that they are independent of human faithfulness? The argument is only valid if they are; if not, it falls to the ground. In reference to this point the following observations are very weighty:

"As man is the microcosm of the universe, so the individual, faithful man is that of the Universal Church. As in the individual the faith whereby he believeth unto salvation is, as we have seen, a faith informed and animated by love; and as his faith stands in relation to, and is profoundly affected by, his moral nature (so that love and good works are an integral part of vivid faith, and, correspondingly, faith is quickened by a holy life and expires under the indulgence of certain sins) so something of this kind, limited of course by Christ's promises of indefectibility and the Holy Spirit's guidance, must take place in the Church. There must be a similar process. The Divine perception of truth will be quickened in the body of the faithful in periods of revival and refreshment. The eye of the Church will wax dull when the moral state of society, and especially of its teachers, is at the lowest. Is it impious to believe that the Christianizing of the empire, by increasing the material interests, by silencing the delator's tongue, by bringing into the net plenty of bad fishes, weakened the spirituality of the Church? Is it not in the nature of things that when the old society, before the fresh blood of the barbarians gave it new youth, was actually dying out, the Divine ray should become dimmed by the fetid exhalations from a putrifying civilization? Would the great schism ever have been permitted, had men not lost their sense of the necessity of Christian unity, and of the transcendental truth in the Divine nature, on which that Christian unity depends? Surely, as under the old law we find a shortening of God's merciful hand caused by the sins of His people, so even in the dispensation of the Spirit in the Catholic Church of Christ we may believe that the depraved use of man's free will may have worked to the distinct detriment of her teaching office, if faith and works be different aspects of the same habit.’—Vol. i. p. 280.

When we come to examine into the merits of the case, the facts are found to be of such a character that the extreme Roman theory cannot be admitted. Fortunately for us the controversy is not only as between Rome and ourselves, but as between Rome and the East, and the great fact of the Eastern schism stands in the way of the Ultramontane theory :—

'We cannot dispose of this fact as we can of the casting forth of Nestorianism or Eutychianism, or even of the Novatian schism, in earlier times. On the one hand, no heresy can be charged against the orthodox Easterns and, on the other, the position of the East was founded in no negation of unity or Catholicity. Novatianism had a theory of its own-a false one. The Greek Church became separated by circumstances over which it had no control. From the time of the establishment of the empire at Byzantium, the elements of the future scission began to workthe human passions of the Popes and Patriarchs gave force to a dissidence which probably had its roots in the totally different temperaments and minds of their respective subjects: and in the final quarrel about Bulgaria, which occasioned the actual split, it is very difficult to award the meed of praise or blame to either party. If the Easterns, on the plea of the decrees of the councils, arrogated for the Patriarchs a power to which they had no right, the Westerns were equally bold in asserting the prerogatives of S.Peter. The establishment of the Latin emperors, and the aggression of a Latin Church at Constantinople, were not to be justified. In short, it is impos

sible to say that either side was quite right, or that either side had not much to say for itself: and, therefore, we cannot aver that either party is cut off from the true vine, or that either section has ceased to be a part of the Catholic Church of Christ.'-Vol. i. p. 283.

But as a matter of fact the corporate existence of the Greek Church has been repeatedly admitted by Rome:

'And this assertion has not only been held by individual doctors of the Western Church, but actually has been admitted by its most authoritative organs. On no other theory could the Councils of Lyons, Sienna, Ferrara, or Florence ever have been held. If modern theories be true, the Church can only deal with the individual members of the separated communities. In the eyes of the Church such communities, according to those theories, have no corporate existance at all. It was not so in those great councils, and it was not so in any of the prior attempts at reconciliation, some of which from time to time were actually successful. One must deny history if one would assert that the Latins never treated the separated Greeks as a Church. Except by the Ultramontane school, the Orthodox Eastern Church has ever been regarded as a Church with orders, sacraments, miracles, and jurisdiction, which has never fallen into heresy-in short, a real Church, the schism notwithstanding.'-Vol. i. p. 284.

