penance, not purgatory-Fleury's interpretation-Augustine and his mother Monica-Not the slightest hint of purgatory-Passages in Augustine showing the beginning of the Roman notion-Heathen or Platonic ideas-Virgil-Augustine never speaks of it as a Catholic truthAugustine's comment on "saved yet so as by fire"-He states the notion of purgatorial fire as uncertain-His doctrine as to the value of prayers and offerings for the dead--Contradicted by the Pope's Bull -Other proofs from the Fathers-Irenæus-Tertullian-Ambrosegrowth of the notion of purgatory-The Summa of Aquinas-The Coun cil of Florence-Nothing then strictly defined-Dispute as to fireForced consent of the Greeks at the Council of Florence in regard to this matter-Faithful conformity of the Church of England to Scripture, and the substantial practice of the primitive Church-Commemoration of the dead in the communion and burial offices-Specific private prayers for the dead nowhere condemned-How far such prayers attain their object known only to God-No certainty of the result of prayers for the living-Unauthorized superstition-Satisfaction derived from the sympathy of Christian affection-The author no advocate for the practice of prayer for the dead-Objection to their reintroduction. Pp. 285-326.

LETTER XLI.

Extreme Unction-See Letter XIX.-Whether the Pope be Antichrist A question left by the Church of England entirely to the private judgment of individuals-Milner ridicules the idea that prevailed among the Reformers-The character of Antichrist belongs pre-eminently to the Papacy-Milner's argument delusive and unsatisfactory -Variation among Protestants as to the time when Antichrist arose —A fact is none the less true, simply because the time when it happened is not settled-Pope Gregory the Great's opinion as to the forerunner of Antichrist-Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans-Fluentius, Bishop of Florence-The Abbot Joachim of Calabria-WaldensesKings and Cardinals-No invention of the Reformers-The only question is, Whether the Pope deserves the title?-Milner argues the absurdity of supposing Rome to have fallen away, while she maintains all the Creeds-The adulteress must be a true wife-The "temple of God" to be the seat of Antichrist-The Pope's confessor-The Pope not Antichrist as a man, but as a sovereign-Proof that the marks of Antichrist, as described in Scripture, are found in Popery-1. The "falling off"

admitted by Fleury-2. The man of sin "revealed," or made manifest, by plain acts of history-3. Antichrist " opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God," which is true of Popery-4. Popery is "according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders"-5. It "makes war with the Saints"❞—6. It agrees with the mystical number, 666, Aarɛívos, Latin—Not a topic to be chosen-Its discussion forced upon the author by what Milner had written Pp. 327-334.

LETTER XLII.

The Pope's supremacy-See Letters XXIII. and XXIV.-Milner disclaims the idea that the Pope has any civil or temporal supremacy -No such jurisdiction is claimed by him beyond the States of the Church-Milner disguises the real claim of deposing princes and similar acts as a branch of his spiritual supremacy. "to feed and govern the whole Church" with full power-English Anti-Popery oath ingeniously good for nothing-Milner's idea of a Christian Republic, of which the Pope is the head-Contrary to facts, and to Papal principles also-The Church a republic in primitive ages, and with us it is so still-The Pope has nothing republican about him-Pure despotism of Gregory VII.—Two great lights—Kings and princes acknowledged the claims of the Pope only when it suited them, or when they could not help it-No city in Europe so often taken and pillaged by Christian armies as Rome -Milner declares that, in later ages, the deposing power of the Pope has been generally withdrawn-Not withdrawn in 1570-Bull of Pope Pius deposing Queen Elizabeth-Nothing republican in the claim to be a prince by divine right over all kingdoms and peoples, with plenary authority-The sun and moon, the Pope and Emperor-The Roman Canon Law as laid down by Boniface VIII.-"Necessary to salvation" for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff-When or where withdrawn?—Not in 1682, nor even in 1809, when Pope Pius VII. excommunicated Napoleon-Ultramontane and Cismontane views-Papal infallibility stated by Milner to be merely a scholastic question— Whether the Pope is spiritual head of the Church, and centre of Catholic unity?—The title Papa given originally to all Bishops-Primacy of honor conceded by certain eminent Protestant writers to the Pope, provided he held the truth, and regarded the rights of his brethren-This only an hypothesis—A primacy of honor would never satisfy the Pope -Resemblance of the primitive Church to the constitution of thẹ

United States-Steps in the growth of Papal power-Romish Republicanism-Appointment of Cardinals unrepublican-Practical despotism in Church affairs-Nothing of old times lacking, but the power-Our Church truly a Christian Republic-Construction of our Conventions, diocesan and general-Powers of the laity-Our Bishops not lords over God's heritage, but servants of Christ. Pp. 335-349.

LETTER XLIII.

