any exterior influence, or whether he was perfectly free. I did not see how it was possible to have any certainty on such a point. He said, as before, that there was no real difficulty in this, or in any of the tests he had specified; and merely added, that these several essentials or requisites were the tests by which any bull was to be tried. If they existed, then the bull was ex cathedrá, and was to be received as infallible; but if any of them were wanting, then the bull was not ex cathedrá.”— pp. 169, 170.

Our author then expressed his obligation to the Jesuit for all this information, and sought for the explanation of a difficulty which presented itself to his mind. He spoke of the difficulty which persons resident in England might have in ascertaining whether the pope had asked for the prayers of the universal Church; had sought and obtained the necessary information; and whether his bull had been really received and promulgated universally; and he suggested that plain and unlearned men in England might find the necessary inquiries on these subjects not only difficult, but absolutely impossible. And the difficulty would be increased a thousand-fold when the inquiry concerned some bull issued some centuries ago.

“He replied, that all that was necessary for any man in such cases was to go to his bishop, ask the bishop respecting the bull in question, and the bishop would inform him whether it was ex cathedrá or otherwise. Nothing could be easier."—p. 171.

Our author admitted that there was no difficulty whatever in such a mode of resolving the doubt; but he intimated that an English mind could not refer the decision of such historical facts as the pope's freedom from influence, &c., to the mere opinion of a bishop who possessed no infallibility; that an Englishman would, in such a case, prefer to compare the bull at once with the Scriptures, and so decide on its truth or error.

"He laughed at me for this, and said that an appeal to the Scriptures was absurd and impossible. It might all be very well, comparatively, for men like himself and me, who were well read and versed in sacred literature; but it was quite otherwise with men in general, and especially with humble and illiterate or ignorant men, in fact, with the great mass of mankind. For, he argued in a tone of great confidence,—his whole face lighted up with the expression of conscious triumph,-the Holy Scriptures are a volume that requires many preliminary inquiries before it can be received. In the first place, it will be necessary for the man to ascertain the authenticity of every separate book or portion of the volume. In the next place, it will be necessary for him to prove the divine inspiration of every part of it. In the third place, the book is written in dead languages, and the man

must know how to understand them, or have them translated. In the fourth place, it is a volume that has given rise to different meanings or interpretations, and the man should be able to judge upon these ... so the Holy Scriptures can never be made a fitting volume for such a man to appeal to in matters of religion."-p. 173.

This is the well-known system of argument adopted by all Romish controversialists. One might suppose oneself dealing with an Infidel or a Rationalist. The arguments of such opponents of religion against the Scripture are unscrupulously borrowed by Romanists. But Mr. Seymour was a match for the Jesuit.

"I began by stating that . . . I apprehended his method of argument would be met in England in a very effective way, at least in such a way as I should be unable to answer, unless he informed me further than he had as yet done. I said that the most ordinary and commonplace man in England would say, that if they forsook the volume of the Holy Scriptures for the volume of the papal bulls-that if they exchanged the Bible for the bullarium, they could gain no advantage thereby; for if, as he had said, there was a necessity for a man to ascertain the authority of each book in the Holy Scripture, before he could avail himself of it, then it was no less true that it was equally necessary for a man to ascertain the much-questioned authenticity of each bull in the bullarium—that if, as he had alleged, the man must be carefully informed by study in the inspiration of the Sacred Volume, before receiving it as his Divine teacher, there will exist a similar necessity for his being informed by study in the disputed infallibility of the papal bullarium, before receiving it as his infallible instructor; that if, as he had averred, the Holy Scriptures were written in the dead languages, and a man must learn to translate them before using them: the very same may be averred against the papal bulls, which also are all written in a dead language, and a man must learn to translate them before appealing to them; that if, as he had argued, the Holy Scriptures have been variously interpreted by various men, and all that variety must be resolved by every man before he makes the Sacred Volume his guide, it might, in like manner, be argued that the papal bulls have been variously explained, some received and some rejected by a vast variety of persons, and men must be able to decide on all these varying interpretations of bulls, before accepting them as an infallible guidein short, it would be argued,—fairly argued, by men of no pretension to any thing but the possession of common sense, that every objection he urged against the volume of the Holy Scripture, was liable to be urged against the volume of the papal bulls. They were written in a dead language. They were the subject of various interpretations. They were the source of endless controversies. Their number and names were doubtful. Their title to infallibility was questioned. All men disputed as to which were fallible and which infallible. Some bulls

were directly contradictory of others; some actually and by name were condemnatory of others; some were admitted on all hands to be erroneous and heretical; and the whole combined constituted a series of volumes almost as extended as a library, and therefore wholly inaccessible to the masses of a Christian population. They could never become the guide of a Christian people, and to this day have never yet been translated into the language of any Christian Church. While the Holy Scriptures, on the other hand, were universally translated, were small in size, convenient for reference, and incomparably more easy to be read, studied, and understood, than the endless intricacies and scholastic niceties of the bullarium. I said that men in England would argue thus, and would feel that they should lose rather than gain by exchanging their Bible for the bullarium-the Holy Scriptures for the papal bulls."

