gather out of His kingdom " all things that offend, and them that do iniquity." It is Jehovah's power in judgment, not the Father's sending the Son in grace, which sets the world as such right. It is the most gratuitous notion, without any ground whatever, that the pure offering to Jehovah is the Mass. It is neither true in fact, nor according to the statement of scripture. That an offering of heart, and mind, and praise to God, and worship exists wherever grace works, is true, but the application of the prophecy of Malachi. to the Mass

has no around whatever.

D. ground what do you say to partaking of the table of devils and table of the Lord? The table of devils was clearly an altar, and so must the table of the Lord be.

N*. I reply to these arguments as you all allege them, but they are really only a proof of how little you have to say for your doctrine. You all quote the same texts, because there is nothing else, and prove there is nothing really to plead for your cause, if that could be, against the positive statement of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which formally contradicts your doctrine. The table was in no case an altar, neither with heathens, Jews, nor Christians. The altar was the place of sacrifice and offering; the table the place where they ate, in certain offerings not wholly burnt, a part of the animal which had been offered: but they never did so at the altar. Sacrifice and feasting were never the same; but feasting on what was a part of the animal offered, when done with knowledge, identified him who did so with the altar where the other part was offered. Hence the apostle expressly puts the case of being invited to a. feast; in such case what was put on the table they were to eat without any question for conscience' sake; if it was said this was offered to idols they were not to eat, for that would practically, at any rate in the mind of him who said it, identify them with the idol. B lit that did not make the table an altar. Take the Roman Catholic system:-the people eat of the wafer. That identifies them with the altar; but their place is not at the altar at all. The table is not the altar in any case; the case actually put by the apostle is a common meal; but if it was said, This is offered to idols, then he did not eat, because the animal of which he ate had been offered to the idol, and part sacrificed actually to it. The table was not the altar, but what he ate identified him with the idol; and the table at which he sat covered with idol meat was figuratively the table of demons. If he sat at meat in the temple, the case was more apparent; but even then they did not eat off the altar, but of the meat offered to the idol on it; and that is the ground the apostle takes. It is the communion of the body of Christ, the communion of the blood of Christ; it is not where it was eaten, but what it was which was in question. Take the offering of Christ; did they eat where He was offered? Eating of the altar is not eating off it, as if the table was an altar. We own an altar spiritually, but it was where Christ was really offered once for all: feeding on Him by faith does identify us with that. Bellarmine himself says he does not urge Heb. 13:10, because many Catholics take the altar there for the cross. But if this be so, eating of the altar does not mean that the person eats off it so that the table is an altar. We eat of what was on the cross, but not off it as a table. The whole thought is false.

As to Melchisedec, if the bread and wine were an offering to God, a priestly service, is it not strange that the Epistle to the Hebrews makes not the slightest allusion to it? And though Christ be priest after the order of Melchisedec, when the word speaks of the exercise of Christ's priesthood, it is uniformlya comparison with what Aaron did, and the Jewish sacrifices. In the Old Testament there is not the most distant hint of his offering to God. Melchisedec was a priest on his throne on earth, not a sufferer on the cross; there was no death in his case, but a testimony that he lives. He brings forth the bread and wine, but bringing forth is no offering. You are obliged to say with Bellarmine, We must suppose that\he did so, admitting he brought it out to Abraham to eat, but that he must be supposed to have offered it first. In the account, they cannot deny, there is no trace of it. Now Melchisedec is a figure of Christ when He takes to Him His great power, arid reigns as king of righteousness over the earth. /Vow He exercises His priesthood after the similitude of Aaron in the holy place -heaven itself as Hebrews teaches us-which Melchisedec does not at all. But when. Christ takes His own throne, it is He who has suffered and offered the one sacrifice, and therefore, as Melchisdec, He has none to offer; fie confers the blessing contained in the revelation of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, on those who belong to Him and have conquered. As Melchisedec, He has no sacrifice to offer, because this has been done once for all. Now His service is different; He is gone within the veil, not without blood, and there, we know, sits on the Father's throne, at the right hand of God till His enemies be made His footstool. Then the rod of His power will go out of Sion. But His present exercise of priesthood is not according to Melchisedec, as the Epistle to the Hebrews fully shows.

I add that Bellarmine's statement, that Judg. 6:18,19, shows that the Hebrew word used for brought forth signifies priestly offering, has no foundation. Gideon brought out meat, and broth, and cakes, and Jehovah turned it by His power into a sacrifice; but the word does not mean " offering;" habi does, because it is the opposite to this word. יעא is " brought out;" בּוֹא is " brought in or nigh." The last is used for bringing 'up to be a sacrifice, which means the contrary to bringing forth. (יעא) But on their own sheaving there is no statement of any offering in Melchisedec bringing forth bread and wine, because they are forced to suppose that the offering had been made before it was brought forth. All this, as I have said, I have answered. because it is alleged; but it is a mere lame attempt to get up some evidence out of nothing by far-fetched reasoning, the difficulty of answering being, that there is no tangible reason for it-nothing really to answer. I rest on the great fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the truth of Christianity, deny and reject altogether the whole doetrine of the Mass.

But let me ask you, Mr. II., where does the sacrifice take place in the Mass?

R. I am not a theologian, and it may be somewhat difficult to answer. But our teachers do not enter on that in their ordinary instruction, but speak of its value and blessing. Some attribute it to the priest's consumption of it in eating it.

N*. And can you really believe that the priest's eating the wafer is the real propitiatory sacrifice of Christ so as to obtain remission of sins?

James. But do they really say that, sir? Well, I could not have believed it. It is a strange system.

Bill M. Well! I am confounded: to liken that to Christ's dying when He had offered Himself up to God for a blessed saving sacrifice! It is horrible to think.

H. Mr. R. however is right; they do say that. Bellarmine holds it;—others, owning it as a probable opinion,, seek in another part of the Mass the true point of sacrifice.

James. But there is no such difficulty in finding a sacrifice in the blessed Lamb of God. He offered Himself without spot to God, and bore our sins, and was

made a curse for us, and died: And then we know His sacrifice is accepted, for He is risen and gone to sit down at God's right hand. All is plain there.

N*. Because it is a sacrifice: but they are thoroughly puzzled to make one out of the Mass. But why, Mr. R., if this be so, is not the people's eating it a sacrifice?

R. Well, the priest does it as part of his sacerdotal office, which the people cannot do. But, as you have read Bellarmine, you will know what he says as to it.

N*. Well, he is greatly at a loss; he admits bread and wine are offered, first, as such, but offered to be changed; but then the difficulty arises, that they are not yet Christ at all. However, not to follow all his reasoning, he makes three acts which constitute the Mass a sacrifice first, what is common is consecrated; secondly, it is offered to God as placed upon the altar; and then adapted to change and destruction which is necessary to a sacrifice, only here done sacramentally and under the form of bread. The priest's eating it answers to the burning of the burnt offering. The first offering is necessary to the integrity, but not to its essence; so of the consecration; for the Lord in the institution never so offered, nor is the breaking either. But its consumption by the priest is its essence, though not its whole essence. The consecration alone cannot be it, as then mere bread would be sacrifice, not Christ. Still the consecration is essential to the sacrifice, though destruction being necessary, the priest's eating it is what properly constitutes it a sacrifice. His commentator tells us the opinion of two consumptions or destructions is probable, but the other opposite opinion more probable: that is, that what makes. the real essence for Bellarmine is not so at all, but the consecration only. Who could think that all this wretched caviling was the sacrifice of the blessed Son of God, He Himself offering it? But it is of importance in order to show that they do not know themselves how to find any truth or reality in it.

The learned editor of the Venetian edition of the works of Gregory the Great, after the Benedictines of St. Maur, published with the permission and privilege of the superior authorities, has another system in his Isagoge (ix. B. 169 c., iii., xv., xvi.), and one that shows more reverence at least. He says that the offering may be of a victim to be immolated, or that has been immolated, confounding the bringing the victim up to be a victim, and the actual offering when slain, on the altar. He holds that Christ offered Himself to God at the institution of the supper, and was an actual victim on the cross. Now He is offered, though still alive, like the scapegoat, as one who has been slain as a victim. The slaying is thus on the cross; the Mass only an offering. Others, he says, put the force of the sacrifice on the slaying of the victim; we in the offering of a victim slain or to be slain. They-will have sacrifice to be instituted as a declaration of God's supreme dominion over His creatures; we to represent Christ's death. Surely he has more truth here. Milner takes the other view, but his illustration from the scapegoat is unhappy, because he goes away with his sins on him. Did Christ do that after being a victim? For so he takes it in connection with the goat, whose blood was put on the mercy-seat. The editor of Gregory closes by saying whichever opinion seems the truer and stronger to maintain the Catholic dogma against the innovators, let each follow, mindful of that word, in what is necessary unity; in doubtful liberty; in all charity. But this is a poor uncertainty to get forgiveness and grace by, the evident effect of trying to make a sacrifice of what is not one, resulting too in making uncertain altogether what it consists in. In this writer's case, the consumption on the altar being the only true offering after being slain, this second offering after being slain cannot take place now. It is really mere remembrance. Indeed he says pretty nearly as much (c. xii., p. 168). There is a sufficiently plain testimony moreover, of the representative nature of our sacrifice in those words of Christ, "As oft as ye shall do these things, do it in remembrance of me;" and he adds

good deal more, that in doing this continually in commemoration of that (the bloody sacrifice), we confess by act that Christ is entered once into the holy place, eternal redemption being found.

R. But these are individual opinions, not the church's teaching.

N.*. Be it so; but when the church has taught it is a truly propitiatory sacrifice, her ablest children cannot-find what the sacrifice consists in, because there is none there. It is killing under the form of bread, killing being. necessary to sacrifice, but no real killing there. It is a. striking proof of the falseness of the whole thing. Bellarmine felt the difficulty, for if consecration were the sacrifice, then bread was what was offered, as is evident, though they think consecration turns it into the. body and blood; but then it must be that first to be sacrificed r so he will have it to be essentially the priest's eating it,. though consecration be. essential...to it.

D. But do not you think we may treat it with more reverence?

N*. The truth of Christ's sacrifice with the profoundest and Christ-adoring reverence. But treat what with reverence? The Mass, or Christ's sacrifice on the cross? I am citing what they say.. What they say of the Mass, and the utter irreverence. of it, the moment we think of the cross of. the blessed Lord, is just the proof how utterly distant it is from and opposed to the blessed sacrifice once offered there. As a sacrifice it has no relationship with or resemblance to it. You deceive people-. by identifying them, and desiring for the blasphemous-fable of the Mass, as you once professed to think it, the reverence with which the sacrifice of the blessed Savior,. should be spoken of. And I show you that their language as to the Mass is irreverent folly instead of being the sacrifice of Christ. Just think of the priest's chewing the wafer being Christ's giving up His blessed life as-. a sacrifice for sin. I am almost ashamed to-put them in, the same sentence.

James 1 wonder such reasoning does not open their eyes. I should think it ridiculous folly if it was not so. shocking. But people do not know these things.

.N*. It is astonishing it does net open them. But we must make allowance for the effect of education, and the fact that all their own importance is connected with it. All worship the wafer, but the more ignorant know nothing of the theological explanations given. In a country where I have known. the effect of the system well, it is a common expression, " You would not fear the man that can make God?"

R. But you do not attribute that to Roman Catholics in general.

N*. I should attribute it as an effect to the doctrine they teach. It is with the unlettered the natural expression of their belief that the priest by the word, " This is my body," turns the bread and wine into the body and blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. But I confine myself to the sacrifice itself at present.

Bill M. Of course they look at it so. How could they sacrifice Jesus Christ, if it was not Himself that was there? fames. Well, I am glad I was kept from such unholy notions.

Bill M. But you know nothing of all this when you are brought in. It is only, Hear the church, and you have a sacrifice and get forgiveness of your sins; and the Protestant has none. And when you do not know that you are forgiven and accepted, that is a comfort. But we will let these gentlemen go on.

James 1 understand well what you mean. It all depends on knowing the value of the blessed work of Christ. But you are right; we will let these gentlemen proceed. Mr. D. was ready to say something.

D. I was only going to say that it is the uniform testimony of the Fathers that there is a permanent sacrifice in the church, and that the Eucharist is that sacrifice.

N*. Have you ever examined them for yourself?

D. I have looked at some, but they are quoted by all who have treated the subject.

.N*. No doubt. I attach no importance whatever to the statements of the Fathers. No one can have read them, or studied the history of the church, but must know, if he knows the truth at all, how early the truth was lost. If he takes for granted that they have the truth, of course he will receive what they say, if he can receive nonsense and contradictions. But the apostle John warns us to hold fast to what was from the beginning, and that they clearly were not. He tells us that they who are of God hear them (the apostles). You say they were nearer the apostles, and so must be nearer the truth, as they were nearer the source. But we have the apostles and the source itself, and do not want to know what was nearer or farther.

P. But there is the interpretation of the scriptures, which too are in dead languages.

N*. And there is the interpretation of the Fathers, which are in the same dead languages. For example, on this very subject your most learned men, who quote and read the Fathers, cannot tell what the essence of the sacrifice-is in the Mass. But I will, refer to them simply because they quoted them. And if we wait on God He will help us to understand His own word, but not mere uninspired writings of men. In these discourses to the people they do speak in the most florid terms, somewhat later indeed, of this tremendous mystery. And they speak generally of the sacrifice, and refer to the passage in Malachi; but it is far from true that they had the thought of a proper sacrifice in the Mass. It was the custom to bring offerings of bread and wine, &c., which were then used for the service or otherwise, as for the poor; and this is constantly spoken of as the sacrifice, which is quite another matter; and the whole service is spoken of in terms which deny the Roman Catholic interpretation of its meaning.

Milner is bold enough to quote Justin Martyr, which, if I mistake not, Bellarmine is too wise to do. Milner refers to his dialog with Trypho the Jew; but there, after referring to the sacrifice of the great day of atonement among the. Jews, and the Lord's coming when rejected; and His coming again when the Jews will own Him-for this Justi hneld very positively*—he adds, " And the offering of fine flour, which was ordained to be offered for those to be purified from the leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ our Lord ordained to be celebrated for a commemoration of the sufferings which He suffered for the purging of the souls of men from all iniquity; and that at the same time we may give thanks to God, that He has created the world, and all that is in it for man's sake." 

Again, in the same dialog, " It appears that this prophecy (Isaiah), concerning the bread which our Christ taught us to offer (ποιεῖν), for a commemoration of His taking a body on account of those who believe. on Him, for whose sake also He became a sufferer, and concerning the cup which He taught us to offer,** giving thanks for a commemoration of His blood."

But we have Justin's sober account of their Sunday Service, Ap. II. p. 97. Coloniז 1686: "When the prayers are finished, we salute each other with mutual kisses; then bread and a cup of water and wine mixed [With it]f is, offered to him who -presides among the brethren; and having received these, he sends up praise and glory to the Father of all things through the name cf the Son and of the Spirit, and then makes long thanksgiving that He has counted us worthy of these things Himself. And having finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people present assent, saying, Amen.... And the president having given thanks, and all the people assented, those who are called deacons among us give to each of those present to partake of the bread for which thanksgiving has been made, and of the wine and water, and carry of them away to those not present: And this nourishment is called by us Eucharist (thanksgiving)." Then after saying it was only given to Christians, he says, " For we do not take it as common bread or common drink; but even as by the word of God, Jesus Christ our Savior being made flesh, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so the nourishment for which by the word of prayer which is from Him, thanks are given, from which by change our flesh and blood are nourished, we have been taught to be the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." He then repeats the account of the service: that they meet, read the scriptures, and the president preaches; after that we all rise together and offer prayers; and as we have related,. the prayers being over, bread is offered, and wine and water, and the president according to his ability sends, up prayers and thanksgiving; and the people assenting, say, Amen. And the distribution and reception of those things for which thanksgiving is offered, takes place with each, and it is sent to those not present by the deacons." Now there is not a trace. of a sacrifice or the offering of anything to God, except bread and wine, and that by the people, not for them. It is not a question of doctrine but recounting to the Emperor what passed at, their meetings.

So Tremens. Lib. IV. 18. (34 Old editions). God is not appeased by a sacrifice-we offer to God the first fruits of His creatures. And he then declares, that they are not common bread and wine, but composed of two things, the earthly and heavenly. Now that superstition as to ordinances sprang up rapidly in the church, I not only admit but insist on. But God not being appeased by a sacrifice, offering the first fruits of His creatures, and the Eucharist being composed of two things, sets aside the Mass and transubstantiation too. The conclusion Irenmus draws from it is, that our bodies, being nourished by it, will rise: But the notion of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass is not to be traced in him or in Justin. From this last Father I must quote another passage which is positive to this purpose. He quotes the prophet, saying, God would not receive the sacrifices of the Israelites dwelling in Jerusalem, but did accept the prayers of the dispersed, and calls these prayers. sacrifices. He had declared that God accepted no sacrifices but from His priests, and that Christians were the true priestly race, as God declared, referring to Malachi's prophecy, and that they offer the sacrifices in His name which Christ taught them-the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Then, after saying the prayers of the dispersion were agreeable when the sacrifices at Jerusalem were not, he adds, God accepts and calls their prayers sacrifices. When therefore prayers and thanksgivings are made by those worthy, I also say, they are the only perfect and acceptable ones to God.

For these alone also Christians have received to offer (vocal')' and in memory of them dry and moist nourish- ment wherein also are commemorated the sufferings which God suffered by God -Himself. The last phrase is of a singular structure (ἐν ᾗ καὶ τοῦ πάθους ὓ πέπονθε δἰ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς τοῖ θεοῦ μἐμνηται). But it does not affect question. If the Eucharist were a propitiatory sacrifice in which Christ Himself, " His bones and sinews," is offered by Himself,. it is impossible Justin could thus speak of it. All Christians, priests; bread and wine the things offered; prayers and thanksgivings, the only true sacrifices acceptable to God, and in the Eucharist a commemoration of the sufferings which Christ suffered: no one who believed in the doctrine of the Mass could write thus: All Christians priests to offer bread and wine; then prayers and thanksgivings offered the only true and acceptable sacrifices; and these prayers God calls sacrifices. He is applying Malachi's prophecy. The sacrifices of blood in Jerusalem God had not accepted„ but their prayers and thanksgivings He did, and so of those offered by Christians at the thanksgiving of bread and the cup.;(ἐπὶ τῇ Εὐχαοιστία). These statements of Justin Martyr and Irenmus do not agree with the doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice-could not have been used if that had been believed.

Cyprian affords us little help. He uses sacrifice for what the people bring as gifts. (De Of. et El. Pearson, 204.) He says they offered sacrifices for martyrs after-their death (seemingly an allusion to heathen celebrations), and in a letter to Cזcilius sheaving that there must be wine, not merely Water. It does not seem to be His blood, he says, if it be water, and wine be wanting; he refers to Psa. 110, and says, Who is so great a priest of the Most High as our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same that Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely, His body and blood. Here then is no reference to the Eucharist, but to what Christ offered. And, again, Nor is anything else done by us than what the Lord before did for us, that the cup which is offered in

commemoration of Him is offered mixed with wine. No trace of any propitiatory offering, nor even of transubstantiation. (Ep. to Cזcil.: lxiiii. Pearson 148, 6.)

As to Tertullian, whom Cyprian owned as his master, he knows nothing of such sacrifices as the Mass. In his treatise against the Jews (v.), in his book against Marcion (iii. 22; iv. 1), in the last referring as all do to Malachi, he insists that it is by praise, simple prayer out of a pure heart, spiritual sacrifices, that Christian and true sacrifice is offered to God, and that in contrast with any external carnal sacrifice. So to Scapula he answers the charge of not sacrificing for the Emperor; that they did it as God had commanded them to sacrifice with a pure prayer to their God and his.

I will only quote one more, because he comes considerably later-Eusebius. Wherever the Fathers are speaking of the contrast of heathenism or Judaism with Christianity, they reject the material sacrifices of blood and incense, and insist on what is spiritual. Eusebius in doing this, and after largely insisting on Christ's sufferings and being made a curse, and quoting Moses and the apostle in the Galatians, and that He thus offered to His Father for our salvation a wonderful sacrifice and most excellent victim, adds, " He instituted a commemoration for us to be offered instead of a sacrifice to be offered to God continually," μνἠμης ἀντι θυσίας τῶ θεῷ διηνέκως πϼοσφἐϼειν, and subsequently, after quoting Malachi, as usual, states that Christians offer sweet incense and sacrifice to God, but in a new way, according to the new covenant, prayers, hymns, self-consecration in holiness, quoting the Old Testament to prove they were better taught as they were, that they were more grateful to God than a great number of victims with blood and smoke and odor of fat, repeatedly saying it was a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice which He had instituted. The passage is too long to quote. It is found in Dem. Ev. lib. i. at the end (p. 38-40, Paris ed. 1628).

Now I do not quote these Fathers to prove any point of doctrine whatever; I would not do so for any consideration. We must have what was from the beginning, the word of God. I quote them to chew that the assertion that the Fathers held the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is historically not true. But I will now also refer to a proof of the use of sacrifice applied to what the people brought which may seem strange-the Canon of the Mass which originates with the great pope Gregory, famous in such matters. You will see from it at once, that the offering of the people before the service is called offering' and ' victim' even, as we have seen it called offering' in the Fathers, and the bread and wine called creatures' after consecration, as they also do.

The priest with various rubrical directions begins by begging the Father that He will " accept and bless these gifts, these offerings (munera), these holy pure sacrifices which in the first place we offer to thee for thy holy Catholic church," &c. Then, for the living-naming the objects of the Mass, and all who stand around, &c." Then for whom we offer to thee, or who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves, and all theirs for the redemption of their souls for the hope of salvation," &c. And further on: " this oblation of our service, but also of all thy family, we beseech thee, 0 Lord, that appeased thou mayest receive and dispose our days in peace, and snatch us from eternal damnation," &c. Then, "which oblation, 0 God, we beseech thee, thou mayest deign in all things to make blessed, imputed (adscriptum), sanctioned, reasonable, acceptable [he makes the sign of the cross once on the victim (hostiam) and once on the cup], that it may become to us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son I" And then follows the prayer of consecration and the. consecrating words, "This is my body," but as recited or said by Christ at the time of institution. And then the cup.

Thus we have the clear testimony that what are called gifts, oblations, and so offered and in the Rubric or direction to the priest, victim (hostia) is so called before it is consecrated, and the offering of the people (omnium circumstantium) referred to; and it is called, as the Fathers by, a sacrifice of praise. Further, after consecration, it is said, " Whence, 0 Lord, remembering the passion, resurrection, and glorious ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, we thy servants offer to thy illustrious Majesty of thy gifts and bestowings a pure victim, a holy victim, an immaculate victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of perpetual salvation." Then, " on which deign to look with a propitious and serene\countenance, and accept, as thou deignedst to accept the gifts of thy righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, the immaculate victim, which thy high priest Melchisedec offered to thee." Then he prays that the offerings may he carried by the hands of God's holy angel to the altar on high, &c., and at the close: "by whom (our Lord Christ), thou, 0 Lord, ever createst, sanctifiest, vivifiest, blessest, and bestowest on us all these good things." And in saying this he makes at each of the three last words the sign of the cross on the host (hostiam) and the cup. Now the elements are positively called bread and the cup after. consecration, and I ask if they really believed that it was Christ offering Himself, could they pray that God would deign to accept it as a pure and immaculate victim, and deign to look on it with a propitious and serene countenance, as 'He had deigned to accept Abel's sacrifice? Could a believer thus speak of the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice when He offered Himself, or is it still in question? And further, at the end speaking of the host and cup, he says that God by Christ creates, sanctifies, vivifies, blesses and gives us all these good things, clearly holding the

bread and wine still as creatures given of God. The ancient form which is all confusion by the growing

superstition which made the elements after consecration to be Christ's body and blood, but preserved the forms. which treated them as bread and wine and as offered by the people, is turned into blasphemy by using language quite appropriate as applied to God's creatures created by Jesus Christ as if it referred to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

God by Jesus Christ creates, sanctifies, vivifies, blesses and gives to. us all these things. Can that apply to Christ Himself? Yet, according to the modern doctrine of the Mass, nothing else is there. The of the old form which treats them as bread and wine still shows the modern doctrine to be as modern as it is false. It is evident that the Roman Canon of the Mass. bears tokens of an earlier doctrine and usage on the subject, inasmuch as before consecration the priest offers. it for the holy Catholic church; then speaks, in the commemoration for the living, of sacrifice of? praise; and then, after the commemoration of the dead. saints,. prays that the Lord 'appeased may accept the oblation,. and that He would deign to make it blessed and acceptable, that it may become to them the body and blood of His most beloved Son. Then he recites Christ's act and words, "for this is my body," and then adores the host, then consecrates the cup adding several words to what Christ said, and adores it, and then offers the host, but calling it God's gifts-de tuis donis et datis, and then, strange to say, begs God may deign to regard it with a. propitious and serene countenance, and accept it as God did Abel's, which, if they believed it to be really Christ,. would be nonsense or a blasphemy; and then prays that it may be carried by the hand of God's holy angel to His altar on high in sight of His divine Majesty.

But there is more than this, though this still shows marks. of the corruption of a more ancient system which did not view the offerings in the same light. The Roman Mass. stands alone among all liturgies. None attributes the-transubstantiation, or whatever it is called, for the word though now used and the doctrine generally believed is.. not a formal doctrine of the Eastern creed, nor the word. acknowledged in their symbols, indeed it seems many still reject the doctrine-we can speak of that when we come to the question; but the Canon, so-called, of all other masses or liturgies is wholly different in principle.. What they hold to be the consecrating words are entirely absent from the Roman Mass, and approach nearer to more ancient doctrine. The Greeks say it is absurd to suppose that the mere recital of Christ's words as spoken by Him can make the change-that there must be a positive looking to God to do it. So that 'after saying, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you, and distributed for the remission of sins," and " this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins," and subsequently saying, " In behalf of all and 'for all we offer thee thine own of thine own," and in that called of St. James, " We offer thee, 0 Lord, this tremendous and unbloody sacrifice"-they pray God to "send down the Holy Ghost.... and make this bread the precious body of thy Christ.... and that which is in the cup the precious blood of thy Christ, changing them by the Holy Ghost, so that they may be," &c.

I have chiefly copied St. Chrysostom's, so-called, but all are substantially alike. The change is professedly made by the invocation of the Holy Ghost, not by the words of institution, which have been already pronounced when they pray it may be changed. This invocation, which is found in all liturgies, is wholly absent from the Roman Mass.

It is sorrowful to think of the degradation to which, by the superstition of east and west, the blessed commemoration of the Lord's precious sacrifice has been reduced. In the modern service in Russia they prepare the bread and wine in a side chamber and on a separate table. They have a loaf or loaves, and a

spear with a cross generally at the handle; the loaves. are prepared with a certain seal or stamp upon them; the priest thrusts the spear into the right side of the seal, saying, " He was led as a lamb to the slaughter.;" then into the upper part and into the lower with other words; then into the right side saying, " For his life is taken from the earth;" then the deacon turning the loaf up says, " Slay, sir," and he slays it crosswise, saying, "The Lamb of God is slain;" then again turning it on the upper side, reciting what the soldier did; then mixes the water and wine, reciting John's account of the blood and water coming out of His side. Thus the elements..are prepared; then with a procession they are carried -.to the altar; and the rest of the service already alluded to—invoking the Holy Ghost to make it Christ's body-goes on. They have no difficulty at any rate where to find the slaying of the victim; and at least have it accomplished before the memory of it is celebrated. For if it be a now living Christ, the slaying Him afterward by the priests eating the consecrated host, as Bellarmine states, is a perfect monstrosity. How either, degrading and degraded as it all is, can be called worshipping "in spirit and in truth," is hard for any to understand. But in the Greek form the whole must be taken as a shadow, for the Christ they thus profess to slay in figure is not yet, by the ἐπικλήσις, or invocation of the Holy Ghost, trans-elemented into the body of Christ. But how poor, when spirituality is gone, is the effort to work up by superstition some forms, of imitative service!

D. But this is not the Catholic service.

N*. No, it is not. There it is done by chewing it in the priest's mouth. While deepening the darkness of superstition where blindly followed, it produces disgust and irreverence where it is honestly inquired into: as to spirituality of thought or worship, that I cannot say it has destroyed, it has no pretension to it.

B. I do not deny I am perplexed. It is clear the principles of the Roman Canon, and the more ancient ones of St. Chrysostom and St. James, are essentially different; the absence of the invocation of the Holy Ghost, whatever its effect, and which it cannot be denied was of very early date, is a very serious point. I am not of course a Greek and always took for granted they were wrong and schismatic, but thought that on this point they were substantially the same as we were, and so Roman Catholic writers declare and Dr. Milner would make us believe; but there is force in the objection of the Greeks, that the recital of the words of Christ can hardly operate such a change. And, as I have said, the invocation was ancient. But long habit and religious authority are hard to break with, and it is a solemnizing thought that we receive Christ.

N*. If it was His dwelling in the heart by faith, feeding on Him spiritually, nothing more, precious or

important but I cannot think the mere physical receiving what is material can add anything to what is spiritual. His words are spirit and life. But this we must look further into in speaking of transubstantiation,. though it is hard to separate the two subjects:

R. Yes; they run into one another.

Bill NE. But is all this pretended slaying of Christ before all the people, sir, among the Greeks?

N*. No, that goes on in a kind of side chapel. It is shown to the people when it has been consecrated on the great altar, as it is after consecration in the Roman Mass, as you know.. And masses can be said without their being there at all.

James. Well, I certainly had not a thought of such unholy acting like a play. I do not know which is worst, Greek or Roman, but I am sure neither of them is of God. There is nothing of the simplicity that is in Christ. And it is quite clear that a real living Christ, glorified now, cannot even in a figure be sacrificed.

D. But allow me to repeat, Mr. N., that the Greek service (which I admit, though originally more simple and pure, is stuffed with a vast deal of unprofitable dialog and ceremonies) is not the Roman Mass.

Ν*. Quite true; I do not adduce it, of course, as such, but it-and not the Greek only, but all other liturgies, and they are more ancient than the Roman Mass-condemns the Roman Mass in the very essence of its doctrine and structure. The words of Christ at the institution of the last supper do not, according. to these liturgies, transubstantiate the bread and wine; that is subsequently sought in the invocation of the Holy Ghost. And you must remark here, that I am not setting one liturgy against another as better or worse one ''than another. What I say is, that all the ancient liturgies, called by the names of St. James, St. Mark, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, and others derived from them, all entirely condemn the Canon of the Roman Mass; so that, if these are right, that is, the universal liturgical tradition-and there is little doubt that these in some form or other were the origin of the Roman liturgy itself—there has never been a really consecrated host in any Roman Catholic Mass at all. If transubstantiation were true, there has been none, no true body and blood or Christ.