Bishop Kenrick's book on the Primacy of the Apostolic See, in reply to the author's work on the Church of Rome Roman view of "Thou art Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church"-Mass of evidence for the contrary view left untouched by Bishop Kenrick-Certain that St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome at his death-Testimony of Ire næus that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and made so by St. Peter and St. Paul-Eusebius says the same-Even if St. Peter possessed a primacy, it would not pass, by consecration merely, to LinusAbsurdity involved in the very idea-St. John subject, on the Roman theory, for thirty years, to the supremacy of Linus, Anacletus, and Clement-St. John totally silent on any such authority over him—The theory of Rome disproved by history-The primacy so essential to the unity of the Church, has been the chief cause of disunion-Only the declension of the Papal power has produced more of peace among Romanists since the Reformation-The Fathers testify to nothing more than a Primacy of Honor-Very different from a supremacy of jurisdiction-The evidence against Rome unshaken by Bishop Kenrick's book-Small verbal criticisms upon translations-Quotation from Irenæus vindicated in a pamphlet-The chain of proof necessary to support the claims of the Papacy-St. Peter's supremacy of government and jurisdiction over the other Apostles must be proved from Scripture, which can never be done-Primacy of Honor the most that can be inferred from Holy Writ-Next, it must be proved that St. Peter's seat of government was at Rome, and that he transferred all his power and prerogatives, by Divine command, to all his successors in that See, which involves an absurdity, and is in direct contradiction to St. Paul -The Roman assumption, that St. Peter was for seven years Bishop of Antioch, and then for twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, irreconcilable with Scripture-Opposed also to the statements of the older Fathers-Lastly, the twenty-eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is fatal to the whole hypothesis-The Pope's refusal to sanction it is

no disproof, for no one ought to be the sole judge in his own causeThe Papal theory thus not only unproved, but disproved-In making it an article of faith, Rome stamps herself as Antichrist-Satan's temptation of sovereignty over all the kingdoms of this world, and the glory of them-Progress of Popery to power-The gradual decay of that power since the Reformation-Steadily growing strength of the Church of England. Pp. 350-357.

LETTER XLIV.

The Liturgy in an unknown tongue-Milner's justification, that it is the people who have forgotten their ancient language-This does not apply to the Sclavonic, Teutonic, Celtic, and many other races-The high-priest going alone into the tabernacle is no model for the public worship of a Christian congregation-The translations used by the laity only made since the Reformation-The people not allowed to respond-St. Paul's denunciation of praying in an unknown tongue— Milner says that no allusion is made in the whole chapter to the public Liturgy!—The empty pretence that an unknown tongue is necessary for Uniformity, Decency, and Order—Three arguments more-1. St. Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans in Greek-2. The Jewish Liturgy continued to be in Hebrew after Chaldaic became the vernacular-The Hebrew not properly a dead language-3. The Greek Church retains the ancient Greek Liturgy, though not intelligible to the people-The ancient Greek not unintelligible-True reason of retaining an unknown language-Omne ignotum pro magnifico-Latin more acceptable to God, as the language of the priests-Mystery-Babylon the GreatAarεívos-The Liturgy of the Church of England is for the peopleThe Church of Rome undervalues the Scriptures, and prohibits the use of them-Milner calls this a wicked calumny-Rome does not value them as the complete rule of faith and morals-Oral tradition substantially destroys the proper authority of Scripture-Rome teaches, besides the gospel, "another gospel," notwithstanding St. Paul's anathema-This is the Usurpation of Antichrist-Analogy of the judges of the Civil Law-Innovations established as articles of faith-Milner asserts that the Scriptures are not prohibited to any of the laity who can read them in their original tongues, or in the Latin Vulgate-This was a virtual prohibition to the vast majority for a thousand years—The permission of the priest confessed to be necessary before reading the Bible in the vernacular-An attestation of piety and docility required

-Turning the reading of the Bible into poison-Preaching open to the same objection-The priests have caused more scandals than the Bible -Restricting the use of the Word of God another claim to the name of Antichrist-The real reason of this restriction omitted by Milner-It is the most perilous of all things to the falsities and corruptions of Rome-Burning the Bible-Opposite course of the Church of England. Pp. 358-370.

LETTER XLV.

Various misrepresentations-The intention of the priest essential to the effect of the Sacrament-Milner's inefficient defence-Mimicking or mockery of a buffoon-Impious or irreligious priests-The wickedness of the priest does not destroy the validity of the Sacraments as to the faithful receiver-The intention of the priest a part of his personal piety-Celibacy of the Clergy-The second Council of Carthage, Epiphanius, and St. Paul-The true question-The Rule laid down by St. Paul, notwithstanding his personal preference-This is the Divine Law -General clerical incontinence the result of its violation-Celibacy a state, not of greater perfection, but of greater temptation-Some amendment since the Reformation—The “vile, hackneyed calumny" about not keeping faith with heretics-Proved by history-Milner says that more princes were deprived of the whole or a part of their dominions by the Reformation, than the Popes had attempted to depose during the preceding 1500 years-Utterly false-The wars on the Continent caused by Rome's refusing liberty of conscience-The Reformers did not attempt to force their opinions by the sword-The Pope was the assailant in these wars for Christian liberty-Specimen of the Roman system in the Bull of the Pope deposing Queen Elizabeth -Milner tries to shift the responsibility from the Roman Church to the personal account of individual Popes-Absurdity of this-The power claimed as inherent in their office from the time of Gregory VII.— Declaration of the clergy of France in 1682-The claim never abandoned to this day. Pp. 371-378.

LETTER XLVI.

Milner's assertion that the Church of Rome expressly disclaims the power to punish heretics with penalties, imprisonment, tortures, and death-He refers to Gregory I. and previous writers, in whose time his