That the opportunity all its possibilities of sin and guilt and woe. of salvation is limited to the present life, while the retribution of the finally unregenerate continues without end, is plain, again, from the nature of Christ's mediatorial kingdom. This is to have an end. When Christ's redemptive work, according to the election of grace, is completed; when all opposing powers and dominion and authority are subdued; when Death, Hades, the Grave, the last enemy, is destroyed, by the universal resurrection of the human race then will the Son deliver up the kingdom to his Father, to whom he will himself become subordinate, in order "that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians xv. 28.) This affects not Christ's essential equality with the Father, nor the eternity of his peculiar relations to his people; but it does teach that mediatorial sovereignty will ultimately yield to full regal sovereignty, the day of mediation be ended, the dispensation of mercy be closed, and the everlasting era of reward and retribution be ushered in. We presume not to explain the origin or the divine permission of sin. No explanation has been revealed, and our enforced and absolute ignorance is part of our probation. But we do know sin as a fact, and we can believe that it has been wisely permitted by God. Nor can we discover, by any mental powers we possess, anything in God's character to forbid the eternity of sin and its punishment which does not equally compromise him by the present existence of sin and suffering. Take whatever theory may seem preferable, and the same conclusion is inevitable. If sin exists because God cannot prevent it, will he ever be able to prevent it? If sin is involved in the highest form of creation and the highest welfare of man, may not these high ends always involve the same sad accompaniment? If sin is necessary to the development and appreciation of holiness, may not eternal holiness require the same condition? If this is a life of probation, and sin and suffering pertain intrinsically to the working out of this wondrous experiment of human freedom and responsibility, must it not be that the issues of this trial shall be freely developed-wrath and indignation, tribulation and distress, upon every soul of man whose works are evil; but glory, honor, and peace to every one whose works are good? (Romans ii. 8-10.) We know that the renewed and righteous soul will acquiesce, with admiration and joy, in all the awards of God-resting in peaceful satisfaction in whatever may be the judgments and retributions of the last day. Such will be the knowledge and confidence and holy sympathy of the believer that he can only say, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema," accursed with the curse that drives him into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There certainly can be no need that this Retribution should fall upon us unawares, overtaking us as a thief with its sudden and terrible destruction. We will verily be guilty of our own blood if it does. This is the day of salvation. We may easily escape from the wrath to come, by fleeing for refuge to the hope set before us in the gospel. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he who converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James v. 19, 20.) CROZER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. LEMUEL Moss. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. The Pope and the Council, by JANUS. Boston: Roberts Anti-Janus. An Historico-theological Criticism of the THE dogma of the Infallibility of the Pope is a fundamental article By the vote of a of belief in the Roman Catholic Church. Council which assembled at Rome, Dec. 29th, 1869, the opinion of a few individuals was formally erected into the professed creed of a corporation which numbers one hundred and eighty millions of souls. This matter interests the outside world chiefly for two reasons: in the first place it presents us with a very interesting historical development of an idea which sprouted centuries ago; and in the second place its announcement will produce effects upon the church which will be felt for centuries to come. It may not be amiss to remark that among the advocates of the dogma there is considerable diversity in defining its meaning. The marks by which an infallible decision of a Pope may be recognized have given rise to various hypotheses. The fairest proposal seems to be to understand that there is a distinction to be made between a casual utterance of a Pope and one which is official. Since the sixteenth century it has been customary to discriminate between decisions promulgated "ex cathedra" and those hasty off-hand remarks in which observation proves that even Popes sometimes indulge. Some have tried to ingraft into the phrase "ex cathedra" the idea that the Pope must have duly informed himself upon the subject in hand by diligent research. Cellot insisted that the Pope must anathematize all who dissent in order to make his ruling infallible. Tanner and Compton held that a papal decree was to be considered "ex cathedra" only after certain formalities, as the affixing it for some time to the door of St. Peter's. Cardinal Bellamine