IS THE POPE THE VISIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH?

Southland Times, Issue 1617, 9 August 1872, Page 2

IS THE POPE THE VISIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH?

Sre, —ln your issue of the 2nd inst., I observe a letter by Mr Carden, which, as it professes to bring the claim of Papal supremacy to the test of scripture, and to establish it therefrom, deminds, I think, some notice from a Protestant minister. I have preferred to remain silent up to this time, because in previous letters of Mr Carden, the main question between Romanist 3 and Protestants, that, viz., with respect to the supremo rule of faith and manners, has only once —so fur as I remember —been touched upon, and that only briefly and incidentally. I have moreover been convinced that the style of argument whifh Mr Carden has chosen to adopt, is one more fitted to damage than to help his cause in the eves of all impartial and sensible men. Tdo not therefore mean to discuss statements which Mr Carlen lias made in previous letters, such as quoting Hume as' a Protestant historian, when upon the same principle we might speak of Voltaire as a Popish historian, the fact beins; that Hume and Voltaire alike were avowed infHels ; or the statement that there are 300,000,000 Catholics in the world, a statement which would require to be made out by statistical details ere it can be regarded as worth anything; or the statement that the Reformers acknowledged that they had recourse to lying in support of their cause, whilst not a single sentence from the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zuingle, ■ Knox, or Melancthon, con be produced for the assertion ; and common sense teaches that if men were unprincipled enough to lie, they would be cunning enough not to acknowledge it. But even although Luther were what some Romanics represent him to have been, that does not touch the question at issue as between Protestants and the Church of Rome. It might do so were Luther the Pope of Protestants, and did we tie ourselves to his infallibility. There is almost no intelligent Protestant who doeß not acknowledge that devout, noble, and great as Luther was, there was much dross about him, even as such a Protestant is ready frankly to acknowledge that there have been many Romanists who, notwithstandin? of their errors, are entitled to our high admiration. All statements then such as these I dismiss as entirely irrelevant to the main issue, which I accept as Mr Carden puts it in his last letter, " Is the Pope the visible head of the Church ?" Now I must protest against being held to mean anything disrespectful towards my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens if at any time I have occasion to use the words Popish or Papists. I use them simply as equivalent to holding that the Pope is the supreme head of the visible church, and as I mean no offence, so I do not see that any offence should be taken any more than I should feel offended at being called a Presbyterian. I can truly say that I feel nothing but love for my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, some of whom are my personal friends, and from others of them I have received kindness and hospitality, a kindness which I shall always esteem it a privilege to reciprocate. This friendship, however, all sensible Roman Catholics and Protestants 'alike know is only valuable to obtain or keep, according as each is free heartily to oppose the religious opinions of the other. I cannot in controversy consent to call them by the name of Catholics, although by way of courtesy, in everyday life, this is often done by Protestants. The word Catholic means " uniTersal|" and not to speak of the claims of Protestants to be called Christians, ever since the separation of the Greek or Eastern Church, numbering 70 or 80 millions, the term Catholic has become a misnomer as applied to the Romish communion. It involves an assumption which Protestants strenuously deny. To come, however, to the question that the Pope is the visible head of the church by divine appointment. In order to establish this, Romanists are bound to make out two positions —first, that Christ invested Peter with a primacy or superiority, not only of rank, honor, or dignity, but of actual authority or jurisdiction, over the rest of the apostles, and over all His church, so that he, by Christ's appointment, became thuir rightful ruler or governor, ho being entitled to exercise authority over them, and they being bound to obey him ; and that this supremacy was not personal to Peter, but was to be enjoyed by an unbroken succession of individuals to the end of the world ; and secondly, that by Christ's authority and direction, Peter became and died Bishop of Rome, and transmitted to all his successors in that see the same authority or jurisdiction, over the church which Christ had conferred upon him. Unless both these positions can be established, and established from scripture, the Pope's claim to supremacy must manifestly fall to the ground. Now in support of the second of these positions there is not a shadow of proof offered by Mr Carden, nor indeed can any be produced from scripture. The re is nothing whatever in scripture that has even the appearance of bearing upon any of the points involved in it. Scripture says nothing of St. Peter's ever being