B. What do you mean? what a strange statement!

Ν*. It is very simple. That to which all ancient liturgical services attribute the consecration and change-in the elements is not in the Roman service at all: the invocation of the Holy Ghost. And Rome is quite aware, of this, for, when she has won some who had these ancient liturgies, she has changed her services: The Maronite service I do not know; but for the Abyssinians and Armenians; she has changed them, and not gained much that I see after all. She has retained the invocation of the Holy Ghost for them-I suppose not to scandalize. them, and in the Abyssinian has added consecrated.' Instead of saying, make this bread the body of Christ,' she says, make this consecrated bread the body of Christ.' But this makes the matter worse, because it is avowing that what she calls consecrating, all she has in her. own Mass, leaves the bread still not the body of Christ. It has still to be made so, so that in her service. it is never made so at all. In the Armenian she has been a little bolder, and, instead of 'make this bread the body,'. says, make this bread, to wit (videlicet) the body. of Christ to be,' &c., for blessing, that is, to the communicants. But further, this change by the invocation of the Spirit is according to patristic tradition also, though. the fathers' use of it denies transubstantiation altogether. We have seen Irenmus declaring that after the invocation there were two things, earthly and heavenly,. denying positively transubstantiation, but making the change he did believe in, the consequence of the invocation. I rest my faith wholly on scripture, but the antiquity you so rest in, in its ancient liturgical services, condemns this Roman Mass. If we are to believe. Gregory the Great, the only prayer at consecration was the Lord's prayer. The Roman Catholic commentators. seek to get rid of this, but so he says.*

R. It is very perplexing, and tends to make one doubt of everything.

N*. To doubt of what rests on tradition, but it does not touch what was from the beginning, the inspired word of God able to make us wise unto salvation. There we have divine authority and divine certainty, the truth itself, not human traditions. It is a common effect of gross superstition connected with the profession of Christianity, and all taken as true together, that when the falseness and absurdity of the superstition, of what man has added, is seen, all is rejected together. Infidelity is its natural fruit when the mind begins to work. The word has never had its just authority, and men do not separate what is human and divine. Without the word man believes as he has been taught, that Jesus is God, and that the wafer is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. He finds the latter a delusion and, not resting on the word which teaches one and not the other, but as to both alike on human tradition, he throws up both and is an infidel.

When we examine the question of transubstantiation, we shall see that the most famous doctors of the church denied that doctrine five centuries later, and that it was never settled as a defined doctrine till 1215, nine centuries later, so that the Mass was impossible. For if the element be not really the body of Christ,' such a sacrifice is impossible. I rest on what is said in Heb. 9;10, which chapters not only teach what is inconsistent with it, but formally contradict it in every 'part. That Christianity has a sacrifice is a fundamental truth, but that Epistle teaches that it was one, only one, offered once for all upon the cross, never to be repeated, and its not being so repeated essential to its nature and value.

Bill M. Well, what do you say, Mr. R.? For me I confess it is plain enough that, if there was to be no more sacrifice for sins, the Mass cannot be true. What made me like it was that there was forgiveness and a present offering one could think of as offered when we were uneasy in our consciences. But I see. God will have us not get our consciences made easy from time to time; but come to Christ and have all we are and have done manifested in God's sight, and be reconciled to Him through that one sacrifice Christ has made of-Himself in wonderful grace on the cross. It goes a deal deeper into one's soul in the conviction of sin. Of the peace that follows I cannot say much yet, but I see the word of God speaks of it plain enough, and I hop& I will find it; but I know that sin is a very different thing when you have to bring it all out before God, and get cleansed there, and when you get. your conscience quieted by absolution and receiving at the Mass. It is, another thing to be a sinner before God.

James. What to me is so dreadful is that the blessed: efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is set aside-that which was done once for all at such infinite cost and suffering to Himself, the dreadful cup He had to drink, and the truth that it is done and finished once for all, and accepted of. God, so that He sits at God's right hand when He had made purification for our sins and obtained eternal redemption. They may talk about its being the same sacrifice repeated; but then it is not finished and complete; something more is needed to put away sins. To have a, sacrifice for sins still is to say the whole work is not finished. on the cross; and it unsettles too all our peace before God. And Christ cannot suffer now. It denies, the efficacy of the cross and Christ's glory in it, and the sure foundation of our peace and rest, and God's glory. too, for all is still unfinished. And what is said in the Hebrews is plain enough. I wonder how persons calling themselves Christians could dare to go so plainly against God's word.

D. You seem to make nothing of the teaching of the-church, but, take your own crude and rash opinions as a warrant for a dangerous self-confidence.

James. Excuse me, sir. I do not take up any opinion, at all. I trust God's word as the truth through grace. An opinion is brought to me which contradicts it, and I do not receive it. As to confidence, such grace as was shown in the gift of God's blessed Son does give confidence in God, and the work of Christ when believed in, gives peace to the conscience. Confidence in myself: would, I know, be as wrong as it would be foolish and dangerous; but it is not in myself, but in God's love and His word, and. the work that Christ has accomplished. Will you forgive a poor man if he asks you humbly, Have you got this peace? " He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself."

D. I am not accustomed to give an account of my own feelings. The privileges and graces given to the church, I know, are very great, and so wonderful that I feel it presumptuous to appropriate them to myself; but I trust, being found within her pale, I shall have the benefit of the grace conferred upon her through His sacraments and the promises made to her. God alone knows how far we have profited by them, and the day of judgment will make all manifest.

N*. But this is an unhappy state of uncertainty, Mr. D. How can you invite others to come to Christ and they shall have rest, when you have not rest yourself? Either (and God forbid such a thought!) what Christ has said is not true, or you have never come to Him. And scripture is quite plain, saying, " We have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption; crying, Abba Father." The Spirit of adoption, which is the practical condition of the Christian, cannot exist if I do not know I am a child. In your state you cannot say, Abba Father. I speak only from what you: say yourself " I write unto you, little children," says the apostle John, "because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."

D. What do you mean? that I cannot preach the truth if I am not sure of my salvation?

N*. You cannot preach the gospel as scripture presents it, and the Lord Himself. You may repeat the words, but you can announce the gospel with no personal consciousness that it is true, so as to preach it. yourself with conviction, so as to have truth and heart in your preaching.

D. But I am not preaching to heathens, but to Christians.

N*. I admit the difference, and in some respects important difference but they, or at any rate the mass. of Ahem, and yourself too, have not peace, have not the rest of heart and conscience which: Christ promises. Neither you nor they are where the gospel sets a man, where it has put James, and, thank God, many others who have found what Paul declares to be true, "Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have access into this grace [or favor], wherein we stand." Besides, let me ask you, Can the church answer for you in the last day?

D. No; but in following her directions, I shall be able to do so.

N*. Have you followed her directions hitherto?

D. Well, we follow badly the blessed guidance that is for us; still I have as far as I could, faithfully done so, and hope to be able to do so.

N*. And if you were taken away now, you do not know if you would be accepted or not; and when once you leave this, the church can do no more. It has not given you peace, and purged your conscience here, and cannot answer for you there. Conscience must be individual, pardon must be individual, a new life must be individual. Each one must give an account of himself to God individually; and a church and its system which quiets the conscience here, but gives no peace, nor purges it, and cannot answer for us there, is a poor substitute for the perfect and ever-subsisting efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice, by which the believing soul born of God has peace and constant peace. The conscience, really purged before God, and receiving the Holy Ghost, walks in joy, possessing a power in a living Christ, which destroys the dominion of sin. Do not suppose I think the true doctrine as to the church of no moment. It is most blessed and important; but the word of God always puts the individual relationship with God and the Father first, and then the truth as to the church after; because my personal relationship with God must be settled, bringing me into the privilege of a son, before I enter on our union with Christ, or God's ways in dwelling in the assembly by the Holy Ghost. And your doctrine of the Mass sets aside the full abiding efficacy of Christ's blood hides the love of God, brings uncertainty into the conscience, and fear into the heart; denies the most precious truth of God, and just gives the carnal mind quietness from time to time, without being really turned to God, leaving the heart practically in the world where it was; takes peace from the believer, and gives a quiet conscience to the unbeliever in heart, who has no thought of walking with God. I do not seek to use hard words, but Masses, as you have acknowledged, are really blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. There is no sacrifice of Christ but one, and once for all.

R. I do not complain of your language, because I know it is only a quotation from the Articles of the Established Church. But do you not think this confidence you speak of is dangerous? Does it not tend to destroy humility?

N*. We spoke a little of that already; still it is so common an objection that I still reply. I know your teachers do and must object to it. It would take the whole matter out of their hands; people would not want them. But a vast body of Protestants too resist it.

But I take the matter up broadly, and say, The scripture never recognizes a person uncertain of his salvation as in a Christian state. Certainty or uncertainty has nothing to do with humility. If it be uncertain whether a child be really the child of his parent, this has nothing to do with his humility; he may not have the shadow of a question as to his being such, and be a humble obedient child. But true divinely given certainty brings us into the place of humility, because, where real, it brings us into the presence of God through the rent veil of Christ's sufferings to walk in the light as God is in the light. There we feel our own utter nothingness, how far we are from having reached the mark; and all is seen in that light. Yet we have confidence, because grace has brought us there, and we know God is love and loves us infinitely. It is said, the love wherewith -He loves Jesus, and that He accepts us because of, and by, and according to, the value of the perfect work of Jesus, who appeared once in. the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Through His offering we have no more conscience of sins-perfected forever as to acceptance by His one offering. The Lord has given us the picture of this uncertain state in the prodigal son. When he had not yet met his father, though his heart was turned by grace towards him, he says, " Make me as one of thy hired servants." There was no certainty or enjoyment of the relationship. When he met his father, there was no such word uttered. What his father was to him was known because he had met him the thought of being treated as a servant only proved he had not met him yet. There is a new nature in him who is born of God which loves holiness, but there is no true development of holy affections until we are at peace with God. And the Mass denies the ground of our relationship with Him, the holy and righteous God, and the true scripturally revealed value of Christ's work.

R. Well, Mr. N., you have given me something to think of. I see some have a peace I have not. I do not profess to be convinced, but certainly Heb. 9;10. to a plain mind make the doctrine of the Mass extremely difficult to receive. But Protestants I meet have not that peace which such a statement, if believed, would seem to give. I do not mean now careless men of the world, but serious men. It is a serious thing to give up the doctrine and authority of the church. But I have got subjects for inquiry.

/V*. Be assured, dear sir, in looking to the Lord, He will give you light and understanding; only give His word its just authority, I entreat you. We own it all, you as well as we, as God's word; and let men say or claim what they may, if God has spoken, we are responsible to hear and bow to what He says. He, though patient in grace, will bold us responsible for it when He judges the secrets of men's hearts, when no priest or church will be of any avail.

R. But we are taught to bow to and avail ourselves of them here.

.N*. But they cannot answer for you there; and if God has certainly spoken, and in grace too, we are bound to hear. It is true that multitudes of Protestant Christians have not, nay reject that peace; but I do not ask you to listen to them, but to the word of God itself.

R. We have not touched on transubstantiation yet, which is indeed closely connected with our present subject; and I have been sufficiently interested in what has passed to be glad to enter on that too if it were possible. I really desire to know the truth.

.N*. I do not doubt it in the least. I think our friends here who first led us into all these questions desire to hear it too; and I dare say James will still let us make his house our place of meeting.

James. With pleasure, sir, and much obliged to you for coming: and Bill M. of course may be here, and will, I know, wish it.

N. Well, then, it is understood.

R. I will now then say, Good evening: and we are much obliged to James for his kindly receiving us.

James. It is quite a pleasure to me. Good evening, sir.

R. Mr. D., I suppose, is coming. I wish you all good evening. Good evening, sir.

Bill ill. I see more into all than ever I did, and what true Christianity is-how Christ has made peace by the blood of His cross. But I dare not say much yet.

N*. Carry it all to the Lord, M. There it will all be clear with Him.

Bill M. But many pious people do not see all this clearly. I did not see it at all, or so understand it, for I was not pious before I turned Roman Catholic. But I did not hear of it either.

.N*. No, as Mr. R. said, many, even pious, Protestants do not at all see the holy place where grace has set them. Hence too, they are so mixed up with the world. But, thank God, it is clear in the word: only divine teaching must be there to possess it really. But now I too must say, Good evening.

James and Bill M. Good evening, sir.

Bill M. Well, Jim, what do you say to all we have heard? What I think I feel most is, how awfully I was in the dark, and how sad to think how little the true love of. God and work of Christ is known and preached! And glad I am to have heard what I have. I think it is over with the Mass, and all that belongs to it for me.

James. Well, Bill, I am thankful more than I can tell you, having found peace with God and the salvation of His grace, and surely sovereign grace to me, has brought; thankful too, to have escaped the snare I was just falling into. And it is such a comfort too in the house, and my missus was sorely tried about it. And now we can get on happily together, and look to God together for the children. I do not mind so much now about the rest, because I am all clear myself, but glad to hear.

Bill M. I do not so much mind either; but then it is a great thing with the Catholics, and very hard to get them out of it, because they think it is the very body and blood of Christ; and, when they receive that they receive that, and that they are all perfect-like. So I shall be glad to hear. But now, Good night.

N. GOOD evening, James, and you too, M. We can go on without these gentlemen. And as we are going through the facts of history, very little of course can be said, and the great schism which broke out in Rome in this century is so well known that no one can call it in question; but it upsets all pretense of a regular succession altogether. There are a few Pontificates to notice before we come to it. Boniface VIII. begins the century. He was in continual conflict with the civil powers, excommunicating and deposing Emperors and Kings, especially with the King of France, whose agent in Italy finally took him prisoner, and though rescued by the inhabitants of Anagni where he was, he died almost immediately after of chagrin.

He was violent and imperious to the last degree; many alleged that he was no true Pope, as no Pope could resign as Celestine had done to make way for him, and if so, he could not be Pope as Celestine was. The latter alleged the example of the first Clement, whom Peter had named and resigned, because no Pope ought to be nominated by his predecessor, and so was Pope after Linus and Anacletus. He was charged also with poisoning Celestine. Wickedness and violence were so rife, that crimes and false accusations from supposing them were both so common that it is often hard to tell what is true. He was charged with heresy, denying the immortality of the soul and all manner of crimes, but it was all quashed in the council of Vienna.

Benedict, called XI. and so recognized by subsequent Popes, followed this title, however set up as Benedict X. one who was not reckoned lawful Pope-so uncertain is the succession. Raynald (Cent. of Baronius) says he took the name of Benedict XI. (though if the thing be more accurately examined he was only X.) (1303, XLV.) He was respectable, but fond of monks, and was (it is believed) poisoned, and it seems to be proved (Rayn. 1304. XXXV.) He revoked all his predecessor's acts against Philip. In all these times excommunication and deposition of Kings and Emperors were the common weapons of war between state and Church. There were now two parties in the body of cardinals who chose the Pope, and so evenly balanced that they could not agree, and for some time there was no Pope. At last they agreed that the Italian party should name three French prelates, and the other choose one out of them in forty days' time, for the parties were the French and Italian parties. The Italian named three French greatly opposed to the French King; but before the French party selected their chief, knowing the ambition of the first of the three, he sent to the king, who told him he could get him made Pope if he agreed to his conditions; he accepted all with one secret one, and was named by the French party, the Italians thinking they had their way and that a friend of Boniface's against the king was chosen. He became Clement V., and did everything openly agreed on with Philip—a nice specimen of succession to the Apostolate of Peter. He stayed in France, but after staying awhile at Bordeaux and Poitiers, settled at Avignon, which did not then belong to France, and there the Popes were for seventy years, called by the Romans the Babylonish Captivity. The Emperor set up another Pope at Rome, Nicholas V., but he did not succeed in his plans, so that after some time this Roman. Anti-pope submitted himself to Clement. The abuses in the monarchy, and in the way the Pope by various inventions got all patronage into his hands, at this time incensed the nations (Fleury 90, XLIX.; Dupin Cent. XIV. c. i.; Rayn. 1305, II, III.) Clement V. passed away. The difficulties were greater than ever. The Italians wanted the Pope back to Rome, the French to keep him. The decision being long protracted, the mob assembled, the place was set on fire, some say by the Cardinals, others, by their servants or the mob. The Cardinals dispersed and could not be got to trust each other to come together. At last the next French King sent his brother, who invited them individually to Lyons, had long conferences with them, but in vain; at last, having summoned them all to a monastery, shut them all up, and would not let them out till they chose a Pope. They spent forty days still, and John XXII. was elected. Some say, not being able to agree, they did agree to put the nomination in his hands as a Cardinal of no account, and he named himself, having sworn not to mount horse or mule if it were not to go to Rome, and so went by river to Avignon, and walked to the palace. At any rate he sat Pope at Avignon. Pope John condemned as heretical what Nicholas III. had affirmed (Fleury 95, XV.) It was in his time Nicholas V. was set up by the Emperor. He also published dogmatic sermons on the beatific vision of God, condemned as heretical by the universities and other doctors, and their judgment was published. He would have left it open, but the doctors were firm. It is said he fully retracted on his death bed. However, one of the friars was burned under John XXII., and two by Innocent VI. at Avignon. Four were also burned at Marseilles for holding absolute poverty to be the right path, which Nicholas III. had pronounced right. Benedict XII. succeeded John. The first thing he did was to preach against his predecessor on the beatific vision, and then held a consistory with many doctors, on which the proposition of Pope John was formally condemned, and those who maintained it were declared heretics.

Bill M. But I thought the Popes were infallible.

N. So they have decreed lately. But they have been as we said before openly condemned as heretics, as Honorius. Liberius signed an Arian creed. And here one condemns the views of another, as positively heretical, and another burns two friars for persisting as to Christ's possessing nothing, in the opinion affirmed to be true by his predecessor, Nicholas III. Clement VI., Innocent VI., Urban V. and Gregory XI. some time before they died made a declaration by which they retracted all that they might have advanced in disputing or in teaching or preaching or otherwise (Dupin, Cent. XIV. c. iii.) so that they hardly thought themselves infallible. I suppose the Romanists would say it was not ex Cathedrci, but disputing, teaching, preaching, or otherwise takes a pretty wide scope, and what was pronounced ex Cathedra would come seemingly within teaching, preaching, or otherwise.

At any rate, if a man may teach and preach, and in every other way of communicating his thoughts, teach error, his pronouncing ex Cathedra is not worth much. In disputing, a man may be hurried away. But the Apostles, whose place they pretend to hold, know nothing of their preaching, or teaching error, (quite the contrary), and their being safe when speaking ex Cathedrȃ. It was their teaching and preaching which was inspired. But we are tracing succession. Why a number of French Cardinals electing one of their number at Avignon should make a person Bishop of Rome it would be hard to tell. But we will proceed with our history, for we are at an important epoch. Gregory XI. died at Rome when on the point of going back to Avignon. The Romans insisted on a Roman or at least an Italian Prelate, and attacked the conclave so that the Cardinals were in fear of their lives. The great number of them were French, but of these many were of the country of Limoges, so that they did not act together, as these wanted one of their party, the other Frenchmen not. There were only four Italian Cardinals. It is said that one was made to put his head out of the window, to tell the people to go to St. Peter's, which was taken by the people to mean that they had elected the Cardinal of St. Peter's. Meanwhile it was proposed to elect the Archbishop of Bari, who at any rate was an Italian, but not a Cardinal; the French party say he was only elected to pacify the people, with the understanding that he was not to take the papacy, the choice being only made under the influence of fear of the populace, and hence having no validity, and so afterward they certified the King of France. So Dupin. The Italian party, while not denying the clamors and violence, but making them arise later in the affair, insisted that the election was regular and valid. Fleury's account gives this color to it. Raynaldus of course insists that it was free, and urges that the people's leaders went to the window and insisted it should be a Roman, and that the choice of one not a Roman proved that they were free. The tumults then were great at any rate. Some would have made the Cardinal of St. Pierre Pope, but he disclaimed it, and the Archbishop of Bari was. crowned and enthroned Pope in the midst of these tumults. He took the name of Urban VI. But the Cardinals were not content, and under pretext of the hot weather went to Anagni, and there they chose one of their own body, who became Pope also, under the name of Clement VII., who removed to Avignon. The Cardinals sent a long account to the King of France, who assembled prelates and doctors, but not satisfied with this, sent ambassadors to Italy to ascertain the facts, and on their report owned Clement to be the true Pope. Spain after some time owned him too. Urban was occupied with politics and fighting in Italy, but he succeeded in maintaining himself as Pope there, and putting down the Clementines tolerably completely, though Jeanne, Queen of Naples, was for Clement, but she lost her kingdom and her life. England and Germany were for Urban, Scotland for Clement, Northern Europe for Urban, but Lorraine, Savoy and other provinces for Clement. Each Pope condemned and excommunicated the other and his adherents. Both consecrated prelates and clergy, so that the idea of a secure succession and the maintenance of the Church in sacramental grace by it is a simple absurdity. If Urban, as Raynaldus and Platina would have it, was Pope, then all France and Spain and other countries were excommunicated out of the pale of the Church, and all their orders invalid, and all they conferred on others null and void, and all the sacraments which they hold to be necessary to salvation invalid and of no efficacy.

James. But what do they say to all this?

N. They deplore it of course, and say it was a source of infinite mischief, but as Raynaldus expresses it, that He who has dominion over heaven and earth brought the Church out of it. We shall see how they got out of it; but the whole order of succession and clergy was broken in upon while it did last. Urban may have been true Pope on their system, but hardly so if what all the Cardinals and others allege was true. He was named, they declare, under violence and threats, to escape the populace. The riots and violence, and the attacking the conclave is not denied, and as soon as they got out of Rome they protested, and France and Spain, and Naples and other places accepted their view of the facts. All is uncertain in the succession. It is not denied there was the utmost violence and tumult. Contemporaries state that the people forced their way armed into the court of the palace of the conclave into which they had been driven with threats by the populace. Bundles of rice stalks were laid under it to set it on fire, and they threatened to cut down the Cardinals if they did not choose a Roman. The heads of that district of Rome came and told them they must do as the people required, or they would suffer violence. The Archbishop of Bari had been previously in consultation with the Cardinals, and though an Italian, being opposed to the Romans,, the Cardinals thought he would go with them in their views, and was then chosen in a hurry, as it was thought he would reject it. If so, the temptation was too great. This account seems pretty well authenticated. It is to be remarked that the Italian Cardinals, three at least out of four, joined the rest at Anagni where they went, and then to Fondi, to be secure to choose Clement VII. Various depositions are given in Balergius' "Notes to the Lives of the Popes of Avignon," and especially those of the Cardinal of Florence. If he tells true, Urban's friends were false and perjured in their statements. One thing is clear, the French would have had a Frenchman for Pope if they could, and that fear actuated them in choosing Urban VI; on the other hand they were jealous of the Cardinals of Limoges, because the Avignon Popes had been thence.

The fullest and clearest account of the proceedings, as far as I know, is the first life of Gregory XI. in Balergius (443 and following). Before the conclave, according to this account, the Romans had driven the upper orders out of Rome, and introduced a mass of rough countrymen, taken possession of the gates that the Cardinals might not leave, and when they met broke in with them. The Bandarenses, chiefs of the twelve districts, had warned them before, individually, and on going into the conclave assembled them, and said they must elect a Roman or at least an Italian, or meet with worse; and the mob

filled the palace and room under the ball of conclave with weapons and dry reeds, and all night rioted there, vociferating while they were saying the mass of the Holy Ghost. The Cardinals sent the three deans or chiefs of the three classes of Cardinals, the people having insisted on the windows being opened, in the hope of calming them, but in vain; and a second time; but the people raged violently at the doors, insisting on the nomination of a Roman or Italian, threatening death, &c. They thus chose Bartholomew, Archbishop of Bari, as he had been present at the Roman consultations to force the choice of a Roman, was a doctor of Canon Law, and supposed to be upright. They supposed he would give it up when elected, and there was calm. For the-' same reason they had to go through with and crown and enthrone him. The account is by one who favored Clement; but it all hangs perfectly well together, and the main points certain. That they were forced by the populace against their inclination is certain, for they would have desired to go to Avignon. Whether it was sufficient to annul the election is another question. Of course the Romans as such call the others schismatics. But it clearly was not so certain. The university of Paris writing to Benedict XIII., just elected, on the point says: Clever and upright men scarcely see their way in it (quicquam ibi videant). Nicholas, Cardinal Panormitanus, says that the pontificate of Benedict. XIII. (of Avignon) was probable; for the question was arduous in law and in fact. Cardinal Cajetan, or de Vio, legate to Germany about Luther, reproves those who consider either obedience, so called, schismatic; declaring that the right of each had been and was doubtful, and what is positive on the point is, that both were deposed as Popes from their papacy, and Martin V. confirmed the decree of Constance, which by depriving both recognized both; and Sylvester Prierias says neither were; as men most skilled in Scripture and Canon Law, and pious, and more conspicuous as workers of miracles, adhered to each; and that it was necessary to believe there was only one Pope as one Church, and whichever was canonically, elected; but no, one was obliged to know which was, nor Canon Law. In this the people will follow their ancestors or prelates. This is a strange certainty of succession-so uncertain that nobody was bound to say which was true; the general council and Pope treating both as true, which, according to the famous Dominican, was contrary to what was necessary to salvation for men were bound to believe there was only one. Another says plainly that for those forty years he does not know who was Pope. (See preface to Balergius.)

Bill M. But this is poor' ground to build a man's religion on.

N. I should think it was; but succession is one of the marks Dr. Milner and all give of the true Church.

Bill Al'. I do not see who is to find it, if it is.

Mrs. James. But I do not understand, Sir, how a person who reads Scripture can think of such things being a security at all. If my faith rested on all this, where should I be? It is a sad history, but from what I have heard (and those gentlemen that were here yesterday did not deny the facts), I do not see how they can put the Church in connection with such things. And when there were two Popes at a time, and whole countries and the clergy in them following such, succession could not have been a proof of the true Church, for there was no sure succession there. But what strikes me most is how foreign it all is to everything in the word of God.

.N*. Foreign, indeed We are following it out because it is the ground this pretension to be the true Church is above all based upon. But men may take up Scripture as a matter of learning, not in its power over the conscience, and as working faith by the power of the Holy Ghost in grace. A mere store of learning is a different thing from God's word brought' with divine power to the soul. It is conscience that is cognizant of and intelligent in the word of God, because it is what the word acts on. It is man pretending by his mind to judge the word that leads to what is called rationalism. The human mind thinks it can judge of Scripture, but that is denying it to be the word of God, to start with, for if it be I must bow to it. And hence it is that, will', we must have divine teaching by grace to use it, tn.,. simple, if humble, understand it better really than the learned, because they come to it as God's own word for their consciences and hearts, and not to discuss and judge about it so that it practically loses that character. " I thank thee, 0 Father, said the blessed Lord, " Lord of heaven and earth, for thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Of course if an ignorant person is not humble, and affects to judge about it by his own mind, he will go astray like another. He is not before the word as if God were telling him His thoughts, as He is there.

Bill M. But a person must know it is the word of God.

N*. But it is by its acting on his heart and conscience, and revealing God to him that he knows it. I know what a knife is when it cuts me, and honey when I taste its sweetness. It is not a matter of proof. The word acts through grace on the soul, and I am conscious of its actings from God as sharper than any twoedged sword, and I find all things naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom I have to do, and that is God. So I know it is His word, His eye on me.

Bill M. That is true. It gets sharp into the conscience, sure enough, and makes you know what you are.

N*. Thank God you find it so, M. That is just God working in mercy in your soul, though it be humbling to find all the evil that is there, but it is God's light come into it.

Mrs. J. But even when we know it is God's word, and own it with all one's heart, sometimes it takes no effect in the soul.. That is what troubles me sometimes.

N*. We are wholly dependent on the operation of the Spirit of God for profiting by it. But that is as all the rest of our history, only it is brought plainly before us when we have to do with the word. Your heart is cold and dull if you are preparing James's dinner, and very likely you do not find it out; but if you take up the word of God, where we know we ought to take an interest, and the heart be affected, we find out our darkness and coldness, but so much the better. That is what is needed then, and in looking to the Lord He will help us and give it power in our souls. I find often I may read a chapter, if not watchful, and, through knowing it well, not have a thought out of it, but not if I am looking to God. Then there is always fresh light and divine power on the soul to keep us before God, and lead us on.

Mrs. J. It is true, Sir. We need grace every moment, and thank God we know where grace is. May He make us diligent.

N*. May He indeed do so. The diligent soul, it is said, shall be made fat. But here are Mr. R. and Mr. D. Good evening, gentlemen.

R. I do not disturb you?

N*. Not in the least; quite the contrary. At the moment we were speaking of the way the word of God made its power good in the conscience. But we had been speaking of the beginning of what is called the great schism, which so fatally breaks into the boasted unity of the outward Church, pretending, as it does, to be always one and the same.

R. I know you Protestants profess to rest on the word of God, slighting or denying the authority of the Church, and resting on private judgment.

N*. And do not you rest on the word of God? We can easily judge what you are if you do not. -

R. Of course I do; but you look to private judgment, and we look to the Church's judgment.

N*. Well, I attach no importance to the word Protestant, save as it has come to mean a protest against the false doctrines and abominations of Rome. In that sense I call myself so as a matter of earnest faith. At first it was merely a protest of the German electors against the recess of the diet of Spires. And the rationalist sense of private judgment I wholly repudiate. Faith is subject to the word of God; it is blasphemy to judge it. As we have often said, it judges me, and will judge those who have had it and not bowed to it, at the last day. We were speaking of this when you came in. But you bring in the Church between God and the soul, to which He speaks by the word, and you have no right to do that. It is openly trampling upon the rights of God in addressing Himself directly to His people, as He has. If by private judgment you mean not my judging of the word, but my having it directly from God Himself, and that no man has a right to come in and hinder God from speaking directly to my soul, then, though it be an abuse of the term, I insist, I will not say on my rights, though, as between man and man, there would be reason in it, but on God's rights, with which you are wickedly meddling.

R. But did not the Apostles command with authority?

N*. Command with the authority Christ expressly gave them they did; but they never exercised any authority as between God and His dealing with men's souls by the word. They were inspired to communicate it directly to people's souls; but they had no more to do with judging it, or thought of withholding it, than the meanest of God's people. They were channels to give it to them, and they appealed directly to those which people had already had, and those that searched them to see if what even they taught was according to them are commended. Even when persons wrested them, as of course may be done, there is no thought of withholding them or turning any, even the weakest from them for that reason. Doing so is a proof men are afraid of the light, be they Romanist or infidel. As to the Church's judgment, we are just come to a point where we have necessarily to judge the Church.

R. That never can be.

N*. Well, now, can the Church answer for me in the day of judgment? Must I not answer for myself?

R. It cannot; you must answer for yourself; but the Church will not mislead you here below, and if you follow it, you will be all right then.

N*. How do I know that? Was Urban VI. or Clement VII. the true Pope?

R. Urban of course.

N*. Well, all France and Spain, and other places too, held Clement VII. to be the true Pope, so that the faithful in those countries went all wrong by following what you call the Church, and were schismatics, and had no true sacraments.

