cious friend well remarked, "makes such a nice postcript to the whole correspondence," I determined not to notice it, further than to signify my intention to publish an account of all that had happened.

"DEAR SIR,

"As Mrs.

-'s faith remains

unaffected by the arguments you have alleged (for which God be praised), our correspondence ceases. As an honest man, you will (if you speak of this correspondence) say that you proposed three questions, which were briefly answered, but that your adversary declined a more accurate investigation of them, until a preliminary question, without which they could not be

satisfactorily answered, was determined: viz., Who is to be the arbiter between you and him? That you implicitly, at least, said it must be Holy Scripture, and that your adversary held that your interpretation of Holy Scripture was unscriptural, contrary to the analogy of faith, productive of Latitudinarianism and Infidelity, and destructive (in its consequence) of the Gospel, of belief in the incarnation, and of supernatural religion; that, however, as a private individual, he claimed no right to impose his private opinion on you, but only asked from you an unanswered question, Who is to decide between you and him?

"Dec. 10th, 1868."

"Your obedient Servant,

CONCLUSION.

Such was the letter which the Roman Catholic priest ventured to write to me, after what had so recently passed between us, and which I have recorded in the preceding pages. That his question, "Who is to decide between us?" has been fully answered, no candid or unprejudiced person will deny. Whereas, on the contrary, the three questions, which in his first note to Mrs. he assured her had been "answered over and over again," have received no reply whatever. They were "not to the purpose" of one who evidently felt himself unequal to the task imposed, and who at the very outset thought it was "not

G

necessary (he might have said, rather, not wise) to involve himself in theological disquisitions."

There is a saying attributed to Archimides: "Had I place to stand on, I could move the world." So, had the priests of Rome only the infallibility of their Church granted, then they could prove all the vices of their Popes to be virtues, all the contradictions of their Councils to be true, and all the conflicting testimonies of the Fathers to be unanimous. As it is, however, the plain statements of Roman Catholic historians (facts, also, which cannot be contradicted), and Holy Scripture, too, refuse to acknowledge their claims. As for the latter, there is no promise in it of freedom from error,

given to the primitive Church of Rome. St. Paul, in his Epistle to it, says, “Because of unbelief they (the branches) were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee." (Rom. xi. 20, 21.)

Now if Roman Catholics identify their Church with this to which St. Paul wrote, my point is proved; but if not, then their boastings about antiquity are scattered to the wind. In order to avoid this dilemma, the note in the Douay Bible, on the verses quoted, says, "Not that the whole Church of Christ can ever fall from Him, having been secured by so many Divine promises in Holy Writ, but that each one in particular