at Rome, not to speak of his ever having been bishop there, nor ooes it ever give the slightest hint that either Christ or St. Peter intimated that the bishops of Rome were to be his perpetual successors. Scripture says nothing of either Peter or Linus having ever been Bishop of Rome. When we consider that the bishops of Constantinople have all along resisted the claims of the Bishop of Rome to this universal supremacy, and indeed that this was a main cause of the separation of the Eastern from the Western Church, not to mention that various other bishops at different times and places have done the same, we will see that Mr Garden's failure to look this part of the subject in the face, renders utterly invalid his lofty claims on behalf of the Bishops of Rome. 11. But to leave this part of the subject, and come to the first of the two positions mentioned above as necessary to be established by Romanists, and taking the last part of it first, we ask — supposing for the moment that Peter's supremacy had been proved —what evidt-nce does Mr Carden offer that this supremacy was not personal to Peter, but was to be enjoyed by an unbroken succession of individuals ? It is no proof to say that" Peter's supremacy and charge were to be transmitted to his lawful successors, because the office of a pastor is an ordinary and perpetual office, and so long as there are lambs and Bheop to be fed, so long there must be a pastor to feed and govern them." Now if Peter was just an ordinary pastor, there is certainly abundant scripture to prove " that so long as there are lambs and sheep to be fed, so long there must be a pastor," &c, and that Peter has successors in this office, but then in this sense, I am just as much St. Peter's successor as the Pope of Rome is, and so is every humble minister, who has scriptural authority for his pastoral office. If, on the other hand, it be Peter's supremacy that Mr Carden means, then I ask, where are his lawful successors, where is the scriptural authority for his having successors at all in his primacy? Romanists know that they require to establish this second part of the first position to which I have referred, and in the absence of scripture evidence, they generally have recourse to mere human authorities or vague probabilities. Of this nature is the vague analogy which Mr Carden brings from the Levitical priesthood, where —by the way —he falls into the absurd mistake of making Aaron to be the successor of Moses, when the fact is that Moses never was high-priest at all. Aaron was the first high-priest, and he could not be the successor of Moses, inasmuch as he died before Moses. I trust that Mr Carden will go on reading the scriptures, not confining his attention to the portions that are to be found in his service-book, and I dareßay that he will by and bye find that the Bible is neither the dangerous nor the inconsistent book —when we fairly bring all its passages together and compare them —that some people make it to be. But to return, what force has this analogy of the Levitical priesthood ? First of all we remark, that the bare fact that there were high-priests in succession under the Mosaic law, could have little or no weight to prove anything in respect to the New Testament or Christian church, for if the temple and sacrifices and ceremonial have all passed away as typical, how should we think that the ; priesthood, essentially connected as it was with the sacrifices, should alone remain ? But secondly, we have stronger ground than mere

inferences ; we are assured in scripture itself, that the very point of individual succession of mortal men in the ancient priesthood, was just one point where it showed itself weak, typical, and temporary, and in contrast with which the glory of the Gospel dispepsation was to be preeminently shown forth in this very point that its high priesthood would have no succession, for its one great High Priest would be after the order of Melchisedek, and so continue for ever — Heb. vii., see the whole chap, and specially verses 23, 24. Were there nothing jnnre in scripture this is sufficient to dispose of the arrogant claims of the Popes. But this passage does more — it shows that the old priesthood which had succession, was to give place to a priesthood which would continue for ever an;l have no succession. There Mr Garden will see that both pope and priest go entirely by the board, and not only so, but if he look a little farther on, and specially to Heb. x., ver. 11, 12, 14. and chap. ix. 25-28, ho will see that the mass follows them. Perhaps Mr Garden's studies have not extended to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let me recommend it to his attentive and prayerful consideration. We need not reason longer in disproof of this analogy, but. w« cannot pass from it without remarking that Mr Carden is peculiarly unhappy in his endeavors to press it into his service. It obviously needed a little squeezing for if Aaron was Moses* puccessor, and Eleazar Aaron's, it is obvious that Eleazar was not the deputy of Aaron, but held the office in chief, his father having done with it, so that there were not two high priests together, but it seems that the Pope is to be high priest, and as it would not do even for an advanced Romanist to set Christ altogether aside, He must be high priest, and the Pope His vicar