tion from orthodox severity was in no sense a motive power propelling to Rome. Let us examine this position a little in detail.

Take, for instance, the history of Scotland and of England. Undoubtedly the reign of puritan and of covenanter was followed by a reaction; but it was not a reaction Romewards. If in the days of the puritan and the covenanter, the letter was unduly elevated over the spirit; if there was a tendency to bind down the gospel by a series of minute ascetic observances, by which a temper of legal fear was substituted for that of faithful love, men did not seek relief by a recourse to Rome. The excess which they reacted from was that of undue restraint: that which they rebounded to was undue liberty. Because they found. the bonds of the letter grievous, they revolted also against the bonds of the spirit. Because that which was merely mutable-as Hooker so well taught— in the apostolic practice was unduly pressed on them, they discarded that which was truly immutable, that which was the eternal essence of the gospel of Christ. A reign of laxity and of rationalism followed; and it was not until men saw how perilous this laxity was, and how hollow this rationalism, that the reaction began towards Rome. Of course we do not class under this head such inconsistent bigots as James II. or such miserable time-servers as his courtiers; though, as far as there was any religious sincerity in them, they were impelled by disgust, not at that which was orthodox in the what we have, and seck for more, under the guidance of God's Spirit, meekly, patiently, diligently, we shall assuredly have more and more of this truth made manifest to us" (Archdeacon Hare's Charge of 1840, p. 35). Infallibility shuts, close to the eye, the lid of the telescope of faith. But the truth lifts this lid, and bids us strain our sight through it, and, though our vision is fallible, and the telescope is fallible, yet in this way alone is Christ revealed. Then, again, by one of the conditions of our nature, just as an infallible principle reaches us only through a fallible form, so an infallible form involves a fallible principle. Rome offers an infallible form in the papacy, tendering a peremptory decision on every disputed point; but when we go back from the form to the principle, we find contradiction, intrigue, and corruption. The truth, on the other hand, confesses to fallible forms. Language changes, doctors vary, councils err; but above us, as a centre of unity, is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.

puritan creed, but at that which was lawless in those by whom the puritans were followed. But we do speak of the cases of men of true piety who then, and subsequently, have passed from orthodox churches to the church of Rome; and what we have to say is that what took them over, was not disgust at the orthodoxy these churches cherished, but dread of the rationalism by which this orthodoxy was assailed. Those of this class who are cited by Nippold bear this testimony: "The atonement, the incarnation, were doubted, were imperilled; we sought refuge in a communion where they would be unquestioned." It will be seen, therefore, that we have ascended to a still higher range than that which we reached in viewing the former "disgusts." Those who now pass before us are serious, devout men, who feel that they must live by faith, and not by sight, and that in the poverty of this life of show and sense, it is the supernatural alone that can feed the soul. Christ as a reality is what they crave; and it is a sad thing that they should leave the region. where he can be viewed directly by the spiritual eye, for that in which between him and the believer are interposed distorting ordinances or erring men. And yet so it is; and this class of refugees, seeing that out of Rome Christ is denied, fly to Rome as a secure retreat, just as would men, who, perplexed with the quiver and refraction of the noon-tide air, should hide in a dark cave in order to see straight. The doctrines of the Trinity and of the atonement, as we have seen, they find are attacked by the rationalist; therefore they go to Rome, in order to hold these doctrines in peace. And yet where could there be a greater mistake! For the doctrine. of the Trinity is assailed in truth at Rome, not by denying the Godhead of Son or Spirit, but by adding the Godhead of virgin and saint. The assailants of the Trinity are enthroned at Rome; not indeed, in the persons of Socinus, arguing only for the schoolman, or of Hegel, rhapsodising only for the philosophers, but in those of the virgin, appealing to a whole humanity, and of saints, appropriating each suppliant. And of the atonement, the religious and moral bearings are re

versed. By the Truth, the atonement is applied by Christ on the cross; by Rome, it is applied by the priest at the altar. Hence it comes to pass that that which is free in the gospel doctrine of the atonement is limited by Rome, and that which is limited in the gospel doctrine of the atonement is free in Rome. The gospel offers the atonement to all who approach in obedient faith. Rome limits it to those to whom the priest communicates. The gospel limits the atonement to those spiritually united to Christ. Rome enlarges it to all who are technically united to the church. And the consequences are tremendous. The gospel is deformed by reversing its conditions and man is imperilled by making his religion to consist in a submission of the lips, and not a conversion of the heart.