R. But they ought to have recognized Urban and not Clement.

N*. Then they must have judged for themselves and judged what called itself the Church. And this lasted with various phases some forty years or more, so that a whole generation died in this condition. At any rate, to be right, they must have judged the Church and Popes too for themselves, and the ablest men and the most pious, even saints, as they were called, were uncertain, and could not tell. And some say they were not bound to know which, only to believe in the abstract: there could be only one. But then Apostolic Succession goes to the wall, for none could find it out certainly; and the sacraments were just as good without it, for they were not both in due succession at the same time. Further, one or other (if either) must have been the true Pope, and then all the rest were excommunicated, and could, as I have said, have no sacraments. If not, their validity depends simply on the faith of the receiver. No; your system breaks down altogether here. It is absurd, with two, and even three Popes at a time, and all Europe divided between them, to keep up the fiction of Apostolic Succession. I do not mind any Pope, and very likely neither was rightly Pope on their own principles, but that does not help you.

R. No doubt they were sad times, and the schism produced infinite mischief, but see how God brought the Church out of it. "Rejoice not against me, 0 mine enemy: when I fall, I shall rise again."

.N*. The professing Church no doubt was brought out of the schism at last, but Rome brought it into it. Where was unity then? And all pretension to security by Apostolic Succession was gone.

Bill M. I beg your pardon, sir, but you say that the Pope that was at Rome was the true Pope.

R. Yes.

Bill M. What then was a Frenchman to do? To judge for himself, and follow him and go against his own clergy and Church, or to follow his clergy in France?

R. He must follow his own clergy in France; and if he was sincere, God would forgive him his ignorance.

Bill M. But I understand they were all excommunicated and condemned by what you say was the true Pope, who appears now was infallible; and how could he be all right when the right Pope excommunicated him for doing it?

R. Ignorant persons cannot be expected to judge of such questions, and as I said, God is merciful and will have compassion on them.

Bill M. Still they are excommunicated by the true Church, and have no real sacraments, and their own clergy led them all wrong. It is a different story from what I thought, that it is.

N*. What M. says, Mr. R., is quite true. That God has compassion on poor souls deceived by the clergy, if they look to the Savior, I doubt not; but to pretend that the clergy or the Church is a security for any soul is clearly proved to be unfounded by the facts we are contemplating. God's bringing them out of the ditch they were all in is no proof they could keep people out of it. They were in it themselves, and all that hung upon them with them. The blind had led the blind, and both were in the ditch, just as the Pharisees did the masses against Christ. For as M. has said, the clergy that led the people, all that you call the Church,' in France, were excommunicated by what you call the rightful Pope, while their Pope excommunicated the one at Rome; and this was not a temporary accident, but they had their successors till both were. alike put down by the Council, first of Pisa and then of Constance. Meanwhile the corruptions in the Papal government of the Church increased tenfold. The Popes made their fortunes out of ecclesiastical benefices in provisions, reservations, annates, all sorts of inventions to bring money to themselves in conferring benefices. One person is said to have had five hundred benefices. The university proposed an inquiry as to who was Pope, so that they were not sure; that both should abdicate, as each proposed an inquiry as to his competitors; if they would not abdicate, a general council, and as most of the prelates were very ignorant, to have doctors and others with them, though by rights prelates alone had the right to sit there. It is at this time that Nicolas Clemangis* rector of the University of Paris, gives such an awful picture of the immorality of the clergy and the corruption of the Roman Court, saying, from the head to the feet everything was given or rather sold for money, Cardinals having as many as five hundred benefices; that the convents were brothels of Venus, and to make a girl a nun was to give her up to prostitution; nor is it denied.

The famous Petrarch gives a like account of the Court of Avignon before the schism. Everything bad and nothing good was found there. Everything was sold for gold. (Raynald 1311, LV. and Fleury 92, XI.) It was the same at Rome under Boniface, Pope after Urban. Sales of benefices were regularly carried on with every kind of fraud (Fleury, 99, XXVI). Meanwhile much was done by the princes of Europe to put an end to the schism and to get both Popes to abdicate. France withdrew its obedience, and then Castille, to the Pope at Avignon, but rejected Boniface at Rome. Benedict, at Avignon, was besieged by France and agreed to abdicate on the Roman Pope doing so. Boniface refused, but would appear before a Council. England supported Boniface; Innocent VII. followed Boniface at Rome; Benedict had sent an embassy to Rome proposing the abdication of both; Innocent proposed a council and the cession of the Papacy by the Pope. Gregory XII. succeeded Innocent; Benedict proposed conference and refused cession, excommunicating those who approved it; the King of France burned the bull; Benedict fled to Genoa, then to Perpignan. Gregory was elected under promise to resign if union could be effected; Benedict protested the same thing. At last the Cardinals of both sides met at Pisa, and then at Leghorn, and sent a circular letter proposing a council as the only means, as the Popes would not yield, and there was such exceeding difficulty as to law and as to fact, and they blame both Popes as ruining the Church, and so did the Council, going into all the facts, and charging them with bad faith and even collusion. Finally they depose both, take off the excommunications of both, as it was so doubtful who was Pope, and chose Peter of Candia, Alexander V., who confirmed all their acts. But Gregory, who kept the south of Italy, and Robert, King of Romans, and his partizans, and Benedict XIII., who still held fast hold of Spain, kept their ground. Each held a so-called general council, Benedict having 120 prelates, but who could come to no conclusion, and sixteen only remained, who decreed he was Pope and was not to yield. Gregory held a council, but could get scarce anyone to come, and fled through fear of the Venetians and went to the south of Italy. Each of these condemned Pisa and their Pope and each other. Pisa deposed the two as schismatic, heretic, and as guilty of other crimes, all the Cardinals of both obediences being there save one. A new council was to be held. Now there were three Popes, two doubtful and deposed, and a third chosen, but it was alleged unlawfully. And this is so much the case that the highest Roman Catholic authorities are not agreed who was Pope. Raynaldus counts Gregory as Pope all the time, till he gave up at Constance. Bellarmine says Alexander V. must be owned, as the next was Alexander VI. (De Conc. I. 8.) Raynald (1409, LXXX.) says that is nothing, as the Stephens had two numbers, one of them not being owned, and the Johns three, as two of them were not owned by many. Balthasar Cossa was the leader in the affairs of Pisa, but would not be Pope, but got Alexander V. elected, and governed under him, and then became Pope at his death. Dupin speaks of the schism as going on to the Council of Constance; Fleury says nothing either. Platina reckons Alexander V. and John XXIII. One reason Bellarmine gives for the authority of the council is that a doubtful Pope is no Pope. Now I ask if in such a state of things we can talk of the Apostolic Succession. Pisa, Constance, and Basil professedly deposed Popes, the two former finally succeeding, the latter not, while the latter pronounced a council to be superior to the Pope. Constance confirmed the acts of Pisa, so that we have the authority of the episcopacy as to the wickedness, heresy, and deposition of both Popes engaged in the schism; but it consulted without John, and when he fled because of the charges brought against him, they deposed him. Raynald, however, treats the see as vacant, Gregory having resigned.

Who was Pope now?

R. It was a time of sad and admitted confusion, only

God had mercy on the Church.

N*. Is confusion a security for faith, or can apostolic

succession be a mark of the true Church, when nobody knows who was Pope, and at last all were deposed?

Bill M. Who do you think was Pope, sir?

R. Well, when so many great and pious men have doubted of it, it would be presumptuous for me to say. The only real difficulty lay between Gregory and Alexander V., and that was healed by the council of Constance when Gregory resigned, and John, the successor of Alexander was deposed, and Martin V. became Pope.

Bill M. But according to that, sir, the only ones who could be really considered so-at least one or other-

were set aside, and Martin was nobody's successor, but new made by this council. He does not seem to be the successor of anybody.

R. If we consider Gregory as Pope, the see was vacant

on his resignation, and Martin succeeded him.

Bill M. Pardon me, sir; you say, if we consider him so. But how can I tell whether I ought to consider him so? You say it would be presumptuous to decide when so many great men take different sides, and I am told to rest my faith on Apostolic Succession.

R. You must take it, trusting to God's care, as the whole Church receives it now when no such questions exist.

Bill M. But that is taking it for granted that it is the

true Church. I was told to find that out by Apostolic Succession, which they pretended was quite clear; and what they said to me was not true, for it is not quite clear; and now I am told to believe in Apostolic Succession by the Church's owning it; but I must first know it is the Church, and most Christians do not believe it is the Church, and do not believe in succession either. I find nothing to rest my faith on here. You are obliged to admit, and these great doctors admit, it is uncertain, and some are for one and some for another. When I read the Scriptures I have no need of succession; I have what you own to be the word of God, and I feel it does me good. I should be lost in looking into all these histories of the Popes, when even learned people do not know what to think. In the Scriptures I have what I know is right, though I may be very slow to learn all it means. And let me ask you, sir, had this council the right to judge the Pope and depose him?

R. Well, it is a very delicate question; perhaps, if he left the faith. But the more probable opinion is-and now generally received-that a council cannot depose a real Pope.

Bill M. But it seems they did depose them here.

R. Gregory resigned, and it was doubtful if John was the legitimate Pope, and then he could be more easily set aside. A doubtful Pope is not like an acknowledged legitimate one: so says Bellarmine.

Bill M. All is then uncertain. If they could not set him aside another could not be appointed, and you have no real succession from the one that was put in his place. If they could, there was no succession at all. If he was not Pope there was nobody to succeed. All is uncertain that I see.

James. But I do not think Dr. Milner says anything of all this.

Bill M. Ah! Let us look at him and see. Where are we to find the place?

N*. It is here, Part II., Letter XXVIII., Cent. XV., and it is thoroughly dishonest. He says: The succession of Popes continued through this century, though, among numerous difficulties and dissensions, in the following order: Innocent VII. Gregory XII., Alexander V., John XXIII., Martin VII., &c. He adopts without saying a word of the others, who had almost half Europe under them, and were owned by many of the greatest authorities, the Roman succession. That for a zealous Romanist we can understand, though an honest man would have spoken of the others. But more than this, if Gregory XII. was Pope, Alexander V. was not. Alexander died long before Gregory, and was not his successor. Raynald will not own Alexander as Pope at all, though relating his case, and that of his successor, John XXIII. Nor could Raynald own John properly at any time; because if Gregory was Pope, John was not, and Gregory's resignation could not validate John's illegal election. Possibly Dr. Milner would say Alexander was Gregory's successor when the latter was deposed by the Council of Pisa. But to say the succession of the Popes continued is not honest, for there were three at a time who claimed to be, and Gregory had been, regularly elected at Rome; and if Alexander was Pope it was by the authority of the council who set aside Gregory as not legitimate Pope, as well as Benedict. If not, then Alexander was no Pope at all.

Bill M. But what do you say Mr. It. to this? took their statements all for true.

R. It is not my business to defend Dr. Milner. I suppose he thought Gregory legitimately deposed, and Alexander V. to be the true Pope.

Bill M. But if you say " The true Pope," I have to search out which was the true Pope, and I find now other learned men do not think he was, this Gregory being there. He gives it for an unsuspecting person, as a plain succession. And it is not plain, for they doubt about it themselves, and if I have understood, put them all down at last. I see he cannot be trusted a bit.

N*. And your great historians and teachers insist that a council, instead of healing a schism by pretending to depose the Pope, made it worse, for they had three Popes instead of two. Clearly Milner deceives his readers here, and you, gentlemen, who rest on Apostolic succession must either be ignorant of history, or seek to mislead. For two Popes, at a time, with half Europe believing one to be Pope and half the other, and a council deposing both as no true Popes, but schismatics and heretics, and naming a third, and then leaving three, is no regular succession.

D. But our English succession is not involved in this.

N*. Your English succession cannot secure the whole Church. Besides, it is not so sure either, for though the "Nag's Head " story is a miserable falsehood of the Jesuit Holy wood, propagated by Stapleton, you would find it very hard to prove that Barlow, who consecrated Parker, was ever consecrated himself. However, this is not our subject. Apostolic succession at Rome is too uncertain to prove anything but the shame of those who allege it, when once history is honestly inquired into. But we may pursue that history a little further. There were still three Popes, the French, the Roman, and the Pisan Council Pope. It had been settled that a general council should be held in three years. John, the Roman Pope, called one at Rome, but nobody came.. Then the Emperor Sigismund agreed with the Pope to call one which met at Constance, much to the grief of John, who was not disposed to have the council in a place under the Emperor's power. (Fleury 100, LIV). John fled the council after a while, and the council deposed him as guilty of perjury, being a heretic, schismatic, and other things. Some twenty charges were not read publicly, as scandalous, but proved -as incest, adultery, fornication, poisoning Alexander V. and his physician, &c. He had been a corsair, and afterward sold all benefices for Boniface IX., then under Alexander, then for himself. This was, according to Platina and Milner and others, the true legitimate Pope, the successor of Peter. Gregory authorized the council, if John XXIII. did not preside. Raynaldus then counts the See vacant. Gregory gave in his resignation, who according to Raynaldus was the legitimate Pope, but whom Christendom had wholly abandoned, and then they deposed Benedict to whom Spain had held with Navarre and a few others, but by whom he was now abandoned. However, on his death, another was chosen, and then his line was extinct. This is a strange Apostolic Succession and security by it. The council declared itself superior to the Pope, and one large party, now suppressed, held that this was clearly conciliar, and confirmed' by Martin. Of this I have spoken. They then burnt Huss, whom they had sworn not to touch, as faith was not to be kept with heretics, and Jerome of Prague, and chose another Pope, who swore with the rest he would reform the Church, but when once in power forgot all that. Martin took up the Papacy while Benedict's successor was Pope for himself, and little else. Whose successor Martin was, it would be hard to tell. It is hardly necessary to pursue the list of Popes any further. Pope Eugenius condemned the council of Basle, and Basle deposed Eugenius; he transferred the council to Florence, but those at Basle still sat on and elected another, Pope Felix V. However, he had little influence, and compromised with Eugenius and resigned. Eugenius at Florence united the Greeks for a time, as Milner says-that is, starved the deputies to agree; but they were all disowned on their return to the East. He had the seal of the Council. of Basil stolen, to put to a decree as if of that council, to serve his interests. The Popes that followed were as bad as they could well be, and though the Popes had succeeded in baffling the councils held at the desire of all to heal the schism, and reform head and members, yet the conscience of Europe was aroused. It seemed prostrate at their feet, and the reform of the Court of Rome was in that court's own hands, that is, the hands of those who profited by the abuses, and wished to keep them up. Constance had pronounced a council to be above the Pope. France held to this principle in what are called the Gallican liberties; intelligence was increased; the royal power much greater by the decay of the feudal system, and the Popes could not play off one prince against another as they had. They sought to aggrandize their families in Italy; one (for Popes an honest Pope) declared it was impossible to be one, and save your soul. He had been a stickler for the Council of Basle, but condemned when Pope, appeals to a general council, for these were now becoming universal, but he soon died. Paul II. undid all he had attempted to do in the way of reform. Our old friend, the historian Platina, librarian of the Vatican, and secretary to one of the Popes, complained bitterly of it, saying they must appeal to kings, princes, and have a general council; so he was put in prison and in the stocks for his pains. Sixtus succeeded, then Innocent VIII. They mocked him at Rome, saying Rome might well call him father. He had seven children while he was Pope, and sought to make them great in Italy. After him came Alexander VI., whose infamies are past belief-a thorough debauchee at all times, so as to attract reproof even at the Papal Court. He was elected to the papacy by bribery and promises, and got rid by various means of those who had brought him in, that he might not have to fulfill them. Almost all (quasi omnia) the monasteries were, says Infessina, turned into brothels, no one gainsaying it. It was currently said, " Alexander sells kings, altars, Christ; he first bought them, he had good right to sell them." He had five illegitimate children, one of the daughters kept the Papal Court when he was away, and opened the dispatches, consulting the Cardinals. One of the brothers killed his sister's husband to marry her better; the marriage was celebrated with pomp in the Pope's palace; he killed another; and the Pope's secretary, who had sought to screen himself under the Pope's mantle, so that the blood spirted up upon the Pope. He was seeking to poison some rich Cardinals, to get their money, and being very hot, drank the poisoned wine himself, the servant who presented it being ignorant of the plot, and died. Is this a successor of St. Peter? Raynald tries to hide the last scene, but nobody believes him. After Pius III. came Julius, who made a league to fight the Venetians, and then the French. The French king held a council at Tours, which held that the king could depose the Pope If armed for war he pronounced sentence against him, it had no force; the king should keep the decrees of Basil, and appeal to a general council. A council was attempted at Pisa, but came to nothing. Francis, King of France, and Leo, made it up. But the latter, desirous of finishing the great Church of St. Peter's, farmed out indulgences to the young gay Archbishop of Mentz, to whom bankers, of the name of Zugger, advanced the money, and they by Tetzel in Germany, and Sampson

in Switzerland, commuted sins by wholesale, and the building was completed. But the consciences of some could no longer bear the iniquity of Rome. Kings were glad to have power in their own kingdoms, saints to get free from the rule of such wickedness, and near half Europe broke with the Roman See. Conscience at Rome had sunk below the measure of what there was of it elsewhere; kings and people were weary of exactions and iniquity, and oppression, and the debauchery of the clergy, and God having raised up some men of faith, all were roused, and though horrible persecutions* and Jesuitical craft pushed back the effect in many places, yet a very large part of Europe remained separated from the Pope. The instructions to Tetzel are extant, promising pardon for anything at any time on confession. As to the actual course pursued, no one denies that it was shocking. The Jesuit Maimbourg (Hist. of Luther, 3rd edt., Paris, p. 9) admits that the agents made people believe that they were sure of their salvation (that is by getting these indulgences), and souls were delivered out of purgatory as soon as the money was paid* And as they saw the clerks of these same agents carousing in taverns on their profits, much indignation was created. Is this Christianity, or Apostolic Succession? Was Alexander VI. a successor of the holy Apostle to secure grace and faith to the Church? Was his illegitimate daughter, who managed the affairs of the Roman Court with the Cardinals in his absence, a successor of Peter?

Since then, the Popes, curtailed of universal dominion, have been more decent outwardly, though not less opposed to the truth, and harassing princes by their unlawful power over their subjects. But the succession has not been in question; all things are more decent since the Reformation.

Tames. I am thankful to you, sir, for having gone through all this long and sad history. It is wonderful how any Christian man can take such godless people to be the successors of the blessed Apostle. It is making Christianity a security for wickedness, and grace and faith identified with the worst of sin. We are to look for this grace when the most heinous wickedness abounds. That is not Christianity. It separates grace from real Christian life. Besides, I should be sorry to build my faith on being able to ascertain, and be sure of the succession of Popes when all is so intricate and uncertain, instead of the Word of God which one has oneself, and from God Himself. Peter's successors, too, cannot be more sure than Peter himself. As to Paul they do not seem to think of any successor for him, nor of the other Apostles. Yet Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, not Peter.

Bill Al. Well, I am shocked; who could have thought it? I see plain enough that all this cannot be the ground of my faith. They do not agree themselves about the succession. It cannot be brought down with any certainty; and it seems to me absurd to found one's faith on such a history, or make it the mark of the true Church. I do not believe. God would put a poor man, or any one, on such ground as this. And how silent Dr. Milner is about that dreadful Alexander VI.; yet he puts him in, I see, as the channel of grace. It seems it can be bought and sold. I am glad, I am sure, we have got the Scriptures. They, any way, are worthy of God, and a comfort to a man's heart, though they search it out. But there is one thing I am not clear about yet: why it is said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it? They seem to have done so.

N*. It was this Mr. o. would not listen to; and I said too I would touch upon it. That is said of what Christ builds, which is not finished yet. It grows unto a holy temple in the Lord. That Christ secures infallibly, and will have all the living stones built up on Him, the foundation, the living stone, a spiritual house, a holy priest hood, the dwelling place of God forever. But as built by man, however well done by the Apostles at first, it is another matter. There is no such promise, then, but the contrary; and the confounding of the two is one great source of the worst of abuse in the Roman and Ritualist systems.

R. I do not understand what you mean. Surely the Church of God was established on earth, and it was to that the promise was made.

N*. Undoubtedly. But there is a vast difference between Christ's building and man's building, between living stones coming by grace to the living stones built up a spiritual house, and man's building with wood and hay and stubble.

R. Are there two Churches then?

N*. No; Scripture does not so speak, but what is in the counsels of God, to be made perfect in due time by His power, in His own way, He always puts first into man's hands, as responsible. So it was with Adam's state of favor at first. The result, according to God's counsels, is in Christ, the second man, the last Adam. So it was with the law: first on tables of stone, then to be written on men's hearts. So the priesthood, so the royalty in Israel, so supremacy among the Gentiles. In all these was man's responsibility, and man failed; in all perfection is found, or will be in grace, and in the second man Christ. And so with the Church: it was set up right by God, but first entrusted to man's responsibility; in the end it will be set up by divine power, perfected as a holy temple to the Lord. Not a different Church, as built by Christ forever, but an external one, built by man in his responsibility, the other built by Christ to be the habitation and temple of God.

R. But this is a theory of your own, just to enable you to get rid of the plain promise of God to His Church.

N*. Nay; were it so it would be indeed worthless. I have only referred to the plain statements of Scripture; and the result even is declared as plainly, the removing by judgment of what has man for its builder; and further, that after the Apostles there was no security for its continuance in the order of God.

R. Let us hear what you have to say, for I never heard of such a thing.

James 1 should be very glad to hear it too; for I could not rightly understand about the Church, and what is said of it in Scripture.

N*. Well, in Matt. 16 we have the promise as to the Church; and a blessed one too. Simon had, through the revelation of the Father Himself, confessed the blessed Lord to be the Son of the living God. It was not that He was the Messiah, or the Christ, true as that was. In the next chapter, He forbids them to announce that, because He was going to suffer and to take another and a heavenly place, nor yet that He was Son of Man, a title He continually gave Himself, to our great comfort and joy, for we are men. His taking that too in its full display in glory was yet to come, and He had to suffer and accomplish redemption to take it according to the counsels of God, though we know He was it, and it was the name He loved to give Himself. Nay, more, none had as yet confessed Him in the full extent of the title He here gives Himself. Son of God and King of Israel, Nathanael had confessed Him according to Psa. 2 But the full expression of the living God, Son in the full power of divine life, this was what the Father now gave to Simon to know. This was proved in resurrection. He was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead. This was a wholly new place for man, and consequent upon the accomplishment of redemption. And this glorious truth, that Jesus was not only the Messiah, or Christ, but the Son of the living God, was the basis or rock on which He would build His Church. This was the real Church of God, built up by divine grace and power, built by Christ Himself-no stone in it not laid by Him, and all living stone. So we read in Peter's first epistle, " Unto whom coming, as unto a living stone, ye also, as lively (living) stones, are built up a spiritual house." Here there is no builder mentioned; Christ is a living stone, and they are living stones, and spiritual house. So in Eph. 2, there is no builder spoken of, but "in whom (Christ) all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." Here, again, we have no earthly builder, and the temple is not built; it grows to a holy temple in the Lord. This surely cannot fail. What Christ, the Son of the living God, builds, though not yet complete, the gates of hell, the power of him who has the power of death, shall never prevail against. But in 1 Cor. 3 we have human builders, and a temple or building which is then in existence. As a wise master-builder, Paul had laid the foundation; the work was well done; but here man's responsibility. comes in. Every man is to take heed how he builds 'thereon. Wood, hay, stubble may be built into the building, and the work come to nothing, though the builder be saved, yet so as by fire. And a third case is mentioned: one who corrupts the temple of God. Such God will destroy. We have a good man, and a good builder; he has his reward, the fruit of his labor: a good man, but a bad builder; his work is destroyed, though he is saved: and one who corrupts God's temple, and is himself destroyed. Now, in all this we have a temple whose state depends on builders or corrupters. The responsibility of man enters into the question, and the state of things depends on his faithfulness. Hence it may be badly built or corrupted. This cannot be where Christ builds. It is supposed, then, that it is possible that the Church, as subsisting here on earth, may be badly built, and the work destroyed or corrupted. The pretension, therefore, that this must always be preserved perfect against the craft and power of Satan is unfounded. What Christ builds will. This is confirmed as to the general state of the dispensation in the Lord's own teaching and the Apostle's. " Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord bath made ruler over his household to give them meat in due season" (Matt. 24:45). Now here the possibility is supposed of that servant set by the lord in this place of service being unfaithful, mixing with the world and usurping oppressive authority over the fellow-servants. Now, this is just what the clergy, and especially the

Roman hierarchy, have done: they have mixed with the ungodly world, and they have oppressed their fellow-servants.

The professing Church, and especially the teaching and ruling responsible body can be unfaithful and destroyed as hypocrites, and left to weeping and gnashing of teeth. Paul tells us that in the last days perilous times shall come, and then describes their state, adding, "having the form of godliness, but denying the power of it;" and desires us to turn away from such. Thus we know that the professing body, as a whole, will be ruined; that, instead of its being said, " the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved," he could only say, " the Lord knoweth them that are His." We read that an apostasy or falling away will come, and the man of sin be revealed. The parable of the tares and wheat tells the same tale, that the mischief that the devil did in the crop Christ had sown could not be remedied till the harvest came, that is, the judicial dealings of God. This did not hinder the wheat being in the garner, but it spoiled the crop in the field. As to the time this began, Paul says in the Philippians, " All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ;" Peter, that the time was " come for judgment to begin at the house of God;" John, that there were " many Antichrists, whereby they knew that it was the last time," for Antichrist is the mark which characterizes the last times. Jude pursues the development of this power of evil from his day, when false brethren had crept in, to the end of the times when they perish in their opposition. So far from looking for successors in the care of the Church, Paul tells the elders of Ephesus that he knows that after his decease grievous wolves would enter in and ravage the flock, and perverse men arise to turn away the disciples. He has no idea of a successor to his place, but warns the elders to watch, commending them to God and the word of His grace as the resource. Peter takes care by his epistle that they should keep what he told them in remembrance. Neither knows anything of a successor. Both refer to the elders already there. I find the practical ruin of the Church clearly stated, and no successor supposed by those most interested in it. The Lord Himself recognizes the difference between the care of human shepherds and its effect, and the security afforded by His own. In speaking of the security of His sheep, He says, " The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep; and the wolf cometh and seizeth the sheep, and scattereth them." But further on He says, " I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck (seize) them out of my hand."

R. But do you mean to say that the Church failed from the beginning?

N*. As entrusted to man. The apostles held their ground against encroaching evil; but the evil was there, and Paul tells us that it would break out after his departure. All that was already there. The warnings are most solemn in Jude, who reports its first inroad and progressive character. Paul tells us what the end would be in what was Antichristian and in judgment; John, that in principle it was already there; Peter, that the time was come for judgment. Hence we claim as a rule what was from the beginning, nothing after it being to be allowed as certainly good, though good may have remained in spite of the evil. And further, the principle of succession is a false one, denied by the apostles; and if I look to history, it becomes a security for the worst and most abominable evil.

R. But do you mean to say that there was no succession?

N*. Certainly, in the sense you mean it; though always a ministry of the word by the grace of God. Further, I find for the ordinary elders the apostles appointed them, or their delegates did. They were never chosen by the people, nor by the clergy, nor by men-invented cardinals. Your sources of ecclesiastical power have no foundation in Scripture.

R. But tradition is clear as to the bishops who succeeded in every place.

N*. I admit no authority of tradition in the things of God. But we have seen that it is not. Jerome tells us that there were no such local prelates at first; that they were merely chosen by human arrangement to prevent jealous disputes for primacy among the elders; hence, even in Rome prelacy is merely a matter of jurisdiction, nothing in order is above a priest. Others tell us that John quite late went about to establish them. And at Rome the real history is pretty apparent by the utter uncertainty as to the first three, or, as some say, four: but this we have gone through. For succession you have no Scripture ground, but the contrary; tradition is confused and uncertain, though the principle-the Church being already far departed from the Lord, which none dare question, for the apostle, nay the Lord Himself, says so—came in very early.

R. Well, I must leave you at present; I will call for Mr. D. on my way back.

D. I shall wait for you. But, Mr. N—, you set aside in the strongest way not only all tradition, but the whole ordained channel of blessing downwards.

.N*. I set aside nothing. We have been inquiring whether it really exists as you state, or whether there are not irreparable breaches in your channel. And mark, the essential character of the Great Shepherd is, that He has an untransmissible priesthood. He ever lives, and therefore can save to the uttermost them that come to God by Him. He secures His sheep, and will gather the wheat into His garner. And the word of God, the truth itself, and security for it, there can be no succession in; the grace that uses it must be individual.

James. That is what we have to trust in, and can surely trust in Christ and the word of God; and I remember, the apostle commended them to God and the word of His grace, when he expected not to see them again. He spoke of no successor.

Bill M I begin to see into it. There is a true Church of saints that the Lord builds, and which cannot fail, which is not finished yet; and a body formed on earth and put under man's care, and it is predicted it would be corrupted and ruined in its state, and we see that it was.

N*. Just as it happened to Adam, and to Noah, and to Israel, and to the priesthood, and to everything else trusted to man. Man spoiled all as entrusted to him, and indeed it was the very first thing that happened, and all is made good in Christ the last man.

Bill M. But then it makes a trying time for simple people.

N*. The Apostle speaks of perilous times, or, as the Rhenish testament has it, " dangerous." But the Scriptures have predicted it so as to confirm our faith when we find ourselves there. The Scriptures give the fullest directions for them, and the Lord, who ever lives, is able to secure us in one time as in another, and we have His promise.

James. That is sure, and, I believe, if we hold to Scripture, and lean on Him, and cleave to Him, the danger only makes us feel so much the more how sweet it is to have His help, and how faithful He is.

N*. None shall pluck them out of His hand.

Bill M. I am satisfied as to the truth of this. The word of God is a wonderful thing; how it makes all things clear, and suffices for all times. They say one is not able to understand it. Well, I have not much knowledge in it, but I think it gives understanding more than requires it.

N*. That is just it, through grace.

Bill M. But what do you say to this, Mr. D.?

D. I think it very dangerous ground to set up one's own judgment against the Church of God.

Bill M. But I do not set up my judgment at all about the matter. I submit to what the Apostles Paul and Peter and John have said, and the Lord Himself. That cannot be false ground. But, begging your pardon, sir, you know we have been looking for the true Church; which is it?

D. We desire its reunion; but there is the Roman Catholic, and the Greek, and the Anglican, besides schismatical bodies.

Bill M. But these are all opposed to each other; that I know as to the Roman Catholic and the English, for they tried to get me out of it, because it was all wrong,. and I was like to be damned if I stayed; and did get me out of it, because it was not the true one. And the Greeks, as I learn, condemn them, and they the Greeks so that I have no surety there, at any rate. Scripture you all own to be of God, but these bodies utterly condemn one another, and how is a poor man to know which is the true Church?

D. He should stay where he has been baptized: that all own.

N*. No, sir, excuse me, Dr. Milner says your baptism is so uncertain that it cannot be trusted, and they baptize them over again, when you have done it already,

D. That is very wrong.

Bill M. But they say it is very right. How could I tell if I or my children had been rightly baptized? Which of you can I trust? And they told me I must on no account stay where I was baptized; I was outside the only true church.

