coexist, but are not identical, proof of the dismemberment of the body by death is not proof of the destruction of the soul. As death is not the destruction of the simple chemical elements composing the body, it also is not the destruction of the soul or simple spiritual element. Death seems rather to be the open door to man's higher estate, much as birth is to his lower estate.

8. It is often objected that human immortality must also suppose the immortality of the brutes. So far as we are concerned, we hope they are immortal. Much of the charm of

the forest and field is lost here without them; and, if the soul of man in the hereafter has capacities and endowments as in this life, much will be added to the charm of the Elysian fields by their presence. The home of the perfected man must be something more than a place of wandering minstrels and inactive ease. It must be thoroughly adapted to man in all the powers of his perfected nature. We find sweet communion and sympathy with God, as we study nature and sympathize with the creatures he has made; and so, in the regions of the blessed, we may even know God better in the unhampered study of his works and in more perfect sympathy with his humbler creatures. But human immortality does not necessarily presuppose the immortality of the brutes. The argument for human immortality based upon the fact of the present existence of the soul proves as much, perhaps, for the immortality of the brute as it does for man; but the probability of human immortality is not argued so much from the fact of the soul's present existence as from its adaptation as a moral being to immortal life. If the brute possesses no moral quality and is not subject to moral government, there appears no reason why it should share for its own sake with rational beings in immortality; however, it might do so for the sake of rational creatures, or on purely sentimental grounds.

9. The existence of a First Cause presupposes immortality in man. The infinite perfection of this First Cause in wisdom and power is in itself the promise and guarantee of a universe, illustrating and in keeping with that wisdom and power. Man is in himself proof of a disposition and purpose in the First

Cause to create him. Man, with all his physical and mental and moral possibilities, is simply the fulfillment of a prophecy. As a rational and responsible being capable of immortality his existence and destiny are entirely consistent with the wisdom and power of his infinite Creator. Since the First Cause is what it is, man is what he is; and, since man and the First Cause are what they are in their relation to each other, immortality in man is a necessity. If God be admitted a place in the universe, immortality in a being capable of receiving it must be admitted. If, on the other hand, God be denied a place, and eternal matter be claimed as the seat of all energy and life, still all the facts of infinite power and wisdom in the First Cause and all the facts of the created physical and moral universe remain the same, and immortality must be admitted in beings capable of it.

In the inherent powers of the Creator-without reference to the question of identity-were the promise and prophecy of all intelligible forms of being and of action. If we but knew all the facts of the created universe, we would know God, for they illustrate his character and attributes; again, if we but knew the infinite God to perfection, we would know all the facts of the universe, for he is the promise and prophecy of those facts. In God was the promise of mortal life to the form of being capable of receiving it; again, in God was the promise of immortal life to the form of being capable of receiving it; and, again, in God was the prophecy of both mortal and immortal life to the form of being capable of receiving them. Moreover, the facts of human life and duty and character point to human immortality, they actually demand it. Whatever is demanded for the completion of an intelligible plan may be rationally expected; and whatever is consistent with an all-sufficient First Cause cannot be reasonably denied; therefore, since man exists, immortality cannot be denied him.

Gro H Buurtt.

ART. VIII.-ROME AND PROTESTANT MISSIONS.

THE unhappy division of Western Christendom is certainly not least unhappy in the field of missions among the heathen. Whatever virulence there may be at home, there are not wanting many instances of mutual acknowledgment and appreciation. Abroad, these seem hardly to exist. Instead, there is a spirit of suspicious vigilance, always ready to find shortcomings, and indeed scandals, and hating to own personal excellence or good results. Which side is the greatest sinner? Naturally, each accounts the other the chief offender. There is as yet no court of final arbitration. We propose, therefore, to state the Protestant side.

