advised him not to publish it at that time, as the civil interests of Roman Catholics would be better served by the cessation of controversy.

Some years later, on the appearance, of Bishop Burgess' 'Protestant Catechism' and other books in defence of the English Church as against the Papal, Milner felt that he could no longer withhold his composition. Bishop Burgess was his great target. The Bishop's argument from the difference between Petros and Petra was easily demolished. Jesus did not speak Greek but a Syrian dialect in which the distinction of gender in the word Cephas did not exist. Contrary to Burgess' theory of the independence of the British Church, Milner said that it had always acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope and had united with St Augustine to convert the Pagan Saxons. Milner's book was in the form of letters. Bishop Burgess was told that his Protestant Catechism was not wanted, for there was no increase in his diocese of those of the ancient faith,' and that his attention ought to be turned to the Methodist Jumpers' who threatened the existence of his Cathedral and caused the desertion of the Parish Churches.

Burgess had taken a motto from the 'Puritan regicide' John Milton, the representative of that 'genuine cant which brought Laud and Charles to the block.' He had also invoked the help of the Socinian Locke' and of Bishop Hoadly 'who had no religion at all.' The Bishop's Catechism was said to be more like the work of Lord George Gordon or some 'itinerant jumper' than of the successor of St Dubritius in the see of St David's. That St Paul had founded the British Church was a vision easily dispersed as well as many inferences that had been made from it.

The controversy was continued by Charles Butler who answered Southey's Book of the Church' in a publication called The Book of the Roman Catholic Church.' Butler, like Lingard and Milner, complained of misrepresentations and misunderstandings. The ground for complaint was probably good on both sides.

Butler asked for more charity as their creeds were much nearer to each other than was generally believed. Southey

and wickedness.' But was it decorous thus to describe the faith of the many millions which constitute the Catholic world? Forgeries, superstitions and feigned miracles might still be found among Roman Catholics as they had been in past ages, but the Church is only responsible for the authorised Articles of Faith. Miracles have never ceased in the Catholic Church, but no Catholic is required to believe any but those recorded in the Bible. St Dunstan may have punched the nose of the devil, but this is no part of the Catholic faith. Southey, like all Protestant historians, omitted to record such facts concerning the English Reformation as that, at the accession of Elizabeth it was opposed by all the Bishops except one, by the Houses of Convocation, and by the heads of houses at the Universities.

In a defence of his book, Butler explained that when Catholics say there is no salvation out of the Church, they include in the idea of Church all baptised Christians who accept the Apostles' creed by whomsoever they had been baptised. The Roman Breviary might be reformed, especially in the way of expurgation of the legends of the saints.

Phillpotts answered Butler. He did not admit any such close approximation of the creeds of the two Churches as had been supposed. But Roman Catholics coming in collision with Protestants or having political ends to serve, made such an interpretation of their doctrines as rendered them less offensive to Protestants. An argument had been drawn from the application to them of the name Catholic. Phillpotts answered, that in England until 1791, they had always borne the name of Papists. Much of the superstition into which the Church of Rome had actually fallen, was sanctioned by the decrees of Trent. Roman Catholics like Lingard and Butler reduced Purgatory to simply a middle state, but the Council of Trent made it far more than that. It was a place of torture for devout souls for a definite period, to continue perhaps to the day of judgment. As a matter of fact, indulgences had been given for the commission of sin. On the question of confession, on which an argument had been based for the agreement of the two Churches, Phillpotts said that there was nothing in Confession in the Church of England was only allowed to those who wished it, and in cases where the conscience was troubled.

common.

advised him not to publish it at that time, as the civil interests of Roman Catholics would be better served by the cessation of controversy.

Some years later, on the appearance, of Bishop Burgess' 'Protestant Catechism' and other books in defence of the English Church as against the Papal, Milner felt that he could no longer withhold his composition. Bishop Burgess was his great target. The Bishop's argument from the difference between Petros and Petra was easily demolished. Jesus did not speak Greek but a Syrian dialect in which the distinction of gender in the word Cephas did not exist. Contrary to Burgess' theory of the independence of the British Church, Milner said that it had always acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope and had united with St Augustine to convert the Pagan Saxons. Milner's book was in the form of letters. Bishop Burgess was told that his Protestant Catechism was not wanted, for there was no increase in his diocese of those of the ancient faith,' and that his attention ought to be turned to the 'Methodist Jumpers' who threatened the existence of his Cathedral and caused the desertion of the Parish Churches.