and successor upon the earth. There was certainly nothing analogous to this in the old dispensation, no deputy high priest or vicar, and as some sensitive Protestants may think it derogatory to Christ, Mr Carden brings forward two cases from scripture which thinks parallel, but the whole force of which, I think, gops entirely against him. The first is Eph. ii. 20 — ■" We are built on the foundation of the Apostle* and prophets, Jesus Chri3t Himself being the chief comer stone." No* it is clear that the Apostles here are all put upon a level, as being ' a foundation, but Christ has clearly the preeminence assigned to Him, as being the chief corner stone, so that nobody can dream that there is any infringement of His dignity, but it would be different if it had been said " Jesus Christ and Peter being the chief corner stones." Again, Ist Peter ii. 13 is quoted as analogous, but Purely nobody ever dreamt that there could be anything derogatory to Christ's honor as Icing of kings, that there shoul 1 be kings on earth invosted with authority under him. Had Christ appointed one supreme king over all tho kings of the earth, then there might have been some analogy in the question. Perhaps Mr Carden takes the verse in this sense. It so, earthly kings would require to Tindicate their rights against the claims of the Pope as well as simple presbyters. Mr Carden entirely fails to prove the second part ot the first general position laid down. Is he more successful wi'h the first part of it, viz., 111. Dil Christ, invest Peter with a primacy of actual authority or jurisdiction t .Now here I may just remark, first of all, that supposing Peter to have been invested with a supreme authority of some sort (let us put it in thia way for the sake of argument), it seems to have fallen somewhat short of tftac infallibility which is claimed nowadays for the Bishop of Rome. We find that Peter erred very grievously long after the time of his assumed infallibility. We are told, G-al. ii. 11, that Paul withstood him to the face at Ahfcioch, because of his eating with the Gentiles, and then separating himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. If Peter could not be trusted to guide his own course with infallible accuracy in an important practical question of this kind, how could he be trusted to guide infallibly the barque of the church ? If it be said that Peter was inspired, so were Paul, James, and John, and if by this it be meant that he was inspired to act as the infallible head of the church, then we reply that this is the Very point to be proved. It must be confessed .that to the plain, unsophisticated reader of scripture, the distinction between the humble Galilean fisherman and his alleged successor, seems broad and marked onougi). Peter was a married man, not only owning the force of domestic ties on the shores of the sen of Galilee, but even during his public ministry (Ist Cor. ix. 5). No palaces lodged him, no guards of soldiery accompanied himi but he was content to walk ia the footsteps of his Master, and emulous of that Master's death, preaching the cross and bearing it also. But secondly, if Peter had been the supreme head of the church, we would naturally have expected that he would have asserted his authority as the Pope does. On the contrary, in his two epistles, he makes no claim to supremacy, but when he exhorts the elders, he does it not as a Pope, but with all humility as himself an elder, Ist Peter v. 1, " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder," &c. It is not easy to see that this style of address was consistent either with honesty or faithfulness if he was th© infallible head of the church. Bat we go farther than this, and we maintain thirdly, that there is abundant scripture proof to show that he was not looked upon by his fellow-apostles as their ruler, but merely as a highlyrhonored and much-beloved brother. In the first council of the Christian church, Acts 15, he is simply numbered among the apostles and elders, giving his advice along with the others, and it is not Peter but James that delivers the opinion or sentence with respect to what should bo done that is adopted by the whole assembly. When Paul wa3 made an Apostle, he declares that he received not his teaching from any of the Apostles, not even from the most eminent among them, but by revelation from God, and when he speaks of the most eminent he mentions (Gal. ii. 9) James, Peter or Cephas, and John as occupying an equal rank, " who seemed to be pillars." It was not Peter thit arranged that Paul should go to the Gentiles, but Peter, James, and John that jointly recognised their own mission to bo to the Jews and Paul's to the Gentiles. Again, when long after this Paul haa occasion to write to the Corinthians, and blame them for their divisions, he puts Peter in the 'same rank with himself, as ministers or servants of the church of which Christ alone was the Lord (Ist Cor. iii. 21, 22). It is in that very passage, verse 11, that St. Paul warns them against laying any other foundation than that which is laid, ■which, is Jesus Christ. In Eph. ii. 20, we find that the Apostles are again jointly presented to us as the foundation, and Jesus Christ himself as the chief corner stone. How this can stand with Peter's supremacy it is hard to see. Verily, if Peter was the first Pope, Paul