"In many places it was necessary to pay for confession; the price varying from one to two vintens-one penny or two-pence-for each; confessions of two years' standing cost a rupee; confessions of three years cost two rupees. Thus it was that many villages, and even whole districts abandoned the use of the Sacrament of Penance and of Holy Communion. For an ordinary Baptism three vintens were required; and some rupees if it were celebrated with pomp; on this account many children did not receive till they had attained some age the Sacra ment of Regeneration."

In fact the state of these unfortunate villages seems to have resembled that of a large London parish with which we are acquainted, where the clergyman had distinguished himself by his works against Rome, and where we knew an instance in which a large family remained unbaptized, on account of the sum charged for the administration of that Sacrament.

'Holy Orders were sold; the parishes of the dioceses of Cochin and Cranganor were exposed to public auction, and the very name of a parish, in the native language of those districts, cuttaghei, signifies landed property."

Our author next proceeds to relate the publication of the bull Multa præclare, one of the most remarkable, and on the whole, one of the best, of modern Roman constitutions. It commences by setting forth the zeal which had always been displayed by the sovereign pontiffs for the churches of the East, and proceeds to an enumeration of the privileges granted to the kings of Portugal, with respect to the Right of Patronage in the Dioceses of Cran ganor, Cochin, and Meliapor. Further, considering the long vacancy of the aforesaid Sees, the danger incurred of the total destruction of the Indian Church, the horrible abuses which had been introduced both in faith and morals, the Pope, in the plenitude of his power annuls all former privileges granted to these Sees, extends the jurisdiction of the Vicars Apostolic over their territory, and declares that, as the privileges conceded to the Portuguese monarchs were granted only for the salvation of souls, they were rightfully withdrawn. when it clearly appeared that their further exercise would tend to the ruin of the faith.

This bull created an unparalleled sensation both in Portugal and in the East. In the latter, however, as the See of Rome was able to pour in fresh recruits annually for the reinforcement of its missionaries, while the vacancy of the See of Goa rendered any addition to the number of the Indo-Portuguese clergy impossible, it was hoped that the schism would gradually die away.

Things were in this condition when the Concordat took place between the holy see and the government of D. Maria I. Shortly afterwards José da Silva Torres was nominated by the government to the vacant Archbishopric of Goa. When this

nomination was accepted in the Consistory of June 16, 1843, some of the Cardinals were of opinion that the jurisdiction of the new Archbishop should be accurately and definitely marked out; others thought that it would be sufficient to employ the ancient formula, provided the prelate elect specifically promised to accept the bull Multa præclare; and this advice was followed. José da Silva formally engaged before the Nuncio at Lisbon, to receive the Vicars Apostolic and their Missionaries as brethren, and to work in accordance with them.

The Archbishop reached his Diocese in 1844. The character which we have generally heard of him in Portugal seems to render it incredible that he should have been guilty of the subterfuges and prevarications which our author does not hesitate to ascribe to him. At all events whatever were the precise degree of obedience which he had promised at Lisbon to the bull Multa præclare, it is certain that on his arrival at Goa, he ratified all the acts of the Chapter, and claimed all the rights which his predecessors had exercised in their character of Primates of India. His nomination was therefore considered a great victory gained over Propagandists; and he proceeded to reinforce the ranks of their adversaries by ordaining almost at once 800 priests. The character given to these new ecclesiastics by our author is not favourable; and perhaps, without any great breach of charity, we may imagine him somewhat influenced by his Ultramontane prepossessions.

"These new ecclesiastics had been formed and instructed all in a hurry in the seminary of the metropolis. Thence they were sent forth well versed in the doctrine of the Right of Patronage, but completely ignorant of everything else. They knew nothing of rhetoric, theology, or philosophy, except that of the Jus Patronatus. Little had they heard of dogmatic or moral theology; but they had received very circumstantial instructions how to proceed in opposing the missionaries, and in discrediting them with the people. They had been brought up to hold, as an article of faith, that no Pope could annul the bulls by which his predecessors had granted the Right of Patronage; that any and every bull derogating from them was ipso facto null; and that no Papal decree could have any force till it had been approved by the Portuguese government. . The Archbishop animated and supported a certain Antonio Teixeira, an Augustinian friar, nominated by the government of Portugal to the Diocese of Meliapor, but whose confirmation had been rejected at Rome, and who had never been consecrated. This man, finding himself thus supported, visited the Diocese which he pretended to be his, and was thus the cause of great disorder; no idea can be formed, says a resident missionary, of the scandal which was the result, not only among the pagans, but also among the Christians, who neither understood the motives of the schism, nor yet the importance of the whole affair.”

We must leave the conclusion of this curious narrative for another occasion.

35

ON THE INTENTION AND RIGHT USE OF HOLY

SCRIPTURE.

WHAT should we conceive to have been the purpose of Almighty GOD in giving us the Holy Scriptures? and what is the use that we ought to make of them?

These are the questions that we propose to consider in the observations that follow.

It is a subject doubtless on which all persons already have an idea. But still it may be that the idea is not altogether accurate. At all events it is a remarkable fact, which may not have been noticed by all of us, that God Himself has not been pleased to answer these questions for us. In imparting to us this great and blessed Gift He has vouchsafed to us scarcely any information as to what His intention was, neither has He told us how we ought to use it.