If these are facts, surely no words can express the responsibility which those incur who desert the communion in which they are placed for that of Rome. If the Greek Church is part of the Mystical Body (and that cannot be denied by any one amenable to facts), the Anglican is demonstrably the same also, and it has the visible seal of the Spirit's work. What, then, is the import of the step mentioned? If Christ is with us, if His sacrifice is celebrated on our altars, what word would express the act by which one turns away? What word would express the tenet which regards both Greek and Anglican Communions as 'shams'? Too often, secessions are gone about with deplorable levity, and it is very needful that attention should be called to their real character. Let a man open his eyes to the issues really involved, and he will see that the responsibility he incurs is truly awful. Is he prepared to anathematize both Greek and Anglican Communions as the work of the devil? Nothing short of this will justify the act mentioned. If, as we believe, God is preparing the way for the reunion of His Church, it is saying the least of such secessions that they are directly contrary to the designs of the Spirit for this end.

We are indebted to the Bishop of Brechin for pointing out a misconception, apparently trifling, but which, when not eliminated, is calculated to exert a very powerful influence on the general argument. It is often assumed that the authority of the Church is dependent on its unity. Must not, therefore, the Anglican theory of broken unity be impossible? How can we conceive such a thing, if it is at the expense of an essential function of the Church? And yet,' as the Bishop points out, 'it is infallibility, not authority, of which reception by the

6. whole Church is the test, which reception is hindered when 'intercommunion is suspended. There may be many degrees of authority, adequate to guide us to the faith, short of absolute infallibility. When a heresy had been rejected of old in a 'local Church, there was guidance enough for its members, before 'the universal adoption of its decrees stamped its judgment with 'infallibility.' (Vol. i. p. 285.) The voice of authority is therefore not silenced by the rupture of outward communion. The estranged portions still speak with authority. They declare with absolute authority the whole faith already defined and received by the Ecumenical Church; and, in dealing with the rising movements of human thought, we must reverently believe that each, in proportion to its faithfulness, will be guided by the Spirit. The only abatement to be made is, that such separate conclusions are not final. As inerrancy is the gift of the Ecumenical Church, they must wait, as many essential definitions of the faith have waited in times past. The conclusions of particular Churches can only be the data on which the whole Church shall, in God's time, decide. But will there not be much in each separated branch that will be stamped with the seal of infallibility? Is there not even now an interchange of faith and of life? Are not the various Churches of Christendom acting and reacting powerfully upon each other? The might of God's Spirit is in truth stronger than the wilfulness of man.

There is no article which, in the eyes of the ultra-Protestant, contains more important matter than the Twenty-second. According to his interpretation, it is an entire condemnation of the Roman Church, and of all the doctrines mentioned in it. Purgatory, pardons, images, relics, the invocation of saints-all are banished from the Reformed Communion, and every doctrine regarding them condemned and excluded. Yet, obvious and popular as this interpretation seems, the moment we come to apply it it is seen to be impossible. Is every doctrine on these points excluded? Then the Anglican Church condemns the Primitive Church-those Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops to whom she appealed as against Rome. They, as well as the 'Romanenses,' had a doctrine on these points-a doctrine, too, based on Scripture, and which, in fact, revolves around certain texts. To suppose that the Article meant to censure that would be perfectly suicidal. But neither can the censure apply to the definitions of the Council of Trent: for they were not in existence when the Article was published. On other grounds, indeed, it would be difficult to believe that the Council of Trent was aimed at. For the definitions on all these points given by the Council are remarkably moderate, very far below what was popularly taught and believed previous to the Reformation.

Hardwicke says that the words Romanenses and Romanista were already used as far back as 1520, by Luther and Ulrich von Hutten, to designate the extreme mediaval party. If so, the article is aimed, not at the Roman Church, but at a party in that Church. One consideration which makes this view very probable we might perhaps be apt to overlook. In those early days the exact import of the Reformation was not seen as we see it in the light of events. It was not as yet seen that the movement then begun would end in the final separation of Christendom into opposing sects and Churches. England was still one Communion, and undoubtedly regarded herself as a part of Christendom. The quarrel with Rome was not considered hopeless. There was a deep inherited feeling of the oneness of Christendom, and hence the controversy was conducted more as the contention of rival parties in the same Church than as a war of opposing Churches. There must have been a very graduated scale of doctrine on these points, among those who first accepted the Articles. If the extreme party-those whom we may call the Romanenses-resigned, there was still the great body of dignitaries and priests who had said mass under Queen Mary. Among these, there must have been many who sympathized in doctrine with the moderate divines of the Council of Trent. There would, in fact, be a scale of doctrine from these downwards, to those who sympathised with the negations of Luther and Calvin.