must hare been the first Protestant. IV. But is there any evidence in the Gospels that our Lord assigned a supre nacy of authority to St. Peter ? And this brings me to the consideration of the only passage that presents even a semblance of plausibility for such an opinion, viz., Matt. xvi. 18, 19. To notice the 19th verse first, •' I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," &c. Here I must protest against Mr Carden's translating the original (<ioso) by " give up," n simply means "give." Christ still wears the keys (see Her. i. 18and iii. 7) . Whatever the giving then might mean, it did not mean a surrender of Christ's own power, or a giving up. But we do not need to go far in quest lof what is meant by the keys here. The ' expression is closely connected with the following clause, which serves to define the general nature ol that power, to which tne possession of the keys belongß as tbe particular to the general, " and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," &c. Now we do not need to enter upon any discussion of what is meant by this binding and loosing, for whatever it may mean it was conferred in common upon all the other disciples, in the rery same words, Matt, xviii. 18. This last passage, as well as John xx. 23, show that if this be the nature of the power of the keys, it was nothing peculiar to Peter, bat the joint property of all the Apostles. But to come now to the 18th verse, " Thou art Peter, i

»na npon this rock I will build my church," &c, T*ow even supposing that this had been said to Peter personally, that is, that our Lord had meant that upon him as an individual he was to build his church, this would by no means jieownrily imply what Romanists draw from it, that. Peter was to have a primacy of authority, at nothine more irny have been meant, than that he hhpfelf wns to be among the first stones laid "by the prent Master builder, and that on him, as part of the foundation, the church was to be reared by the accession of both Jews and Gentiles. It is altogether more probable, however, if by the rock here Peter be meant at all, that it was in his representative capacity, as the spokesman of the twelve, a duty that he often discharged, and which in this place also he seems to have been discharging as the question that our lord put which drew forth Peter's confession shows, for that question was addressed to all the disciples, " But whom pay ye (Humei?) that. I am ?" A strong presumption in favor of this ■new, and against the Popish hypothesis, is drawn from Ac fact that in the gcriptureß the church is often represented as built on the foundation of the twelve Apostfcs, ccc for example Matt. xix. ?8, Eph. ii. 20, Rev. yxi. 14. It ie a remarkable fact, however, that the interpTrtation which has found favor with a great many Protestants is precisely that which ought from her own principles to have roost weight with fhe Churoh ofßome. JTbp Church of Rome professes to be guided in great measure in her interpretation of scripture by the authority of the fathers, and the interpretation to which I allude is that which has been adopted by a ereat proportion of the most eminent fof the fathers even m the fourth century. According to this view, H is not the person, but the faith of Peter — the great truth which he had confessed— that is the rock meant: If I understand Mr Csrden's words aright, this is the view which he himself adopts, for be says, "fo the meaning then evidently is, ' I will build my church upon your firm and true faith,' " &c. It may seem rather strange to claim Mr Carden as an opponent of the claims of the Pope to be the visible head of the church, yet, nothwith•tandme of the title of his letter, lam con. etrained to do so. The faith of St. Feter was either the act or exercise of his mind, that is subjective, ss we say, or it was the object or troth believed. If Mr Carden means by it the latter, Ihen be contends, along with many Protestants, that the great truth that Christ was the Son of God was the rook on which the church was built; if he takes it in the former sense, as lie seems to do — for he refers to our Lord's Prayer, Take xxii. 32, for Peter, that bis faith •hould not fail when he was about to be sifted as wheat by Satan, and to fall under the temptation — then of course Pact's faith in Christ as the Son of the living God went along with Peter's person to the realms of glory, and there became open vision, for I am not aware that the moßt extravagant Romanist has ever advocated the doctrine of a Metempsychosis, or that Peter -personally reappears in each Pope. But in truth this interpretation, Protestant and Patristic as it is, ought in the judgment of the very ripest «cholars who have lately discussed this text to be « et aside equally with the more ordinary Romanist interpretation, in favor of one that ought on all the principles of sound interpretation to be adopted, that,. viz., which makes the rock to refer not to Peter, hot to the person of Christ himself. The following considerations seem to be conclu•ive in favor of this view. First, the figure of a rock is never once m scripture applied to a mere human subject. It is appropriated to the Divine Being, and that in a vast number of places, as mere specimens (see Deut. xxxii. 4, 15, 18 ; Ps. -six. 14; xxviii. 