But in order that this statement may be received, it will be necessary to explain some passages of Holy Scripture which seem at first sight inconsistent with it.

1. Thus we meet with GoD saying in the Book of Deuteronomy, "These words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, and thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes, and thou shalt write them upon the posts of thine house, and on thy gates." But to say nothing of the fact that this direction applies only to the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue, it is plain that Christians do not consider it to be a rule intended for literal observance, for no one does bind the words of Holy Scripture on his hands or on his brow.

2. Again the very numerous declarations of the Psalmist, both as to the delight of the righteous man being in the law of his GOD, and of his exercising himself therein day and night, and of his own individual practice of having "all the day long his study in it," do not seem to bear reference to the written Word of God (of which indeed very little was at that time written) but to the habit of contemplating and meditating on the unwritten laws of GOD's providential government, and those attributes which His dealings with us bespeak Him to possess.

3. Once more, we must rid ourselves of the idea popularly entertained, that the phrase, "the Word of GOD," which occurs so frequently in the New Testament, ever means the Bible. It is the term, we know, by which the LORD Himself is revealed to us, (S.

John i. 1) and we are to understand by it that work of salvation which He is personally carrying on in the hearts of His faithful members-that Gospel which is not a system of doctrines written with ink and pen, but "the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth." So the seed sown in our hearts is the Word of God, and that word is "quick, and powerful, and sharper thau any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." This is that Word to the ministry of which (and not the preaching out of the Bible which did not then exist) the Apostles gave themselves: this is that Word (and not some certain precepts written even by the finger of GOD Himself) by which S. Peter declares that we are born again at Baptism, and by which S. Paul says that the LORD will sanctify and cleanse the Bride, His Church, for that second coming of His which is still in store.

4. Lastly, that which seems in our version to be a direction to "search the Scriptures," is really, there is good reason for believing, only the affirmation of a practice, (not a precept,) and it has reference to the Jews looking in their Hebrew Scriptures for testimony to the promised Messiah, and has no direct application to Christians.

Exactly similar was S. Paul's meaning when he said to S. Timothy (who had been brought up a Jew) "that from a child he had known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation," i.e., in other words, were sufficient for bringing, and were intended to bring, the Jews to a belief in CHRIST as the SAVIOUR of mankind.

All that God has been pleased to declare directly on this subject seems to be contained in two sayings of S. Paul;-1. that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope," and again, "all inspired Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of GOD may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Now of these both it must be observed that they refer to the Old Testament Scriptures. In point of fact, Holy Scripture does not contain any mention of itself as a whole, and if we are to apply what is here said of a part to the entire volume as it now stands, we shall see that the prescribed use of it is contained within rather narrow limits, for

First, by the use of the terms "our learning," and "the man of GOD," the Apostle confines the use of Holy Scripture to those who are already in Covenant with GOD, and gives no authority for the use of it as an instrument for converting the heathen. This is not to deny that it may lead to the conversion of some unbeliever or unbelievers. A Prayer Book, or other devotional or argumentative

But this does not appear to

work may do, and has done, the same. be a divinely intended use of the Sacred Volume, and it is scarcely consistent with the direction not to cast our pearls before swine.

Again, the first passage would simply have the lay-Christian, in reading the record of God's dealings in old time, gather thence "comfort and consolation" under those trials by which from time to time he may be afflicted. And (3.) the latter declares only how "the man of GOD" i.e., one holding the office of a Bishop in the Church of GOD, (compare 1 S. Timothy vi. 2) may use it for teaching the faithful and convicting the heretic, as well as for the restoration of the fallen, and instructing all in righteousness. It says nothing in fact at all concerning the use of Holy Scripture for persons in general.

Further there are certain general considerations which will assist yet more towards clearing our ideas as to what the purpose of GOD must really have been in the bestowal of this Gift, which must now be taken into account.

1. And first, it is right to bear in mind that Holy Scripture was not the original way in which GoD communicated His will to man. If we look to the origin of the Sacred Volume, it was not by It that GOD communicated His Will. Scripture is not, historically considered, the communication of that Will: but a record of those communications, or a portion of them. Speaking strictly, it is rather the History of the Revelation of GOD's Will than the actual Revelation itself. GOD "spake at sundry times and in divers manners unto the Fathers." GOD spake to Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and the Patriarchs, and to Moses: but Moses alone wrote the record of these Revelations. He spake to them at "sundry times," just as the circumstances of each required, and He added no more.

Again, "GOD spake in divers manners,"-sometimes in visions, sometimes in dreams, sometimes by direct address "in the cool of the day," or at the moment of energetic action, to the person individually, or else by some Prophet or Preacher of Righteousness, whom He raised up and commissioned for the purpose. Holy Scripture is made up largely of the record of these several speakings: but we have no warrant for inferring that it contains all that were ever made by Him. In fact, since the Evangelists only profess to relate a small portion of what the LORD Himself said in the days of His earthly ministry, we must conclude that neither have the other inspired writers handed down to us all that God has at any time communicated to and by His Prophets and faithful servants of old time.

Further, we may infer from the silence before adverted to, which is observed in the Sacred Volume concerning itself, as well as from the historical fact that it was only by slow degrees that the limits of the Sacred Canon were determined, that it was not the purpose