all the world. But the popish doctrine is quite different from this, and serves quite different purposes. By Confession they mean not confession to God, nor confession to an injured person, nor confession to the Church in cases of public offense or scandal, but private confession to a priest, which they call auricular confession, because it is whispered in his ear.

This statement is followed by a masterly refutation of the papal dogma, and by a triumphant defense of the truth as it is in Jesus.

'PAPAL SUPREMACY.

In reference to the Pope as "chief bishop," the "Table of Controversies" says, "St. Peter, by Christ's ordinance, was raised to this dignity, Matt. xvi, 18, 19."

The annotation reads thus:

As St. Peter, by Divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the Divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him, namely: That he, to whom he had already given the name Peter, signifying a rock, (John i, 42,) should be a rock indeed of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the Church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the Keys of the Kingdom.

Upon this rock," etc. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." So that by the plain course of the words Peter is here declared to be the rock upon which the Church was to be built.

With all deference to authorities we pronounce this one of the weakest, most evasive, and most unscholarly of annotations in this volume, sectarian and unfair as many of them are shown. to be. The error on which it is based is, the annotator makes no allusion to the obvious difference in the mind of Christ, as shown by the historian in the use of IIérpos, the name given to Simon, which is in the masculine gender, and means stone, and the immediate use of Térça, rock, feminine, not applicable to Peter as a man, but only to his confession, or to the truth of his confession; or to the character of Peter, to be developed in the future. If, as Dr. Bloomfield urges, it does refer to Peter as the chief of the Apostles, primus in paribus, or the first to

preach Jesus to the Jews and to the Gentiles, then it can only refer to his subsequent character-his energy, faith, and firmness. The precise significance of TÉTоa is, "a mass of living rock."* The name Peter was given to Simon, as is often the case in the Scriptures, to denote some quality or disposition. In this instance it expresses his firmness and truthfulness in first and openly acknowledging the character of Christ. “In like manner James and John are surnamed Boanerges, sons of thunder," so that it was either to the character or to the confession of Peter, rather than to any chief office, that Christ referred by the word πέτρα.

The other notes as to the primacy of Peter are of little weight. For instance, in the enumeration of the Apostles, Matt. x, 2-4, the translators, like the servants of King James, were careful to exceed the bounds of the original Greek, and to render лотоs, which is without the article prefixed, "the first," as though he had a supremacy over the others. But this is not the design of the writer. It is only in accordance with the usage of all writers to say first in enumerating several persons or things, with no intention of giving either dignity or rank to the first named, for example: "Early the first (¬ρúTMη) day of the week;" "the first (πоTоç) who should arise from the dead;" and "the wisdom from above is first (TV) pure," etc.

The annotation on the charge given to St. Peter, "Feed my sheep," John xxi, 17, is very far-fetched, namely, "Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter, Matt. xvi, 19, and here fulfills that promise by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception, and, consequently, of his whole flock, that is, of his whole Church."

How any such universal charge is gathered from this simple and earnest command to Peter to feed the flock of God, a charge which Peter himself subsequently gave (1 Pet. v, 2) to the elders of the Church, it is difficult for ordinary minds to see. It certainly means no more than is embraced in the pastoral relations and offices of all ministers of Christ to the disciples under their watch-care and instruction.

The next reference to the supremacy of Peter which we find in this version is in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians,

*Robinson's Greek Lexicon.

Bloomfield in loco.

(ii, 11,) "When Cephas"-a Hebrew word meaning the same as Ilérpoç-"was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed."

Annotation: "The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter was only a certain imprudence in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offense to the Jewish converts. But St. Paul's reprehending him was not any argument against his supremacy."

To this we reply, first, that it seems not a little evasive to introduce in the text here the word Cephas, though it means the same as Peter, because in the original Greek it is IIérρoç. It looks as though the translators wished to conceal from any ignorant reader that it was really the so-called infallible PETER that St. Paul confronted, and that, too, "because he was to be blamed." And then to meet the real difficulty in the case they append the note we have transcribed. We add, second, that the context clearly shows that in no respect did St. Paul recognize the supremacy of his fellow-apostle. He elsewhere (2 Cor. xi, 5) not only modestly declares himself "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles"-by whom were meant "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars," Gal. ii, 9—but he very plainly makes a comparison that bears hard on any supremacy of St. Peter over either himself or the other apostles, thus: "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no difference to me. God accepteth no man's person; for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; but contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they come unto the circumcision. Only that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

The reader will notice that, in this justifiable comparison of

himself with others, the Apostle Paul places himself on an equality with St. Peter; that one was called to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles; that the apostleship of each had the same "effectual" and "mighty" working; of the three "who seemed to be pillars," James, who was Bishop of Jerusalem, and President of the first Church Council, (Acts xv,) is first named; that these three jointly recognized the equal apostleship of St. Paul by giving to him "the right hand of fellowship" and that St. Paul seeing not only the fallibility but even the blamableness of Peter, nobly "withstood him to the face," extinguishing the Papal dogma of Peter's supremacy by a breath.