limited the papal inerrancy to the sphere of doctrine and to those decrees which are addressed to the whole Catholic Church. This restriction obviated many historic difficulties; for the first bull which was addressed to the whole church was published by Pope Boniface VIII, in 1303; so that by this limitation the dogma becomes equipped for the future without being so much embarrassed by what occurred in the past. The Jesuits, for the most part, insist that inerrancy is a spiritual grace imparted by the Holy Spirit, which enlightens at the moment of his election the most ignorant Pope and unerringly guards his decisions from mistake so long as he sits in his official chair. One of them, Prof. Erberman, of Mayence, has observed, "A thoroughly ignorant Pope may very well be infallible, for God has before now pointed out the right road by the mouth of a speaking ass." Some of them, however, have thought that infallibility could not be reckoned on without a council, including at least the cardinals, prelates, and theologians resident at Rome. From this proposal new questions arose. Was the Pope to listen to the council, and then decide according to his pleasure, or to decide only with the consent of the council? To this the objection arose that some of the most important decisions have been rendered without consultation; moreover, to make the consent of the council a prerequisite to infallibility seemed subversive of the idea of an infallible spiritual grace. Even priests were infallible in their sphere. Could the Pope be otherwise in his? Some, therefore, thought it unnecessary to refer to a council at all. If His Holiness needed any advice, were not cardinals better than bishops? Was anything needed beyond the college of cardinals? But here came another difficulty; was it necessary for the Pope to consult the whole college, or only such individuals as he chose? We are inclined to believe that the differentiation of a definition of what constitutes a dogmatic papal decision "ex cathedra," has been an intricate and perplexing problem. It seems to be universally believed among all orthodox Romanists that infallibility resides somewhere in the church. There are two views. The ultramontane view locates infallibility pre-eminently and ultimately in the Pope; they believe that the Holy Spirit is responsive to the mechanical movements of the church. There are others who would be reluctant to assign to infallibility its local habitation and name, but who, if pressed by their opponents, would say that it is expressed in the universally accepted canons of the church. They sympathize with the progressive spirit of the age, insist on the necessity of thorough reform in the church, and are in education and action what their name imports-Liberal. They object to the dogma of Papal infallibility on the following grounds: It is claimed that the promulgation of this dogma is a new departure, fundamental, far-reaching, and dangerous. If this dogma is accepted there will be no assignable limit to the prerogatives of a Pope in regard to morals, politics, and social science. This dogma not only endangers the future, but it belies the past. The decisions of past Popes contravened wholesome political safeguards, and often contradicted each other. For example, Pope Innocent III, in a bull published August 15, 1215, characterized the English Magna Charta as a disgrace to the nation. He excommunicated the barons who obtained it for their contempt of the Apostolic See thereby expressed. Nor are the decisions of successive Popes more in harmony with each other than they are with the principles of constitutional government. Pope Pelagius (555–60) declared the indispensable necessity of invoking the Trinity in baptism. On the contrary Pope Nicholas I (858-67) assured the Bulgarians that baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite sufficient. Celestine III (1191-98) declared marriage dissolved if either party became heretical. Innocent III, his successor, annulled this decision; and Adrian IV called Celestine a heretic for giving it. Pope Nicholas III (1277-80) affirmed the renunciation of all property, according to the rule of St. Francis, meritorious; discriminated between the use of it and the ownership, and adjudged the latter to reside in the Roman Catholic Church. Clement V (1305-14) re-affirmed this ordinance to be salutary, clear and binding. But John XXII (1316-34) removed the excommunication threatened by his predecessors against all non-literal interpretations of the Franciscan rule, declared the distinction between use and ownership impossible, and rejected the doctrine of his predecessors as heretical and hostile to the Catholic faith. He condemned the writings of D'Olive, their principal theologian, and handed over the whole community of the Fratricelli, or advocates of extreme poverty, to the Inquisition, of whom one hundred and fourteen were finally burned to death. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84) made some satisfaction to the disaffected brethren; he caused the writings of D'Olive to be re-examined and pronounced orthodox. From this class of historical difficulties the advocates of papal infallibility escape in a |