In this way the doctrines of the Church of Rome most offensive to Protestants are modified, and Protestant prejudices are found to be caused by misapprehensions of Catholic doctrine. Such is the common belief that no faith is to be kept with heretics. Some Popes have taught this, but that does not make it a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is taught in the Church of Rome, and the Councils of Lateran and Trent have even defined the mode in which the change is effected, but it would have been better to have left the words of Christ and His apostles without further explanation. The Council of Ephesus ought not to have proclaimed 'the blasphemous absurdity,' that Mary was the mother of God. The Mass is merely the Lord's Supper celebrated in Latin with some pomp and pageantry borrowed from the Pagans. There may be no such thing as works of supererogation, but if there be, it is very good of those who have any works to spare, to give them to their neighbours. The sum of the argument is that the Church of Rome in itself is not irrational, Protestants only object to abuses and

extreme statements.

We turn now to the Bible which was to be the author's great gift to the British Roman Catholic. He first issued a prospectus in which he spoke of the text. The Jews had made the Massora an authority for interpretation. Every word and letter in the Scripture was supposed to be incorrupt. The Christians learned Hebrew from the Jews and took all they said for gospel. The idea of verbal infallibility was specially suited to Protestants who made Scripture their rule of faith. Romanists have always had a sounder judgment than Protestants of the state of the Hebrew text. It may have been from the deference paid to the Vulgate, but this is not certain. The Council of Trent did not, as is generally supposed, declare the Vulgate the only authentic version. merely said that it was faithful and authentic. Many critics of the present day believe the Hebrew text was on purpose corrupted by the Jews. This was also believed by some of the old Fathers, but the Jews were exculpated by Jerome and Augustine. The errors in the Hebrew text are more likely to be due to accident or ignorance than to design.

It

inferences made from their beliefs. Just as it would not be fair to say that the Church of England denies the Headship of Christ, because it acknowledges the civil ruler to be supreme in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil, so is it unfair for Protestants to charge their inferences on doctrines held by Catholics. Protestant representations of Catholic doctrines are often calumny or caricature, but even if they were as bad as Protestants say they are, this would be no just plea for withholding civil rights.

The Articles of Religion,' so far as their teaching is positive, teach substantially what Roman Catholics believe. There is no such break between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in their credenda as is commonly supposed. Some theologians, especially those of the Sorbonne have confessed that every fundamental article of faith is found either explicitly or implicitly in the written Word, and some Protestant theologians have been willing to grant that every article of faith is not so clearly and expressly revealed in the written Word as not to stand in need of apostolical tradition and a secondary support.

The supremacy of the Pope was first introduced into the definition of the Church' by the Jesuit Canisius. Before that it was simply 'the congregation of the saints.' The idea of Papal infallibility is 'scouted by every Roman Catholic of the present age.' As to councils it is doubtful if there ever was one strictly œcumenical. Certainly no Roman Catholic of the present day would ascribe infallibility to the second of Nice, to that of Florence or Constance. The canon of Vincentius of Lerins would set aside all the creeds, for they each contain something not 'believed always, everywhere, and by all.'

The Pope's supremacy properly understood is not inimical to civil government. Whenever and wherever it has been so, it has been in virtue of an unlawful assumption of authority. The Pope has no primacy by divine right. No such primacy was given even to St Peter. It came to the bishops of Rome simply because their see was the capital of the empire, just as the Bishop of Constantinople got the second place as Bishop of New Rome.

In this way the doctrines of the Church of Rome most offensive to Protestants are modified, and Protestant prejudices are found to be caused by misapprehensions of Catholic doctrine. Such is the common belief that no faith is to be kept with heretics. Some Popes have taught this, but that does not make it a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is taught in the Church of Rome, and the Councils of Lateran and Trent have even defined the mode in which the change is effected, but it would have been better to have left the words of Christ and His apostles without further explanation. The Council of Ephesus ought not to have proclaimed 'the blasphemous absurdity,' that Mary was the mother of God. The Mass is merely the Lord's Supper celebrated in Latin with some pomp and pageantry borrowed from the Pagans. There may be no such thing as works of supererogation, but if there be, it is very good of those who have any works to spare, to give them to their neighbours. The sum of the argument is that the Church of Rome in itself is not irrational, Protestants only object to abuses and

extreme statements.