Under these circumstances, it is obvious the Article ought not to be strained beyond its letter. And, probably, this will be more easily seen if we imagine a parallel example. Suppose, instead of the reading of the Article, the following were proposed for subscription: The Ultramontane doctrine of Papal infallibility is a fond thing vainly invented.' Is it not obvious that such a proposition would command the assent, not only of Anglican divines, but of many eminent theologians in the Roman Communion? And if so, is it not evident that it could not be interpreted as condemning every doctrine of Papal infallibility, but only that view of it which was peculiar to the party mentioned?

That this is not a strained or evasive interpretation is evident from the fact that it presents exactly to the theological mind the reprehensible points. That every doctrine as to purgatory, pardons, &c. ought to be condemned is, to the theological mind, simply monstrous. There are doctrines on these points which were held by the Primitive Church. There are doctrines which are held by the more learned of Protestant divines. On the other hand, there was a reprehensible doctrine which had become popular at the period of the Reformation, and was advocated by the extreme section of the Roman Communion-those whom

Luther termed the Romanenses. This will be better seen from an example.

With regard to purgatory the Bishop remarks:

The doctrine of purgatory, against which the Article excepts, is that which is made patent to the eye of every traveller as he passes from Germany into Italy. The wayside shrines which so edify him still continue, but the subjects are changed. In place of the affecting representation of the sufferings of the Eternal Son, and the touching impersonations of the Lord crowned with thorns, with the purple robe and the reed in His hand, which speak to the soul of the wayfarer, terrible representations of the holy souls in flames appal him. They are the predominant, although not the exclusive, subject. Sometimes the Madonna is placed in relation to those souls, but ofteuer still they are by themselves, appealing for a few pence to the awakened sympathies of the passers-by. They say, "Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, O my friends: for the hand of the Lord hath touched me." The popular doctrine thus symbolized prevailed in England at the time of the Reformation. Probably, as is believed to be the case in New Spain, it had come to take the place of a living faith in the eternal pains of hell in the case of most men. It was also mixed up largely with interested motives on the part of the clergy. There was a perfect traffic in masses for the souls, and men fancied that by leaving money to the Church at the hour of death, and at the expense of their heirs, they might purchase mitigation or exemption from pains which in degree, though not in duration, were said to equal the pains of hell.'—Vol. ii. p. 307.

Here we see the practical abuse of the doctrine. It led to an infamous traffic on the part of the clergy, which threatened in its effects to upset the foundations of morality. It led to debasing superstition, and to equal doctrinal abuses. No doctrine or practice can be exaggerated without injuriously affecting other parts of the deposit, and so this extreme purgatorial doctrine injured the doctrine regarding the eternal punishment of the wicked and the passion of Christ. The effect of it on the former doctrine is estimated in Tract XC. as being that the punishment of unrighteous Christians is temporary, not eternal, and that the purification of the righteous is a portion of the same punish'ment;' and the Bishop reminds us that there was a strong feeling at the period of the Reformation that the doctrine as then taught invalidated the power of the Passion of Christ, it being supposed to be implied that the sufferings endured in purgatory did their work independently of the merits of Christ.

Setting aside, then, this exaggeration condemned by the Article, we have a very full and important account of the doctrine regarding purgatory held by the ancient Church; in fact, materials for forming a judgment regarding it. The first fact which stands out clear and indisputable is that of prayer for the dead. The Jews prayed for the dead at the time of our Blessed Lord as they do now; nor is there in the Gospels a single word in condemnation of the practice. S. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus after he was dead: 'The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy