placed the touching symbol of a many-linked chain having three links broken, was your last remaining child. He lay shrouded in his little coffin, as his twin-sisters had done before in all the placid beauty of his cradled sleep. You rained bitter tears upon his sunny hair, his large, closed eyes. Ah! my again weeping friend, that was God's answer, in his own sovereign, and awful, and "strange" way, to one of your FORGOTTEN prayers. You prayed-did you not very often? to have all "temptations" removed? Well, that sweet boy was a "temptation" and idol to you! You may never have suspected it : at least you forgot your prayers, and thereby showed that you knew nothing of prayer at all, with reference to that petition, with reference altogether, alas! to God. Had you been left so, you would have assuredly been lost. Thinking you were under the beams of the "Sun of Righteousness," you would have found—may you not find it? in an old, old age, perhaps, that the years have been passing away, snowing upon you in dim wintry silence. As it is, is it not the sad truth that "gray hairs are here and there upon your head, and you know it not.' Hosea vii. 9. Well, it was needful that you should be made to "agonize;" that you should be made to realize God, as he is and all that he is; that you should be made to feel in the very quick that there is such a thing, even in this radiant earth as sin, and that it had gotten within you, and needed to be "crucified" and slain. So the child, loved and loving, "was not, for God took him." "Took him!"-and has it all failed? Surely, my friend, had you recognized the hand of God in it, there would have been less of wild sorrow, something surely more awful, and saddening, and repentant would have possessed your thoughts-that, in a sense, nor that a trivial one, you had been the murderer of your boy and now surely, if you had done so, you would not be a FORGETTER of your prayers!

Thus is carried out God's immutable government. He is continually sending forth search-warrants for "idols" into the families of his people, and breaking them, in tenderest mercy breaking them in pieces, leaving you my brother, my sister, alone perhaps in the great world, or rendered with dread suddenness very poor, or laying bare the "filth" of your heart to the Church, or put into the "furnacc" to be "dried." And were it not for FORGOTTEN PRAYERS, this economy would be better understood, would be rid of much of its awfulness.

Why, readers, comes trial, comes affliction, comes bereavement, come sorrows, come worldly crosses and losses, comes God's mighty finger probing the quaking heart, it is our part to regard each as from God: and doing that ought to set us a trying to discover of which forgotten prayers, or rather of what necessities in us manifested by these, they are the fulfilment. Let none of us then FORrget our PRAYERS. Let none of us put ourselves in the dread position of being puzzled, when asked by a brother for what we prayed last week or last night. May this "Seed-thought" fall into "willing

hearts," and be germinant! May the guilty no more only say their words, but, pray their words, and so no more send "before them" FORGOTTEN PRAYERS. May the sunlight of answered prayers never fade from our hearths! May we "walk" with God!

A. B. G.

BELLARMINE'S SECOND MARK OF THE CHURCH.

ANTIQUITY.

"Secunda Nota est Antiquitas."-BELLAR. de Notis Ecclesia. lib. iv. Chap. 6.

THE assumption which this argument contains is obvious to any thoughtful reader. The Protestant Church is only from the days of Luther, but the Roman dates from the Apostolic times, is the familiar argument of every village controversialist who wishes to defend the Papacy, while he dreads comparison of the teachings of the modern Romish Church with the word of God. We are willing to give Bellarmine credit for honesty in the use of the argument, but merely on the ground that like many Romanists, he was so entirely blinded by, and devoted to the system, that he identified the Papacy and Christ as multitudes in France, Spain, and Ireland do at the present day. In the brief space which we can command for examining this argument, we shall demonstrate

I. That antiquity cannot be logically urged as a distinct and proper mark of the Church, seeing that it is common to it and other bodies in which false religion is taught.

II. That real antiquity is not on the side of the present Church of Rome-but,

III. That it is on the side of Evangelical Protestantism.

I. It is acknowledged by the advocates of Rome that the discriminating marks of anything must be proper and peculiar to the thing of which they are marks, and not common to it and other objects. If this be not the case, such marks will not distinguish the object which is sought to be identified. And they must also be inseparable from the object and constitute the elements of its existence. Now these principles directly apply to the case before us, and show that antiquity is not a proper mark of the Church, because it did not always belong to it. There was a time when the Church was young, and then its adversaries objected against it the want of antiquity; just as Romanists assail the Evangelical Church now. To this charge the same reply was given as we now offer to the advocate of the Papacy.

But other classes of religionists, as well as the followers of Rome, have laid claim to this mark, and they have an unquestionable right to all the support that antiquity can give their system; does it therefore follow, that their sentiments are likewise true because they are old and venerable?

It is evident that the Samaritans argued in this way against the Jews, as appears from John iv. 20: "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain," &c. They had done so many ages before they worshiped in Jerusalem. It was here that God appeared to Abraham, who built an altar in this place (Gen. xii. 6, 7.) when he first came out of Chaldea. Jacob also erected an altar here (Gen. xxxiii. 20.) when he came out of Mesopotamia. There was a sanctuary here and Joshua gave his last charge to Israel and made a covenant with them in this place. (Josh. xxiv. 25, 26.) The Patriarchs were buried here. (verse 32.) Shiloh was at hand (Judges xxi. 19.) in which place by the authority of Joshua (Josh. xviii. 1, 2.) the tabernacle and the ark of God were settled, long before it was brought to Jerusalem.

To this reasoning the Jews had no reply but the principle that "the authority of God's precept and not the antiquity of the place was to be their direction."

In a similar manner the Jews argued against Christ, because he did not follow the tradition of the Elders, which had come down from antiquity; (Mark vii. 1.) and against the early Christians whom they believed to be a new sect, (Acts xxiv. 5.) and consequently destitute of the mark of antiquity. And the heathen themselves adopted the same mode of dealing with the Apostle Paul at Athens; "May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speaketh, is?" (Acts xvii. 19.) To which mode of reasoning, whether by Samaritans, Jews, Pagans, or Papists, the language of Augustine will form a suitable reply; "As if," saith he, "antiquity or ancient custom should carry it against truth. Thus murderers, adulterers, and all wicked men, may defend their crimes; for they are ancient practices and began at the beginning of the world." And elsewhere speaking of the introduction of the corruption of religion he observes

"The irrational vulgar began to worship demons or dead men, who appeared to them as if they had been gods; which worship being drawn down into custom of long continuance, thereby to be defended, as if it were the truth of reason. Whereas the reason of truth is not from custom (which is from antiquity) but from God; who is proved to be God not by long continuance (or antiquity) but by eternity." (Quæst. ex. Vet. et Novo Testamento, 2. cxiv.)

The principle, here set forth by Augustine, is undoubtedly correct; and the chief cause of wonder is, that Bellarmine did not see the weakness and inconclusive character of his own argument. That he was not satisfied with it, may be inferred from the manner in which he conducts his argument; ingeniously changing his position and resting his cause on a different ground altogether. "Without doubt," he says, "the true Church is more ancient than the false; as God was before the devil; and consequently we read that the good seed was sown before the tares." (De Eccl. lib. iv. cap. v.) Any tyro, however, in dialectics will see that the Cardinal is here changing his ground, and resting his cause, not on antiquity, but on priority, which is a very different thing. Whatsoever is first, as applied to the Church of Christ, is undoubtedly true, but many things may have age

or antiquity predicated of them and yet they may be corruptions which grew up in time and ought to be reformed. It does not follow that whatsoever things are ancient are true, unless they are also first, and it is by this very rule that Tertullian would decide the cause of Christianity. Writing against Marcion, he says: "That is truest which was first; that first which was from the beginning; that from the beginning which was from the Apostles; and in like manner, that from the Apostles, which in the Churches of the Apostles was most sacred, viz., that which they read in their holy writings. This is one antiquity (quoting from his famous apology, cap. 47) 'præstructa divinæ literaturæ, built before upon the divine learning. This is the rule of faith which came from Christ, transmitted to us by his companions; to whom all those who speak otherwise, will be found to be of later date." (Contra Marcion lib. iv. cap. 5.) The language of Cyprian is equally express: "We ought not to regard what another before us thought fit to be done, but what Christ, who is before all, first did. For we ought not to follow the custom of man but the truth of God, since God himself speaks thus by the Prophet Isaiah, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men;' which very words our Lord again repeats in the gospel, 'Ye reject the commandments of God, that ye may establish your own traditions.'" (Epist. Ixiii. ad Cæcilium Fratrem.)

We have introduced these quotations from Augustine, Cyprian, and Tertullian, not only as containing arguments which sustain our position, but as showing also very clearly that antiquity will not serve the cause of Bellarmine, and that it is dangerous for a supporter of the Papacy to have recourse to those whom they are accustomed to consider their friends, as we find these fathers putting forth the doctrine, that sacred Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that all doctrines and practices are to be tested, not by authority nor by antiquity, but by the word of God. We pass on to the second point which we proposed to establish, i. e., that real antiquity is not on the side of the present Church of Rome.

II. The antiquity of a church does not consist in the antiquity of the place where it is seated; for error in doctrine of so grievous a character as to change the system altogether, may creep into a church, and thus, while the name and place remain, the Church may actually die out, and a false system usurp its place. It was thus in the Old Testament times; as for instance, when Ahaz introduced a new altar. into the Temple at Jerusalem, and offered sacrifices to the gods of Damascus. (2 Kings xvi.; 2 Chron. xxviii. 23.) Surely it will not be contended, because these things were done in the same Temple and in the same city, in which the pure worship of Jehovah had been established, that a change had not passed on the actual character of that worship. If as we know, in certain localities in more modern times, the pure gospel was fully and effectually preached in former ages, and subsequently through laxity of discipline the ministry fell away from the truth as it is in Jesus, so that now and for years past the gospel is reviled and opposed from the same pulpits by men who are sustained

by the same funds which formerly upheld the original defenders of the faith, are we to admit that it is the same Church which is doing these opposite things!

Neither will the original apostolicity of its foundation, apart from the continued preservation and promulgation of the truth in a church, clothe it with the attribute of antiquity, in the sense in which we have seen the term to have any value. We know that in Asia Minor, there were churches planted and watered by the Apostles themselves, and yet so rapid was their defection from the truth in doctrine, and godliness in practice, that even in the Apostles' days, they were ready to die. If the truth be not preserved and proclaimed in its purity-but on the other hand one important doctrine after another has been let fall, until by degrees the original principles of the Christian faith have been abandoned, and at the same time one error after another has taken their place, or been added on to the system, then the church, in which such things have taken place, has changed its character and lost its antiquity. And hence it comes to pass, that when any church lays claim to antiquity, in the sense of priority or of possessing a truly Apostolical character, it is necessary that the doctrines and observances of that church must be brought to the standard of truth, and its claims examined in the light of the word of God. In such examination, if it be found that the same doctrine is not held as is laid down in the inspired volume, but that some truths have been fallen from and errors have been engrafted on the creed, until a different system of doctrines is constructed, then the conclusion must inevitably follow, that such a church, even though it may be able to trace a nominal or external historical pedigree up to the age of the Apostles, yet has it lost its Scriptural antiquity, and is destitute of the claim to an Apostolic church. Such changes as will destroy the character of a church may be made by the addition of false doctrines, by the giving up of a portion of the true faith, or by both practices combined, and that this is true of the present Romish Church is demonstrable beyond all contradiction.

In order to meet this reasoning, Bellarmine, who denies its applicability to the Romish Church, insists that in all great changes of religion the following may always be shown:-1. The author of the change. 2. The new doctrine. 3. The time of its commencement. 4. The place where. 5. Who opposed it. 6. And who helped forward the change. Denying that any of these things can be shown in the Church of Rome, since the Apostolic age, he insists that no change has been made in it, and that it remains without alteration in its primitive state. The boldness of this daring and unscrupulous assertion is only equalled by its absurdity.

1. For first, it is contrary to all experience; for every person who is conversant with the facts of history knows that in our bodies, in the state, in the rise and fall of nations, as well as in the Church, great changes have occurred, to which these principles of the Cardinal cannot be applied. How many diseases, for instance, have arisen