seu vitæ principium Trinitas, nec non in carne factæ dispensationis mysterium juxta nostram sententiam teneatur. § 18. De additamento ad S. Symbolum, quodque sacramentis non communicent de manu sacerdotis conjugio sociati, recte ac Deo grate insistet sanctitas tua: nec umquam cesset de eo insistere ac suadere ... donec eos adduxeris ad consentiendum veritati, cætera vero mihi videntur esse aspernanda . . . § 21. Considera etiam, num inde manifesto, ex diuturna hac, inquam, divisione ac dissensione, quod a sancta nostra Ecclesia divulsa fuerit magna hæc prima et apostolica sedes, contigerit omnem in sæculo crevisse malitiam, &c. . . § 22. Ut equidem meam promam sententiam, si in adjectione Symboli corrigantur, nihil præterea postulaverim.

PAGE 140, CANON 5.

By this canon the Church of Constantinople is placed above that of Antioch and next to Rome; a point which, when decreed by the first Council of Constantinople, was the alleged ground why the Bishop of Rome refused to receive the canons of that Council. See above, p. 23.

PAGE 141, CANON 9.

Here we see how the Church of Rome plays fast and loose with the decrees of even those councils which she receives as general. Nothing can be clearer than the directions here, that the divine offices and sacraments shall be administered in the vernacular tongue. Hardly any thing can be more pertinacious than the refusal of the Roman bishops to obey these directions.

CONSTANCE.

SESSION VIII.

PAGE 142.-(Of Wickliffe.)

As the leading article against Wickliffe, which formed the chief ground of his condemnation in this council, was his maintenance of the Catholic verity concerning the bread in the holy eucharist: (thus, in the Articuli Joannis Wicleff, Labbé and Cossart, xii. 45. "Substantia panis materialis, et similiter substantia vini materialis manet in sacramento altaris,") and he is in this, and some other points, in common cause with the Church of England, it seemed right to give insertion to the sentence of condemnation against him. It would, however, be a failure of fidelity, and an injury to the Church of England, if it were to be left without comment, and if it were to be thence inferred that the Church of England is implicated in all Wickliff's positions. This is far from being the case. Many of his opinions were unsound and unwarranted, and as contrary to the Church Catholic, and the Church of England as a branch of the same, as they were to the Church of Rome. Such, for instance, was his view of confirmation, which he ascribed to the devil (Trialog. iv. 14, cited by Le Bas, p. 340): his position of the equal authority of bishops and presbyters, a mere revival of the exploded heresy of Aerius (Le Bas, p. 334, 335). His opinion of Church endowments, which is not exceeded by the most violent voluntary in Red Cross Street (Le Bas, 359-362). It would be an error very hurtful to history and to truth, which is of more value than victory, if we were to think it necessary to hold up as immaculate those persons who have at any time been permitted to take any part on our side of the Christian warfare, and to wink hard, that we might not see and be forced to acknowledge their failings. Our Hymn of gratitude to God, for deliverance from papal bondage, is not interrupted, because He, in His wise counsels, has made the unruly

passions of violent men oftentimes subservient to the accomplishment of that work. We are bound to praise the Deliverer, but not to idolize, or pervert truth for the sake of all the instruments which He has seen fit to make use of for effecting that deliverance.

PAGE 144.—(Of Communion in one kind.)

Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Christ, when He celebrated the eucharist, gave the cup to all who were present; and when He appointed His apostles His ministers to celebrate it, He bade them do the same, "Do this in remembrance of me." But ye say, whosoever shall dare to do as Christ has bidden him, shall be effectually punished. Can human impiety exceed this?

PAGE 147-150.-(John Huss, Jerome of Prague.)

To the condemnation of Huss and Jerome, the same observations are applicable, as have been already made upon that of Wickliffe.

PAGE 151.-(Violation of Safe-conduct.)