D. Well, I do not deny the disunion is very sad. We pray, and have a society to pray for the union of ally that there may be no such sad division.

Bill M. Do you. pray that the Scripture may be right?

D. Of course not.

Bill M. Does Mr. R.?

D. I suppose not. All Catholics hold the Scriptures are inspired of God.

Bill M. Then I had rather trust it that is surely right, than you that confessedly, some or all of you, are wrong. Besides, I have learned a great deal I never knew before. They hide the truth; I find I cannot trust what they say. Who would have thought, with Dr. Milner's fine words, there was such a history as there is behind it?

D. Well, I cannot give up my confidence in the Church of God.

Bill M. Are you sure you are of it?

D. Well, there are many things I am not satisfied with. We have departed from many Church truths, and we shall never be right till we return to them and unity.

Bill M. Are you satisfied with Rome?.

D. I deplore the spirit that will not own us, and I have some difficulties about the worship of the Virgin Mary to the extent they carry it to; but if they would. leave us free on these points, unity would soon be re-established. We own their orders and sacramental grace.

Bill M. And do they own yours? Dr. Milner says they cannot; that you have no grace at all, but a very doubtful baptism. It was all this shook me when I was among you. Now I see God can work in grace in a man's heart by the word, though I am far from being what I feel I ought to be.

D. Well, they ought to own them. If you have attended to what Mr. N*. has been going through, you might have seen that we in England have escaped from all the uncertainty occasioned by the great schism.

Bill M. But Dr. Milner says your orders cannot be proved; that they cannot be proved in the time of Queen Elizabeth; that somebody who consecrated the Archbishop had never been consecrated.

D. I think it can be proved, or that at least it is highly probable he was; at any rate the one who assisted the Suffragan of? Thetford was.

Bill M. Is that all I have to rest my hopes of salvation on? I had rather have the Scriptures and the grace of Him that died for me. Very glad to learn from any minister; but when you, gentlemen, give it me as the ground and security of salvation, I find you all disown and condemn one another, and that there is nothing certain for a soul to rest upon. I do not find that in the word of God. It is sure, though it condemns me in many things. But here is Mr. R., returned.

R. I am come to look for you, Mr. D.

N*. We have just done. We have been speaking with Mr. D. on the differences between the Roman and Anglican systems, after closing our survey of the Popes' succession. You spoke, when here before, of the common judgment of those who had Catholic principles alike condemning what you call our rashness who rest in Scripture. Now our friend Bill M. finds more uncertainty in your discord than sure ground for his soul to build upon. He judges, that as your friends took pains to get him away from the Anglican body that he might have his salvation assured, you must think them entirely wrong.

R. Of course they are wrong in not being united to the sole head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, besides other points on which they would get clear when once they accepted Catholic Unity. Having got the Church's authority they would get the Church's truth.

N*. We are on the search for the true Church. But I understand your principle, one held by all Roman Catholics, when once the Church's infallible authority is admitted, whatever she teaches is to be believed implicitly, though a person does not in fact believe really any one of the things taught. So Mr. Newman puts it as to himself, that, when he joined the Roman Catholic body, he did not hold as true what it taught as vital truth. So Dr. Milner says, every Catholic will say, I believe all that the Church teaches, though he does not know what it is. This is no faith in the truth, for such an one has not even heard what it. is. In the word of God I have not only divine authority but the truth itself. It is not a body competent to teach, but a revelation of the truth. Hence, though I go on learning, I have not implicit but explicit faith. I believe what I find there; I do not believe the Church teaches. The Apostles and others appointed to it by God's gifts and grace taught or may now teach the Church; but let that pass now: who is this sole true head of the Church?

R. The Pope.

N*. If he then be the sole head, there is no other. R. There can be but one, and of course therefore no other.

1V*. Then Christ is not the head, of the Church at all.

R. Nay, He is the head in heaven, but the Pope is the head on earth, His vicar.

N*. Then are there two heads, one in heaven and one on earth. Now I know no head but Christ, and could not own any other. The Spirit of God has in a certain sense replaced Him as the Comforter; but there is one only head, that of the Church as a body, and that is the way head is spoken of. "He gave him to be head over all things to the Church, which is his body," and this being the scriptural sense of the head and the body, Christ alone in glory can be it. It would be simply a blasphemy to call the Pope the head of Christ's body. There is only one unchangeable living head, the source of grace, that nourishes and cherishes it as a man does his own flesh, " for we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones." To apply this to the Pope would be as absurd as it would be wicked. We should have a different head, and perhaps a wicked one, every few years.

R. Christ alone of course can be the heavenly head.

But the Pope is the head of the Church on earth.

N*. But Christ is the head and source of grace to the

members of His own body united to Him by the Holy

Ghost. No one can be thus united to the Pope.

R. But the Pope represents Him on earth.

N*. But he cannot be the head of the body as the scripture speaks of it. We are members of Christ. We cannot be members of the Pope.

R. But he has the rule and authority down here as representing Christ. I do not understand your mysticism about members of Christ.

N*. What you call mystical is distinctly taught in the Cathecism of the Council of Trent (Cap. ii. 52, De Bapt.), only it is ascribed to baptism. Now the children or others are clearly not made members of the Pope, and the Pope is not at all head of the Church as scripture speaks of it. You have made a mere earthly thing of the Church, a great tree (to use the scripture figure), and set the Pope the chief and now infallible ruler in it, of which the scripture knows nothing. It does know a great fallible system in earth on which judgment will come. But that is figured by a house, or the state of a kingdom, not by a body and a head. I say then Christ is the head of the true Church which I own and bless God for; the Pope the head of yours But allow me to ask you, as you are both here, for clearing the ground for our two friends whose minds have been occupied with these questions, -you believe that transubstantiation is an essential doctrine of the Church?

R. Most assuredly; we should have no sacrifice without it; no priesthood, which supposes a sacrifice. In a word, the whole edifice of true worship would fall to the ground.

N*. But what does Mr. D. say to this?

D. I have no objection. I believe the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed there.

W*. But what does your Church say?

D. I am only bound to believe its teaching in a general way.

N*. Well now. It is stated in the Articles that Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of the Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. Now, Mr. R., what do you say to this?

R. I reject it as evidently heretical and false.

D. As a scholastic account of the manner of the change we are not bound to it, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent advises also that it should not be curiously searched into.

N*. Be it so; but saying that it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture is not curiously searching into anything, and saying you are bound generally may do to leave a wide margin to make conscience easy, but cannot reconcile its being an essential article of faith and being repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. So your Church says " the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and adoration as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a forced thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God." So in the XXXI. Article you own," Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." Now I know that some of those seeking the union of churches say it refers to what was commonly said, and that it speaks of Masses, not of the Mass. But two Masses are not said at once, and excusing oneself by saying it was only what was commonly said which was condemned, is miserable subterfuge, because the same thing is explicitly stated in the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. c. 2). What Mr. R. holds to be essential truth and the essence of his worship,. anathematizing all who do not hold it (C. of T. XVII., Canon 3), you declare to be blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. You stand anathematized by Mr. R., and then come to preach to us unity and Catholicity. This does not quite hold water.

Bill M. It is true though, and the Mass is what was made the most of with me.

'D. But I hold it is a sacrifice only commemorative.

N*. You profess to hold, generally if you like, that what Mr. R. holds to be the highest divine worship is a blasphemous fable. What he would do to bring people out of purgatory or help'them there, you, as far as the act goes, consider would lead people to hell; for I suppose blasphemous fables must do that.

D. But if once the Church was one, these things would be easily settled.

N*. Well, then, by your own showing it is not one; so according to your ideas, and Mr. R. says your common ideas, there is no true Church such as you point it out by its marks. Unity and Catholicity both fail, and what kind of unity is it when you begin by uniting with blasphemers? That is a strange kind of union. It has always struck me how Roman Catholics, and all who tend that way, are indifferent to truth. Now the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With you blasphemies are no matter.

D. I wish the expressions were away.

N*. That I understand, but that would be simply your going over to what you now profess to believe to be blasphemy.

D. But I do not believe it to be so.

N*. This is a strange thing. You have professed to believe it, and have your present position by having done so. We must have the truth of God, " whom I love In the truth, and for the truth's sake."

R. But where shall we find truth, if not in the Church?

N*. That is Pilate's question. I answer, in the revealed word of God; His word is truth, and by grace you will find it there. As I have already said, what you call trusting the Church is simply unbelief. He that has received Christ's testimony has set to his seal that God is true, and we have the Apostle's declaration, " He that is of God heareth us."

D. Well, I suppose, Mr. R. I am keeping you, and our continuing our conversation can profit little.

R. Well, I should like to talk a little with Mr. N*. on the sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. He takes the questions up boldly I see, and on this point I do not see how he can answer, even on his own ground of Scripture, which tells us of a pure offering that was everywhere to be offered. But now. I must go.

N*. I shall be very glad to speak with you on it. For the present then good evening, gentlemen. We will meet the day that suits you.

R. And our good friend here will let us come to his house again.

James. Surely, sir. I 'shall be glad to see you, and happy to hear about it.

D. Will to-morrow suit you?

James. Any day, sir.

D. And you, Mr. N.?

N*. I will.

D. Let it be to-morrow then. Good evening all-good evening, gentlemen.

Bill M. Well, I shall be glad to hear about that. I see one thing, that what they call the Church is all fallen and gone away from what it was, and their pretended unity with some of the clergy is all hollow. They are only going away just as I was, only not so simply, for any way I was straightforward, only I knew nothing.

James. But how can people be so deceived as to think of offering Christ in sacrifice now? Why, then His work is not finished, though He says it is. He cannot die upon the cross again. He cannot shed His blood again, and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I cannot think how they can speak of such a thing. It is not then a finished work!

N*. It is very simple when once we know what redemption is, and that blessed work which Christ has done. But they do not know this at all ' and we must remember, James, that neither you nor I knew it at one time, and when one does not, it is easy to be in difficulties and perplexities. We are not what we ought to be, and look, for something to get us out of the uneasiness, and are easily seduced by what seems to offer a resource. The evil is that in this case the' enemy has made a system of it, and so denied really not the fact, but the efficacy of Christ's offering.

Bill M. Well, it is just the point I should like to be clear upon.

James. What you say, sir, is true. I see the impossibility of it; but it is not long ago it would have been a snare to myself. How precious a thing is faith! But I feel. I ought to be more humble about it, and thankful for the grace that has delivered me.

N*. Thankful, indeed, we ought to be. And you, M., you see just what you want, you want still the knowledge of an accomplished redemption, and that, being justified by faith, we have peace with God. But He will graciously help you on, I fully trust. But now I must say good evening till to-morrow. I am never surprised that any one who does not know redemption should be ensnared by Romanism.

James and M. Good evening, sir.

Mrs. James. Well, James, I am sure we have to be very thankful for the grace that has given us peace. It is a great thing to cry Abba, Father, and know one is reconciled to God. And all through grace. All is simple and clear then. How thankful I am. But who would have thought of all this wickedness, and that the Church of God could have come to this. I did not hear it all, but I heard enough. I never thought that what God set up so beautiful had sunk so low. But He warned us of it. But how it shows what man is. The Lord graciously keep us near Him.

Bill M. Well, it is shocking to think, but what I am thinking of most is how they deceive us. Though as Mr. N*. said, I do not know redemption clear yet for myself, but it is not in that unholy place Rome, but on the cross of the blessed Savior, I believe.

James. God will lead you on, and give you rest, Bill. The work is all done, and you will find peace through it yet. Good-night.

Bill M. Good-night both.

N. GOOD-EVENING all.

James. Pray sit down, gentlemen.

N. Well, we are here again to pursue our inquiry into the subject we had arrived at, and examine whether the doctrine of the Romish creed can be held to be the truth. I suppose we may at once enter on the point which it was understood we should speak of-transubstantiation. Perhaps the best way, if our friends agree to it, would be to state from unquestionable Roman Catholic authorities, what the doctrine maintained by them is.

Mr. R. We could not pursue a better method. We can then follow out the proofs and testimony on which it is based, though the plain words of scripture are the strongest, and it seems to rti, conclusive.

N. Well, we cannot take better authority than the Council of Trent to begin with. " But since Christ our Redeemer said that that which He offered under the form of bread, was truly His body, it has therefore been ever the persuasion of the church, and this holy Synod now anew declares, that, by the consecration of [the] bread and wine, conversion of the whole substance into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord takes place, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. Which conversion is conveniently and properly called, by the holy Catholic church, transubstantiation." (Sess. XII., c. iv.)

That we may complete this account I may add the Canons I. and II. of the same Session XII.

CANON 1.

" If any one shall have denied that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently, a whole Christ; but shall have said that they only are in it as in a sign, or figure, or virtue, let him be anathema."

CANON 2.

" If any shall have said that in the very sacred sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall have denied that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of wine into blood, the forms of bread and wine only remaining; which conversion indeed the Catholic church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema."

CANON 3.

" If any shall have denied that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each form, and under every part of each form, when separation is made, a whole Christ is contained, let him be anathema."

Canon VI. declares it is to be adored with divine worship.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, which explains and enlarges on it, is even more precise. (Part ii. c. 4, Sec. 33.) Not only the true body of Christ, and whatever belongs to the true body, as bones and nerves, but also a whole Christ is contained in the sacrament. It is then added, that, by the words of consecration, the bread becomes the body, and the wine the blood.; but that, by concomitance the blood, soul and divinity, will be with the body in the bread and so conversely of the wine (see 34). What I have now cited gives the doctrines to us on the highest authority, clearly enough. Any reasons of Bellarmine or others we can take up when needed.

R. This is quite sufficient for us as a statement of it.

N. Well, I affirm all this to be adelusion and a fallacy.

R. That is strong language, Mr. N.; when so many Fathers and holy men have received and taught it, and when it is the common faith of the church in all ages. What you have to meet is the plain statement of scripture, "This is my body"-words so definite that your own Luther could not get over them.

N. We will take the statements of scripture up first then. That it was always the persuasion of the church I wholly deny. That superstition and very high-flown statements are found in the Fathers as to what we receive, I freely admit. But not only was it not the uniform persuasion of the church, but the best known and most esteemed Fathers taught expressly the contrary, and it was not authoritatively established as a dogma in the West, for centuries; and, though gradually dropped into as a general persuasion after John Damascene, never in the Greek church as a body. This we will examine; but before we turn to the Fathers, we will turn to the scriptures themselves, " This is my body," and chapter vi. of John's Gospel.

Allow me however to say that every Christian acknowledges the great and blessed privilege granted to us in the institution of the Lord's supper-that feeding on Him, though not there only, is the very way of life to the soul. Nor is there anything more touching, than that He, the blessed Savior, should care that we should remember Him, and should even desire with desire to eat the last Paschal supper with His disciples before He suffered. This is not the question; but whether the bread and wine are physically changed into the body and blood of Christ, so that there is no bread and wine there at all; but that Christ, a whole Christ, and that expressed in a profane way, His bones and nerves, alone is there. They admit that it is called bread after consecration, and seek to account for it, saying it is so called, because it has the appearance of it; as when Abraham saw the three men who really were angels. And that it still retains the quality natural to bread, that of supporting and nourishing the body.

R. But where do you find that admitted?

N. In Part II., Section 40 of the catechism of the Council of Trent. The difficulty really is of answering what has no solid ground at all. They admit that "the exposition of this mystery is most difficult.". At any rate, it is such that " the whole substance of the bread is changed by the power of God into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of the blood of Christ, without any change in our Lord" (41). Before we examine the positive statement of scripture,. which really presents no difficulty whatever, there are some difficulties on the Roman Catholic view of it, I should like to present to you. The pouring out the wine into the cup, is, you say, a kind of figure of Christ's shedding His blood. In Sec. 76 on the Eucharist too, the catechism of the Council of Trent declares that it is the same sacrifice with that of the cross. At any rate the essence of the doctrine we are treating is that the blood of Christ is really there, the wine being changed into it in the cup, and by concomitance the body, which is under the form of bread, also. First, it is inconsistent (and grossly so) to say it is in His body, and shed out of His body too; I have already remarked that if it is in the body, not shed, there is no redemption. Satan has mocked you with a sacrifice of non-redemption. But I go further: Did not Christ shed his blood on the cross for us?

R. Surely, it was a bloody sacrifice.

N. And now He is entered into glory, though, thank God, and wondrous truth it is, still a man,

and there according to the efficacy and power of His precious blood. But He is not there in His

body and unshed blood in the state in which He lived on earth..

R. No; He has a spiritual and glorious body and dieth no more. His blood has been shed, and if we

speak of His entering in, not without blood, it is as shed upon the cross.

N. But then, how can we have the body, blood, soul and divinity all in one true present person? By the cup it celebrates His blood being shed. It is the very basis of our hopes. There is then no such whole living Christ, as the One into whom you profess to change the bread, and indeed the wine by concomitance too. Change to the cup, it is a contradiction, for it is there professedly as shed, to spew it is, and yet it is in the body all the time. But there is no such Christ now, as a Christ living in flesh and unshed blood: He is glorified in heaven. The Eucharist or Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the cross: that of course (sacramentally if you please) includes shedding of blood of a Christ who first offers Himself alive to God down here:. and such you make the bread by consecration. But there is no such Christ; I do not mean merely that you do. not put Christ to death now but there is no Christ now who is such as. could die, and shed His blood. He is actually, livingly, in a state in which He cannot be offered in sacrifice. The Christ 'which is now, though the same blessed Person, as to His state cannot be a Christ on the cross,. nor die same sacrifice offered, nor a Christ living in flesh and blood on the earth, capable of being sacramentally or otherwise, so offered. A. glorified Christ cannot be a Christ living on earth capable of dying, nor a Christ offered as a victim of propitiation by blood-shedding. You cannot in truth, life, or reality bring Rim back into this condition in any sense. He is not now a Christ who can be sacrificed. If you transubstantiate the bread into the Christ that is now, He cannot be a sacrifice, nor one shedding blood, nor flesh and blood as He was: hence not the same sacrifice. You cannot either make Him again what He was on the cross. No such Christ can or ever will, exist.

Is He in the Mass an existing Christ, glorified?

R. No; we hold it is sacramentally His body broken, and blood shed, the sacrifice of the Mass.

.N. Then it is no true Christ. There is none such now. Can He be now truly, really, and substantially the dying Christ on the cross?

R. Well, Christ is now in glory, He cannot die, or be as He was on the cross.

N. Then you have no Christ in the Eucharist; not a glorified one, for it is His death and blood-shedding which is there set before us, as we all know. Not a dying One on the cross, or the blood yet unshed in the body, for there is no such Christ now. Transubstantiation is a wicked fable, as Mr. D. once owned it. It is neither a glorified, nor a dying Christ, truly really and substantially. It is no Christ at all.

Bill M. Well, Mr. R., which do you think it is? for I do not think it can be Christ as He is now in glory, if we think of the cross, because. He is not there now; nor such as He was then, and surely it is not a Christ glorified that we have set before us in the Mass, but the sacrifice of Christ. But that cannot be now. I do understand doing it in remembrance, but I cannot see how it can be a glorified Christ, if it be a sacrifice, nor how a Christ as He was on the cross can be really and truly there, for there is none such now. I begin to see into it more clearly than I did.

N. You have lost a glorified Christ, for He cannot be in any sense a sacrifice again, and a crucified one you cannot have, for there is none such now; and in -fact you have lost both.

D. But what then is taught and given to us there?

N. I have all Christ's institution, and a most blessed one too. That which we do, as told us to do in remembrance of Him, and find grace and refreshment, comfort and sanctifying power from Himself in doing it, to say nothing of the deep thanksgiving and deeper • affections it awakens in us. I hold it to be as to institutions, the highest privilege. That is not the question, but this conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, His soul and divinity being there, and as I quoted, and the catechism of the Council of Trent says, His bones and nerves.

D. But all the holy Fathers teach it.

N. I am not concerned in what they teach, but they do nothing of the kind. I do not justify what they say, for the grossest superstition and immorality and heresy is found in them, but they do not teach that. The very doctrine of substance and accidents is scholastic Aristotelism. The system of seven sacraments is from Lombard. In the tenth century it was largely discussed, the greatest doctors denying it, and was never settled as a church dogma till 1215, by the same Pope and council that established the Inquisition, at the time the papacy was in its highest pitch of power, in fact governed the world, and all was in a state of infamous corruption, as we have seen. There is another thing which curiously points out how, when the Canon of the Mass was framed, I suppose substantially in the seventh century, there was no such thought. In consecrating the cup, following, I apprehend, the Vulgate, it reads in reciting Christ's words at the institution, "which shall be poured out." That is, it makes Christ not institute a sacrifice or offer Himself at the institution of the Eucharist, but declare that He was going to be sacrificed and His blood shed on the cross. Strange to say, the Canon of the Mass is a positive denial of the pretended sacrifice in the Eucharist. Christ speaks of it as a thing to take place afterward, not as anything then accomplished in any sense. It is effundetur,' not ‘effunditur.

D. But in the Greek it is not so, it is τὸ ἐκχννόμενον.

N. That merely gives it its character, for it certainly in f'act was not poured out yet, and confirms really the general idea. It is the poured out blood which is represented there, and as we have said no such Christ (that is Christ in such state as dead upon the cross, his blood poured out), exists now, while the true spiritual commemoration of it is most precious. But it is not the question, what is in the Greek. First, the Vulgate is the authentic Bible of the Roman Catholics, not the Greek; and, secondly, I am not yet inquiring what the truth of the institution is in itself, but showing that the very Canon of the Mass treats it as no actual offering, but representing what was yet to be accomplished, saying not, " my blood poured out;" but " my blood which shall be poured out."

R. It is curious it should be so put, and the fact is unquestionable. The fact too that the living glorified Christ cannot be sacrificed, and that if it be now a real living true Christ, it must be a glorified One, perplexes me, but I fear reasoning bout it. The blessings and benefits of it are more pressed upon us than its nature.

N. I understand that. The pastor is directed in the catechism of the Council of Trent so to do, except with more mature members of his church. Nor would. I deny that in receiving, however false the whole thing is, pious souls may think for themselves of the true sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, though not with intelligence. But if the service itself is false, it is a very serious, thing. Your worship is all false, though it may be ignorantly so. If you have a true Christ, body, soul, and divinity there, the only true One is in glory, and cannot be a sacrifice at all: He cannot now in thought or sacramentally be a sacrifice. If it is what was on the cross, there is.no such Christ in existence. And remember I am not now reasoning against the sacrifice of the Mass of which we have spoken; but you cannot convert the bread and wine into a true, real living Christ as now in this world and crucified when none such exists, nor into a dead one, for there is none such now. If into a glorious One, He is not in a condition to be a sacrifice. A commemoration of it, done in remembrance of Him, showing forth His death till He come, that we can all understand, and wonderful grace too, that the Lord can care for such poor creatures remembering

Him.

James. It is so indeed, wonderful grace. It seems all plain to me.

Bill M. I see it cannot be a real living Christ there, and it is hard to think that the priest should make Christ out of a piece of bread; but the passage, " This is my body," what do you make, sir, of that?

D. I was just going to ask the same question, and there are other passages as "the communion of the body of Christ," and John 6; the unworthy eaters being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And why should we cast a doubt on the omnipotency of God?

.N. It is not a question of God's omnipotency,

which, in the true sense of it, no Christian denies. But God has revealed His ways of dealing and acts in grace and truth according to those ways. Thus, working by the Lord Himself or by His followers to confirm the blessed word of His grace, He gave miracles, sensible signs, works of power which all men could see and multitudes did see, so as to accredit those who announced the truth. The miracle was a plain proof of the senses to confirm the testimony. But here the alleged miracle, which is not the revelation of any new truth, is the thing we are called upon to believe; not only with no testimony to it, but with the fullest testimony against it in every possible way, to sight, taste, touch and smell, and even, as is admitted, nourishing powers, it is and remains bread and wine, can be eaten by an animal, decay, become corrupt, nay, we learn from Corinthians could make people drunk, in a word in every way contradicts the alleged miracle, the very idea of which is founded on a heathen philosophical system of substance and accidents adopted by the schoolmen in the middle acres never dreamed of in the early church, and a chimזra without any real foundation, a mere philosophical thing without proof. Some hidden essence clothed in various appearances, which essence was the substance of bread, while all we can see, taste, or feel, are accidents; the substance becomes, they say, Christ, and these accidents remain. Nor is Christ brought down from above, for then, they say, there would be a change of place (Cat. Council of Trent, Such. Part ii. 37 and 44), and space would be in question which, though they speak of a true body, bones and nerves, is not they admit, tenable. It is a creation of Christ there taking the place of what was bread in this philosophical idea of abstract substance.

And if Christ does not change His place and come there it must be a creation of His soul too or changing, if they prefer it, the bread into His soul. And is it then the same soul? If it be His soul as in glory, He does not change His place; if not, is it another? Is it His soul, if He has not changed His place? I am called upon, not to believe a divine truth helped by the confirmation of visible works of power addressed to my senses, but a contradiction and a philosophical fancy in admitted contradiction to the evidence of my senses. This is not what scripture calls a miracle. What is the truth I learn there? Christ's sacrifice is a truth already revealed, only with a declaration that it cannot be repeated. There is no revelation of any truth in transubstantiation, and no proof of it; but every proof which God does use in miracles contradicting it. And the thing itself, a repetition of Christ's sacrifice forbidden to the believer by the word of God. It is the contrary to a miracle, and a mere fable. Your appeal to the omnipotence of God, which no one denies-though what is contrary to truth, to what He has revealed, to Himself, He cannot do-is only throwing dust in peoples' eyes, the wiles of the enemy. The question is what has He done, not what He can do, of which indeed we are no judges, morally speaking. For I repeat He can do nothing inconsistent with Himself or His wisdom. God, it is said, who cannot lie: and of His wisdom we are no competent judges, knowing it only as it is revealed in Christ. Further we know divine truth only as it is revealed. The question is: Has He revealed that in the Lord's supper He has, and that the priests can turn bread into the body, blood, and soul, and divinity of Christ, as our poor Irish friends say, "make God"? It is really a monstrous supposition, without any truth revealed in it, or any testimony to it. But we will examine what scripture says. All the direct testimony for it is: " This is my body," and " This is my blood" of the New Testament, " which is," or as you say " which shall be shed for you and for many." Now in ordinary language, nobody would dream of such a use of the words as would make it a change of the bread into the body. Supposing there were two pictures, and I were to say, " That is my mother, and that her sister," who would dream that the pictures were transubstantiated into my mother and aunt?

D. Yes, but you have no power to do it, and the Lord had.

IV*. I do not pretend to the power, nor raise any question as to what the Lord could do. The question is as to the force of the words He used, not His power. Such words are used every day without a thought of what is called by the name of a thing being the thing itself or changed into it. Nothing is commoner in the use of language. No one would think when the object named was not already actually materially what was named, that it meant anything but a representation of it. Nor would such a thought as transubstantiation enter into anybody's head when such language is used. When the thing named is there, it states the fact, as, " That is my mother," when she is present; but it never means " is changed into." And it is actually certain that in the other part of the Eucharist the Lord does so speak according to usual language, not meaning any change. " This cup is the New Testament in my blood." No person dreams that the cup was changed into the New Testament. That is, the Lord uses the usual language of men in such cases. It is a fact that He does so, and they are, though insisting on the literal words, obliged to change them to make them answer: that is what the cup contains, not what is literally said; but even so the blood is not the New Testament, and another gospel gives it differently: " This is my blood of the New Testament," showing that there is no thought of a literal application of the words. And note, in the Mass, the words used are, " This is the cup of my blood of the new and eternal covenant"-words, remark, never used by Christ at all; so that insisting on their literal accomplishment, because of His saying it, has no ground at all. Besides literally they cannot be used, as is admitted, if they were spoken by Him, because the cup itself is spoken of, not the wine, so that it is necessarily figurative, proving that all the Lord said, so far as the words are the Lord's, He spoke figuratively (just as we ever speak in such cases); for to say He spoke figuratively as to the wine, where they are forced to admit it, and not as to the bread, is absurd. But further as to the bread. It must be remembered Christ was sitting there with His disciples and held the bread in His hands, gave thanks and broke it. Were there two Christs, two bodies, in one of which He sat, the other which He Himself broke? I am aware that Augustine says we are to believe in a certain way Christ held Himself in His own hands. If it was literally, truly, and substantially there were two Christs. God may be said to be everywhere; but were His body and blood and soul, for these are personal and individual, in the loaf as well as in Himself? Besides you now pretend, it is a glorified Christ, for there is no other living Christ now, but Christ was not glorified then. Was it one Christ, unglorified, sitting at table, and another glorified He held in His hand? But you say too it is the same sacrifice as the cross. But Christ was sitting at the table, and there was then no sacrifice on the cross at all, and so your own Mass puts it, "it shall be shed;" really it is " which is shed" (not that it was yet, but that it was the figure of it as so shed, was given to them in that character), but it was not so shed yet, showing it was a figure. It was given to them as a memorial, and a figure; there was no sacrifice as yet, no blood shed. Christ was there a living Christ, not yet sacrificed, not yet of course risen and glorified. That He should institute it as a memorial before He went, as He says, " Do this in remembrance of Me:" we can easily understand, but the elements could not be really and substantially a sacrificed Christ, for He was sitting there not sacrificed, His blood not shed. The notion of the Mass contradicts all the facts; all Christ said, all He did, and all He was. Is it not, Mr. R., the sacrifice of Christ we have in the Mass, the same as on the cross?

R. Surely, so we are taught.

N*. Was Christ sitting at the table such?

R. No, not yet. He was just on the point of being offered a sacrifice.

N*. Then how could " This is my body;" constitute Him a sacrifice.

R. We hold it changed the substance of bread into His body.

N*. Glorified?

R. No, He was not yet glorified.

N*. Sacrificed?

R. No, He was not yet sacrificed on the cross.

N*. But the cup was His blood poured out, was it not? R. Yes.

N*. Then that part of it was as sacrificed on the cross.

R. Well, it was poured out in a figure.

N*. It certainly was not yet poured out in fact. Nay, your Mass says, " shall be shed." But we have now touched the truth of the matter. It is a figure and the bread a figure. You must make the two parts answer to one another, the blood shed, the body offered. But the Christ sitting at the table was not that;. that is, it was not Himself. St. Augustine may talk of holding Himself in His own hand. If it be a mere figure and manner of speaking it is all very well, but He could not really hold Himself, and while alive on earth hold Himself as offered on the cross, and His blood poured out. And what He did, He told His disciples to do. If He did what represented Himself crucified, such He commanded them to do. The blood was shed blood, the body an offered body, and that Christ was not really. It was so as taking the place of the passover by a better redemption; Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. And so Israel was to say: " It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover," the memorial of a deliverance which had been wrought long ago; then a real sacrifice, repeated yearly: with us repetition is forbidden as denying the perfectness of Christ's once for all; but a blessed memorial which Christ Himself instituted of that which was fully accomplished on the cross.

