Bartholomew, are familiar passages in the "Catholic chapter' of the history of France. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West, by the Pope, as the reward of his services in sustaining the interests of the latter. The bayonets of Louis Napoleon are now the only prop to his tottering throne. In no country has the education of the people been more fully under the control of the Roman Catholics than in France. In that country, therefore, if anywhere, we may look for the legitimate effects of that system of religion and education. What are those results? According to Bishop O'Connor's own confession, infidelity controls France, and the people are the supple tools of the little tyrant who now rules them. What Catholicity can do for any country, where it is supported by the Government, and has had for ages the almost entire control of the education of the people, it has done for France. The very socialism, communism, and other isms, which are the professed abhorrence of the Catholic Church, have sprung from her bosom as from the arms of their nurs ing mother. The "Infallible Church" has there had the completest scope to develop what it can do for the political freedom, the social morality, and the religious training of mankind. Behold the result in the infidelity, the reeking licentiousness of the people, and the infamous despotism of Louis Napoleon. It is hard to tell which predominates, the the folly or effrontery of Mr. O'Connor, in pointing to France as an example of the want of the Roman Catholic religion.

SECTARIAN SELFISHNESS.

We know of nothing on earth more meanly selfish than the attempt to use instrumentalities established by the labors of different denominations of Christians, to promote the sectarianisms of one. All co-operation of different sects proceeds on the assumption that there are certain great principles which they hold in common, and certain important objects which they are mutually desirous to accomplish. It is always understood that the object of combination is to advance these common principles and objects, and that all the funds contributed, and all the instrumentalities established, shall be honestly devoted to this purpose. It is likewise either tacitly understood or expressly stipulated, that sectarian peculiarities shall be held in abeyance, in so far as respects the action of the parties in their associated capacity. It matters not that one sect con

tributed more to the funds than another, or that it has a larger number of members concerned in the management of the affairs of the society. It only adds to the meanness of the thing to take advantage of the power of a majority to pervert the resources of the common society to sectarian purposes. If but a widow's mite has been contributed by any one party, it is given with the express understanding that it will be faithfully devoted to the common cause. To use it for another purpose, however praiseworthy in itself, is a violation of plighted faith. To use it for a purpose which the giver does not approve, is both robbery and sacrilege, as it is taking that which was consecrated wholly to the Lord for another purpose which the giver does not believe to be well-pleasing in his sight. From this it follows that the man who will avail himself of the opportunity afforded by a particular position, to thus pervert the agencies established for the propagation of a common faith, to the narrow purpose of building up his own sect, is capable of any other act of baseness or fraud. He is a man who would not hesitate to rob the temple of the Lord of its golden vessels, if he might coin them into money for the promotion of his own selfish schemes.

Yet we have met such men in our day, and unless some of the larger sects of the country slander each other, they are trying to perpetrate this very baseness. Some of the most rabidly sectarian newspapers that we know of, were established and have been sustained by the contributions of various denominations; some at least of which would have rather thrown their offering into the sea, than to have had them thus perverted. If we may believe the New School Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists, each party is trying to use the Home Missionary Society to propagate its ecclesiastical isms, rather than preach the truths which both hold in common. And indeed we know of no instrumentality for extending the Gospel, established by the mutual efforts of different denominations, in regard to the management of which suspicions of sectarian unfairness have not at some time been excited.

It may be said, and it has been said, that although the constitution of a society may be Catholic in its character, and may invite the co-operation of various sects, yet if one denomination gives most of the funds, they thereby acquire a right to use those funds to build up their own sect. This plea would be false, if every cent of the funds were given by one sect. They are asked and obtained for a specified purpose, and it is practicing a falsehood to ask money for one object and then

use it for the promotion of another. It is assuming that the contributors all feel more desirous to extend the power of their sect, than to preach the common salvation-an assumption which, if true, stamps the character of the sect as essentially anti-Christian, but which, if false, involves those thus using their contributions in the crime of deception, and of obtaining money under false pretenses. If any portion of the funds, even the smallest, are furnished by other denominations, then the meanness and wickedness of perverting them to sectarian purposes are too manifest to need exposure.