There is one universal complaint by Protestant missionaries, which may be reasonable or very unreasonable, according to the man that propounds it. This is the complaint of continual encroachments by Roman Catholics on Protestant mission fields. Now there cannot be encroachments except where there are mutual rights. If we deny Catholic rights to occupy one district unmolested by us, we cannot demand that they shall acknowledge our right to the occupancy of another district unmolested by them. We may deplore their advance into our territory as a calamity, but plainly we cannot resent it as a grievance. What we will not grant we cannot ask. For instance, the late President Happer, of China, declared explicitly that he could not acknowledge the occupancy of any territory by Roman Catholics as an occupancy of it by Christian missions. Dr. Nassau also says that he cannot acknowledge the Church of Rome, since the Reformation, as being any longer a true Christian Church. Of course, then, her missions cannot be true Christian missions. There can therefore be no talk of mutual comity. Neither gentleman, so far as we know, has complained of Roman Catholic encroachments, as indeed he could not reasonably, having taken such a position. Many missionaries, however, appear to take Dr.

Happer's and Dr. Nassau's position and at the same time complain of Roman Catholic advance in their districts as not only an evil, but a wrong, which is inconsistent.

Rome, of course, utterly denies the right of Protestant Churches to exist. "Nön licet esse vos" is her word to us, as it was once the word of pagan Rome to the Christians. Our missions, therefore, like our worship, are rebellion against Christ. "Messengers of Satan" is what the present pope has officially called Protestant missionaries. Facts, however, will make their way, in spite of all theories. Christian men must in the end acknowledge the fruits of Christian living where they exist, whether theoretically they ought to exist there or not. To say that devils are cast out by the prince of the devils is a mark of incipient reprobacy. As Dr. Schaff says, all the haughty pretensions of Rome have never kept the spirit of Christian charity and brotherhood from working its way in by the back door, as often as it had been driven out at the front. A foundation was laid for this possibility fifteen hundred years ago by the reception into the canon law of St. Augustine's words, declaring that, no matter how perverse the opinions of schismatics may be, yet if they have inherited them and hold them in the spirit of candor, willing to receive new light, they are in no way to be esteemed heretics. It follows from this that they are within the covenant of salvation and may receive the graces of the Spirit. And, indeed, the Church has canonized a semi-Arian heretic, one of the few martyrs of Julian's reign. His willingness to die for the faith, she has rightly argued, showed his doctrinal error to be only intellectual, not moral. So, also, when the great missionary bishop, Ulfilas, died at Constantinople, about 380, the Catholic bishops honored him with a magnificent funeral, notwithstanding the explicit Arianism of his testamentary creed. They rightly judged that a long life spent for the Gospel among the Goths covered his purely hereditary heresy.

There are few signs of this largeness of view in the centuries of storm and stress following. Yet, as late as the eleventh century, Hildebrand, whom Neander and the later historians

remark on as a man of great breadth of apprehension, even endeavored to bring about a friendly understanding with the Mohammedans. He reminded the sultan that both parties worship the God of Abraham, both reverence the Scriptures, both acknowledge the prophets, both own Christ for the Word and Messiah, both account him—and indeed his mother also -as sinless, and expect him to judge the world. Why not, then, said the pope, live in peace, since up to a certain point we are joined in fellowship? These overtures failed through the intrinsic fierceness of Islam, yet, as remarked by Bishop Creighton, Rome always remained milder in temper toward Mohammedanism than the Catholic world at large. She seems to have made no particular protest against Saracen worship in Italy, and of course always allowed that the Moslems, like the Jews, being unbaptized, were free from her jurisdiction, for which Mr. Lea rather ridiculously reproaches her with inconsistency. Even yet, some highly educated priests at Rome in a private discussion lately concluded that it is lawful for a Christian to join in prayer with a pious Mohammedan, which seems to be a very reasonable opinion. We surely cannot be forbidden to say to any human being, "Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule."

Toward the Albigenses Rome showed no disposition to avail herself of the benevolent presumptions of the canon law. And, indeed, the researches of modern scholarship, exemplified in Neander, Creighton, Paul Sabatier, Hitchcock, and others, seem to make it certain that, although the Albigenses read the Scriptures diligently and gave a Christian complexion to their system, this was really estranged, not only from historic Christianity, but from intelligible theism. It owned a supreme God, indeed, but denied him to be the Creator of the world. Creation thy held to be the work either of a malevolent, or at best of a blundering and unintelligent, being. Elect spirits alone were, not a creation, but an emanation, of the good God. Matter they viewed as essentially evil. Even to take food was almost a sin, and the Perfect hardly took enough to keep them alive. Marriage was abominable, al