But it is perfectly clear that the living unsacrificed Lord could not hold Himself in His own hand as crucified or glorified. The true living Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, could not be truly and substantially in what is the same sacrifice as the cross, for He was there at the table, His body not offered, His blood not shed.

Bill M. But surely, Mr. R., you do not think the Lord held Himself in His own hand, and that with His blood shed out of His body too? I begin to see it is all an invention of men, or of the enemy, and a wicked one, to destroy simple faith in the one true offering of Christ upon the cross once for all.

R. Well, I am not prepared to solve the difficulties Mr. N. has raised: they had never been before my mind. I took it all piously I trust, for granted, and the grosser material part of it did not arrest my mind.

D. And surely it is much better so to take it. It was just the way the Jews were offended when the Lord spoke of eating His flesh, and drinking His blood.

R. I cannot quite see with you in that, Mr. D., because if it is false it is a very grave error, and what is false about the Lord especially cannot sanctify, and by error we always lose some truth which it displaces. I see this far with our friend M., that the abiding and unchanging efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice, which it is said, cannot be offered often, is in question in it, and it is this which makes it grave for me.

D. But I would not deny the efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice. The Mass, as you know, is held, is that same sacrifice, and the church by the Eucharist applies the benefit of it.

R. This does not satisfy me, because Christ upon this system does offer. Himself often. It is not the church's applying it merely; that, as far as I see at present, would not trouble me, but we are taught that Christ. offers Himself there, and for the living and dead, where there is no sacramental application. It is a truly propitiatory work. Can that be done now when Christ is in glory, and Christ be often offered? I begin to fear I am not in the truth, and I desire to be, and yet I am afraid too to be led away. But we have got back, Mr. N., to the sacrifice of the Mass.

.N*. Never mind that, Mr. R.; as you said before, the subjects run into one another so much that it is hard to separate them, for transubstantiation is the very basis of the Mass, as is evident.

R. Perhaps you would take up the scriptures '. we may look into the Fathers afterward. I cannot call to mind any answers in our writers to the objections you have raised, but they quote other scriptures. Milner

attacks the established church and others for their inconsistency, but otherwise merely refers to the passages we are examining and turns to the Fathers.

N*. Milner takes care not to quote the Canon of the Mass: " This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant!" He quotes Matthew and Mark, saying, " This is my blood of the New Testament," which is not in the Canon, and adds, " Luke is nearly the same." Otherwise be has no proofs at all, only he avoids the Canon of the Mass which shows the absurdity of taking it literally. Bellarmine really gives little else than a few words on John 6 to which we will refer.

But allow me to state what is the real truth as to this doctrine, before I examine the scriptural statements in order to show negatively that it is not taught there. The doctrine of transubstantiation is simply the fruit of the scholastic use of Aristotle in the middle ages. It depends, on the face of it, on the difference of substance and accidents. The substance of bread is changed into the substance of the Lord's body, the accidents of bread remain. Without this theory, the idea could not exist. But this theory of a particular substance and accidents was a mere metaphysical theory, without any real foundation. We have got nowadays to molecules and atoms infinitely minute, which may be called perhaps substance or essential matter; but all this Aristotelian theory of an imaginary substance and accidents in material objects, is a mere groundless fancy. We see different qualities which awaken sensations in us; color, form, hardness, &c., and the mind recognizes there is something there. Of this conviction, which in relation to us creatures I do not dispute, Aristotle and the schoolmen, who were as a rule wholly under his influence, made a distinct but imaginary substratum in which the various qualities were inherent. There was the substance of bread, &c. But this was a mere philosophical notion, a mere theory of the heathen Aristotelian school, adopted by the schoolmen, and has no other foundation whatever. But the whole doctrine of transubstantiation, and even the word, depends on it, cannot exist without it, is the mere expression of it, only bringing in a miracle on the ground of it, as to the Lord's supper.

D. But do you mean to say that the Holy Catholic church, in its most solemn and essential rite, founds its doctrine on a piece of heathen metaphysics? It is a dreadful and irreverent thought.

N*. Most irreverent is the fact that they have done so, in itself, and it shows the wretched state into which the professing church had fallen. But I affirm it distinctly, and, what is more important, the Roman church affirms it. In the catechism of the Council of Trent, De Eucharistiז Sacramento, I read Section 26:* "There are these three things most deserving of admiration and veneration, which the Catholic faith unhesitatingly believes, and confesses to be accomplished in this sacrament by the words of consecration; the first, that the real body of Christ, the same that was born of the Virgin, and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this sacrament; the second, that, however remote from and alien to the senses it may seem, no substance of the elements remains in the sacrament; the third, an easy consequence of the two preceding, although the words of consecration express it principally, that the accidents, which present themselves to the eyes or other senses, exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject (sine ulla re subjecta esse).

All the accidents of bread and wine we indeed may see: they inhere however in no substance, but exist by themselves; whereas the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord, that the substance of bread altogether ceases to exist." Now the Catechism is not content here with stating the real presence according to the Aristotelian and scholastic system, but formally, in the third wonder, bases the whole doctrine and alleged essence of the sacrament on that system. Part of the miracle is that the accidents, that is, all that man's mind can know, are all there without any substance or substratum to inhere in. They could not hold the color, form, and other apparent qualities to be those of Christ, yet there they are. So they make a miracle of these sensible qualities being there without any existing substratum. They are sensible qualities of nothing, for Christ and no bread is there!*

They have a thousand other subtleties to make it out. It is Christ's body, now at the Father's right hand, the body born of the Virgin Mary, but not as extended in space, nor divided when the bread is broken, but all a whole Christ as they say in each part. Now I agree that all this is most painfully irreverent; but it is the irreverence of Roman doctrine. And the whole of it founded, and avowedly founded, on the mediזval adoption of Aristotelian doctrine of substance and accidents, on logical predicables, not on divine truth at all.

D. But it is not founded on this. It is founded on " This is my body," and " He that eateth my flesh," and other scriptures.

..N*. We will look at these scriptures; but, taking them even as you now do, they only state the fact that it is Christ's body: but transubstantiation is what we speak of, and that is based and avowedly based on the false metaphysical notion of the middle ages. And they felt in a measure where this had brought them, for, in further expounding this third miracle, they tell the pastor in the Catechism to caution the people not to inquire into it too anxiously. But they repeat the wonder of the metaphysical miracle; it defies (see c. 43) our powers of conception, nor have we any example of it in natural changes, nor in the work itself of creation. The change itself is the object of our humble faith, the manner of that change is not to be the object of too curious inquiry. So he is to use the same caution in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of the Lord is contained, whole and entire, under the least particles of the bread. I quote a part of Canon 44 to show how completely it is this metaphysical theory

which is in question. The pastor is to teach that Christ our Lord is not in this sacrament as in a place; for place regards things themselves inasmuch as they have magnitude; and we do not say that Christ is in the sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small-terms which belong to quantity; but inasmuch as He is a substance, for the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into His magnitude or quantity. Is not all this wretched and depraving irreverence and substitution of false metaphysics for divine teaching enough to drive away any spiritual mind from such doctrine? What is become of Christ for the soul? 'Irreverence, yes, it is; but where is it found? In what the pastor is told by Rome to teach his parishioners. But this was not all the abominable effect of this: it was laboriously discussed by the Roman Catholic doctors, if a mouse ate it, what became of Christ! or according to Matt. 15, or if it was burnt, or any other accident happened; and on this plea the wine was taken from adults.

D. But do you not think it very sad that thoughts so unworthy of this deep mystery should be put forth, as the Reformers did, in order more advantageously to pull down a holy doctrine held and taught by the holiest Fathers of the church? It tends to lower and degrade Christ, and it is painful to hear.

N*. Most painful, I admit; but you are altogether wrong in your statement. We will speak of the Fathers by-and-by. It does tend to degrade Christ. All spiritual apprehension is lost in this doctrine, and the Roman doctors, not liking to retain that in their knowledge, as the heathen of old the truth of the Godhead, have been allowed of God to fall into these degrading thoughts, and worship with divine worship that which a mouse can eat: and though the divinity is there with the soul, body and blood, it is all inert, and cannot hinder the mouse's eating it, nor move nor give a sign of life, and what ought to have been a symbol of Christ's dying love, and dealt with, in so using it, as being such. But they have carnalized and degraded everything in their sacramental system. But I was not thinking or speaking of the Reformers. I cannot say how they used it against the Roman Catholics, save as Bellarmine charges them and Berengarius with doing so. I speak of the most celebrated doctors and popes of the Romish church who discussed these questions elaborately: Peter Lombard, whose influence was supreme in theological schools, Innocent III., Alexander of Hales, and Thomas Aquinas who rivaled Lombard in his influence.

Lombard, after insisting at length that the unworthiness of the priest did not invalidate the consecration of the sacrament, adds, " That indeed it may be soundly said that the body of Christ is not taken by brute animals, though it may seem so. What, therefore, does the mouse take or what does it eat, God knows." Pope Innocent III. is more precise (de sacro altaris mysterio, c. iv. 11), " If it is sought what is eaten by the mouse when the sacrament is devoured, or what -is consumed when the sacrament is burned, it is answered that as the substance of bread is miraculously converted when the Lord's body begins to be under the sacrament, so in a certain miraculous manner it returns, when itself (that is, the body) ceases to be there. Not that substance of bread returns which passed into flesh, but that in its place something is miraculously created, although its accidents may be thus devoured as well as eaten." Alexander of Hales, it seems, taught otherwise. Bonaventura, a more spiritually-minded man, a mystic, holds that however this opinion may be sustained, it can yet never be so sustained that pious ears should not have a horror in hearing that the body of Christ should be in the belly of a mouse, or in a sewer. No wonder. Yet the famous Thomas Aquinas supported this view, because the other derogates from the truth of the sacrament; and his authority prevailed. Now these are the highest authorities of that age: Lombard was some 400 years before the Reformation; Innocent, 300 Thomas Aquinas 50 or 60 years after Innocent. His statement will be found in Part III. of his Summa, quest. LXXX. Art. 3. His doctrine is that, as long as the species or form of bread and wine remains, the body of Christ is there, whether it be sinner or animal that has taken it. As to the subtleties as to species and accidents and substance, as to which we may read folio pages, I leave them. They only show, when faith and spiritual perception are gone, the degradation to which the holiest things are reduced. Thomas Aquinas, and so Bellarmine, excuse& what the more pious mystic Bonaventura says, and justly, cannot but give horror to a Christian mind, such as a mouse eating Christ, by comparing it to Christ's voluntary humiliation in going to the cross. Can any one go lower? This was not the Reformation, Mr. D., but the full bloom of Roman orthodoxy and learning.

R., This is all very distressing; it militates against all piety and right feeling.

N*. I entirely sympathize with you. I have referred to it that we may know what transubstantiation means, and Mr. D. may see whether what I have said as to its being based on the scholastic or Aristotelian distinction of substance and accidents be well founded or not. Any one who will take the unedifying trouble of reading Thomas Aquinas' Summa, Part III., quזst. 74 to 80, will soon see whether it be so or not. It may be seen in other writers, but here you have it in its fullest development, and we have seen it laid down in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I do. not enter into the endless arguments of these reasoners, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmine, as to how the change takes place. What is not cannot be changed into what is, neither can, according to their metaphysics, one substance be changed into another. They arrive at its being simply divine power, it being impossible that such a change can take place according to the nature of things. Secondly, they have endless discussions how Christ's body is in heaven and the same body in thousands of places on earth. This is settled partly by divine power, and partly by this doctrine of substance and accidents, that Christ is there not materially and in extended magnitude, but His substance, and so in every particle a whole Christ if the species of bread and wine remains.

They also discuss largely whether Christ is broken when the bread is broken: the more probable opinion is He is not, as He is only substantially (not materially) present, or in bodily extension, or by a change of place. Yet they say His body, blood, soul, and divinity are all there, but in a different way. For if the wine be changed into His blood, how, they inquire, can it be under the species of bread? They say it happens in a different way, that sacramentally the bread is changed into His body, but as His whole person is there, the blood and divinity are there, not by sacramental transubstantiation, but by necessary concomitancy, and so the body and all else under the species of wine. The common expression in Ireland is that the priest " makes God." All this is the effect of the loss of true spiritual communion and feeding upon Christ, and turning to bad metaphysics. I have heard a poor peasant there striking his hand upon his stomach, say, " I have God in my belly, sir," and why not, if it can be in that of a mouse? And in a public argument on the subject, the Roman champion (being confounded by his adversary telling him he did not believe in transubstantiation, or as they say that the priest could make God) insisted he did, and the other confounded him by saying, " Why God cannot do that!" All this, you will say, is irreverent folly. I quite agree, but it is where this wretched heathen philosophy has led the followers of the Roman system. Well, I think we have sufficiently pursued the inquiry as to what transubstantiation means.

B. I feel so too: I had no idea such things were involved in it, but took it as it was taught.

N*. I do not doubt it, dear sir, and therefore it is I have thus far gone into it; for there are pages of subtleties all depending upon scholastic ideas of substance and accidents which we may leave untouched. But these poor Irish were as simple and sincere as you could be, ignorant if you please, but drawing a perfectly just conclusion, though a gross one, from this wretched materializing what is spiritual. But we will turn to scripture.

R. By all means. After all, it is the only thing which gives us a sure resting-place.

Bill M. But simple souls, sir, do not know of all these shocking profane thoughts as to Christ being eaten by a mouse, and the like. They have only a kind of terror about the body and blood of Christ, but it is mortal sin if they do not receive it at Easter, and then they are absolved in order to do it, and then they are all right until the next time.

N*. They do not, M., I quite admit and thankfully too. But the effect even on them is what you say. Instead of spiritual persons with holy reverence celebrating the memorial of Christ's death, humbled in the sense of the infinite love which brought Him there for us, while they wait for Him who so loved them; but with holy joy and thanksgiving (which is the very name of the ordinance, εὐχαριστία) that He has so loved them and washed them from their sins in His own blood, so that saved by Him they can wait for Him with joy, feeding on Him and living by Him meanwhile, they go on with dread if they have divine life, or, as generally is the case, get clear for a time as the Jews did with their repeated sacrifice, and then go on as carelessly as before with a conscience at ease but unpurged till the year comes round, and the same ceremony goes on again.

R. This is but too often the case, but some go with piety and love to the Lord.

N*. I do not deny it, but I have lived too much among the Roman Catholics not to know what is habitually the case. And those who are pious go, as I have said, with dread. It is not the Eucharist, thanksgiving, for those whom the Lord has loved and saved by His precious death, and waiting for Him from heaven.

B. You speak as if a Christian were always confident and assured of his salvation.

.N*. Certainly. If he fails in any way he has to humble himself and be heart-broken before God about his failure, and have his heart fully before God about it; but " we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father." We know our relationship as redeemed to God by Christ, by His Spirit dwelling in us. A disobedient child has to mourn over and confess his fault, but it does not raise the question if he is a child.

R. I cannot say I am there.

N*. The system you belong to cannot bring you there nor even allow it. It would destroy all its influence. But it is yours. For I have no right nor wish to doubt that you love the Lord: only you do not know the perfectness of His redemption.

R. But I do not doubt the Lord's having accomplished our redemption.

N*. I do not question it. But He says that those who believe are justified from all things. You say you believe, but do not know whether you are justified. How is that?

R. I am afraid of being presumptuous or thinking too well of myself.

/V*. I do not assuredly ask you to think well of ourselves. It was just poor Job's case, and he had to learn to abhor himself; and so have we all. What gives peace is that God is satisfied with Christ's work who died for us, and His raising Him from the dead is the witness of amt. And it is no presumption if He has borne your sins, and the terrible debt is paid: to believe it is and to own His love in doing it.

R. But what are we to do about the sins that we are guilty of since?

N*. Since when?

R. Since we were forgiven, since our baptism.

N*. In the outward sense, you had committed none before it, so that as to this it did not do much for you. But allow me to ask you how many of your sins did you commit since Christ bore them?

R. Why, all of them; I was not born, of course.

N*. All of them. That is the point. If Christ bore all my sins and I through grace believe in Him, the whole matter is settled as to their being put away. God works by His word and Spirit in us, so that we are brought to repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; we have a new life, are born of God; and there are various ministrations of grace by the way. But the matter is settled with God for my soul as to forgiveness and salvation. As the Lord said to the poor woman, " Thy sins are forgiven thee; thy faith bath saved thee;" and He did not deceive her, nor say it for her alone.

R. It is a serious question. Is it indeed so?

N*. Well, I can only leave and commend you to His grace who can make all clear to our souls. Shall we turn to John 6?

R. If you please.

N*. In the first place many Roman Catholic writers admit that it does not apply to the Eucharist. Bellarmine gives quite a list of them, only he says their motives were more right than the Protestants', and that as good Catholics they must hold it does, for the Roman Catechism and other church authorities hold it does. But he evidently feels he is on weak ground here. And it is perfectly certain, taking their own view of the Eucharist, that eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood in John 6 does not apply to it. No Roman Catholic holds that every one that receives the Eucharist is finally saved: but this is positively affirmed of those who eat Christ as the act is spoken of in this chapter. It is not merely that they have life by it, nor that they live by it, but that He will raise them up on the last day. This is positively declared of every one who eats Christ's flesh and drinks Christ's blood as here spoken of.

R. Where is that?

N*. The Lord declares four times over in the chapter that He will raise up certain persons, to whom He has given eternal life, at the last day: verses 39, 40, 44; and lastly, verse 54, make it dependent on their eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and unfold this truth. They had no life in themselves without it, they dwelt in Him, and He in them, but he that ate of that bread was to live forever. Christ was their life, and, as possessed of that life, they would never die. In a word, they who ate Christ as spoken of, in that chapter would live forever, and be raised up in blessing. No one pretends that all who partake of the Eucharist will live forever. It is not of this rite then that the passage speaks, for those who eat as here spoken of will live forever. Do you believe that everybody that partakes of the Eucharist is surely and eternally saved?

R. No, surely not.

D. Nor do I for a moment.

N*. Then it is perfectly certain that John 6 does not refer to the Eucharist, for the Lord says, " If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever." Again: " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Now this leaves no loophole for controversy. He has everlasting life this, a person may say, he may. lose; but the Lord shuts out this evasion of the truth by adding, " I will raise him up at the last day." That is, He connects final blessing with the present possession of eternal life by those who eat His flesh and drink His blood. And all confirms it: " he that eateth me shall live by me." Now we all admit, that every one who receives the Eucharist is not necessarily finally saved, but the persons spoken of in John 6 are. It does not therefore apply to partaking of the Eucharist.

D. But this must be taken with the conditions attached to it in the gospel. He has this in eating the grace of eternal life; and if he perseveres, he will be raised up for glory.

N. I find no if he perseveres" in the passage. It attaches eternal life, and consequent raising up by Christ, to the eating, skewing that it is a real spiritual possession of Christ by faith through the Holy Ghost. And the whole chapter confirms this thought, that it is Christ personally, not Christ in the Eucharist. He is first spoken of as coming down from heaven, and then as sacrificed, giving His body and shedding His blood, and then as ascending up where He was before. Bellarmine, who has really very little to say on the point, insists on His saying, "I will give;" and that if it referred to spiritual feeding on Christ by faith, they could do it then or at any time, and He need not say, "1 will give;" while in the institution He says; "This is my body." But this has no force whatever. First, in the Mass, we have seen it is "shall be shed," so that his argument falls to the ground. And when He says, " I will give," what does He refer to? Clearly to His death, His blood shed out, the sacrifice of Himself, as it is said, " He gave himself for our sins; loved us and gave himself for us." It is what He was going to do. He was the bread of life come down from heaven. That cannot be said of the Eucharist, nay, the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Such. P. ii. 37, 44) denies it, even in the change which takes place, for then it would have to do with locality and space. It was the Son of God, come forth from the Father, the Word made flesh; and whoever believed on Him had everlasting life; He was that bread of life then: " I am that bread of life;" but He had yet to give Himself for the life of the world, and people to be saved must believe on Him as the crucified Savior as well as the incarnate Savior, but if they really did, He was, a Savior, and they were saved. And the grand testimony that He was such by His death was, that He ascended up whence He was before. Those taught of God came to Him; but He must die to save them. Nothing really can be simpler. Whoever ate of that bread, according to the sense of that chapter, would live forever. Bread that came down from heaven (which is professedly denied of the Eucharist) and One giving Himself on the cross for the life of the world, and then ascending up where He was before, which is impossible to apply to the Eucharist: but it is the same person of Christ spoken of all through. Nor could the Eucharist give itself and its life. 'When the thing is examined into, it is absurd nonsense to apply it to the Eucharist. This living Christ, body, soul, blood, divinity, has no sense or feeling, is as inert and helpless as the bread it appears to be, and the wine that can be drunk by the lips of men.

Bill M. We have never believed, Mr. R., that he who received the Mass would live forever in eternal life.

R. No, that is not the doctrine of the church; his final state depends on what he does afterward.

Bill M. But John 6 says, He who eats that bread will live forever; so it cannot mean receiving at the Mass, but having Christ really in one's soul some other way. Whatever people get in the Mass, they do not get that.

R. They may get the grace of eternal life, and then lose it perhaps..

Bill M. But that is not "shall live forever;" and eternal life and then being raised up as having eternal life.

R. No, it is not, nor do I deny that when you look through the chapter, it seems to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ personally, not to the sacrifice of the Mass.

N*. I really do not see how a person can doubt it. Especially when we see how the Lord speaks of coming down from heaven, giving His flesh and blood, and ascending up where He was before, which cannot apply to an ordinance, but plainly to Himself in person. " The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." " I am that bread of life." He was it then personally, when no Eucharist could be in question. Then He says, "I will give," " which He was going to do, and so introduces His flesh and blood separated in death, and then, as we have seen, His ascension. The Jews rejected both, would not own He came down from heaven, nor think they could eat His flesh and drink His blood, taking it in a carnal sense. You really give it this sense, though you cover it under the term sacramentally and species of bread and wine; for you say there is no bread there, but truly, really and substantially the body and blood of Christ with His soul and divinity. But we have nothing to do with. Jewish unbelief, and the Lord treats the Jews there as hopeless reprobates, and indeed all through John's Gospel, for we take the words spiritually, as Christ in the chapter itself tells us to do. (Ver. 63.) "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." As for Dr. Milner, he takes it all for granted, saying, " After which [the miracle] He took occasion to speak of this mystery, saying," &c. The extreme weakness of both Bellarmine and Milner on this point is most striking.

But it proves more. It proves that, in speaking of eating Him and drinking His blood, such language refers to spiritually feeding on Christ, not on any actual reception of the Lord's body and blood. A person who eats, as here spoken of, lives by the life of Christ, has eternal life, abides in Him, and is raised up into glory. But it proves more; it proves that the terms used on this subject by the Lord and recorded in the New Testament are used, not literally, but figuratively. Christ declares His Father gave them the true bread from heaven. Do the teachers of transubstantiation mean to say that Christ was really bread? Surely not. Yet He says, " I am that bread of life." " He that eateth of this bread shall live forever." He was not physically nor substantially bread come down from heaven; that is, "is" was figuratively and spiritually used. Again, the bread which He gives is His flesh which He would give for the life of the world. As bread, as a figure, He was come down from heaven, incarnate in the world. The bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. This bread means Him who came forth from the Father, and came into the world, the Word made flesh, the Son of God. He was the living bread come down from heaven. But incarnation was not sufficient alone to save us. He must die, or He would have abode alone, and the bread He gives is His flesh which He had taken, and this He gives for the life of the world. Here we have the cross, the propitiation made for sin. The Eucharist is for believers, His people. This giving His flesh is for the world; and he that eats not this, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. But the Lord's supper none can truly eat hut those who have life in them already, and even if only formally, it is as Christians they do it, not as the unsaved world, to which. He came that men might live and be forgiven through Him; and as we have seen he who does eat has eternal life, and will have part in the resurrection of life-he will live forever. In a word, no eternal life without the cross, without shedding of blood. Hence the blood too must be drunk. It must be shed and taken into the heart. as shed, to be of any use. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. It was not a Messiah to the Jews they were to believe in, true as that was, but One come down from heaven incarnate in the world, and giving Himself and shedding His blood for the world. So must He be received, so fed upon, and thus men would have eternal life. Hence, having spoken of incarnation and death, He adds, " What and if ye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" You make giving His flesh for the life of the world, after His ascension, contrary to the order of the chapter. Thus, when Christ is said to be bread, it is a mere figure. The bread was Christ in the flesh which He was going to give for the life of the world.

D. But then He speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which He gives for the life of the world.

.N*. Surely: He gives Himself literally on the cross, His blood being poured out, for it is to be drunk. He actually gave Himself for the life of the world upon the cross, and there His blood was shed, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. And if this drinking of blood were literal, the poor Roman Catholics could not be saved; they never get it at all. They are told that they get it in the body, but that is not poured out; they must drink it to have life. And it refers to Christ as He then was in incarnation and so dying (before His ascension which comes afterward); and such as do so eat Him, feed in heart on Him as incarnate and dying foi us, are eternally saved (ver. 54), and men have no spiritual life at all if they do not. That Christ's blood should be shed now that He is in glory is perfectly impossible, contrary to all truth and scripture. And the blood-shedding here spoken of is after His incarnation as head come down from heaven, and before His return thither; in a word it is His blood as shed on the cross as incarnate down here, shed indeed for redemption, but closing all association with man in the flesh, given for the life of the world, none other. And indeed, whereas we know that He shed His blood for man on the cross, there is not a trace of His taking His blood again, though in its spiritual efficacy-it is presented to God, but as shed, apart from Him who presents it on high. That His body was raised, every Christian believes-a man is no Christian who does not; but not that He took back His blood and went up to heaven, having it in Himself as if He had not shed it and died. And indeed it cannot be; for we are to be conformed to His image, that He may be the firstborn among many brethren: and it is said of us; flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But what is essential is that Christ's blood can in no sense be shed now. It must be drunk spiritually in memory that He did shed it, or not at all. Hence Christ puts eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and eating Him together, that is faith in His person and death so as to live by them. Only the recognition of the shedding of His blood, and the drinking of it as so shed, is essential. We have no life else. Now it cannot be shed, and at the same time be in His body as the bread Come down from heaven. If it be in His body, then there is no redemption at all. The words He spake were spirit and life: shed blood is salvation. If it be a glorified body, it is impossible. If it be looked at as His body down here, there is no redemption at all.

R. What you say I cannot resist the force of. But, as you have said, many esteemed Catholic authors do not apply John 6 to the sacrament of the altar. Still there are principles in what you say which go beyond John 6,, and raise the whole question as to what that sacrament is, or what blood there can be for us to drink as spoken of in John 6, save as figuratively. That a glorified Christ cannot shed blood now is clear, and that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the cross is certain. I confess I am perplexed, and it distresses me. We do, as. Bill M. said, attach so much importance to the Mass and sacrament of the altar, and boast, as against Protestants, that we have a sacrifice and they have none.

N*. But, remark, Mr. R., if you believe that the blessed Lord gave His flesh and shed His blood on the cross for us' and in your heart feed on the bread which came down from heaven incarnate and sacrificed for us, you have exactly what Heb. 9;10. speak of, a sacrifice once offered of perpetual efficacy and never to be repeated, He being ascended on high and seated there now. You have eternal life, nay, shall live forever.

Whatever the privilege of partaking of the Eucharist, which I hold to be very great, it is by that one sacrifice once offered and blood once shed, as scripture tells us, really received into the heart by faith, that we are sanctified and perfected in conscience, and have assurance, in John 6, of eternal life.

R. I see clearly what you mean, but it is, for us, if we are to receive it, an immense revolution in the mind.

N*. It is, Mr. R., but a blessed one. Only allow me to remark that the foundation of faith remains, only cleared of much that both obscures and mars it, the person and work of the blessed Son of God; only so as to give peace to the conscience and joy to the heart, instead of dread and bondage.

But we may turn, I think, to the apostle Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 11:23-29. One thing is clear, that he calls it bread after the giving of thanks as before, has no idea of its being anything else. (Vers. 26, 27.) For him it was bread and the cup after the Lord had said, " This is my body," as before. The words He uses as to the cup are that the cup is the new covenant, as in Luke. There is not a trace that He counted it anything but what it was, evidently. It is done in remembrance of Christ, which could not be if He was then giving Himself. Was Christ the offerer, doing it in remembrance of Himself? We show forth the Lord's death, but He cannot die as now glorified: the notion of a sacramental putting to death a glorified Jesus is as horrible as it is contrary to all truth. It is a remembrance of what was His death, and His death is over forever. All He says supposes it to be constantly bread and wine all through. That is what a man eats or drinks unworthily, when he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. So that in saying this He has no idea it is not still bread.

R. Let us turn to the words of institution.

N*. We will. Let us, however, carry this with us, that the Lord, in speaking in John 6, uses this figurative language. He was the bread come down from heaven. If we remember the occasion on which the rite was instituted, the phraseology is very easy to under stand. God, when redeeming Israel out of Egypt, had had the blood of the lamb sprinkled on the doorposts and said, " When I see the blood, I will pass over....;" and they ate the lamb. Of this they were to keep up the memorial, and, if their children inquired, were to say " This is the Lord's passover," when He did not pass over at all; but they celebrated the memorial of it. Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us, where, note. the apostle has no idea but of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished long ago and we are to keep the feast with no renewed one, as indeed we have seen that there was to be no more sacrifice for sins; and our feeding on Him is not physically or materially, but spiritually in our souls, in thankful faith for what He has wrought, our conscience being, through the unchangeable efficacy of His blood, perfected forever before God.

Now let us consider the supper itself. It was to be observed in remembrance of the true paschal lamb, Christ just about to be offered, not a memorial of redemption from Egypt as Jews, but from sin and the flesh and Satan by an "eternal redemption obtained" for us. This Christ clearly sets before them, speaking of His blood shed for many, His blood of the new covenant. It was the true passover sacrifice of the Lamb of God, and that, and not deliverance from Egypt, was to be perpetually remembered. Nothing can be clearer than this, and it gives its character to the whole scene. It was the Jewish passover, and another and better, for the whole world and eternity, was just going to be substituted for it in the sacrifice of the true Paschal Lamb, giving His flesh for the life of the world, shedding that blood which by faith cleanses from all sin, yea, by the shedding of which alone remission is obtained. He takes the elements furnished by the supper as symbols of this. And mark here, not one word, as Roman Catholics have admitted, is said in scripture of changing anything in any way, no such thought is ever expressed in any way. He says, with the bread in His hands, This is my body.

D. But excuse me, sir, if it was His body, it must have been changed, for He had taken the bread into His hand.

N*. If it means literally His body. But as to this, your saying " it must," is the admission that there is nowhere any statement that there is a change. Can you refer to any actual statement that such a change takes place?

R. Well, I can call to mind no scripture, but I cannot pretend to know the scriptures well.

Bill M. I never thought of that, and if there be none:, it does make all the difference as to the doctrine. It is only man's way of explaining if it be really His body.