And then, finally, so far from theological certainty being secured at Rome, the late council has accumulated about the approach to the papal see a mass of doubts and difficulties the greatest that any religious faith has yet had to remove. Contrast, for a moment, the points of belief demanded by the gospel with the points of belief demanded by Rome.

By the gospel I am required simply to believe that Christ Jesus died to save sinners, and that such a sinner am I.

But by Rome I am required to believe, (1) that the "rock" spoken of in Matt. xvi. 18, was St. Peter, though the sense is non-natural, and though of the numerous primitive Fathers, including Origen, Crysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, and Theodoret, who have commented on this passage, there is no one who even hints such an interpretation; some of them applying the term to Christ himself, some of them to the body of the apostles; and yet, if I do not believe that the rock was Peter, I am anathematized; (2) that the "rock," in opposition to the consent of the early Fathers, and to all sound criticism, includes with Peter, his successors in the see of Rome; and if I deny this, I am also anathematized; (3) that Luke xxii. 32, where our Lord prays that Peter's faith fail not, contains an assurance of infallibility to Peter's successors, although such a view was not even suggested

until the seventh century; and if I do not believe this also, I am anathematized; (4) that each single pope has been infallible, though popes have contradicted each other, and some popes have been deposed for heresy, and others have pronounced their predecessors to be heretical, and others have been dissolute sceptics; and yet, if I do not believe in this infallibility of each single pope, I am anathematized; (5) and then, if on the authority of the council which declares these anathemas, I believe all this, I must also believe that there has been an actual succession of duly consecrated popes from St. Peter's day to the present; though this involves the most laborious historical research in periods where the deepest obscurity prevailed, and the grossest fabrications abounded; (6) I must believe, also, that each decree of each of these popes is right, including the decree that condemned Galileo, the decree that declared America to be the perpetual fief of the kings of Spain, and the decree approving of the massacre of the Huguenots; for if I disbelieve in either of these decrees then the whole doctrine of infallibility falls: (7) and then, if I decide affirmatively all these points (and to decide either negatively explodes the whole system), and if in this way I arrive at a human tribunal capable of communicating to me this supposed certainty and rest, I find myself at the monstrous conclusion that the pope must first certify to me the existence of a God, before I can assure myself of the existence of a God to give authority to the pope.

In some of the Swiss lakes are still to be found traces of men who to avoid the agitations of the mainland, formed for themselves dwellings built on stakes at some distance from the shore. It may have been that dread of a superior civilization drove them to this step; it may have been that desire for seclusion and rest made them seek an abode thus insulated; but if they thus sought quiet and security, quiet and security were not thus obtained. The enemies they thought to escape could pursue them still. The storms and avalanches that swept the shore descended no less fiercely on the lake. And then a peculiar danger was theirs. On

the land the solid earth was beneath them, and this, at least, could not give way. But on the lake their dwellings rested on a multitude of wooden piles; and if either of these should rot, or should be struck down by storm, or be cut by an enemy, then the whole edifice tottered. And not unlike this is the condition of the romantic retrogressionists who seek Rome for peace. They abandon the solid ground of simple, self-evidencing faith. And they take refuge on a theological platform which rests on hundreds of props, the destruction of either of which is the destruction of the whole. And on one if not all of these, the storm may any day irresistibly strike. And then comes the wreck of absolute unbelief.

ARTICLE II.

THE POSITION AND METHODS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.1

BY REV. E. H. BYINGTON, BRUNSWICK, ME.

THE progress of society depends upon men of intellectual strength and culture. The chiefs of the savage tribe are the strong men, like Red Cloud; but the wise man must take the place of the strong man before civilization is possible. These intellectual leaders need a special discipline. Hence the college and the university, not for the many, but for the few who have been endowed by nature with abilities for leadership. As the wants of society are various, there are a number of distinct departments of action for these educated leaders. Each department rests upon some permanent want of society. There has always been a necessity for a class of public men, in distinction from private the leaders and teachers of men, physicians, lawyers, ministers, and interpreters of nature; men of poetic abilities, which are of power, as Milton says, "to imbreed and cherish in a great

1 This Article is the substance of an Oration delivered before the Alumni of the University of Vermont, August 3, 1870.