These are among the chief heresies stated and defended in the Rhemish Testament before us, and our animadversions are made from a scriptural and critical point of view. And yet in this version are many things worthy of high commendation. The translation is sometimes beautifully simple, faithful, and accurate. Some of the few notes are non-partisan, and to the point; so that it were better to place even this edition of the New Testament into the hands of Papal adherents than none at all, as is the usual policy of the authorities of that hierarchy. The superabundance of truth more than counterbalances the errors of translation, and the partisan notes inserted are less for the purpose of "clearing up the principal difficulties of Holy Writ," than for guarding the readers against so-called “Protestant heresies."

ART. VIII.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL-ITS SUSPENSION - MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH-ABOLITION OF THE TEMPORAL POWER.- Our record of the Vatican Council in the last number of the "Methodist Quarterly Review" closed with the promulgation of the doctrine of Papal infallibility on the 18th of July. One or two days before the leaders of the opposition made a last effort to induce the Pope either to withhold, or at least to adjourn, his consent to the schema adopted by the Council. They presented an address to this effect, signed by fifty-six Bishops; but the Pope declined to accede to the request, strongly expressing his personal sympathy with the new doctrine. Immediately after its promulgation a general furlough was given to all Bishops who desired to visit their dioceses, and so many

availed themselves of the permission received that soon no more than about one hundred and fifty remained in Rome to take part in the general congregations which were continued. All the Bishops were expected to return in November, but ere this time arrived Rome and the Papal States were annexed to the kingdom of Italy, and the Pope issued a bull (7th October) suspending the Council.

According to the official paper of Rome, all the Cardinals who had belonged to the opposition, namely, the Cardinal Archbishops of Vienna, Prague, and Besançon, and Prince Hohenlohe, declared their submission to the new doctrine as soon as it had been promulgated. Their example was soon followed by a considerable number of Archbishops and Bishops. The Bishops of Germany held a meeting at Fulda, and issued a pastoral letter, in which they proclaimed Papal infallibility to be henceforth a doctrine of the Catholic Church, and enjoined upon all members of the Church an unequivocal submission. Some surprise was created by the circumstance that among the signatures of the pastoral letter the names of the prominent opponents of the doctrine, in particular those of the learned Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg and Bishop Foerster of Breslau, did not appear. The expectation that some of these Bishops would persist in their opposition and decline to promulgate the new doctrine in their dioceses was, however, not fulfilled. The Bishop of Breslau, it is true, offered to the Pope his resignation; but when it was declined in Rome he retained his office, and exhorted the people of his diocese to accept the decision of the Council. One after one all the Bishops of the opposition seem to have signified their submission; at least no case of open resistance had become known up to the middle of December, with the only exception of four Armenian Bishops who revolted against the Papal authority in common with a considerable portion of the Catholic Armenians, and were accordingly excommunicated.

While the Bishops submitted to the Papal dictates, a strong movement of opposition showed itself in Germany among both priests and laity. The leaders in this movement were the professors of theology at the universities and theological schools. Munich, Prague, Bonn, Breslau, Freiburg, Munster, Braunsberg, and other schools issued strong protests, and a conference of professors, held in August at Nuremberg, under the presidency of the learned Döllinger, denied the cecumenical character of the Council altogether, and demanded the convocation of another really free Council. Among those who declared their concurrence with this view were most of the prominent theological scholars of Germany; among others Abbot Haneberg of Munich, Drs. Dieringer, Reusch, and Langen of Bonn, Canon Baltzer of Breslau, and Professor Michelis of Braunsberg. The latter, who has for many years been a noted champion of the interests of his Church both in the province of literature and of politics, went further than any one else, and issued a fiery protest "against the Pope Pius IX," denouncing him in the name of the old Catholic Church as a heretic and destroyer of the Church. The best literary paper of the whole Catholic Church, the Theologische Literaturblatt of Bonn, is an outspoken champion