Of course there was no answering this. It is absolutely unanswerable as a reply to Romanists. It retorts their argument on themselves most triumphantly. And the very same principle may be applied to the decrees of councils, and to the monuments of tradition in general-to the liturgies-the canons-the writings of the fathers. If the Romanist asserts in controversy with us, that the Scriptures cannot be a rule of faith or settle controversies, or that it is altogether impossible for men generally to appeal to them, because they must first ascertain their genuineness, authenticity, correctness of translation, and true interpretation, on all of which there are endless disputes-our reply at once may be, that by the very same mode of argument it may be proved that the canons and decrees of all synods, including the Synod of Trent-the decrees of popes-the monuments of tradition in all ages down to the present moment are equally unfit to be appealed to in any matters of controversy. So that, in fine, the Romanist so completely overreaches himself in his struggle to subvert our position, that he is, on his own principles, left without a single proof that his Church holds any article of faith or morality whatever. He will not allow Scripture to settle the question. He cannot, therefore, allow councils, fathers, liturgies, canons, bulls, to settle the question. So that, in regard to all doctrines of the faith, he is without compass or guide of any kind, except it may be the dictum of his particular priest or bishop, whom he himself admits and must admit to be fallible. Thus, according to the principles laid down by Romanists themselves, they are bound to be in doubt on every point of their creed. They have no authority for believing the Apostles' Creed, or the Nicene Creed, or the Creed of Pope Pius itself.

This is evident and certain beyond all manner of doubt; and it amounts, of course, to a demonstration of the unsoundness and

absurdity of the leading and most popular argument employed by Romanists. For a full exposition of the way in which it is possible most briefly and successfully to meet the current argument on this point we are indebted to Mr. Seymour. His mode of treating the subject is not only valuable in its matter but in its manner. The quiet mastery which he exercises-the way in which he works up his adversary to the point he wants, and then pounces upon him, is admirable. We really know nothing of the kind in modern books. It reminds us more of the tact and ingenuity of Bossuet than of any one else that we recollect.

Mr. Seymour touches on all the popular arguments now in vogue at Rome; amongst the rest, on the subject of the alleged sterility of Protestant missions as compared with the success of those of the Church of Rome.

"In arguing for the Church of Rome, and against the Church of England, he (the Jesuit) stated that Providence was every day setting the seal of testimony to the former, and withholding it from the latter. He said that this was peculiarly visible in the department of missions; for that while the missionary labours of the Church of England, notwithstanding the commanding influence and wealth of England, are without any success that deserved the name, the preaching of the missionaries of the Church of Rome had met with the most wonderful successes, that the multitudes of heathen who were converted of late years are beyond expression.

"I replied that I had not much faith in the statements sometimes put forth on the subject of missions. I mentioned the narrative of a friend of my own, who was witness to the conversion of a whole tribe of American Indians. He told me the whole tribe marched down to a river, and that the Roman Catholic priest, without a word of instruction, sprinkled water on every one in the usual form; and that he then hung a little cross by a string around the neck of each, and telling them they were now Christians, he left them. My friend told me that the Indians departed precisely as they came-heard no preaching-received no instruction-exhibited no sign of Christianity-made no profession of any faith-and departed precisely as they came; as naked, as savage, as wild and as ignorant, and heathen, with this only difference, that each had a little cross suspended around his neck! I added, that I fully believed the statement of my informant, who would not deceive me; and, that I did not see how the Church of Rome could triumph much in such alleged conversions.

"He said I was altogether mistaken, in doubting the reality of these conversions-that it was in this the interposition of God was so clearly manifested that these conversions partook very much of the miraculous in their nature, at least could not be accounted for often, unless on the principle of a Divine miracle. These very Indians, heathen and savage as they had been, were real converts; and the proofs

of the reality of their conversion are undoubted and convincing; so much so, that after the missionary had left them, after he had remained absent for two years, . . . .. after he returned to his missionary station, at the close of these two years, and came again among these Indians, he, of course, as was his duty, required of them to come to confession-to confess their sins that they might receive absolution; he was equally surprised and indeed overjoyed to find that not one of them had any sins to confess! My friend went on to explain, that there was no matter for the sacrament of penance, as during these two years the Indians lived such converted lives, such holy and Christian lives, that there was not one among them who had committed a single sin, and therefore had no sin to confess, and the missionary priest was unable to confer absolution, inasmuch as there was no matter for the sacrament!"

Our author ventured to suggest, that as the very best and holiest Christians were always conscious of sin, it might possibly be, that these Indians were ignorant of Christian truth, and might not be aware of the nature of sin, or that the acts of vice and immorality they were in the habit of committing were sin.

"This suggestion he rejected, and flung from him at once; and he eagerly added, that the very missionary was now at Rome-that he had just returned from America, and was at the Collegio Romano, where he had himself heard him narrate the facts; and, as a proof beyond question of the reality of the conversions, and the holiness of the Indians, he mentioned what he called a most wonderful miracle that had occurred when the missionary was administering the holy communion to them. He was holding the host in his fingers thus-my friend suiting the action to the word-and as the poor Indian was too far from him, the missionary priest could not place the host in his mouth: the poor, humble, devout Indian knelt so far away that the priest could not reach him, and-here my reverend friend lifted his hands in an attitude of awe, looked devoutly to heaven, and then earnestly and solemnly addressed me the host flew out of his fingers, flew over to the poor Indian, and flew into his mouth! Oh!' he added, in a tone of the most reverential devotion, the blessed Lord Jesus so loved that poor savage, that he longed to enter into his heart, and thus miraculously flew into his mouth! How anxious he was to get into him!'

"I could no longer doubt the sincerity of this priest. There was a fervour, an earnestness, a devotion of manner, that showed he fully believed what he thus narrated; and the personal character of the man was such that I had no right to doubt him after so solemn a statement. He narrated it as a miracle wrought by God on behalf of the Church of Rome. . . . It only proved to my mind, that the missionary priest had wickedly invented this story to exalt and magnify his own labours, and was now telling it among his brother Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, that such of them as were simple and credulous, and superstitious enough to believe it, might spread it through the world, as a new testimony of God to the Church of Rome."-pp. 190-194.