N*. They are not agreed how to explain it themselves.. Many did not hold it to be a change, holding that a substance could not in the nature of things be changed and be not itself; they thought that the bread disappeared miraculously and the body came in its place without changing the appearance of the elements, but as the underlying substance. Into all this we need not enter. It is only important to spew that the 'whole was from human reasoning. But it is held by many schoolmen, and even by Cajetan, Luther's opponent, that it cannot be proved by scripture. Bellarmine (iii. 23) admits it may be so, " it is not altogether improbable," seeing most learned and acute men as Scotus have so held. Quoting Cameracensis, many others* whom I need not recall, might be cited. But let us turn to the words.

Are we to believe that Christ held His body in His own hand and His blood poured out too? I know Augustine says He bore His body in a certain manner in His hand (quodammodo), but this "in a certain manner" just shows that it was not really and substantially in His hand, which would be grossly absurd. But what they call the real body of Christ He did hold in His hand and gave thanks and brake it. Did He hold His own body? Or did the living Christ hold the dead Christ with the blood shed out in His hand? Indeed, a bone of Him was not to be broken,* but did He break His own body in any sense? or was it bread?

James. Surely, Mr. R., you do not think He took His own body in His hand, and broke it.

R. I do not wish to say much; we will continue our examination of the passage.

.N*. The apostle Paul has at any rate settled it. In speaking of the communion of the body of Christ (that is, as the passage makes evident, our spiritual identification with Christ as the Gentiles were identified with their idols in partaking of the idol sacrifices, and the Jewish priests with the altar of Jehovah by eating of the sacrifices offered there), he declares what we break to be bread. Where this communion, that is, takes place, it is still bread. And so little does he attach the thought of any substantial change to it, that he is content to say, " The cup which we drink." He saw the broad plain fact which all saw and acted in before him. It was bread He broke, and a cup they drank of. The spiritual sense was communion with the body and blood of Christ, association with it, and if so they could not be associated with demons too. But remark further, it is " Christ crucified" which is in question. He is viewed in the Eucharist not as sitting, true as that may be, thank God at the right hand of God; but as often as we eat that bread and drink that cup; we show forth the Lord's death till He come. What we eat is bread, and what we drink is the cup, the plain, sensible, evident fact; but what we set forth and declare in it, is Christ's death-His body given for us, His blood shed for us; we do it in remembrance of Him. There is no such Christ to be changed into. There is now no dead Christ, no shed blood substantially to be found. And this is no mere playing with words, it is the essence of the rite, what we show forth. It is His blood as shed that is set forth, and His death. It is Christ's dying that is the meaning of the rite, and that must be remembrance. He cannot die now. Hence, as so presented in John 6, it comes after His coming down from heaven, and before His ascending up where He was before, as of course His death necessarily did: For in John His death itself, not the memorial of it, is spoken of. But it cannot be in remembrance of a present living Christ in heaven. It is in remembrance of Him once humbled and dying, a state passed and gone forever. Further He could give no such Christ at the last supper: His blood was not then poured out. The state spoken of, He was not in. He could not say, " This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many," as a present substantial real thing; there was none such. Giving it to be observed as a memorial of its shedding on the cross, that we can all understand.; but He could not hold His own shed blood in His hand, for it was yet in His body. A figure of what would be is plain enough. Hence, as we have seen, your Vulgate says, "which shall be poured out," acknowledging it was not so then. The truth is the word (ἐκχυνόμενον) does not say "had been" or " would be," but gives it that character; it was shed blood which was of any avail; that must be drunk, or there was no life, without that shedding there was no remission. When the Lord said, " Take eat," He had not yet consecrated it by the words said to do so by the Roman Catholic doctrine. As has long ago been urged, when He took and brake it, and said this, it was the bread He had taken in His hand. It was the bread which He took and brake they were to eat as such, as His body, but not a word of being changed into it, and do it in remembrance of Him who was gone, and to eat it in remembrance of that which, though the one foundation of every blessing, was a passing thing in His history.; His death and blood-shedding could not be an abiding present thing. And this embarrasses their doctors. They say (Bellar. iv. 22, 17) that the priest's drinking of the cup* is more for the sacrifice than the sacrament (a distinction unknown of old to Christendom), as the people get the blood in the body all the same, but that the shedding of blood is thus set forth. But then the priest takes it as shed, the people as in the body.

And if the priest in eating the bread have taken it as in the body, it is before the shedding of the blood, and there is no sacrifice, no redemption, no remission: and according to Bellarmine, it is the priest's eating it which is his putting Him to death, a sad office to perform, so that he has taken Him to feed on Him before there was any sacrifice, and yet the consecration had taken place which turned it into His body.

But such irreverent confusion is the necessary consequence where so holy and blessed a memorial of Christ's death is turned into a profane materialism; and yet after all, taken in sufficient quantity, it nourishes the body, yet there is no substance of bread at all: the accidents do it.

The note of the Rhemish translation of Matt. 26 also distinguishes the sacrifice and the sacrament, that the sacrament by concomitancy is the whole body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord, but that for the sacrifice it is the bread changed specifically into the body, and the wine into the blood-that being the condition of Christ in making the sacrifice, so that His body is apart for the sacrifice and His blood apart, but all together in the sacrament. But Paul knows no such difference: the bread which we break is the communion of His body, and the cup which we bless, the communion of His blood, so that the distinction made in the alleged sacrificial part is yet by Paul declared to be the communion, and on the other hand, as often as we eat that bread and drink that cup, which is the alleged sacramental part, he says, we do show forth the Lord's death till He come; but in His death it is admitted that the blood was separated from the body, shed for us, so that the attempt to make this difference to meet the evident testimony to death and the shedding of Christ's blood in the sacrament-for it was shed blood they were to drink-only brings in increased confusion. The use of " is" for " represents" is too common to dwell upon. That rock " was" Christ. The seven kine " are" seven years, the seven ears of corn " are" seven years. So we do constantly; I show a picture and say, " That is my mother," and so on.

D. But we should look at it in faith, and take it, as really what the Lord called it.

N*. But what the Lord took and broke is called bread, and the cup the blood of the new covenant. Paul calls three times over what we eat bread, and I suppose he had faith. He says the bread they

broke which is confessedly mere bread, was what was the communion of the body of Christ and the cup the communion of His blood. So that he formally puts the identification with the body and the blood of Christ in that which is confessedly mere bread. Nor, as 1 have said, is there anywhere a hint of any change. So that Bellarmine, as we have seen, admits that it is not improbable that it cannot be found in scripture.

R. I feel that it stands on much less solid ground than I thought, and though I feel that it is an important principle to receive things in simplicity by faith, yet where it is our most solemn religious rite, and remission of sins depends upon it in this world and even in purgatory, one needs a sure foundation for that faith; and here our greatest doctors treat it as not improbable that it cannot be proved by scripture, and in examining it by scripture, and the reality of the sacrifice of the blessed Lord, it is difficult to see how they agree. We slim forth Christ's death and yet we are told the blood is in the body, and this is sought to be set straight by distinguishing the sacrifice from the sacrament. But I do not see that this separation has any solid ground at all. But it is difficult to get rid of an impression or conviction which seemed to have been faith, and it is not only a matter of instruction and persuasion, but interwoven with every religious feeling we have. And then to think we have been worshipping what is only a little bread and water really. Still my comfort is that it was done supposing it was Christ, and Him my soul would worship still.

.N*. Amen, dear Mr. R.! My spirit goes with everything you have said. I do not doubt a moment your having done it in the purpose of your heart to Christ, and, as your words suggest, that worship remains which turned-forgive me if I seem hard-not a bit of paste into Christ, but Christ into a bit of paste you could put into your mouth. God forbid we should ever lose heart-worship to Christ, alike due to Him, and the best treasure to us; only it is in spirit and in truth that worship is truly offered, not in outward things. And I can fully sympathize with you on the difficulty of getting rid of long cherished impressions. Only experience of human nature tells us that false ones of a superstitious nature are harder to get rid of than any. They are suited to human nature, and prop up human nature, whereas the truth is spiritually enjoyed and foreign to human nature. " Because I tell you the truth, therefore ye believe me not." The Jews were circumcised, the Gentiles not: that they could boast in and cherish, when all its value was gone. You have, a sacrifice, you think, and we have not, and that does not humble you. To drink of the cup of Christ, where we had no part but our sins, and His infinite life-giving love was made good, always humbles. We have fUll liberty with the Father through it, not dread, but it bows down the soul in the sense of His goodness; and it is that, and Himself who did it, the Lord's supper brings to us, while we wait for Him till He come. Blood taken as in the body is setting aside the whole force and meaning of the ordinance: and shed blood is not to be found, nor a Christ in death in existence then or now. There is no such Christ to be transubstantiated into, nor was there then. Your Mass not only pretends to be a sacrifice when there can be no more, but it sets aside the whole force and meaning of the Eucharistic rite, taken as received by the faithful.

R. But this is putting it in a very strong way, Mr. N.

Ν*. I do not doubt there may be personal piety in those receiving it, ignorant of what it involves; but I believe, as far as a rite can do it, the Roman Catholic rite involves the foundations of our relationship with God. It denies that one sacrifice once offered suffices forever, and that there can be no more offering for sin, and hence, the true and perfect purging of the conscience once for all of those who receive that sacrifice by faith; and it gives a fancied presence of Christ in substance, when there is no such Christ at all, setting aside the spiritual feeding on Him as the bread come down from heaven, with the blessed remembrance of His dying and efficacious bloodshedding. You have the blood in the body, which is no sheaving forth His death at all, but a denial of the very point and meaning of the rite so precious to true Christians.

R. I see it is very serious and makes Christianity, as to its present reality, a different thing. But do you not think all things are possible with God?

Ν*. It is not a question of what is possible, or whether such things as we may imagine are not what God has instituted and revealed. The Mass and transubstantiation are contrary to what He has revealed and the historical facts of scripture, and its fundamental doctrines too. According to scripture there can be no more sacrifice for sin. According to you, Christ was holding His own shed blood in His hand when it was at that time unshed in His body.

Bill Al. Why, Mr. R., it is as plain as possible: how could Christ give us His blood shed, when it was there in His body not shed? There could not be two, and if it was not shed, there is no redemption, and in heaven in glory He does not shed His blood. I never thought it was so plain, and then if John 6 refers to it, we never drink it at all, and have no life in us.

R. My dear Bill M., you do not take into account the effect of education and habit, and whatever piety you have being connected with it. You had not been brought up in this way; I was from a child.

Bill M. I hope I did not offend, sir; I only meant to say how clear it all seemed to me. I do not doubt, what you say makes a great difference. And I was brought in by thinking it was the church when I knew nothing about it, and was glad to get forgiveness ready settled for me, for I knew I was a sinner.

R. Oh, I have not a thought of any offense. I am very glad you speak plainly what you feel about it. But it is to me an anxious serious thing, if I have been wrong all my life. I do not say I have, but I cannot answer what I have heard, and I see you are all happy and I am not.

D. But you seem to me to forget altogether the teaching and authority of the church of God.

N. teaching church? Yours says that it cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain word of scripture, overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, &c. How you ritualists reconcile your maintenance of it to your conscience, honest people do not understand. I know they plead the " words in which it was commonly said," as not being against the formal doctrines of the Roman Catholics, but only against current notions but that refers to the offering of Christ (Art. XXXI.), and there is nothing of the kind in the one I have quoted. (Art. XXVIII.) So that the authority of the church, what you own to be such, will not help you here. As to the Roman Catholic body it was never decreed till 1215 in the fourth Lateran Council, and was rejected by the ablest doctors. So Scotus whom Bellarmine declares was a most acute and learned doctor, though he does not agree with him; but there were many others, as Rabanus Maurus, Bertram. As to the Greek church, indeed the whole church for centuries, it wholly rejected it, superstitious as it had become and disposed to magnify the Eucharist. And what all the early church held as alone consecrating the elements has to this day no place in the Roman service. Nothing can be more distinct than the testimony of the early Greek Fathers against transubstantiation, which we will look into just now. After John Damascene, the doctrine and at last the name gradually prevailed. It used to be called transelementalism.

But we have not quite done with scripture: the Lord, speaking of the cup, says, " This is my blood of the new covenant shed for many," and again expressed in a different form, sheaving that no importance was attached to the letter of the statement, as if it were a literal fact. " This cup is the new covenant in my blood." That is, He speaks of the import and value of the symbol. No one can say that the cup was a covenant. I might give deeds and say, "There is the house conveyed to you," and every one would understand it, and no one would think the parchment was a house. Yet if " This is my body" is literal, so is "This cup is the new covenant," and Paul, who received this directly by revelation from the Lord, gives it in this form: " This cup is the new covenant in my blood:" has no thought of any literal blood. It suffices to him to speak of it as the new covenant in Christ's blood, and he calls it bread when thus given and broken, and not only when so broken but when eaten by the faithful (l Con 11: 26), they "eat this bread," and drink the cup, and show forth the Lord's death. Yet they are associated or spiritually identified with Christ's body and blood, as: the Jews with Jehovah their God, and the Gentiles with their gods in eating the sacrifices. But what. the faithful did was to eat bread and drink of a, cup, but both, the symbol of the Lord's death who gave His flesh and shed His blood for the life of the world. And even when doing it in the profane and unworthy manner which made the Corinthians guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, it was still eating of that bread and drinking of that cup. If one should spit on my mother's picture, he is insulting my mother, guilty of doing so to me. And there is a much deeper sense of the value of the blessed Lord's death, and realization of union and communion with Him when spiritually realized, than when we materially take it into our mouths and stomachs. The truth is, the whole thing is a delusion.

D. But what do you make of the uniform teaching of the Fathers, Mr. N.?

N*. There you are, I dare say, in your element, Mr. D. The traditions, and doctrines of men have all weight with those of the school you belong to. But you know it is written, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," and I. suspect, like many who rest upon them, you have not searched them. A man's writing a thousand years ago does not make his word to be more the truth in the least. They were not inspired. We are specially taught in view of the turning away from the truth which had already begun in the apostle's days, the mystery of iniquity being already at work, and warned that evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, so that the last days of the church would be perilous times-we are warned, I say, to hold fast by the scriptures, to know of whom we have learned anything; that that which was in the beginning should abide in us.. Hearing the apostles themselves, is made a test of truth. In a word, we are carefully warned against trusting anything but what came out 'first and by inspiration from God, which no one pretends was the case with those you call the Fathers, who after all were only prelates and doctors of bygone ages whose doctrine was very loose and uncertain. The Fathers generally before the Council of Nice were unquestionably unsound as to the divinity of the Lord, and, after it, the church was whatever the Emperor made it. Athanasius was excommunicated, the Luciferians who held by him were condemned as a. sect by Jerome. Hosius, who presided at Nice, gave way; two popes were Arians, or consecrated by the Arians, Felix and Liberius, and the universal church displayed a scene of dispute and contention which never ended in the East till sunk under the power of the Turks, and in the West ttll Bernard (the last of the Fathers) declared Antichrist was sitting at Rome. But none hardly of the early Fathers were sound in the faith. As to this particular doctrine as we have seen, one whom Bellarmine calls a most learned and acute doctor did not believe it. John Scotus declares it was never known to be of faith till the fourth Council of Lateran in 1215. And all Bellarmine has to say is that it was in a Roman Council; in the case of Berengarius; that is in 1060 and 1079.

D. But if these Fathers were not inspired, they were nearer the fountain head; they must have known better than we do. Besides there is the uniformity of the testimony.

N*. There is no such uniformity. Even Bellarmine says it is not surprising if, before the heresy sprang up, the earlier Fathers should use expressions which may be made a bad use of (De Such. II. 37, 6) "in malam partem trahi;" a plain confession that they do use what denies transubstantiation. He says this in speaking of Bernard, the last of the Fathers so-called, and so late as the eleventh century, adding that if some did, we 'must take their other plain statements, for it is certain (constat) they must have all agreed. And this is the consent of the Fathers I But I have no need to get what is nearer the fountain head, that is, the inspired testimony of God, when I have that testimony itself.

We have God's own word, and that word written save a very small part for all the faithful, and we are warned to hold fast to it, to that which was from the beginning, and that is practically a warning against the Fathers. They are just those who were not from the beginning, who lived when, as the apostle warns us, after his decease, from within and from without perverse men and wolves would arise. When I sit down to read the scriptures, I sit down to know what God says to me; I cannot do so with these Fathers. To say the least, they must be judged like other men, human authors.

D. And do you feel yourself competent to judge these holy men?

N*. I do not feel the need to read them at all, any more than other books; but if I do, I am bound to judge their teaching by the word of God. If I have my father's express orders, and some one comes to tell me what he thinks, I must know if this statement accords with what my father has expressly said. No- thing can pretend to compare with the word of God.

D. But you may misinterpret it.

N*. So I may the Fathers. But, mark, I have a promise in reading the one, and none for reading the others. Besides as to a great many I do not admit that they were holy men. Cyril of Alexandria was a thorough ruffian.

R. That is strong language, Mr. N.

N*. I appeal to history. He was both at Ephesus, and heading riots at Alexandria, nothing less: and a heretic, an Eutychian as it is called, to boot.* The famous Jerome was one of the most abusive, intemperate, violent men possible.

Many were respectable enough, but I cannot venture my soul on such men as these, nor on any men; I can on the word of God. But we will speak of them. Now I admit that many of them speak in the strongest way of Christ's being there after consecration, our partaking of Him whom we do not see there, and the like-speak of tremendous mysteries, and that they early fell into gross superstition; but we shall find abundant passages to show that transubstantiation was not the faith of the church, and that even the contrary was taught and urged by the Fathers in their arguments against the Eutychians and earlier heretics.

But let us look at them. We must not confound the real presence and transubstantiation as Milner carefully does. I regret to say he is not to be trusted. He quotes a regular succession of popes, carefully concealing that there were sometimes three, at other times two, with Europe divided between them; that one drove out another, and set up himself in his place, and when there were three, all three were deposed by the Council of Constance, and another set up by it. So here he quotes English divines, who hold the real presence as though they meant the same thing as Rome; he quotes Cosins' book, which is an elaborate treatise against transubstantiation. Milner gives as his view what is wholly false: he says, " Bishop Cosins is not less explicit in favor of the Catholic doctrine: he says, it is a momentous error to deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist we confess.' " There is no such sentence in Cosins at all. And as to Hooker the words he quotes are there, but Hooker does not use this language to make consubstantiation or transubstantiation a matter of indifferent speech, but to prove both unnecessary to the enjoyment of the promise. As to Ignatius, the passage is not found in the longer copy of the Epistle to the Smyrnזns at all, but it is found in the shorter. Theodoret quotes it, but there is little doubt that these epistles are spurious. At any rate Milner has falsified the passage, for it looks like nonsense as it stands. What is read is,

"They withdraw from the Eucharist and prayer," which last word Milner has changed into " oblations." It can have no authority, and refers to the denial of Christ's incarnation, in respect of which the Eucharist was greatly used as an argument against the Gnostics who denied that Christ had really come in the flesh, a truth so distinctly recognized in the Eucharist.

The testimony of Justin Martyr is against the doctrine; he says, " Then we all stand up together and

make prayers, and, as we have before said, when we have ceased prayer, bread is brought, and wine, and water, and the president offers up prayers and thanksgivings as well as he is able, and the people assent, saying, Amen. And the distribution and reception of that over which thanks have been given takes place to each, and it is sent to those not present by the deacons." And a little before, more distinctly, " Then bread and a cup of water and wine is brought to him who presides over the brethren. He, having received them, offers up praise and glory to the Father of all things, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and makes long thanksgiving that we are accounted worthy of these things by Him, and having finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people present exclaim assent, saying, Amen. And the president having given thanks, and all the people exclaimed assent, those who are called deacons amongst us, distribute to each of those present to receive [it] of the bread and wine and water over which thanksgiving has been made, and carry it away to the absent. And this food is called amongst us the Eucharist [thanksgiving], of which it is not lawful for any one to partake, but one who believes what is taught us to be true, and has been washed for the forgiveness of sins and the laver of the new birth, and so living as Christ taught. For we do not receive this as common bread or common drink, but as by the word of God. Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh, had both flesh and blood for our salvation; so also the nourishment over which thanks have been given of the word which is from Him, of which our flesh and blood by conversion are nourished, we have been taught to be the flesh and blood of that Jesus made flesh." Now this statement upsets the Roman Catholic doctrine entirely. First, what the deacons carry is bread and wine and water to each; Justin has no idea of any transubstantiation. They are after the thanksgiving what they were before; bread, wine, and water is what was distributed and received. Next, it is of these elements they partake, God's creatures for which they thank Him. It is not a whole Christ to each, but of the elements offered each gets a portion, and, what is a key to multitudes of statements, what is confessedly bread and wine and water, they esteem the body and blood of Christ. But, further, they nourish our body and blood. The idea of being changed and substantially Christ is totally foreign to his mind.

Irenmus is formal and positive in his denial of it; he speaks (lib. iv. 17: 33, 34) of offering God's creatures to Him, and explicitly as sent, created by Him, practically as Justin, for the sacrifice was always of His creatures to God before the giving of thanks. But that is not all. Recognizing that we receive Christ in the partaking of the rite, he says, proving the resurrection of the body, "For as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation, is now not common bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly: so also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection." Now I am not answering for all Irenזus's doctrine, for he was not sound on very important truths, but his statement is a flat denial of transubstantiation. Remark here further that this ἐπίκλησις (Irenזus as now read has ἔκκλησις) is that to which he attributes its not being ordinary bread, and this is wholly left out by Rome.!

But to proceed. Tertullian says in terms against the Marcionites (v. 40): " Having taken bread and distributed it to His disciples, He made that His body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. But it could not have been a figure unless the body had been a truth." Now this is as plain as can be, and shows what these ancients mean when they speak of making it His body or its being His body. He is proving against Marcion that Christ had really a body. If it was merely a phantasm and nothing really, there could not be a figure of what was nothing. Tertullian never could have had an idea of such a thing as transubstantiation in speaking thus. Origen (Hom. vii. on Lev.) says if according to the letter you should follow this very thing which is said, " Unless you shall have eaten my flesh and drunk my blood," the letter kills.... but if you understand it spiritually, it does not kill, but there is in it a life-giving spirit. I cannot find what Dr. Milner quotes in this Horn. vii., but just preceding what I have quoted above, Origen referring to John 6, " If you are sons of the church, if imbued with evangelical mysteries, acknowledge what we say that it is of the Lord, lest perchance he that is ignorant let him be ignorant; acknowledge that they are figures which are written in the divine volumes, and therefore examine them as spiritual, not carnal, for if you receive them as carnal, they hurt and do not nourish you." This is his whole subject. Jesus therefore because He was altogether pure, all His flesh is food, and all His blood is drink; because all His work is holy, and all His speech true, therefore all His flesh is true food, and His blood true drink, for with the flesh and blood of His word, as with pure food and drink, He gives to drink, and renovates every race of men. Again in Comm. on Matthew, torn. xi., But if everything (Matt. 15) that enters into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the draft, the very food also consecrated by the word of God and prayer, according to what itself consists of materially, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draft; but, according to the prayer which is added to it, it becomes useful according to the proportion of faith, and makes the mind become clear-sighted, looking on that which profits. Nor is it the matter of the bread, but the word spoken over it which helps him who eats not unworthily of the Lord, and thus far of the typical and symbolical body. But many things may be said concerning the Word which became flesh, and true food which he who eats lives altogether forever, which no wicked person can eat; for if he could, he adds, it would never have been written that every one that eats of this bread shall live forever." Whatever else Origen held, he did not hold transubstantiation. The dialogs against the Marcionites (attributed to him but not his it appears) are equally clear. Taking up the common argument of those days, we read; " But if as they say He was without flesh and blood, of what flesh and what body, or of what blood, giving both the bread and the cup as images did He command His disciples to re- member Him?"

We may next turn to Cyprian, the letter Dr. Milner refers to, ".That the cup, which is offered in remembrance of Him, is offered mixed with wine." That is, what is offered is wine; he is reasoning against there being only water. " For when Christ says,. I am the true vine, the blood of Christ is not water but wine, for His blood by which we are redeemed and sanctified cannot be seen to be in the cup when wine fails in the cup by which the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is preached by the sacrament and testimony-of all the scriptures." So in the same letter to Cזcilius he calls after the consecration of the fruit (creatura) of the vine;— " we find the cup mixed which the Lord offered, and that it was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if wine be wanting in the cup; but how shall we drink new wine of the fruit of the vine in the kingdom of the Father, if in the sacrifice of God the Father, we do not offer wine?" Now this, however little spiritual apprehension there may be as to the new wine of the kingdom, is clean against transubstantiation. " I wonder," he adds, " that in some places, wine is offered in the cup of the Lord, which alone cannot express the blood of Christ. So we see that in the water the people are to be understood, but in the wine the blood of Christ is to be shown forth: if both are united, a spiritual and heavenly sacrament is celebrated." He held the sacrifice they offered to be the passion of the Lord, quoting 1 Cor. 11:26. (Ep. 63, Cזcilio.) So Athanasius (Ep. iv. ad Serapionem de S. So.) on John 6:62, " For here also He speaks both of Himself, flesh and spirit, and distinguishes spirit from flesh, that, believing not only what appears but what is invisible of Him, they might learn that what He was saying was not carnal but spiritual. For, for how many men would the body suffice for food. that this should be the nourishment of the whole world.? Therefore He reminds them of the ascension of the Son of man into heaven, that He might draw them away from corporeal thought, and for the rest might learn that the flesh of which He spoke was heavenly food from above and spiritual nourishment given from Himself; c for what I have said to you' says he, c is spirit and life,' as much as to say what is manifested and given for salvation of the world is the flesh which I carry, but this and the blood from it of me shall be spiritually given to you as food. So that this (nourishment) may be spiritually reproduced (ἀναδιδοθαι) in each, and be a preservative for all for resurrection to eternal life." So earlier Clemens Alexandrinus (Pזdagogus lib. i. 6 and lib. ii. 2.) I cite the last as more short and simple. " He used wine, for He is a man also Himself, and He blessed indeed the wine, saying, Take, drink; for this is my blood, the blood of the vine." He did not think it was transubstantiated. He is arguing against the Encratites who would not use it.

Cyril of Jerusalem uses language as strong in appearance as may be, but not that the substance is changed, but that faith sees the body there, and he really uses language which shows he never thought of such a change. Thus in the very place where he uses the strongest language, he says (Cat. xxii., Myst. iv.), Do, not regard (πϼοσέχε) the bread and the wine as merely such (ψιλοῖς), for they are the body and blood of Christ. according to the Lord's declaration." They were still. bread and wine, but to be received as the body and blood of Christ by faith, and citing Psa. 23 (22.),. interpreting it as a mystical table, apprehended by the understanding (νοητήν). I quote this the rather because it shows how the passages which speak of Christ's flesh, and blood do not contemplate any change of the substance; faith receives it; it is νοητά, received by the-mind. As bread suits the body, so the word the soul. So in iii., " For in the figure (τύπψ) of bread, His body is given to you, and in the figure of wine, His blood. They are the τύποιt, figures, of the body and blood. So Gregory Nyssen.: (oratio octava) in his praise of Gorgon calls them the antitypes (ἀντίτυπα) of the precious body and blood. There is one passage of Gregory Nazianzen which I must read before I turn to the Latins, showing, how Christendom had sunk into Judaism, but showing most clearly the vagueness of their thoughts. I am. almost ashamed to go through the quantity of passages I collected on the subject, but I do not myself attach the smallest authority to the uncertain and superstitious thoughts of the Fathers; but for you, or at least to clear your mind from the notion that it was a settled doctrine of faith, corrupt and superstitious as Christendom had become, I go through them.

R. Do not, I beg you, let it weary you. I can understand that, at your point of view, it is wearisome; but for me it is still a question of what is or was the faith of the church. I have ever held it to be unchanging, and the consent of the Fathers has been held ever as the solid ground of it, as embodying the tradition of the church and authoritatively interpreting scripture. I see strong statements in what you have quoted as to its being, when consecrated, the body of Christ, but generally as to what we receive, not exactly transubstantiation.

N*. Note then these points. They do not speak as yet of transubstantiation, though, as I have fully admitted, they use very strong language as to receiving the body; such as Protestants, many of them, the Anglican church for instance, still do. Further, supposing some declared it in terms and others stated the contrary, what is become of their authority or the consent of the Fathers? It is a mere private opinion, not the faith of the church.

R. That is true.

/V'. The Council of Trent expressly takes, as you say, the ground of the consent of the Fathers, and that we have not certainly on this paint. But I will quote then Gregory Nyssen: he is speaking on baptism, in the discourse, εἰς τὴν ὴμέϼαν τῶν φωτῶν, &c. Wherefore despise not the lavatory, nor count it of little value, as if a common thing on account of the use of water, nor esteem it of light moment, for that which is wrought is great, and wonderful effects exist from it. For this holy altar also, at which we assist, is common stone according to its nature nothing different from other

stone flags which build our walls,* and adorn our pavements, but since they have been consecrated to the service of God, and have received the blessing, it is a holy temple, a spotless altar, not now touched by all, but only by the priests, and these in offices of piety.