We turn now to the Bible which was to be the author's great gift to the British Roman Catholic. He first issued a prospectus in which he spoke of the text. The Jews had made the Massora an authority for interpretation. Every word and letter in the Scripture was supposed to be incorrupt. The Christians learned Hebrew from the Jews and took all they said for gospel. The idea of verbal infallibility was specially suited to Protestants who made Scripture their rule of faith. Romanists have always had a sounder judgment than Protestants of the state of the Hebrew text. It may have been from the deference paid to the Vulgate, but this is not certain. The Council of Trent did not, as is generally supposed, declare the Vulgate the only authentic version. It merely said that it was faithful and authentic. Many critics of the present day believe the Hebrew text was on purpose corrupted by the Jews. This was also believed by some of the old Fathers, but the Jews were exculpated by Jerome and Augustine. The errors in the Hebrew text are more likely to be due to accident or ignorance than to design.

Genesis 1, teaches that the world was created out of unformed matter, previously existing. The Pentateuch in its present form is not the work of Moses. It bears marks of having been written in Canaan, probably in Jerusalem and not before the reign of David, nor after Hezekiah. The evidence seems to point to the reign of Solomon, though this also is too early unless we admit posterior interpolations. A doubt is expressed about the double authorship on the Elohistic and Jehovistic theory, but the writer modestly intimates that he is not so self-sufficient as to believe that he may not be wrong.

In the Preface to vol. ii, it is said that the author of the Book of Judges, whoever he was, gives an odd reason for the Canaanites not being driven out of the land. They were left to prove the Israelites, though God had enjoined their utter destruction. This may have been cruel and sanguinary yet it might have had political wisdom on its side, while the reason given for their remaining is contrary to divine wisdom and veracity. But it is doubtful if either God or Moses ever commanded the destruction of the Canaanites. It is surprising that a man like Bishop Watson should ever have tried to justify this destruction. The command may have been a fabrication of some posterior Jew, who wished to justify the cruelties of his nation. As to the inspiration of the Bible, it is asked on what principle we are to suppose that for a thousand years Jewish histories were written by inspiration and not Gentile histories? Why should the children of the bondwoman be more favoured than the children of the free woman? For such a question the writer knew that 'Protestant and Papist would vie with each other to throw the first stone' at him. But the Jewish histories lay no claim to inspiration. They appeal like other histories to public documents for the facts which they record. Philo calls the writers Hierophants and Enthusiasts,' but these words do not imply inspiration in the modern sense. The advantages of this view of partial inspiration are that it meets the objections of the Deists, and it gets rid of a cumbersome load of commentators and an endless tribe of harmonists,' who only puzzle what they profess to explain. It also gets rid of an 'incredible number of prodigies' and 'interferences of the

The gains which we are to have from the criticism of the Old Testament are these: 'The Hebrew Scriptures will be more read and the good things they contain more fairly estimated.' When 'seen as they are and taken for what they profess to be' their true value would be better appreciated.. The writer says 'The Hebrew Scriptures I have examined and appreciated as I would any other writings of antiquity.' He repudiates the imputation of not being a believer, for he believes as much as he has sufficient ground for believing, which is the only rational belief. The 'vulgar Papist' supposes his Church infallible, though he knows not where its infallibility is to be found, and the 'vulgar Protestant believes in the infallibility of the Bible just because he was taught to believe it. Geddes said in conclusion, he clung to the Gospel of Jesus and not to metaphysical creeds, Christian is his name and Catholic is his surname, and for these glorious titles he is willing to shed his blood.

But he was treated as a heretic. His translation of the Bible was disowned by the authorities of the Church. He died under ecclesiastical censure receiving the last Sacrament from a French priest, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, when the Vicar Apostolic of the London District forbade him the benefit of all the offices of the Church. It was also forbidden that any Mass should be said for the repose of his soul.

The best known English Roman Catholic writer in the early part of the century was John Lingard,' who wrote much in the way of controversy in defence of the Roman Catholic religion. Bishop Barrington in his charge of 1806 called Roman Catholics idolaters. Their use of images in worship, however it might be refined and explained, resulted practically in idolatry. The distinction made by theologians between images as aids to worship and as objects of worship was obliterated in the minds of ordinary people. This error was encouraged by the suppression of the second commandment. It was of a piece with the superstition of the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, of prayers to the Virgin, to angels and saints. The imposition of penances and the purchase of pardons as remedies for past sins were a denial of the efficacy of the great sacrifice of