1.) Secondly, it is an all but unexampled thing in Greek to apply the demonstrative pronoun " this" to the party addressed, that is, the second person. The third reason rests upon that distinction between the terms used (Petros and Petra), which Mr Carden chooses to ridicule. Here by the way Mr Carden has blundered. He represents Protestants as displaying their laming, " by asserting that it was not a rock (Petros) but a Btone (Petra) that Chrißt denominated St. Peter," &c. Mow it so happens that the relative meaning of these two Greek words ie precisely tbe reverse of that assigned to them by Mr Carden. . Petros never means a rock, but always a stone, and Petra always means a rock. Perhaps Mr Carden means this as a specimen of Protestant blundering ; if so, Protestant larnivg had much need of Father Careen's blessing upon it. I am forcibly reminded of the story of the two dr uthy cronies that were travelling in Fifeshire. Calling at a wayside inn to have some refreshment, one of them, whom his neishbor had politely invited to take tbe first draught from the tankard of ale that was supplied, seemed to be draining rather too copious a draught, when his comrade, WBiting his turn, and afraid of being rude, fell on a bright idea. "Stop," be said, "comrade, we have forgotten something; we have forgotten to ask a blessing." " Muckle need," said his companion, as he took a last hearty pull, " for it is unco thin." If this be Protestant laming, it has iruch need of a blessing, for it is " unco thin." But not to dwell on this, which in candor may have been a mere inadvertence, the distinction between the two words is of very great importance. It is true that Petros and Petra are Greek words, but then it ought to be remembered that the Holy Ghost, through the agency of Matthew, gave us thei>e Greek words to convey to our minds an accurate transcript of what our Lord spoke, no matter in what language he epoke it. Does Mr Carden mean to assert that there were so words in the Syriac language, which our Lord ordinarily epoke, to convey a distinction so important as that between a stone and a rock ? were there no different terms to express stone snd rock? But even although both ideas had been expressed in that language by one word only, why was it that the Holy Ghost guided St. Matthew to express the distinction ? Was it not because tbe Lord himself conveyed the one idea, in the one clause, and the other in tbe other ? It is true that in thefPeschito, or Syriac version, one word is used in both clauses, but then that translation, old as it is, was made long after the original, whilst Lightfoot, no mean authority, holds that in the Syriac language there was precisely the same distinction between Cephas and Cepba, that there is in Greek between Petros and Petra — the one meaning a Btone, the other a rock. If this distinction of terms employed by the Holy Ghost was meant for any purpose at all, it could only be meant to indicate that whilst Peter was, as bis name Cephas or Petros meant, a stone, yet Christ himself was the rock (Petra). On this rock, Peter hiiiiself as a living stone or piece of rock was built, as well as the other Apostles. Augustine, Jerome, and even Pope Gregory VII., may all be quoted as favorable to this interpretation. With respect to the passage from John xxi., quoted by Mr Carden, it is manifest that it makes nothing for Peter's supremacy. Our Lord did not say to him, " Feed all my sheep, feed all my lambs, throughout the whole world." 'Would there have been any incongruity in Christ's saying to John or Andrew, " Feed my sheep, feed my lambs P" Would any one from that, have argued their supremacy ? Would they not simply have inferred that our Lord was committing to them the pastoral office, or enjoining on them the duties of it ? The Gospel history makes it quite clear how these words should have been spoken to Peter alone at that time, as equivalent words were spoken to the others both before and afterwards. Peter had thrice denied Christ, and so seeded to be restored, or at least confirmed in his pastoral office. Our Lord thrice aaked Peter if he loved him, thus gently recalling his thrice-re-peated denial. Again he asked him if he loved him more than these, tims recalling his selfconfident boasting, and putting himself before the others before his fall, but now Peter, thoroughly humbled, took good care not to say that he loved Christ more than the others. This in a fine foundation truly on which to build the claims of the Papacy! It vanishes like the " baseless fabric of a dream." It is no otherwise with respect to all the distinctive doctrines of lomanistfl. Mr Carden has been bold enough to appeal to scripture. It will not do. Like other 2tomish controversialists, he.must have recourse to come other authority. He can bring nothing in

