interest of himself and his children. In accordance with these natural inferences, we find several antiquaries recording a tradition that he resided in Donnington Castle, Berkshire, during the latter few years of his life; and Mr. Grose, on the authority of a MS. in the Cotton Library, asserts that he was the purchaser. Perhaps the expense of this "romance in stone and lime" hampered his means, or excited the envious hatred of his enemies-persons whom successful merit seldom want. At any rate, we find that in 1398 he received a grant o the king's protection from arrest and prosecution for two years, as one engaged on urgent business for his Majesty. In 1399, too, he got a grant of a pipe of wine annually "in the port of London, from the king's chief butler or his deputy." Thomas Chaucer, the poet's eldest son, was at this time chief butler to the king. On 3rd February, 1399, John of Gaunt died, and Richard II. appropriated his estates. Henry Bolingbroke, the young duke, then in exile, determined to resist the confiscation, and during the absence of the king in Ireland landed at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire. He seized Richard on his return, carried him captive to London, and extorted an abdication on a charge of misgovernment and breach of constitutional right. On Richard's deposition, September 29th, 1399, he claimed to be (and was) crowned, October 13th. One of the earliest acts of the young king was to confirm the grants of annuity and of wine to our poet, and to add (as a solatium for the losses sustained by Lancaster's death?) an additional annuity of forty marks. On 24th December, 1399, Chaucer took a long lease of a house in Westminster, in the garden of the old convent, on which the chapel of Henry VII. is now built, from the Abbot, named Robert Humodes worth, and there he appears to have resided till his death, October 15th, 1400.

If we believe what Shakespeare makes Chaucer's patron say, that

" The tongues of dying men

Enforce attention like deep harmony:

Where words are scarce, they're seldom spent in vain;
For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain.
He that no more must say, is listened to more

Than they whom youth and ease have taught to glose.
More are men's ends marked than their lives before."

How much ought we to value the "Gode Council of Chaucer," written on his death-bed, when that solemn hour had come, in which resignation and composure are most required, and the light of heaven enters the soul through the chinks disease has made! These are the sober, sensible, impressive, but not sombre, thoughts which he left as a parting legacy to his posterity, to us, and ours :

"Fly from the press, and dwell with soothfastness,
Suffice unto thy good though it be small;
For hoard bath hate, and climbing tickleness,
Press hath envy, and weal is blent o'er all;

Savour no more than thee behoven shall;
Rede well thyself, that other folk canst rede,
And Truth thee shall deliver 'tis no drede.
Pain thee not each crooked to redress
In trust of her that turneth as a ball;
Great rest standeth in little business:
Beware also to spurn against a nalle :
Strive not as doth a crooké with a wall;
Deem thou thyself that deemest other's deed,
And Truth thee shall deliver 'tis no drede.
That thee is sent receive in buxomness;
The wrestling of this world asketh a fall;
Here is no home, here is but wilderness;
Forth, pilgrim, forth, O beast out of thy stall,
Look up on high, and thank thy God for all;
Waive thou thy lust, and let thy ghost thee lead,
And Truth thee shall deliver 'tis no drede."

He was the first of the "sovereigns of intellect" who tenanted in death the south transept of Westminster Abbey, since fittingly named Poets' Corner. Caxton, the earliest English printer, erected a monument over the resting-place of the first English poet, to

"Protect his memory, and preserve his story."

His son, Thomas Chaucer, held many honourable offices, and was highly successful as a diplomatist; his daughter, Elizabeth, became a nun in the Priory of St. Helen's, London; but of the fondling, "litel Lowys," we have no history. It is to be feared he was too precocious, and faded early, and that his virtue, worth, and sweetness were not long held back, after his father's death, from the dull grave that hushes all,-" the fairest oft the fleetest."

Life's mutations, great and many though they were student, lawyer, courtier, soldier, prisoner, ambassador, financier, exile, the friend of princes and kings, the companion of the noble, the patriot, and reformer, but above and excelling all, the poet-came to an end. A fadeless glory is round his memory, and his words, like the soul they issued from, are immortal. Imagination, humour, satire, sagacious observativeness, the very ethereal essence of sociality and song, were in him. The freshness of a May morning is over all his works. They are prolific

"Of more proverbs

Than in this world there growen grass or herbs."

heirs

The learning in them is deep, wide, and masterly. They are quaint, naive, and (if rightly read) musical. They are full of the thought-life of a true man and Englishman, and they are the of the invention" of the father of the language of "nobleness and chivalrie"-the strongest, richest, most elegant and valuable of the languages of men.

S. N.

Religion.