Burgess had taken a motto from the 'Puritan regicide' John Milton, the representative of that 'genuine cant which brought Laud and Charles to the block.' He had also invoked the help of 'the Socinian Locke' and of Bishop Hoadly 'who had no religion at all.' The Bishop's Catechism was said to be more like the work of Lord George Gordon or some 'itinerant jumper' than of the successor of St Dubritius in the see of St David's. That St Paul had founded the British Church was a vision easily dispersed as well as many inferences that had been made from it.

The controversy was continued by Charles Butler who answered Southey's 'Book of the Church' in a publication called 'The Book of the Roman Catholic Church.' Butler, like Lingard and Milner, complained of misrepresentations and misunderstandings. The ground for complaint was probably good on both sides.

Butler asked for more charity as their creeds were much nearer to each other than was generally believed. Southey

and wickedness.' But was it decorous thus to describe the faith of the many millions which constitute the Catholic world? Forgeries, superstitions and feigned miracles might still be found among Roman Catholics as they had been in past ages, but the Church is only responsible for the authorised Articles of Faith. Miracles have never ceased in the Catholic Church, but no Catholic is required to believe any but those recorded in the Bible. St Dunstan may have punched the nose of the devil, but this is no part of the Catholic faith. Southey, like all Protestant historians, omitted to record such facts concerning the English Reformation as that, at the accession of Elizabeth it was opposed by all the Bishops except one, by the Houses of Convocation, and by the heads of houses at the Universities.

In a defence of his book, Butler explained that when Catholics say there is no salvation out of the Church, they include in the idea of Church all baptised Christians who accept the Apostles' creed by whomsoever they had been baptised. The Roman Breviary might be reformed, especially in the way of expurgation of the legends of the saints.

Phillpotts answered Butler. He did not admit any such close approximation of the creeds of the two Churches as had been supposed. But Roman Catholics coming in collision with Protestants or having political ends to serve, made such an interpretation of their doctrines as rendered them less offensive to Protestants. An argument had been drawn from the application to them of the name Catholic. Phillpotts answered, that in England until 1791, they had always borne the name of Papists. Much of the superstition into which the Church. of Rome had actually fallen, was sanctioned by the decrees of Trent. Roman Catholics like Lingard and Butler reduced Purgatory to simply a middle state, but the Council of Trent made it far more than that. It was a place of torture for devout souls for a definite period, to continue perhaps to the day of judgment. As a matter of fact, indulgences had been given for the commission of sin. On the question of confession, on which an argument had been based for the agreement of the two Churches, Phillpotts said that there was nothing in common. Confession in the Church of England was only allowed to those who wished it, and in cases where the conscience was troubled.

The lines of thought among Protestant Dissenters correspond to those in the National Church. In the beginning or middle of the eighteenth century the old Presbyterians either conformed or became Unitarians. The Independents were more attached to the theology of Calvin, but with a tendency on the part of many to the heterodox side. At the end of the last century the students of Homerton College are said to have been enamoured of Danton, Robespierre and the French Revolution. Many of them became Unitarians and some unbelievers.

A new era for the College dates from the time of the tutorship of Dr John Pye Smith, who was probably the most influential man among the Independents during the first half of this century. He adhered to the theology of Calvin, but in a modified form. He refuted Unitarianism in 'Letters to Belsham,' and wrote 'Scripture Testimony to the Messiah,' in which what are called the Messianic prophecies in the Psalms are taken as referring literally and directly to Christ, and thus show His Divinity. A treatise on 'The Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ' follows the same principle of literal interpretation. Christ was really a Priest and offered a real sacrifice, the intrinsic value of which satisfied the demands of Justice. The only tendency to heresy which Pye Smith ever showed was in doubting the canonicity of the Song of Solomon. His doubts rested on internal evidence, yet from external he was afterwards convinced of its canonicity, but on what principles it was interpreted he never could determine.

Pye Smith was one of those who essayed the reconciliation of the facts of geology with the record of creation in Genesis. The time had come when these facts could no longer be set aside as mere theories or as the inventions of men who were enemies to the Christian faith. They were accepted by scientific men who were Christians, and could only be questioned by those who were ignorant of the subject, or who had beforehand determined to reject the conclusions to which they inevitably led. Dr Pye Smith was himself a geologist, and familiar with some other sciences necessary to the understand1 Waddington's Congregational History, p. 34.