The bread again is in the first place common, but when the mystery shall have sanctified it, it is called the body of Christ. Thus the mystic oil, thus the wine, being of small worth before the blessing, after the sanctification which is of the Spirit, each of them works excellently. The same power of the word makes a venerable and honored priest, by the new [force] of the blessing, separated from the profaneness of the many. For yesterday and the day before one of the many and of the people, he is suddenly presented as a leader, a president, a teacher of piety, initiator into hidden mysteries, and these things he does, nothing changed within, in body or in form, but being according to what appears, the same as be was, but changed as to his soul for the better, by a certain invisible power and grace, and thus applying the mind to many things, what appears to the sight is contemptible, but great things are effected." Now the comparisons made here exclude the idea of transubstantiation. But the passage does more and shows that when the writers of this age speak of its becoming the body of Christ, it does not the least mean transubstantiation; and further that when they spoke of what appeared, they had no idea of a form and a totally distinct substance behind. There was nothing changed in body or in form. Chrysostom, if we are allowed to count his letter to Cזsarius as genuine, is quite clear on the point. He says, reasoning against Apollinarius, "For as before the bread is sanctified we call it bread, but divine grace sanctifying it by means of the priest, it is freed from the appellation of bread, but it is held to be worthy of the appellation of the Lord's body, although the nature of bread remains' in it, and we announce it not as two bodies, but as one." Now if

this be not Chrysostom's it is quoted as such by John Damascene, Anastasius and the Fathers; it is an early writing of nearly the same age (the Jesuit Hardouin holds it is Chrysostom's), and plainly shows that the positive doctrine of the bread's remaining bread caused no scandal then. But Chrysostom himself at any rate, (and where pressing, as he is famous for doing, the importance of this ordinance) speaks of it as distinct from other food. " Do not look at it as bread, nor think of it as wine, for it does not as other food go into the draft. But as wax put to the fire does not lose any part nor leave anything superfluous, so also here reckon the mysteries to be consumed by the substance of the body," (De Pœn. Hom. ix. ii. 350.) This is transubstantiating into us. How little his mind is occupied with literal transubstantiation is evident from the way he repeats word for word in the second discourse on the betrayal. by Judas what he says in the first, save the last words. In the first (xi. 3 and 4), after saying the words "This is my body" made it the body of Christ, &c., he compares it to " Be fruitful and multiply," which was efficient through succeeding generations; so these. And in the first discourse, he concludes by " Make it a perfect sacrifice;" in the second, " will ever increase with grace those worthily partaking of it." The wicked who 'partake increase their condemnation. But there is no thought of its being Christ Himself at any rate. The Homily on " Nolo vos ignorare" implies equally that it is spiritually Christ's blood, not literally. Now in Chrysostom we have the Eucharist spoken of rhetorically beyond all the Fathers, and receiving Christ's body and blood; but I find no trace of his not considering it as in fact bread and wine. " We are not to consider it such: they who receive worthily receive Christ." On its being His body, he is plain enough, and saints receiving it; but he does not seem to have thought of transubstantiation in the modern sense. He speaks of the bread and the cup, and indeed when coming to the table to be looking up like an eagle to the sun, to Christ, and there applying " where the carcass is the eagles will be;" but all is such rhetoric that as doctrine it

proves little. This is Homily xxiv. on 1. Corinthians. Were we to take the imperfect work on Matthew as Chrysostom's, the denial of transubstantiation would be as clear and strong as possible. " In these sanctified vessels, in which the true body of Christ is not contained but the mystery of his body." (Chrys. Opera, ed. B. vi. 63, Appendix.)*

D. But you can hardly say it is, or cite it for any doctrine.

N*. Certainly not. But I cite nothing of the Fathers for any doctrine: I should not think of doing so, but the scriptures alone. I cite them for history; and although I do not think that this work ban be considered Chrysostom's, though cited for centuries as such by popes,* and in Roman church services, and though only condemned by Pope Paul IV. in the copies which were full of errors; yet (all the evidence carefully weighed) from its unsound doctrine, citation of the Vulgate, and other marks, it cannot be reasonably thought to be his, or even of the same age.

But it was early, and historically shows that such a doctrine as the elements not being Christ's body did not hinder popes and the Romish church services using it; and, I repeat I quote the Fathers only as history. I have only one quotation from the true Chrysostom to make; where he treats (in Hom. lxxxii. and lxxxiii. on Matt. 26:26-28) on the institution of the Lord's supper, he explicitly calls (vii. p. 788, ed. Ben.) the sacrament symbols-τινὸς σύμβολα τὰ τελούμενα. Yet this is in a passage where he insists that Christ drank His own blood to make it more tolerable and easy for the disciples so to do, a point on which the ancients and ancient liturgies disagree. But we learn this, on a point treated before, that being a symbol of Christ's sacrifice according to Chrysostom, and very justly, there could not be a transubstantiation

of a now glorified Christ, nor indeed of a then living one; but an actually sacrificed Christ exists only in memory.

But we may now turn to plainer statements than the rhetoric of the golden-mouthed, Theodoret in his Dialogs, Dialog I. (vol. iv. Paris, 1642). He had been saying that the Savior changes the names (giving the name of the thing to the symbol, and of the symbol to the thing, calling Himself a vine), and attributes the name of blood to the symbol. Eranistes asks why? He answers: " The purport is obvious to those who are initiated into the divine mysteries. He desired that those who participate in the divine mysteries should give heed to the nature of those things which are seen; but, by the change of names, have faith in the change which is made by grace. For He who called His body natural wheat and bread, and again called Himself a vine, honored the visible symbols with the appellation of body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature." So what follows " Of what thinkest thou that all-holy food to be the symbol and figure? The divinity of Christ the Lord, or of His body and blood?" This leaves no obscurity as to his thoughts; and " symbol" is the word we have seen Chrysostom use, who with Theodore of Mopsuestia were his theological masters.

But we have another, if possible, stronger passage in Dialog II., the more striking because it is expressly the point in discussion. His adversary Eranistes denied two natures in Christ. The Word, he said, was made flesh. There was only one nature remaining; and he insists that flesh after the ascension was absorbed into the divine substance. Not only so, but he brings in the Lord's supper to prove it. As therefore," he says, "the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before the priest's invocation, but after the invocation are changed and become another thing, so the Lord's body after ascension is changed into the divine substance." Orth.: You are taken in the net you have woven, for neither after the consecration do the mystical symbols leave their own nature, for they remain in their previous substance (oὐσίας), form, and kind, and are visible and tangible as they were before, but they are thought to be what they have become, and are believed and worshipped as being these things which are believed. Νοεῖται δὲ ἅπας ἐγένετο καὶ πιστεύεται καὶ προσκὐνεται ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπαις πιστεύεται. Τhese statements of so well-known and esteemed a father puzzled the Roman Catholic critics. Their discussions about it you may find in the fifth or posthumous volume by Gamier, a Jesuit, de fide Theodoreti (Paris 1684, 478). The passages are in vol. iv. at the beginning. This was written about A.D. 446.

The truth is, one reading the Fathers cannot but "see that, however rhetorical they may be about it, the thought of transubstantiation could not have been in their minds. I. do not refer now to positive statements already quoted, but to collateral statements. Thus Cyprian writing against those who would have only water, says, If wine were not there, there was no figure of the blood; that the wine was the figure of the blood and the water of the christian people. Who would think of transubstantiation here? So Augustine, It is said the rock was Christ; and insists that it is not said the rock signified Christ, but was Christ. (Contra Adamantium xii. 5, and in sec. 3.) So the Lord did not hesitate to say, in giving the sign of His body to His disciples, This is my body. And again (Er. in Psa. 3:1), when the great and admirable patience of our Lord received [Judas] to the feast in which He commended and delivered to His disciples the figure of His body and blood. But were I to cite all Augustine says on the subject I should not soon close. It is a point he insists on continually, so that Cardinal Du Perron had to write a book (Refutatio, &c. Paris, 1624) to explain away what be says. On Conc. Ad. xii. 3 he says, you must introduce " according to you," that is, the Manicheans, which is really only a confession of the force of the passage. Tertullian, Cyril, Gaudentius, and others constantly declare a figure is not the truth, but the imitation of the truth.

I turn to Gelasius. 'Baronius and Bellarmine have tried to deny that he was Pope Gelasius, as it was awkward to have a pope denying transubstantiation, and there were two other Gelasiuses. But there is no real ground to question it, nor does it change the fact that a Father of the church, so-called, taught it, if he were not pope. They have ascribed it to Gelasius Cyzicenus, but those versed in such studies have no doubt that the treatise" De Duabus Naturis in Christo" is the work of the pope. Gelasius was pope in 492. Gelasius Cyzicenus was archbishop in 476. There was another of the name a century before, but he is not in question. We must ascribe it to the pope. He says, writing against the Eutychians and using the argument common to the Fathers, " Certain sacraments which we take of' the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, on account of which and by the same we are made participators [consorter] of the divine nature; and yet it does not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And certainly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It is therefore shown to us evidently enough that that is to be felt by us in the Lord Christ Himself which we profess, celebrate, and are,* that as they pass, by the operation of the Ηoly Ghost, into this that is divine substance, remaining however in the propriety (that which was proper to them) of their own nature, so that principal mystery itself whose efficacy and virtue they truly represent.”

(Gel. de D. N. Ch.) Such indeed was the constant argument of the day against the Eutychians. If one only read the Dialogs of Theodoret, which I have quoted, it will be found to run through them, as we have seen in the much earlier Irenmus arguing against other heretics.

R. This reasoning of Irerזus and Theodoret and Gelasius seems to me, I confess, to be of great force. There is no mistaking its import; because the comparison of the two natures in Christ and the denial of them by the heretics, and in Theodoret where his Eutychian opponent sought to make good his argument

of Christ being made flesh or transubstantiated, and being met by Theodoret by the contradiction of its being so in the Eucharist, as an acknowledged truth too, leaves no question what their faith was, and it is con- firmed by the other statements you have quoted. I do not understand how they can say the Fathers taught it.

N*. I am glad you see the force of the statements of these Fathers. Indeed the argument against Eutychianism in Theodoret and Gelasius, and of Irernזus against the Gnostics or Docetז, leaves no doubt as to the common faith of the church; while they held, some in a very strong way, the participation in a spiritual sense in Christ's body, making it as Irenזus did effectual for the resurrection; so that Chrysostom also has to guard against its being a physical effect, or the wicked would arise with Christ's glorious body (a strange conclusion); yet that transubstantiation evidently, in the proper sense of the word, was unknown.

Bill M. Sure enough, if it was His body, and was transubstantiated into ours who partake of it outwardly, the wicked would be transubstantiated into His pure and glorious body. I do not believe that.

D. But you see that the holy archbishop and doctor guards against it.

Bill M. How can he guard against it? He sees what I never thought of: what a terrible consequence flows from it 1 But either it is only received spiritually by true faith, or if it be its own efficacy, it must change one as well as the other, and I cannot help saying, though it is a shocking thought, the mouse's too. They may bring judgment on a wicked man perhaps by it, but at any rate the poor mouse is innocent. I do not know what its worth really is, but none of these notions can be true.

D. I wonder so ignorant a person as you can speak so confidently about so holy a Mystery, tremendous or fearful, as those holy men justly called it.

Bill M. I am an ignorant man, sir, and all this I never knew, or I might have been spared going wrong. But can you, sir, deny what we have been hearing, or can you explain how the wicked, if they really partake of it (and if it is it, they must partake of it, as I thought I did), do not get their bodies raised in glory, or what comes of it when an animal eats it?.

D. I do not pretend to explain anything, but receive it by faith as the church holds and gives it; and you had confessed and received absolution before you took it.

Bill M. That is true, but I was not a bit really changed. I tried to behave myself just at the time, and ate nothing till I partook of it, but I never thought of sin or salvation as I do now. It was only just being safe through these things being done for me, and I had my conscience easy for a moment, but I was not a really changed man at all, and if I did not receive at Easter, I was in mortal sin; so they told me. For my part, though I was not exactly a bad liver, I believe I was in mortal sin all the time.

.D. I dare say you were, and, not having faith in the holy mystery, got no good of it.

Bill M. Excuse me, sir, I did believe it; I accepted all the priest told me, and joined the Catholics because I did, and did all they bid me. I was in earnest, but I was as to sinfulness just what I was before. I do not pretend to understand much, but that I know for certain; I have nothing to pretend to now, but I know I see the difference.

B. But, Mr. D., we are inquiring whether the views Bill M. and I myself have held are true. You who have very lately adopted them after having long utterly rejected them as blasphemies and dangerous deceits, have appealed to the Fathers, and when we examine them, though some, and especially Chrysostom, use very strong language as to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, yet, as it would seem, one after another teaches what clearly denies transubstantiation. You appealed to them:. we have examined them, and do not find your assertion as to what they held, made good. Our friend, Bill M., on the other hand, declares that he was not a changed man in point of fact when he partook of the Eucharist in. the Mass. Now Catholics hold that man is born again in baptism; but few or none maintain baptismal grace, and

therefore penance is needed, and, perhaps, renewal of heart is called for. Now we know, alas that multitudes who partake at Easter are not changed men in the least in their lives, nor those even who frequent the celebration of mass and receive oftener. This is notorious. It may be their own fault, but the fact is so; so that you cannot complain of Bill M., when he says it was his own case. It will not do ' if we are to believe that what we all confess to be a little flour and water by consecration becomes God, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus, we can do so, scorning the convictions of one who has had his eyes, he alleges, opened as to real godliness, and this partaking of Christ producing no effect of the kind. It may be painful to have one's faith shaken, but we must find somewhere divine authority for divine faith.

D. But there is the church, sir.

R. The church teaches that she believes quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, and we are told to interpret scripture by consent of the Fathers. Now this we cannot say we have as to transubstantiation. For if some did believe in it (which is not yet apparent), certainly a great many did not, and early ones; so that both rules fail. You talk of the Fathers and the church, but they do not, in primitive times at least, make good your assertion. But I confess I should like to continue our search into these ancient authorities.

.N*. We will return to our quotations. I have only given such as I have found in those of these ancient authors which I myself have access to; but these are really sufficient. I will add one quoted from a collection, not having Procopius of Gaza. For He gave the image of His own body to His disciples no longer admitting [or accepting] the bloody sacrifices of the law," and then it speaks of the purity of the bread by which we are nourished, as the whiteness mentioned in the prophecy as to Judah, a common reference in the Fathers.*

I go on to Eusebius in his Demonstratio Evangelica from whom Procopius draws it (lib. i. 10, Paris 1628, p. 37). After speaking of Christ's sacrifice supplanting all the Jewish figures of it, he says: " We who believe in him are free from the curse of Moses and justly since they daily celebrate the remembrance [ὑπόμνησιν] of his body, and of his blood:" and (38) " Christ having offered for us all an offering [θῦμα] and sacrifice as slain [σφάγιον] and given to us a memorial, for (or instead of) a sacrifice, [ἀντὶ θυσίας] to offer continually to God." The σφάγιον, the actual sacrifice, Christ had offered to His Father (ἀνένεηκε, a sacrificial term for offering up on the altar); but He delivered there to us also a memorial to be continually presented to God (προσφέρειν the bringing up as such), in place of, to serve instead of, a sacrifice. And again (p. 39), saying how according to Psa. 45 Christ had offered Himself a sacrifice to God in place of the old Jewish sacrifices: " As therefore we have received to celebrate the memorial of this sacrifice on a table by symbols both of His body and His blood, according to the rites of the new covenant," and then he goes on to cite Psa. 23, as a table spread in the presence of their enemies, &c. Now he speaks of unbloody and intelligent offerings, but they are for men only symbols and memorials. So in book viii. at the very end of the very first part (ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως) after the preface (p. 380) he says, commenting partly on the blessing of Judah, which the Fathers are very fond of, and partly on the prophecy of Zechariah: " For by the wine which is the symbol of His blood, those who are baptized to His death and believe in His blood, are purged from their old evils." And after speaking of it as mystic food, and quoting the Lord's words, he adds " for again He delivered to His own disciples the symbols of the divine dispensation to make it the image of His own body [τὴν εἴκονα τοῦἰδίου σώματος]." They were no longer to use bloody sacrifices, nor slain offerings [σφάγια] of divers animals as under Moses; but He "taught them to use bread [as] a symbol of His own body." (Eusebius, Dem. Ev.) I have gone a little backwards in date, for Eusebius was in Constantine's time, early in the fourth century; but this does not weaken his testimony, which is plain enough.

I turn now to Ambrose, a pious man doubtless, but as superstitious as the most bigoted heart could wish. Our friend Dr. Milner says he passes by Tertullian, Cyprian, &c., but cannot Ambrose, and quotes, as they all do, a treatise De Mysteriis, and another De Sacramentis. But all these things have to be looked into. It is one of the painful things in these inquiries that you cannot trust such writers as Dr. Milner. In the first place, the first treatise is doubtful, and the second is very generally rejected. They both, however, take exactly the same ground as to doctrine. Bellarmine holds them to be genuine, being quoted by subsequent doctors: I will therefore take notice of them. One thing is quite certain, that according to the Romish doctrine both are heretical. There is a good deal of nonsense in them and extraordinary applications of scripture; but this we must expect from the Fathers. The author, whoever he is, says that the angels also doubted, when Christ rose. The powers of the heavens doubted seeing that flesh ascended into heaven. At last they said: " Who is this King of glory?" and when some said, " Lift up your heads," &c., others doubted, saying, " Who is this King of glory?" " In Isaiah also thou hast the virtues of the heavens doubting, saying, Who is this that cometh from Edom?' "

Bill M. But do you think the angels and heavenly powers doubt that way, sir?

N*. In truth, I do not. I give it only as a specimen of patristic interpretation. We read the angels came and ministered to Christ, and they told the women He was risen; but nothing is too absurd for the Fathers. However we will say no more of them. But in the first treatise, he states that the washing of baptism clears from actual sins, and refers to the Lord's word to Peter, " Ye are clean," in John 13; but that then He washed their feet, and that was what cleansed from original sin, because, as the devil had tripped him up, he wanted the soles of his feet cleansed. (Cap. v. or § 32, p. 335, ii. Benedictine edition). The same is repeated in De Sacramentis. (Lib. iii. cap. i. 9, p. 364.) Now the Romish doctrine holds distinctly that original sin is done away by baptism. In this second treatise it is noticed this was not done in Rome. The editors state that it was in various places in France.

R. But it is alleged these treatises are not genuine, so that. Ambrose may not be chargeable with all this. N*. It is possible: yet the catechism of the Council of Trent founds its doctrine on them, (De Ecc. 2 32.) Bellarmine and Milner quote it as particularly to their purpose, being (like Cyril's) the teaching of catechumens and thus of those admitted already. As the Lord's supper was kept a secret from others, they liked, like the heathen, to have initiation and mysteries, and used the terms. But let us see how they speak of them. In the " De Mysteriis," he does speak of changing the nature as is alleged, but it is not in a material sense; for in the next paragraph (ix. 53, p. 340), though begotten miraculously, he says, The flesh of Christ is true [flesh] which is crucified, which is buried, truly therefore it is the sacrament of His flesh. But a sacrament of a thing is never the thing itself, as is urged by Augustine, Tertullian, &c. In the De Sacramentis, lib. iv. cap. iv. § 15, p. 369, " If therefore such great force is in the word of the Lord Jesus, that things began to be which were not, how much more does it operate that they should be what they were, and be changed into another thing?" And the comparison which follows shows that, while they thought people received Christ, they had no thought of a corporal or physical change in insisting on its being the body of Christ after consecration. He says, referring to baptism, "There thou wast thyself, but thou wast an old creature: afterward when thou wast consecrated, thou begannest to be a new creature: dost thou wish to know how a new creature? Every one that is in Christ is a new creature."

We afterward find a direct denial (lib. iv. cap. 7, § 27, 28, p. 372) of the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this belongs to the whole doctrine of the offering of the Mass, and I will not enter farther into it. It is a fundamental question as to what christian redemption is.

R. But it is this which troubles me in the doctrine, I am free to confess. It seems to militate against the efficacy of Christ's offering offered once for all, and the statement that there is no more offering for sins.

N*. Surely it does. I will quote for you then what I have alluded to. The words run thus. After reciting the prayer of the service of the Mass which blasphemously prays that the offering may be received like that of Abel and Melchizedec and carried by the angels to the altar on high, he says to the catechumens: " Therefore, as often as thou receivest, what cloth the apostle say to thee? As often as we receive, we announce the Lord's death. If we announce death, we announce remission of sins. If, as often as the blood is shed it is shed for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive it that my sins may be always forgiven. I who always sin ought always to have the medicine." Now if we read Heb. 10 this is in open and flagrant opposition to it. No honest mind can read the two and not see it. The whole effect of Heb. 10 is to show there can be no repetition of the sacrifice, and that the forgiveness is complete and full.

R. I confess I cannot reconcile them. Heb. 10 is very strong; I do not say I realize it, but certainly I cannot reconcile it with the doctrine of the Mass.

D. But these are the private opinions of the Fathers.

N*. No doubt; but it is, you say, by the consent of the Fathers, scripture is to be interpreted. Now, if even some Fathers teach transubstantiation, which in the modern and scholastic sense I deny, certainly many we have cited teach the contrary, and there is no consent. Strange to say, the canon of the Mass itself calls it bread, after the consecration.

R. How is that?

N*. After the consecration, and adoration by the consecrating priest, both of the bread and of the wine, he says in the prayer, commencing, " Unde et memores " &c.,-We offer to thy illustrious majesty of thy gifts (donis et datis) a pure victim, a holy victim, an immaculate victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of eternal salvation.

D. But this may mean Christ as the bread of life.

N*.I suppose it may be taken so, but then the blasphemy of the following prayer comes out in all its grossness; in which it is asked that God may deign to look upon it with a propitious and serene countenance, and to accept them as He had deigned to accept the gifts of His righteous servant AbeC&c. There can be little doubt that the prayer is borrowed from the ancient offerings before consecration, but as it stands it is really blasphemy.

R. It is strange and perplexing, but, Mr. N., we are not accustomed to examine these things.

N*. I am aware you are not, but when they are examined, their real and unscriptural, and here really blasphemous, character comes out at once. But Ambrose has made us wander a little from our subject. We may turn to Augustine along with Jerome the most influential of the Latin Fathers, as to doctrine more so. But of Jerome first, as he has not much on the subject.

Jerome, as superstitious as any monk could wish, knew of no such doctrine. Referring to the corn and wine and oil of which the Psalm speaks, he says, Of which the bread of the Lord is made, and the type of His blood is filled, and the blessing of sanctification is shown, &c. (Corn. in Jeremiam, vi. 31. iv. 1063, ed. Vall.) And again when he introduces Jovinian, denouncing his antimonastic teaching, to combat it he makes him say: In type of His blood, He offered not water, but wine. It is of course said that Jovinian was a heretic, not that there is the least proof he was; but Jerome has no thought of combating this, but only the use of the wine as justifying the rejection of such asceticism. It passes with him as a matter taken for granted, with both as a matter known by all. But there is more than this. In meeting Jovinian's statement so given by him, and speaking of the abstemiousness of Christ, he says it is written, He never was a slave to His throat or to His belly, that is, abstained from drink or gluttony, the mystery excepted (that is, the Lord's supper), where He made it the type of His passion (in typum passionis expressit)—gave it that character and turned it into that.

I may turn to Augustine in his Tractatus xxvi.; he is full of its being spiritually eaten..Many ate the manna, he says, who pleased the Lord, and are not dead. Why? Because they understood visible food spiritually, they hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, and were satisfied spiritually. For we also at this day receive visible food, but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. So again, (sec. 15): The sacrament of the unity of the body and blood of Christ is prepared in some places daily; in some at certain intervals on the Lord's table, and is taken from the Lord's table by some to life, by some to ruin; but the thing itself of which it is the sacrament is for every man to life, to doubt to ruin whoever has partaken of it. The many receive of the altar and die, die by receiving. And after speaking of Judas, he says: See therefore, brethren, that ye eat the heavenly bread spiritually; and if forgiven, approach in security, it is bread, not poison. After referring to the unity of the body the church, he says: This therefore is to eat that food, and to drink that drink, to abide in Christ, and have Christ abide in oneself, and through this he who does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, beyond doubt does not eat His flesh nor drink His blood, but rather eats to his own judgment the sacrament of so great a thing. In the Tractatus 45, he is comparing Israel and Christians. The Red Sea is baptism, &c., "the same faith with different signs," and again, " See then, faith remaining, the signs varied." There the rock is Christ: for us Christ is what is placed upon the altar, and is a great sacrament of the same Christ. They drank of the water that flowed from the rock: " If you attend to the visible form, it is different: if to the intelligible signification, it is the same; they drank the same spiritual drink." This comparison of that rock was Christ with the Lord's supper, because both were a sign of Christ, he very often repeats. We have seen in Tr. xlv. on St..John; again in Tr. xxvi., xxvii.

I will quote enough to give his thoughts. He says in general (De Civ. D. x. 5) Sacramentum, id est sacrum signum, I cite as a key to many passages. As all things that have a signification seem in a certain way to fill the role (sustinere personas) of those things which they signify, as is said by the apostle, the rock was Christ, since the rock of which that is said signified indeed Christ. So again, Quest. in Lev. iii. 57, he refers to Pharaoh's dream, the seven ears are seven years, and " That rock was Christ;" for he does not say the rock signifies Christ, but as if He was this, what substantially He was not, but by signification. Again on John, Tract. lxiii.: As therefore scripture is accustomed to speak, he, calling the things that signify as if they were the things signified, largely insists in the questions on Leviticus already quoted, as to the life being the blood. Referring to this principle, he says (Contra Ad. xii. 3), (besides what I have said above) that it does not belong to me to say what becomes of the soul of a beast; I may also interpret that precept as applying to it as a sign (in signo positum). to say, " This is my body," when He gave the sign of His body.

In the treatise De Doctrina Christiana (referring to John 6) 3: 26 (16) He interprets eating His flesh and drinking His blood as a figure, which is, according to the truth of the mystery, done in baptism. If a preceptive expression seems to command a crime or act of wickedness.... it is a figure. " Unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you." It seems to command an act of wickedness or crime, it is therefore a figure telling us to have communion with the passion, and laying up sweetly in memory that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us. In the Enarratio on Psa. 98:9, he says, speaking of eating His flesh, " It is the Spirit that quickens. Understand what I say spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which those who will crucify me are about to pour out. I have commended to you something sacramental (sacramentum aliquid): spiritually understood, it

will vivify you. Although it is necessary that that should be visibly celebrated, yet it ought to be invisibly understood." I may quote one passage more from Tr. on John, Tr. xxvi. (on John 6), "The manna signified this bread: the altar of God signified this bread. They were sacraments; in the signs they were diverse; in the thing signified, they are alike.... all have eaten the same spiritual food. The same spiritual indeed, for the bodily is different, for they had the manna; we another thing, but as to the spiritual what we have."

Now you know, Mr. R., that to maintain transubstantiation you have, believing that Christ is in heaven as a man, to hold that Christ is not in extension as filling space in the Eucharist. This is distinctly held and asserted, but only as substance according to the unfounded and obsolete scholastic material philosophy. But though Chrysostom and Ambrose in East and West speak in the strongest terms rhetorically, the doctrine of the ancient Fathers was not transubstantiation, but the contrary. Such a thing was never thought of as its not being bread, only they would say it was not common bread, after the briancrtc or invocation to which they attributed the change, which made it a sacramental figure of Christ's body and blood, efficacious in blessing where faith was, as Augustine diligently insists. It is historically certain, that some of the greatest scholastic doctors, as Scotus, did not hold it; that even down to the Reformation it was said by the Romish doctors and prelates that it could not be proved by scripture, so that Bellarmine says this is probable; and that it never was decreed as a dogma till 1215. Bellarmine asserts that a local Roman council had a short time before. The contrary doctrine was used as an argument to prove that Christ had taken flesh and had two natures. Of all the Fathers, Cyril is perhaps the strongest in the Catechetical discourses which he delivered, says Jerome, when a young man. Not only he speaks of the bread and wine as Christ's body and blood, but calls them, in his lecture on the sacramental service, a sacrifice of propitiation.

But, after all, I do not see any sign of the thought of transubstantiation, unless in the comparisons he makes, and these have no value, because in these the form was changed as Moses' rod into a serpent, and the water into the best wine, known to be such by tasting; whereas Cyril told them they are not to mind the taste: in the form (τίπῳ) of the bread and wine they have the body and the blood which will sanctify body and soul, and being distributed into our members, we become, as Peter says, partakers of the divine nature. " But," he says, "do not regard (πρόσεχε) [them] as mere (ψιλοῖς, the word constantly so used) bread and wine.".

Now Cyril teaches it is a propitiatory sacrifice, and good for souls dead in their sins or without any, and refers to intercession of saints, but I do not think that he bad the thought. that there was no bread and wine there. He uses the word τύπος (Cat. xiii. 19) as do the other Fathers constantly, for the figure, as did the Latins typus. This is used by Theodoret as equivalent to symbol, and ἀντίτυπος, the word used in the Hebrews for the tabernacle compared with heaven. Procopius uses it as identical with image or effigy, on Gen. 49:12. So that far as. Cyril went in the system of super, stition, it is (I think) plain he did not believe in any real change of substance. The strongest term he uses is μεταβέβληται, cap. xxiii., Myst. v. 7; the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes all it touches, but it is clear that this cannot be said of everything. Was. Christ changed, transubstantiated, when the Holy Ghost came upon Him? or the hundred and twenty on the day of Pentecost? A change took place, but there was no transubstantiation, and this is so clearly the case that he uses the same language in Cat. xxi., Myst,. iii., as to the anointing: it is not mere (ψιλόν) oil, hut efficient for communicating the Spirit, comparing it in terms with the Eucharist. " For as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is not mere bread, but the body of Christ, so this holy ointment is no longer mere [ointment] but the charisma of Christ made effectual by the presence of His divinity, and is symbolically applied to thy forehead and other senses. And while the body is anointed with visible ointment, the soul is

sanctified with the holy and vivifying Spirit." (Compare xxiii. 7, and the language of xxii., Myst. iv. 6.) He calls it τύπον of bread. (Cat. xiii.) If you desire to see the uncertainty and absurdity of the Fathers' interpretation, read this Cat. xiii. 21. The idea of transubstantiation was foreign to Cyril; but what his language spews is that, with these Fathers, those who use the strongest do not mean transubstantiation thereby as now held at Rome.

R. But Cyril's language is very strong.

Ν*. It is the strongest, I believe, used, and therefore I refer to it, and false doctrine I believe, if scriptures be true, as to its being a propitiatory sacrifice. But this is the force of my argument, that the strongest language does not mean what is now taught; for he says, after the invocation, the bread is not mere bread, using the same words as to the ointment, where there can be no supposition of any sort of change, and which he makes merely efficacious in the anointed and expressly compares with the Lord's supper.

D. But why should we not take his statements simply, that it is the body? These great Fathers whom you treat so lightly use language which all those who reject the Catholic doctrine decline using.

.N*. Why should a man have authority because he wrote fourteen centuries ago?

D. Because of the universal reverence of the church, and being nearer the fountain-head.

.N*. In the first place they were four and five hundred years from the source, a lapse of time which disappears in the distance. They had fallen into the doctrines and commandments of men; and, remark, the early Fathers held unequivocally the contrary doctrine replying to the Docetז and afterward to the Eutychians that there being two things in the Eucharist proved that there was more than one in Christ.

R. That is true.

Ν*. And further if these later Fathers held it, which 1 do not admit, the consent of the Fathers is a fable, for it is certain that the earlier ones did not, but insisted that the bread was there. I would now show that the doctrine was not made a matter of faith in the church till quite late in its history. I might quote a multitude of passages from the Fathers to the same purpose as those I have already brought forward, which are to be found in treatises on the subject, but what I have given is sufficient. I add some lower down in age. Thus Ephrem, archbishop of Antioch in the sixth century, quoted by Photius, Bibl. 229, to prove there was no confusion of natures in Christ, compares the case of the Eucharist (as Irenmus had done with the Docetז, which was indeed usual in writing against the Eutychians), and says, "Thus the body of Christ, which is received by the faithful, does not put off substance known by the senses, and remains unseparated from the grace known by the thought; and baptism, while it becomes wholly spiritual and one thing, preserves what is proper to it as perceived by the senses, I mean water, and does not lose what it has become. So Facundus about the same time, "The sacrament of adoption [baptism] may be called adoption, as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ consecrated in the bread and wine is said to be His body and His blood, not that His body be bread or His blood wine, but because the bread and wine are the sacrament of His body and blood, and therefore so called by Christ when He gave them to His disciples."* Bede, in the eighth century, is express.

(Compare Luke 22 and Psa. 3) In the last he says, "Neither did He exclude him [Judas] from the most sacred supper in which He delivered to His disciples the figure of His most holy body and blood." So in the Ambrosian office, so-called, it is said, "which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." With this we must remember that the elements are constantly called types and antitypes. I now turn to Bernard.