All sects profess to value the great principles of Christianity which they hold in common, far higher than they do their peculiar sectarian principles. The gospel was "the power of God unto salvation," before the distinctions of Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian or Congregationalist were known in the Church. The gospel will survive the obliteration of the sectarian lines which separate these various branches of the Christian host. Hence, the man who values his sectarianisms more highly than the great fundamental doctrines of the Christian system, is not himself a Christian. His connection with the church is formed for the purpose of promoting some ambitious or lucrative purpose of his own, and not for the purpose of professing Christ before men, blessing mankind, and honoring God. Hence, the influence of such men is the greatest obstacle in the way of harmonious co-operation between different branches of the Church. They are usually men ambitious of leadership; and having put on a profession of Christianity merely as a cloak, they are generally unscrupulous in regard to the means they use for the accomplishment of their ends. And as their great object is their own personal honor or advantage, they will ruin the common cause, if they can not use its funds and friends for their own purposes. We have known the most promising schemes of co-operation between various branches of the Christian Church, defeated by the unscrupulous ambition of such men. True Christians are usually unsuspecting and very forbearing. Hence these sectarian schemers have the greatest security and advantage in prosecuting their plans.

The remedy for this evil is not meekly to submit to the wrong, and palliate and excuse the conduct of the wrong-doer. The man who is capable of such a sacrilegious prostitution of the labors and offerings of simple-hearted piety, is not a man to appreciate a generous, Christian magnanimity in those whose confidence he has abused. This will only encourage

him in his evil course. Such men will feel nothing but the indignant scorn and reprobation of those whom they seek to use as their tools. Let them know that their schemes and their character are understood; let them be deprived of all control of the agencies which they seek to pervert, and they will be rendered powerless for evil. Then such a high and fervent spirit of piety in the Church as will make it an uncomfortable place for the selfish sectarian, will finally deliver them from the curse of his presence.

SPEAKING EVIL OF DIGNITIES.

The Apostles Peter and Jude mention it as one characteristic of a class of false teachers who had crept into the Church in their day, that they were "not afraid to speak evil of dignities." By a common consent, these "dignities" have been supposed to be civil magistrates or the magnates of the Church. Hence we have heard this text gravely quoted to prove that it was wrong to call Franklin Pierce by his right name, or to characterize as they deserve pro-slavery Drs. of Divinity. Nothing, we think, is more incorrect than such an application of the passage. This is one of those errors of translation and exposition which was foisted into the Bible by the prejudices of the translators and of the time in which they lived. The divine right of kings was standard orthodoxy in politics and religion in the days of King James, when our present version of the Bible was made. Hence, the translators were ever ready to construe passages which had any seeming of this doctrine in them, in accordance with this prevailing opinion; and commentators of that era, sharing in the same belief, followed their example, and were themselves followed in turn by others, without critical investigation. Of this kind of translation and exegesis the passage in question furnishes an example. In our opinion it has no reference to magistrates in the State or to dignitaries in the Church-except so far as these office-bearers are types of Christ, and represent his authority. It refers, we fully believe, primarily to the Lord Jesus Christ in the dignity and glory of his mediatorial reign. We present a few reasons for this belief:

1. In the first place, the word translated dignities does not mean magistrates, so far as we know, in any other passage of the Scriptures. The Greek word is doxa, (in the plural

doxas) signifying glory. It is the word most frequently used to express the glory of God. Thus, Christ is called the "brightness of the Father's glory"-doxas. Again, it is said that he for the suffering of death was crowned with glory and honor the same word in the Greek. In the Gospel of Matthew it is expressly applied to the mediatorial reign of Christ. The request of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, was that they might sit the one on his right hand and the other on his left in his glory-that is, in his kingdom, which as Mediator he should set up. We might quote a multitude of passages where the word is used in the same sense. But we know of no instance, unless it is the one in question, in which it is applied to civil magistrates or ecclesiastical functionaries.

2. Again, the word translated to "speak evil," signifies more properly to blaspheme. It is indeed the same word with the English, blaspheme, with only a Greek termination. Hence the literal translation of the passage is "blaspheming glorious ones;" and as the plural is sometimes applied to God to denote his dignity, it might without any violence to the laws of language, be rendered "blaspheming the Glorious One." But blasphemy can only be against God. Men may slander and revile each other, but can not be properly said to blaspheme each other.

3. In the third place, the Apostle Jude, speaking of the doom of these false teachers, declares that "the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." The Apostle is in this passage giving an epitome of the crimes which he had detailed more at length in the previous part of his epistle. Hence the conclusion is clear and convincing, that the hard speeches against Christ were the very same as the speaking evil of dignities, to which he had referred before. They blasphemed the Glorious One," that is, "uttered hard speeches against Christ."

66

We have other reasons in favor of this exposition of the passage, but have not now time to adduce them. We have only space, in conclusion, for a remark or two in regard to the common understanding of the text. We do not deny that civil magistrates and office-bearers in the Church, in so far as they execute the duties of their offices in accordance with the will of Christ, are to be held in high honor. Civil