faror of Purgatory, the mass, invocation of Mary and the saints, &c. s until he turn to some other authority than the scripture, and it is not competent for him to do this, until he first prove that the scriptures are not the sole and sufficient rule of faith, and were not intended by Christ to be so ; and until further he prove that the church, or whatever he places alongside of tb* scriptures, was also intended by Christ to be of equal authority with the scriptures. This is the true hinge of the controversy between the Church of Borne and Protestants. V. In the meantime, before closing, I may just say — without entering closely into the argument on this part of the subject— that the concluding part of Mr Carden's letter proceeds entirely upon the assumption that the Roman Catholic is tho one true church of Christ. What is the church ? If we define it to be the company of those who are in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, the question is easily settled. But is this the scriptural definition ? It is not. It is easy to show from scripture that the church is just the whole company of believers upon the Lord Jesus Christ, throughout the whole world— the whole company i of those who from the heart can mate Peter's , confession of Christ. So far as they are to be ; known outwardly — that is, so far as^ the church j is visible — it is by confessing Christ's name and keeping his commandments. Now we have to tell Mr Garden that there was euch a church , some hundreds of years before the exaggerated | claims of the Bishop of Rome were even heard of, and many hundreds of years before they were generally submitted to throughout Christendom. Such a church was in existence at least seven hundred years before transubstantiation was imagined, or the mass had been hatched. Such a church existed during the darkest period of the middle ages, for even midst the darkness of Popish corruptions we do not take it upon us to say that some souls may not have got access to so much of the simple truth as it is in Jesus as may have led to their salvation. There is very much of precious truth which has never been denied by the Church of Rome, such as the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Atonement, &c. Our grand charge against that church is that she has practically overlaid that truth, and studiously kept it in the background, by a mass of human traditions in many cases inconsistent with it But not to speak of Christians in that church herself, God has never left himself without witnesses against her corruptions, and for his own truth, from the day of the Apostles to the present hour. Claude, Bishop of Turin, the Paulicians, Albigenses, Waldenses, Wickliffe, John Hubs, form so many links in one great historical chain. In our own land, the ancient British church, St. Columba, and the church of lona, the Culdees, and afterwards the Lollards and followers of Wickliffe enable ub to trace the true apostolic succession ; and I venture to say, that were St. Patrick himself to return to earth to-morrow, both Pope Pius IX. and Cardinal Cullen would disown and excommunicate him as heartily at Dr Dollinger or Father Hyacinthe is disowned by them. Neither Mr Carden nor I are capable of deciding how long or to what an extent men may through the just judgment of God be allowed to fall into idolatry. They certainly had been long involved in idolatry at the period of the calling of Abraham, and at other times besides. In conclusion, Mr Carden contends that there must be some living human authority to interpret scripture for us. The needful livingauthority and interpreter we find in the Holy Spirit, and the text that Mr Carden quotes does not necessarily refer to any human authority, even on his own interpretation of it, but may equally refer to the authority, which Protestantß contend for as needful, viz , the Holy Ghost. The truth, however, ie that in this text (2 Peter i. 20), so often quoted by him, Mr Carden seems entirely to miss the true meaning, which both the force of the words in the original Greek and the context make perfectly plain. The meaning is, "No prophesy is of (i.e., comes from — giuetai) any private exposition" (or interpretation — epiluoie), that is to say, of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves ; for St. Peter goes on to say that they were not left to their own private judgment, but spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. A Greek testament and a Greek lexicon will make this plain to Mr Carden (gee Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon). We would have been in bad plight if we had needed an infallib.'e human interpreter, for Romanists themselves have not been agreed as to where to look for the church speaking infallibly. Some have 6aid the Pope, others an (Ecumenical Council. The partisans of the former opinion have carried the day at the late council at Rome, but even an in f allible Pope cannot alter the facts of history. Three Popes have at one time fulminated their thunders one against another, and it was a general council that by its authority interposed to save Christendom from a continuation of the scandal. This longstanding dispute as between Popes and general councils cannot even yet be regarded as finally disposed of. The Gordian knot has indeed been bololy cut by the late council at Kome, but there are not wanting indications that by the very act the Church of Rome herself has been cleft asunder. — 1 am &c, Andbew H. Stobo.

Sib, — To-day I learned that the Rev. Mr Stobo handed you a letter for publication on the subject being discussed by Father Carden and myself. Believing that Mr Stobo's letter will more than meet all the requirements of the case, I beg to withdraw my farewell reply to Mr C, intimated in your Tuesday's issue to appear in " our next." With best wishes for Mr Carden's spiritual and temporal welfare, I am, &c, A Catholic, bite kot a Papist. August 7, 1872.