In his sermon on the supper of the Lord which is much more one on indwelling sin, he says, however, " A sacrament is called a sacred sign or sacred secret. Many things indeed are for themselves alone, others to designate other things, and they are called signs. That we may take an example from common things,

a ring is given, absolutely a ring, and has no signification; it is given as the investiture of some inheritance and it is a sign so that he who receives it can say, The ring is nothing worth, but the inheritance which I seek. In this manner therefore, the Lord, drawing near His passion, took care in His grace to give investiture to His own, that invisible grace might be afforded [prזstaretur] by a certain visible sign. To this purpose all the sacraments were instituted." Then he goes through these; the partaking of the Eucharist, washing the feet, and baptism. He had said these would be enough for them. He was the last of the Fathers so-called, and was after Berengarius as to whom the question had been very rudely agitated. Aucalaurius, deacon of Metz, in the ninth century, says (De Such. Off. i. 29), "For sacraments are somewhat resemble these things whereof they are sacraments.... the sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner the body of Christ. For sacraments should not be sacraments if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they are sacraments. Now by reason of this mutual likeness they oftentimes are called by what they represent." (3: 24.) Yet he also uses language which is tantamount to transubstantiation, so uncertain were these men.

D. But these are very late, and can hardly be called Fathers.

N*. Exactly so, I cite them not as any authority, but to show how late a doctrine which subverts transubstantiation passed current in Christendom as orthodox and right. Bernard is generally counted the last of the Fathers: I have already quoted him sheaving that till the twelfth century the most eminent men of their day held this with impunity. Bernard had more influence in his day than any man in Christendom.

D. But it was opposed and condemned in Berengarius.

N*.. It was, but that did not hinder multitudes of eminent men from holding and defending it. It was in the ninth century especially discussed, and both doctrines were held and taught. There were partial condemnations of this denial of transubstantiation, Paschasius Radbert leading the way for the doctrine. Rabanus Maurus, the most famous man of his day in the middle of the ninth century, was wholly opposed to it, as was John Scot. Erigena, Ratramnus, or Bertram who wrote a little later. So we have Alfric in a homily ordered to be read in the Anglo-Saxon churches; the last in the tenth century,*

Berengarius in the eleventh, and he was called up about it! All these wrote against transubstantiation; as we have seen, Bernard did too in the twelfth. Paschasius Radbert first wrote insisting on it in the ninth, Lanfranc afterward against Berengarius. In 1215 it was established as a dogma, in the time of Innocent III. who established the Inquisition and set on foot the crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses.

.Let us look a little into these cases, for this is the true epoch of the establishment of the doctrine by Rome. I may first mention the second Council of Constantinople of three hundred and thirty-eight prelates (Hard. Conc. iv. 367; 2nd Conc. of this Action vi.) in 754. The

Council was against images, but they say, " you could not bring the divine infiniteness of Christ in glory into-a painted finite image," and adds, "he chose no other form under heaven or type to give the image (εικονίσαι) of His incarnation than the Eucharist which " He gave to, His initiated (μύσταις) for a type and effectual remembrance He ordained the substance of bread to be offered having no way the form of a man that idolatry might not be brought in." They call " the bread of the Eucharist" a true image (ἀψενδὴ εἴκονα) of his natural flesh (φυσικῆς σαϼκός). And a good deal more; but this suffices. His flippant respondent Epiphanies objects to calling it an image after it has been consecrated, saying it has never been so called; a statement so notoriously false that the Roman Catholic annotators have corrected it and cited instances in the margin.

The second of Nice (787) brought in images again under the influence of Irene; put down under Leo, they were set up again under Theodora his widow, and a festival established in commemoration. In England (792) and at Frankfort under Charlemagne (794), where some eight hundred prelates were assembled, the second Council of Nice was condemned. So was the doctrine in the Council of Illiberis in Spain at the same epoch, noticed here to show the dates of these questions. Up to 824 purity as to this was maintained. In the middle of the ninth century Paschasius Radbert introduced transubstantiation in the West, as John of Damascus some few years before the Council of Constantinople (654) in the East, just a century before Radbert. Sirmondi, in a short life prefixed to Radbert's works in the Bib. Max. Pat. says (xiv. 353), " He first so explained the genuine sense of the Catholic church, that he opened the way to others who in numbers wrote afterward on the same subject." And Bellarmine says he was the first author who wrote seriously and copiously concerning the verity of the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist.

Paschasius Radbert does not speak of transubstantiation, but he does speak of the Eucharist being really the body and blood of Christ; and that body and blood which was born of the virgin and which suffered, as there could not be any other. That as Christ as man was created in the virgin's womb by the power of the Holy Ghost, so by the operation of the Holy Ghost it is Christ in the Eucharist-faith knows Him to be there as it would the divinity in Christ hanging on the cross. There is nothing of the school doctrine of substance and accidents, and so far from its being a church dogma, he says in his second treatise, to Frudegarde who doubted through reading Augustine, that many doubted. The whole work is the reasoning of an individual to prove his point. He fully holds it is the flesh of Christ, but speaks of eating it spiritually interiorly; and that he who is not dwelling in Christ, though he seems to receive it with his mouth, does not really.

D. But you do not mean that Radbert did not believe in transubstantiation?

Ν*. I do not say that exactly. That he believed the Eucharist was the true body and blood of Christ is quite clear. But the scholastic view, brought in later by Lombard, was not yet established. He was the first that spoke as plainly as he did, but he does not bring it out as it was brought out afterward, and has no thought of it being a dogma of the church, but twice over in his second letter says many doubted it. And he puts baptism, the chrism, and the Eucharist on the same ground, but he holds that it was the same body that hung upon the cross. He calls it a figure, but says it was the truth of the thing too as Christ was as to God. What I insist on with Sirmondi and Bellarmine is that he was the first that propounded the doctrine; and this tells the whole story: it is a doctrine which came in quite late and was opposed, as we shall now see, by the greatest men of the age.

Bertram or Ratramnus I need hardly quote. The Emperor Carolus Calvus had asked him the question whether it was literally or figuratively Christ's body, and the book is to show it was the latter. His doctrine is the usual doctrine of the Fathers, that by faith they par-.took of Christ's body and blood in spiritual efficacy, but that literally it was bread and wine as before, and as we have seen others do, he refers to baptism and anointing as a similar case, nobody pretending the water or oil was changed, only it became spiritually efficacious. In the preface, London, 1688, a list of those who taught the same doctrine at the same time, beginning with Charles the Great to Alcuin, is given. Alfric, whom I have named, is a proof how Ratramn was received, as his statements are taken from Ratramn. The whole, history of the writers of this age shows it was now first introduced, and at once called in question. Rabanus Maurus, the greatest man of his day, opposed it. He says (De Institutione Clericorum, i. 31), " Because the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another; for the sacrament is received by the mouth; by the virtue of the sacrament the inward man is satiated, for the sacrament is reduced into an aliment of the body, but by the virtue of the sacrament the dignity of eternal life is obtained." And just before, " and as the invisible God. appeared in visible flesh, so also He demonstrated an invisible thing by visible matter," and again as Melchisedec offered bread and wine, the great high priest should do the same. He says (Penitential, 6. 33), " For some of late, not thinking rightly of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, have said that the very body and blood of our Lord which was born and in which the Lord Himself suffered on the cross and rose out of the sepulcher.... [in opposition] to which error as far as we could in writing to the Abbot Egilus, we have opened up what is really to be believed about His body;" where, for what specifically was spoken, a blank was left in the copy, but plenty is left. In my copy of Rab. Maur. (lib. vi. on Matt.) he tells us He (Christ) "substituted the sacrament of His body and blood for the flesh and blood of the Lamb and breaks the bread which He handed to the disciples, to chew that the fraction of His body was not without His own voluntary act." "Because therefore the bread strengthens the body, and wine produces blood in the flesh, that refers mystically to the body of Christ, this to His blood." There is no doubt that Rab. Maurus was wholly opposed to the doctrine, though held to be the greatest light in his day. There is 'a curious circumstance, chewing how we have to be on our guard in these inquiries. The works of Fulbert of Chartres were published in Paris. Referring to eating Christ's flesh, it is said, " It seems to command a crime or atrocity. It is therefore a figure, saith the heretic, commanding only communion with die passion of the Lord." But some one reminded the publisher that the words were Augustine's own. Unless the fraud was still more willful, in the hope nobody would look to the errata, he puts in the errata that the words: " the heretic saith," were not in the MS.

R. But do you mean that the text was willfullya changed?

N*. Judge for yourself. He tells us the words were not in the MS.

R. This is very bad.

N*. Surely it is, but they changed Ambrose in the same way. He writes, speaking of the elements, that " they should be what they were and be changed into another thing," they published it as " what they were should be changed into another thing." They changed passages in the imperfect work on Matthew, ascribed to Chrysostom, from a direct testimony against transubstantiation to the contrary; leaving the part out or boldly changing it. The Benedictine edition has restored in Ambrose what flatly, in terms, contradicts transubstantiation. John Scot Erigena at this time also wrote clearly against this new doctrine. His book was not 'condemned for two hundred years. But the Emperor Charles asked Ratramn, a man much looked up to, to write his well-known book against the new notion. No Roman Catholic denies this, though they at one time attempted to father it on others. It only proves, says a Jesuit, " that the heresy of Calvin was not new."

Thus what history clearly shows is that the introduction of this doctrine in the West was in the ninth century. But it was then and afterward strenuously resisted by doctors, prelates, and emperors; it was then in no sense a doctrine of the church. But it gradually prevailed; and controversy broke out afresh when Berengarius maintained the ancient doctrine, and appealed to Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. He was brought before several Councils under Leo IX., Victor II., and Nicholas II. In one he was made to sign a confession prepared by Cardinal Humbert, which says at the end, that the body and blood of Christ are handled and broken by the hands of the priests and ground with the teeth of the faithful and sensibly (sensualiter), not sacramentally only but in truth. The marginal gloss warns us to apply this only to the visible form, or we should be worse heretics than Berengarius.. (Corp. Jur. Can. Deer. Tertia pars, Dis. ii. cap. 42; Lyons, 1671, pp. 19, 31.) He speaks in the beginning of having (held it was only sacramentally. (Bar. 1059. xiii. xiv. xvii. 152-3.) John Erigena was also condemned: this was at Rome by the Pope and a hundred and thirteen prelates. Berengarius yielded to fear, but went on afterward with his doctrine, and wrote against his recantation and denounced the Council. He was again cited by Pope Hildebrand, the most violent of Popes who forced celibacy on the clergy. In this Council, Rom. 6 (Hard. vi. 1583), it is declared that the major part held the literal body and blood were there, but that many thought thus, and others thus, and a fast appointed and three months given to Berengarius, having had three days' discussion in the synod. Berengarius signed a confession that the bread was substantially changed. As some state, he sold all he had and worked for his livelihood. Lanfranc, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote against him and brought the doctrine to England. But at the time, as the English historians of the middle ages declare, almost all the English, French, and Italian bishops agreed with Berengarius; he had been acquitted at Tours, signing a confession which is not extant that I know. Lanfranc was his great opponent, and we have to learn all relating to him chiefly in Lanfranc's abusive statements. In the Council of Vercelli (1050), where Lanfranc was and Berengarius sent two, John Erigena was condemned, and Berengarius. I should have noticed that Erigena was murdered by the students where he taught, it is said at the instigation of the monks.

D. But Berengarius was a worthless man, denying his own oath, and teaching the contrary of what he had sworn to.

R. I do not see that this proves much as to the history of the doctrine, Mr. D.; it proves his weakness.

Berengarius was reputed both a holy and learned man. His denial at Rome of what he held proved his weakness assuredly, but we have never been tried or we might have to put our hand in the fire as Cranmer, for signing a confession he was gradually drawn into. It appears the prelate of Angers, where he was archdeacon, agreed with him, and he was defended by many of the French clergy; no doubt when he got back among them his courage, which had failed when alone among his enemies, revived. Lanfranc, then a monk in France, pursued his point with relentless and abusive violence.

But the question is not the character of Berengarius but the history of transubstantiation, and I hardly know how it would be made clearer than by the facts we have been surveying. The Roman historian admits there was only a majority in the Roman council, and decided after three days' discussion. It was not then a dogma of the church. That the doctrine at length prevailed in the Roman church we all know. I quote a summary (from Gieseler, 3rd Div. chap. v. sec. 77) by Algenis of the current opinions about 1130. " Some think the bread and wine are not changed, but that it is only a sacrament, as the water of baptism and oil of the chrism; they say that it is called the body of Christ not truly but figuratively. Others say that the bread is not only a sacrament but that Christ is, as it were, embodied in the bread [impanatum] as God was personally incarnate in flesh. Others that the bread and wine. are changed into flesh and blood, but not that of Christ, but of some son of man holy and accepted of God, that what Christ Said may be fulfilled, ' unless ye eat the flesh of Bon of man [carnem filii hominis] ye will not have life in you.' Others, that evil in the consecrator an-mulled the invocation of the divine name. Others, that

it was really changed; but by evil in recipients it returned into a mere sacrament." Now it is perfectly. impossible a person, presbyter and afterward monk, could write in this way if it had been a fixed dogma of the church. I have already referred to Bernard in the middle of the twelfth century (Sermo 1, in Cœna Dom. 2). Indeed the mystics generally took the spiritual As contrasted with the material side. Finally in the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in 1215, it was decided to be the faith of the church.

Other circumstances confirm this. It was then the giving the communion to children began to be set aside, it continued locally for two or three centuries; the cup began to be withheld from the laity, although by many such a practice was entirely condemned. Gratian (De ert p. iii. Dist. 2, v. 12) quoting Pope Gelasius that they should take it in both species or not at all. And this was general, but the withdrawal of the cup began now. Alexander Hales (whose works I have not) discusses it at large. In two centuries the cup was universally refused to the laity. On all these things I do not insist for their -own sake, but as a testimony to the epoch of establishing transubstantiation. It was when the Bible was forbidden in the Council of Toulouse and the Inquisition established to root out the Albigenses, and the celibacy of the clergy insisted on to the universal ruin of Morals; when the papacy was, at the height of its power and morality at its lowest ebb, and when as Bernard says Antichrist was seated at Rome.

D. But the decree was founded on the church's Authority by the consent of the Fathers.

N*. We can read the Fathers for ourselves and see if that is true, without blasphemously discussing, as Innocent and Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura and others do, what becomes of the Lord if a mouse eats Him or any other accident happens to the helpless elements, though His. Godhead (they say) is there. And we have cited them; and though superstition grew apace, it is not. true that there was any consent of Fathers. Many taught exactly the contrary, as we have seen in their 'controversy with the Docetז and Eutychians; in fact, (Cyril of Jerusalem is the only one who at all draws near it; and a vast array of the doctors of the previous centuries opposed the doctrine. The first who really held it was a Greek Father, John Damascene, and there it was identified with the re-establishment of image 'worship. This was in the seventh century, but a few years after. him the Council of Constantinople declared the bread to be the only image of Christ. Damascene says that if Basil calls it a figure (ἀντίτυπον) he must mean before consecration,* he adds it was not by the `body in heaven coming down, but by a conversion of the elements.

That it was called so before as well, we have already seen; so that the only effect of this testimony is to recognize the force of the word, and to prove that he was conscious that the word was used and meant to be as a figure. Though thus taught practically by Damascene in the eighth century in the East, it was never made a dogma there till Peter the Great in 1725, though prevailing gradually. In the West, we have seen that it was introduced by Radbert a century after Damascene, and made a dogma of Rome in the thirteenth century; the earlier Fathers being clearly against it, and in the ninth century it was discussed and combated, and not only privately but in a Roman Council.

The progress of superstition is seen indeed in John Damascene, he refers, as we have often seen in the Fathers, to the oil of the chrism and the water in baptism,* to which divine grace was added by means of the invocation of the Holy Ghost, which was, and in the Greek church is still, what consecrates the elements.

These are only set apart by the words, This is my body, as a preparatory service in what is called the prothesis, and then carried in procession to be consecrated on the altar. But the language of John Damascene does show the progress of superstition, for the strongest part of his statement is, as the editor annotator of his works, Lequien, a Roman Catholic of the order of preachers (Paris, 1712) remarks, and as is easily seen, is taken from the letter to Cזsarius attributed to Chrysοstom, not probably his. Now this 'says, "Divine grace sanctifying it [the bread] by means of the priest, it is indeed freed from the appellation 'of bread, but is esteemed worthy of the appellation of the Lord's body even though the nature of bread has remained in it, and it is called not two bodies, but one body of the Son," whereas in Damascene we have, " By -the invocation and coming of the Holy Spirit they are supernaturally transformed (ὑπερφυῶς μεταποίουνται) into the body of Christ and the blood, and they are not two, but one and the same thing." This, " although the nature of bread remains in it" has passed away, but so had some 400 years time. A century later Paschasius Radbert first publicly introduced it in the West as -we have seen. But Damascene's views were not then publicly adopted. Some six years before his death, the 'Council of Constantinople (754) called as general, but not received in the West, nor in the East beyond the Emperor's rule, declared the elements in the Lord's supper to be the only image of Christ.* Still though never dogmatically established, the superstitious feeling grew.

I may add that in the Russian part of the Greek church, it is since Peter the Great's time in a certain sense established by law. It seems that through the efforts of Rome and the propaganda, persons from Eastern countries who had received their education there had widely propagated the views with which they had been imbued at Rome. Peter the Great brought many clergy in from the Ukraine, where Romish influence was considerable, and only then (1725) imposed on everyone consecrated bishop, an oath "that he believes 'and understands that the transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the holy supper as taught by the Eastern and ancient Russian doctors is effected by the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost when the bishop or priest invokes God the Father in these words, and make this bread the precious body of Christ.' " Thus since Peter the Great's reign there has, at least by the prelates, been a positive profession of transubstantiation in but by invocation of the Holy Ghost and not as at Rome, but this is only since the be-. ginning of the eighteenth century; that was rather late in the day. The way it came about was this: It seems. Rome had been very active in seeking to win and influence the Greek church, which though itself corrupt enough, was a standing witness against her pretended catholicity, and against some of her doctrines. It had had to do with the struggles in the case of Cyril Lucaris, who had embraced evangelical doctrine and was strangled by the Porte, as was the Cyril of Berrhœa who supplanted him. By like intrigues the Ukraine or Little Russia, and the provinces at the mouth of the Danube and neighborhood in what had once been Polish, had been very much Romanized, at the same time the had at least received some education at Rome. Peter the. Great, who was the ecclesiastical reformer of Russia and remodeled the whole church and monastic system, brought in thence (the Russian clergy being utterly brutish), at least educated men, and then (.1725) introduced the oath as to transubstantiation.. Mogilas, Metropolitan of the Ukraine, had made a catechism, confirmed in 1643 by the patriarchs, and in vogue till the Synod's Catechism by the Archbishop of Novgorod in 1766 supplanted it..I do not question that the superstition insisted on by John Damascene had borne its fruits. At the time of the Reformation, the Wiirtemberg divines wrote to the patriarch Jeremias, sending the confession of Augsburg, and in his answer he quotes the words of John Damascene; he says it is the body of Christ, not a type, he calls it bread when consecrated; nor is there a hint of substance and accidents. The best account perhaps of transmutation in the Greek church will be found in Covel (p. 122, c. v. Camb. 1782). But all is evidently quite modern. I thought I might notice the Greek church to complete our review.

THE following paper was drawn up, on the request being made to the writer to give a statement of his faith.

It was replied that the writer would not sign a confession of faith which he had drawn up himself; that all human statement of truth was so inferior to Scripture, even when drawn from it [the written word], that he could not do it; and the drawing up of this has only the more convinced him of it.

In the first place, there might be important points left out, or that put in which had better not be there. And supposing everything right that was there, it was like a made tree instead of a growing tree. The Word gives truth in its living operations. It is given in connection with God, in connection with man, with conscience, with divine life, and is thus a totally different thing. To use another image, it is not the growing tree, but supposing all there, sticks laid up in bundles. The writer had however no objection personally to say what he believed, to give an answer when asked the question. What follows is given with a deeper conviction than ever of the imperfection of a human assemblage of truth; the writer adding that there are many things more which he should teach. But he could say, " I believe this;" I have learned this from Scripture.

I LEARN from the Scriptures that there is one living God,*(1) fully revealed to us in Christ,*(2) and known through Him as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,*(3) in the unity of the Godhead*(4) but revealed as distinctively willing,*(5) acting,*(6) sending, sent,*(7) coming,*(8) distributing,*(9) and other actings; or, as habitually expressed amongst Christians, Three Persons in one God, or Trinity in Unity. God is the Creator of all things. But the act of creating is personally attributed to the Word and Son, and the operation of the Spirit of God.*(10)

*(1) 1 Tim. 2:5; 4:10 et passim. *(2) John 1:18. *(3) Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; Eph. 2:18.

*(4) John 5:19; 1 Cor. 12:6. *(5) John 6:38-40; John 5:21; 1 Cor. 12:11. *(6) John 5:17;

1 Cor. 12:11. *(7) 1 John 4:14; John 14:26;15: 26; 5:24, 37; 1 Peter 1:12. *(8) John 15:26;16: 7, 8, 13.

*(9)1 Cor. 12:11. *(10) Gen. 1; Job 26:13; Gen. 1:2; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2.

I learn that the Word, who was with-God, and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us, *(1) the Father sending the Son to be the Savior of the world.*(2) That He, as the Christ, was born of a woman,*(3) by the power of the Holy Spirit coming on the Virgin Mary,*(4) true man,*(5) without sin,*(6) in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily*(7) the promised seed of David according to the flesh,*(8) the Son of Man *(9)and Son of God,*(10) determined to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead,*(11) one blessed person God and Man*(12) the man Christ Jesus,*(13) the anointed man *(14)Jehovah the Savior.*(15)

*(1) John 1: 1, 2, 14. *(2) 1 John 4:14.*(3) Gal. 4:4. *(4)Luke 1:35. *(5) Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14,17; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7.*(6). Luke 1:35; 1 John 3:5.*(7) Col. 2: 9.*(8) Rom 1: 3; Acts 2:30; 13:23; 2 Tim. 2:8. *(9) Matt. 16:13, et passim. *(10)John 1:18,34, et passim. *(11) Rom. 1:4. *(12) Phil. 2:6-10; Heb. 1 & 2.; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; 1 John 2:23; 3: 3; 5: 20; Rev. 22:12,13; John 2:19; 8: 58, and many others. *(13) 1 Tim. 2:5. *(14) Acts 10:38. *(15) Matt. 1:21. The word Christ or Messiah means anointed, and Jesus or Joshua, Jehovah or Jah the Savior.

I learn that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures,*(1) having appeared once in the consummation of ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.*(2) That He has borne our sins in His own body on the tree, suffering for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God,*(3) and that He is their righteousness before God *(4)

*(1) 1 Cor. 15:3. *(2) Heb. 9:26. 0 1 *(3)Pet. 2: 24; 3: 18. *(4) 1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 9: 24.

I learn that He is risen from the dead,*(1) raised by God, by Himself; by the glory of the Father,*(2) and ascended up on high,*(3) having by Himself purged our sins, and sits at the right hand of God.'*(4)

*(1) 1 Cor. 15:20; Matt. 28:6, and many others. *(2) Acts 3:15; Eph. 1:20; John 2:19; Rom. 6:4. *(3) Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Eph. 4:8-10, and others. *(4) Heb. 1: 3; 10: 12; Eph. 1:20,21, and others.

I learn that after Christ's ascension the Holy Ghost has been sent down to dwell in His people individually and collectively, so that in both ways they are the temple of God.*(1) We are sealed*(2) and anointed with this Spirit,*(3) the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts,*(4) we are led by Him,*(5) and He is the earnest of our inheritance*(6); we cry, Abba, Father, knowing we are sons.*(7)

*(1) John 16:7; 7:39. Rom. 8:9; John 14:26; the Father sends 15: 26; Christ sends from the Father, 15. 16,17 Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:19;3:16; Eph. 2:22; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:30; 1: 23, etc. *(2) Eph. 1:13; 2 Cor. 1:22. *(3) 2 Cor. 1:21; *(4)1 john 20, 27. *(5) Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6. *(6)Eph. 1:14; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5: 5

*(7)Rom. 8:15. Gal 4:6

I learn that Christ will come again to receive us to Himself,*(1) raising those that are His, or changing them if living, fashioning their bodies like His glorious body according to the power by which He is able to subdue all things to Himself,*(2) and that those of them who die meanwhile will depart and be with Him.*(3)

.*(1) John 14:3.*(2) 1 Thess. 4:16,17;1 Cor. 15:23,51,52; Phil. 3:20,21.*(3) 2 Cor. 5:8; Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59

I learn that God has appointed a day in which He will judge this habitable world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained, whereof He has given assurance unto all men, in that He has raised him from the dead,*(1) and that at the end He will sit on the great white throne and judge the dead, small and great.*(2)

*(1) Acts 22:31.*(2) Rev. 20:11,12.

I learn that every one of us shall give an account of himself to God*(1) and receive the things done in the body, whether they be good or evil,*(2) and as the righteous inherit eternal life,*(3) so the wicked shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, will go into everlasting punishment, be cast into the lake of fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, and that whosoever is not found in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.*(4)

Rom. 5:5..*(1) Rom. 14:12. *(2) 2 Cor. 5 10. *(3)Rom. 6:22,23; Matt. 25:46. *(4) 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Matt. 25:46; Rev, 20: 15.

I learn that this blessed 'one, the Lord Jesus Christ, died for all, has given Himself a ransom for all, testified in due time,*(1) that He has made propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.

*(1) 2 Cor. 5:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; 1 John 2:2.

I learn that He has thereby obtained an eternal redemption,*(1) and that by one offering of Himself once for all, the sins of all that believe on Him are purged,*(2) and that by faith in Him their consciences also are purged*(3) and God remembers their sins and iniquities no more,*(4) and being called of God they receive the promise of an eternal inheritance,*(5) being perfected forever, so that we have boldness to enter into the holiest by His blood, by the new and living way He has consecrated for us.*(6)

*(1) Heb. 9:12. *(2)Heb. 1:3; 9: 22; 10: 2. *(3) Heb. 9:14;10: 2 *(4) Heb. 10:17. *(5) Heb. 9:15. *(6) Heb. 10:14,19,20

I learn that to enter into the kingdom of God we must be born of water and the Spirit, born again,*(1) being naturally dead in sins and by nature children of wrath.*(2) That which God employs in order to our being born again is His word*(3) Hence it is by faith that we become His children.*(4)

*(1) John 3:3,5. *(2) Eph. 2:1,3; 2 Cor. 5:14. *(3) James 1:18; 1 Peter 1: 23. *(4) Gal. 3:26.

I learn that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,*(1) but that to this end, God being a righteous and holy God, the Son of Man had to be lifted up upon the cross*(2) That there He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,*(3) was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.*(4)

*(1) John 3:16. *(2) John 3. 14, 15. *(3)1 Peter 2:24. *(4) 2 Cor. 5:21.

I learn that He loved the Church and gave Himself for it that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.

I learn that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus

Christ has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and without blame before Him in love.

. I learn that those that believe are sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is the earnest of our inheritance. till. the redemption of the purchased possession.*(1) That by Him the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts,*(2) that we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.*(3) That they who have received this Spirit not only cry, Abba,- Father, but know that they are in Christ and Christ in them; that thus not only He appears in the presence of God for them, but they are in Him who is sitting at the right hand of God, expecting till His enemies be made His footstool.*(4) They are dead to sin in God's sight, and to reckon themselves so: having put off the old man and put on the new; alive to God through Jesus Christ; Christ is their life; crucified to the world, and dead to the law.*(5)

*(1) Eph. 1: 13, 14; 2 Cor. 1:22. *(2) Rom. 5:5. *(3) Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6; John 14:20; Heb. 9:24. *(4)Eph. 2:6; Heb. 10:12,13. *(5) Col. 3:3; Rom. 6:11; Col. 3:4,9,10; Gal. 2:20;6: 14.

But that thus if they are in Christ, Christ is in them, and they are called upon to manifest the life of Jesus in their mortal flesh,*(1) and to walk as He walked;*(2) God having set them in the world as the epistles of Christ,*(3) whose grace is sufficient for them, and whose strength is made perfect in their weakness.*(4)

*(1) John 14:20; Rom. 8: 10; 2 Cor. 4:10. *(2) 1 John 2:6. *(3) 2 Cor. 3:3. *(4) 2 Cor. 12:9.

I learn that they are converted to wait for God's Son from heaven, and taught to do so, and that they have the promise that they shall never perish, nor shall any man pluck them out of Christ's hand, but that God will confirm them to the end that they may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I learn that they have part in these privileges through faith in Christ Jesus, in virtue of which righteousness is imputed to them.*(1) That Christ who has obeyed even unto death, and wrought a perfect work upon the cross for them' *(2) is now their righteousness, made such of God to them,*(3) and that we are made the righteousness of God in Him.*(4) That as His precious blood cleanses us from all sin, so we are personally accepted in the beloved,*(5) that as by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be constituted righteous.*(6)

*(1) Rom. 5:1,2; Gal. 3: 24-26; 3:11, 14; Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:8; 2 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 11:4; Acts 13:39;3: 9, 6; Rom. 4:24,25, and many others *(2) Phil. 2:8; John 17:4; Heb 7:27;9: 25-28; 10:12, 18*(3) 1 Cor. 1:30. *(4) 2 Cor. 5:21. *(5) Eph 1:6. *(6) Rom 5:19.

I learn that we are sanctified, or set apart to God, by God the Father, through the offering of Jesus. Christ once for all, and by the operation and power of the Holy Ghost through the truth, so that all Christians are saints, and, that in our practical state we have to follow after holiness and grow up to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, being changed into His image, to whom we are to be perfectly conformed in glory.***

I learn that the Lord has left two rites, or ordinances, both significative of His death; one initiatory, the other of continual observance in the Church of God-baptism and the Lord's supper.

I learn that when Christ ascended up on high He received gifts for men, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; and that from Christ the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love.

I learn that as the grace and sovereign love of God is the source and origin of all the blessing, so continual and diligent dependance on that grace is that by which we can walk after Him and to His glory, who has left us an example that we should follow His steps.

(* Matt. 4:4,7,10; Luke 24:25-27,44-46; John 5:39;10: 35; Matt. 5:17,18; John 20:9; Matt. 1:23; and a multitude of passages. Matt. 27:54; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Gal. 3:8; 2 Tim 3:14-17; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor. 15:2,3;2: 13; 14: 36, 37; Rom 16:26, where it is not the Scriptures of the prophets, i.e., at any rate Scriptures, but New Test. not Old.; 2 Pet 3: 16.)

I learn that while God alone is immortal in and by Himself, the angels are not subject to death,** and that the death of a man does not affect the life of his soul, be he wicked or renewed, but: that all live still as to God though dead,*** and that the wicked will be raised again as well as the just.****

Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.