vesibla, si la se po far. Ma imperço nos cresen et tenen que li predict fidel pon esser fait saifs non recebent li preeict segnal quand non han lo luoc, ni lo modo de poer uzar de li predict segnal."

"14. Nos deven donar, a la potesta secular, en subjection, en obediença, en prompteza et en pagament.”

The omissions are very many. I shall state a portion: 1. No notice is taken of their grand principle and most important charge against the Catholic Church, viz.: That she ceased to be the Church of Christ under Pope Sylvester, in the beginning of the 4th century, because she accepted temporal possessions from the Emperor Constantine, whereby, leaving apostolical simplicity and evangelical poverty, she became the conventicle of Satan.

2. No notice is taken of their assertion, that they believed the Church was become the scarlet lady, because the Pope and the prelates in his communion were murderers, inasmuch as they approved of or at least permitted the waging

of war.

3. They pronounced the Church to be fallen, because she admitted distinctions between her members, styling some of them clergy of various orders, and others laity, thereby destroying their Christian equality.

4. They condemned the Church because she allowed priests to possess their family property, contrary to the divine precept in Deuteronomy xviii.

5. They taught that the Church was an abomination in the eye of heaven, because its clergy were permitted to receive prebends, or portions, or stipends, or pensions from foundations of real estate, attached to churches, contrary to the above and other laws.

6. They complained of the un-Christian conduct of the Church in allowing persons who were guilty of the crime of possessing land, as property of their own, and not as that of the community, to receive the sacraments.

7. They taught that the Church had grossly erred from the true religion of Jesus Christ, by having churches endowed

with property, thereby straying from holy poverty and deluding the unfortunate persons who were guilty of the crime of such endowments.

8. They believed that it was an attribute of Antichrist to leave a legacy to a church, and therefore that it was criminal to bequeath and criminal to receive such legacy.

9. They did not consider that any pastor of souls was qualified for his place except he supported himself by the labors of his hands, as the Apostles did, and they considered the Church which supported the clergy from any other funds to be the scarlet lady.

10. They taught, that there should be no distinction of offices in the Church, as it only favored vanity instead of promoting religion.

11. Notwithstanding the 14th Article, they professed to believe that all princes and judges were in a state of damnation.

12. They condemned as vanities of the devil all the academies or privileged schools or literary distinctions.

I could swell the catalogue, but I have gone sufficiently far to show that the Waldenses would, if to-day they could reappear amongst us, condemn the disciples of Luther and of Calvin equally as they would the Roman Catholic Church. for several of those damnable and Antichristian errors; against which they inveighed in their day, as loudly as those do who, without holding their principles, claim them as their predecessors, and who undertake to condemn also to-day.

us

I have given the above abstract of some omissions to the alleged copy of the confession of the Waldenses proper. But were I to follow up the peculiarities of the sects into which this offset from the Church divided in a few years after its separation from the Catholic body, I could indeed fill many sheets.

The Waldenses proper were frequently designated Leonists, from the city of Lyons, where they had their origin, as they were also called Poor Men of Lyons, from their profes

sion of evangelical poverty and declaiming against riches and the possession of private property. They had various other names from the places of their abode and remarkable leaders; Good Men, from their sanctimonious appearance and contempt for luxury and wealth.

They branched chiefly into the following sects:

1. Sciscidents, who contended for the necessity of receiving the Eucharist, and approached nearer to the Catholic doctrine respecting the nature of this sacrament.

2. Ortlibens, who professed the doctrines correctly, but gave mystic interpretations by which they evaded their true sense. They, amongst other curious notions, believed that there was no Trinity previous to the incarnation, and that Jesus was the son of Joseph; that marriage was good, but its use was criminal. They looked for the judgment and the millennium upon the conversion of the Pope and the emperor.

3. The Ordibarists, besides some of the above notions, believed that the Trinity was to be found in the members

of their society.

4. The Cathari, or Puritans, who, amongst a variety of other peculiar errors, considered this world to have been created by the devil, looked upon marriage to be criminal, as also the eating of meet, of eggs, or of cheese, under any circumstances. This division soon became subdivided into Albanians and Bagnolensians, whose errors I do not notice.

5. The Paterinians, who admitted Lucifer only as a subcreator, and had strange notions of marriage.

6. The Passagenians, who, amongst other peculiarities, considered the ritual portion of the Jewish law obligatory upon Christians.

I could enumerate at least a dozen more, down to the Lollards; but I have far exceeded the limits I proposed to observe in this article.

The Bohemian remnant of this sect presented its confession of faith to Ferdinand, King of the Romans and of

THIS country is a portion of that large tract known by the name of Scandinavia, and was, al close of the seventh century, given its modern app

Hume, who is certainly one of the worst autho know, where religion is even incidentally concerne that "the Emperor Charlemagne, though naturally and humane, had been induced by bigotry to exerc severities upon the pagan Saxons in Germany, w had subdued; and, besides often ravaging their with fire and sword, he had, in cold blood, decin the inhabitants for their revolts, and had obliged the most rigorous edicts, to make a seeming complia the Christian doctrines."

My object, at present, is not to examine critic many falsehoods are contained in the paragraph have quoted, but I distinctly assert that it was religion nor bigotry that caused this monarch severites upon the pagan Saxons, but their freque lions, or, as Hume calls it, "revolts," and the guilt of persecution and plunder of Christians vicinity, who were his subjects, and whom he wa by every law, human and divine, to protect. M frequently lays before his readers facts without stat true cause, and many of his readers take the caus his authority as they find the facts generally admi incontrovertible. Thus he is guilty of deceit, not ex forging facts, but by misstating their causes al

consequences.