IS THE BIBLE ALONE A SUFFICIENT RULE OF FAITH?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III,

IN reviewing the previous part of this debate, I find that the arguments of H. B. have not been replied to; that those of " Pope Gregory" have been, to a great extent, ably answered by "Clement,' who has likewise greatly extended the defences around this bulwark of Protestantism; and that "Ignatius," taking up the cause of "Gregory," endeavours to clinch the nail of the latter, without giving a single glance at the article of H. B. It will be my endeavour to review a little further the arguments of "Gregory;" and, as far as time and space will permit, the paper of " Ignatius." I fully agree with "Gregory," that "everything which is believed by either must be ultimately referred to the authority upon which it is believed." Hence the Roman Catholic must refer to his Church, and the Protestant to his Bible. Now the authority of the latter is as free and open to our opponents as it is to ourselves; it can also be consulted at all times. But this cannot be said of theirs, since they cannot tell what constitutes their authority, nor where it is to be found. All Roman Catholics acknowledge the infallibility of their Church; but when questioned as to where this infallibility resides, whether in the people, in the Pope, or in councils, they are utterly disunited. It is not in the people, because the government of the Church is monarchical; the Jesuits, and almost all the Italian Roman Catholics, acknowledge the Pope alone to be infallible; while the French Roman Catholics generally deny it. But, as a sort of compromise, others say that the Pope and a general council agreeing are together infallible; and to get out of the difficulty of there being no general council now at Rome agreeing with the Pope, it is said that though there is no council in their persons, yet there is in their writings; and the Pope, agreeing with these, is infallible. Hence our opponents are driven to the necessity of appealing to the writings of men to decide whether the Pope be infallible or not. It appears, also, that the Pope without a council, or these writings, would be fallible; and the council, or the writings, without the Pope, would likewise be fallible; but the moment the Pope and council agree, they become infallible; and

Bellarmine," De Pontifice," 1. 4, c. 2.

the moment a Pope agrees with these writings, he becomes infallible. Now, since the writings cannot alter, it must be the Pope on whom this wonderful change is effected. So that it is the writings of men that make the Pope infallible; and they are really the true judge of controversies, although the Roman Catholic doctors generally acknowledge that no writings can be so. Costerus calls the Scriptures, in contempt, paper and parchment." His words are these, "God would not have his Church now depend upon paper and parchment, as Moses made the carnal Israelites. Surely the writings of those "who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," ought to claim the pre-eminence over all writings concerning the salvation of man. However, until our opponents show us what constitutes their authority, and where it is at all times to be found, my conviction will remain, that the "Bible alone is a sufficient Rule of Faith.'

The proposition, that "the Bible was never intended to be the only Rule of Faith," is not proved by the statements of "Gregory." I deny the position he assumes by saying, "Had it been so, we should have had some record of the fact in the book itself." We well know that quacks and impostors are bold in affirming the infallibility of their nostrums; and had such a statement been made in plain language, men generally would have justly suspected the writers of quackery and deception. But, though the absolute necessity of such a record does not exist, yet there are statements which tend to show that the inspired written Word should be the only standard of appeal to decide matters relating to man's salvation. need not stay to enumerate them, as they are fairly exhibited in the articles of H. B. and "Clement." But the fact of our Redeemer always appealing to the written Word, and condemning the traditions of the Jews; and that the apostles invariably followed his example, appealing to the Scriptures to decide all disputed points; at the first council deciding according to what was written,-" And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written," Acts xv. 15;-is enough, to unprejudiced minds, to settle once and for ever this disputed point. It would have been well for Christianity if all the other councils had acted in a similar way, and decided according to the written Word of God!

Our friend "Gregory" says that had the apostles believed that the Bible was to be a sufficient Rule of Faith, "they would have addressed epistles containing such clear summaries of Christian doctrine, that no schism could possibly have occurred. That is to say, these epistles would have been such infallible guides in all matters relating to the salvation of mankind, that it would have been impossible for men to have erred concerning them. Now, according to "Gregory," what these epistles would have been, the Church of Rome claims to be. Let us judge her, therefore, by "Gregory's" rule. Has she prevented heresies and schisms? Whence arose the Arian heresy and schism? Did she prevent the

* "Enchiridon,” c. 1.

schism in the midst of her own bosom in the fourteenth century, and which lasted upwards of one hundred years, when one Pope set up against another Pope, each one pretending to be the true Pope, and disannulling all the acts of the other; and the people divided, some cleaving to one, and some to the other? Either the Romish Church is not infallible, or "Gregory's" assertion is false, and proves nothing against the Bible alone being the Rule of Faith.

It is somewhat singular that the passages of Scripture, brought forward by Roman Catholics to support the dogmas rejected by Protestants as unscriptural, are either irrelevant, or they prove too much for them. The passages adduced by "Gregory" have been answered in a general way by "Clement:" but I will examine one more particularly, as a sample of the rest. "Gregory" observes, "Matt. xviii. 17, He does not say, He that will not read the Scripture,' but He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."" Now if the passage, of which the above is only a small part, be relevant to the subject, it proves that every Christian has a right of private judgment, and a right to be heard, as well as the Church. The entire passage is this, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him of his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." The passage does not relate to matters of doctrine, but of discipline; and as the Romish Church does not claim infallibility except in matters of doctrine, it cannot relate to our present subject. But, such as it is, I will give "Gregory" the full benefit of it, seeing that each private member has a right to be heard, before the Church has a claim to be heard in the matter.

The following assertions of our friend "Gregory" claim a little attention. He says of the early Christians, "All their instructions were by word of mouth." And again, "A single fact, worth hundreds of arguments, may be mentioned. The whole of the then known world was converted during the first four hundred years entirely without the Bible." And further on, “We have no evidence, nor have we any right to assume, that any portion of the Bible was, during that period, translated into any language, to facilitate the spread of Christianity." That the above assertions are not supported by historical facts, I need only refer to the testimonies of the ancient Fathers adduced by H. B., pp. 13, 14, and to those of "Clement," pp. 92, 93. The following quotation from a modern author, on this point, will be useful. Speaking of the primitive Christians, he says, "The Bible was the book which they prized above all other learning, and which they never wearied in reading, or hearing read; philosophers, abandoning the language and speculations of the schools, as only darkness visible, gave