This is but a following up of the sixteenth canon of the third Lateran concerning the force of oaths, when opposed to the apparent convenience of the Church. Nor can we acquit the unhappy Huss of somewhat of rashness, in imagining that, in the case of heretics, real or suspected, any engagement could bind men maintaining the principles there avowed. It is observable how cautious the bishops are to throw the blame apparently upon the Emperor, who gave the safe-conduct; for they do not say that he is discharged of his obligation until he shall have done all that in him lay to keep it, "Cum fecerit quod in ipso est:" and certainly he could not be said to have done that until he had put the bishops to death, or lost his own life in defending Huss. It is difficult to

A a

say which appears most infamous in this transaction, a Christian Emperor violating his royal word that he might consign a wretched man to the flames, or a Council of Christian Bishops urging him to do so against his will, "multis verbis persuasus.' Dacher, in L'Enfant's Hist. i. p. 85. cited by Grier in his Epitome of General Councils, p. 229. The closest parallel to the transaction that occurs to my mind, is Archbishop Williams persuading Charles I. to sign the death-warrant of the Earl of Strafford. Happily, in the case of our own king, we have the assurance of his deep and heartfelt repentance for this deed, which followed him through the remainder of his life, and was openly avowed by him at the close of it. Let us hope that the repentance of the German Emperor, though unrecorded, was not less sincere.

FLORENCE.

PAGE 152.-(Of Purgatory.)

This being the first decree of a general council in favour of purgatory, the Roman writer, Cardinal Fisher, is well borne out in what he says concerning the novelty of it.-Assertion. Luther. Confut.-Antwerp, 1523, p. 111. "Aliquandiu purgatorium incognitum fuit, sero cognitum universæ Ecclesiæ. Deinde quibusdam pedetentim, partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit." Again, "Legat qui velit, Græcorum veterum commentarios, et nullum quantum opinor, aut quam rarissimum, de purgatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque Latini simul omnes, at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt."-Contr. Luther. Art. 18.

And to the same purpose is another Roman writer, Alphonsus a Castro; "De purgatorio fere nulla (mentio) potissimum apud Græcos Scriptores. Qua de causa, usque ad hodiernum diem, purgatorium non est a Græcis creditum."-Paris, 1571, p. 578. Adv. Hæres. lib. viii. verb. Indul.

The modern Roman partizans would indeed fain have us suppose that every instance of praying for the dead, which was universal in the primitive Church, is a proof of belief in purgatory. But unless they will admit that the Virgin Mary, the apostles, martyrs, and confessors, are in purgatory, this argument avails them nothing. For the ancient Church prayed for all these.

"Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy saints, vouchsafe to receive all Thy saints which have pleased Thee from the beginning, our holy fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, &c., and all the souls of the just which have died in faith, but chiefly of the holy, glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary, the mother of God, of St. John Baptist," &c.-Liturgy ascribed to St. Basil.

Indeed the Roman liturgy, to this day, is witness to the same, Remember, Lord, Thy servants and handmaids, who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in peace. We pray Thee that Thou wouldest grant to them, and to all who rest in Christ, a place of refreshment, light and peace."

Truth is that we cannot require stronger evidence against purgatory than is furnished by these very prayers. For these prayers suppose that all who have departed this life in the true faith, are now resting in Christ. If resting in Christ, and suffering the torments of Hell fire, for the cleansing of earthly stains, are synonymous, then the Romans are welcome to claim support for their novelties from these liturgies. If not, then their own liturgy, in this, as in many other instances, is a witness at once of the former purity of their Church; and of their present schismatical and corrupt innovations upon Catholic doctrine.

Among the Fathers of the Church who have, unpremeditatedly, borne witness against the doctrine of purgatory, are the following:

IRENEUS, Adv. Hæres. lib. v. c. 5.-Edit. Grab, Oxon. 1702, p. 405.

Dicunt presbyteri, qui sunt Apostolorum discipuli, eos qui translati sunt, illuc (ad Paradisum) translatos esse, (Justis enim