Church. The non-Catholic dwells—with pleasure or otherwise— on the intrigues, the "lobbying," the "wire-pulling" of contendingchurchmen, not all imbued with sanctity, nor yet actuated by the highest motives. The Catholic who knows that the Churchis Divine and infallible, that her Lord—as He has promised—is with her "all days"—even in her councils—knows that the ultimate decision, however tortuous the paths that led to itr must be divine and infallible. "The gates of hell," the powers of evil, human or devilish, "shall not prevail against it." Indeed, Cardinal Manning's "History of the Vatican Council" gives us the real "focus" from which to view the workings of such assemblies of "men of like passions with ourselves;" teaches us how1 God rules and overrules the councils of His Church; rules and overrules the designs, the jealousies, the policies of churchmen—as He needs to do, with all reverence be it said.

In respect of Arianism, Carlyle's verdict has been already quoted, but it was not so much the Church that opposed the heretics as "Athanasius contra mundum," a man against the world. The fact that he even proved that it was God and Athanasius against a world that had lapsed from the faith. Also, we may remember Newman's dictum to the effect that "heresy is the insistence on some one aspect of truth in defiance of the Church's authority." Surely, too, of Arianism, as of any other distortion of the truth, which is heresy, it may be said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Arianism becomes Socinianism; Socinianism, Unitarianism; the Unitarianism of Dr. Mantineau "develops" into the vague Deism of Mrs. Humphry Ward.

And in regard to these two chief definitions of "the Constantine period," the Eternal Sonship of Christ, "of one substance with the Father"—against Arius; the title "Mother of God'^ assigned to the Blessed Virgin—against Nestorius; doubtless both seemed "hard sayings" to those who were accustomed to the less "rigid" theology of the earlier Fathers. Yet Christ Himself declared "I and the Father are one." Arius insisted on that other saying, "My Father is greater than L" The Council of Nicaea affirmed that Christ was "of one substance" with His Father; the creed attributed to St. Athanasius tells us that He is "equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, andcost; the consciousness of a living1 entity whose experiences extend over nineteen centuries. The expression, to be sure, is couched in the language of the age, measured by and adapted to the ideas prevalent at any period; it is finite, and may be transitory, whereas the truth that underlies it is infinite and eternal. But the expression stands for "the mind of the Church" until the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to give newer and fuller utterance to the truth of which she is the guardian and interpreter. That interpretation must, as said, be "in the vulgar tongue," plain to Christ's little ones; the path so clear "that the warfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." Did not the Truth Himself, the Wisdom of God, "who knoweth the end from the beginning," speak in the language of Jewish fishermen and give expression to their ideas?

As to all that Mr. Thorne says concerning the beauty, the supremacy, the divinity of Christ and of Christianity need I say that I am heartily at one with him? We do need, as he says, to "go to the root of the tree once more," to deepen, that is, and strengthen our hold on "the foundations of belief." But in order to do this we need to stand on "the pillar and ground of the truth," to accept the Church's teaching in the spirit of the Church. It is then, and then only—as already said—that the various dogmas to which Mr. Thorne refers fall into their proper place and assume their true proportions. Was it not Cardinal Wiseman who compared the Church to a painted window?" We may look at it from outside, from the world's side, or from within; with her eyes or with our own. But the difference! Mr. Thorne, I know, sees it as I do; as do all true children of our Holy Mother Church. Of that, at least, I am certain, which is the very reason why I have ventured on a remonstrance, why I dare to suggest that in his zeal for truth he has "spoken unadvisedly with his lips"—or, rather, with his pen. Popes, Bishops, Saints commit errors of judgment, that I freely admit; nor are even Popes infallible, except when teaching, ex cathedra, concerning faith and morals. But I do know that the Most High ruleth in the Church which He has purchased with His precious blood; that He nourishes and cherishes her "even as a man his own flesh." I know, too, that since she is divine and infallible she cannot teach error; more, that what she teaches cannot be either "useless" or "unnecessary." Is not her mind the mind of her Head, and she His Body?

As for the rest, "them that without, God judgeth," but their antagonism is not, so it seems to me, due to the Church's failure to deliver her message in the best way possible. It may be the fault of individual churchmen; it may even be our own. If every son and daughter of Holy Church were worthy of our Mother there would be no antagonism left to contend with; the world would be converted in a day. As it is, the antagonism of the world is a tribute to the Church's faithfulness. If she were "comprehensive," and would "make concessions to the spirit of the age," men would have nothing but good to say of her. But then "the friendship of the world is enmity against God," and the worst evil that could befall the Church would be that she should win the favor of men.

"Them that are without, God judgeth;" may He judge them mercifully, as He doubtless will, and justly. But their duty— could they only see it—and ours—if we only would—is submission, not criticism, obedience, "as little children," to the Church which God bids us hear. Let us forget the faults of churchmen in the perfection of the Church; let us show by our lives what she really is, our divine, infallible and most tender mother; "the King's daughter is all glorious within."

Mr. Thome, I feel sure, will be at one with me in this; we only differ in our way of looking at things. Perhaps the Westminster Confession—the "infallible" dogmas of fallible men— haunts him still; I know not; perhaps "manuals of piety" have vexed his soul, as they do the souls of many more. L trust, at least, he will believe me when I say that I have passed through a somewhat similar experience, but that many months' practice of the Church's devotion has helped me to see things, in some measure, at least, from the Church's point of view. It is in her own "office" that she is more evidently divine than under any other aspect; it is her divinity that makes her infallible; divine and infallible, how can we cavil at anything that she does or says? It must be "she does," "she says," yes; rather, "He that heareth you, heareth Me."

Possibly, very possibly, indeed, Mr. Thorne may not be at one with me in some, at least, of my deductions from the fact of the