famous Franciscan commentator on the annals of Baronius, and after him by a series of great names as eminent for orthodoxy as for learning,—such as Calmet, Tillemont, Baluze, Valesius, and others. Fabiani having thus narrowed his ground, resorted to a line of argument which, as the event proved, did not yield him a rich return. Its main feature consisted in the attempt to throw discredit on the chronology of Scripture. "I have studied Scripture for forty-one years," he said, "and two years ago I gave to the world the fruits of my inquiries in the Eponimi Assiri. The celebrated Lepsius declared that after that publication the Scripture chronology had lost all value, and must be regarded as defunct.". Now, whatever may be the attractions or conveniences of this style of tactics for men driven by stress of weather to adopt the shortest and easiest methods of shelving the grave Biblical difficulties which stare them in the face at every turn of the discussion, they can hardly expect those who have any respect left for Scripture, to allow themselves to be hood-winked in this fashion. The Protestant speakers seemed fully to appreciate the insidious nature of this flank-movement, and rendered good service not only to the cause they had in hand, but to the general interests of Bible truth, by their strenuous and efficient maintenance of the New Testament chronology. Gavazzi, in particular, demonstrated with great clearness the certainty of the dates of various events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, such as the arrival of Paul in Rome, and his journey to Jerusalem three years after his conversion.

Nothing that transpired on the occasion of this discussion throws a clearer light on the distinctive genius of Catholicism, than the readiness displayed on all occasions by its champions to take liberties with Scripture, whenever such a course suited their purpose. This tendency was illustrated, as we have just seen, in their treatment of the chronological argument; and the same principle or habit was called into play, and wielded with effect in the interpretation of the word Babylon at the close of St. Peter's First Epistle. With that deplorable contempt of the laws of exegesis not infrequently shown by Roman theologians, Fabiani had recourse to the forced and unnatural interpretation which treats the word

Babylon in that passage as synonymous with Rome. In support of his opinion he did not scruple to call Ewald, the German rationalist, to his aid, making use of that scholar's far-fetched refinements to bolster up his argument.

But this unscrupulous readiness of Romanists to borrow weapons from their enemies is by no means new. Years ago, for example, when this very verse was in dispute, the learned Grotius was quoted in behalf of the Roman Catholic view, just as Ewald is now. Nor is it in the least degree unnatural that Romanists should find convenient allies among rationalists, when we reflect that their respective systems have one common idea at their root, the disparagement of the supreme authority of Scripture.

The Roman Catholic argument from Tradition received, as it deserved, somewhat rough treatment at the hands of the Protestants. The observations of Signor Ribetti were of value on this point, as showing the origin of the immense mass of tradition which had grown up in the course of ages upon the subject of St. Peter's visit to Rome. "This belief," he said, "is the product of an insinuation first skilfully introduced into the popular fancy and then changed into a decree. But error has no prescriptive rights, and does not become true because of its antiquity." The same speaker then pointed out the total lack of anything like contemporary evidence of St. Peter's visit, and showed that the long line of Fathers quoted by Canon Fabiani mounted no higher than the third century. After showing that there was really nothing in Clemens Romanus to indicate the place of St. Peter's martyrdom, Ribetti went on to describe what dependence could be placed on Papias, the writer to whom the Catholics are mainly indebted for the original propagation of the legend. "Papias was nothing but a propagator of fables. A bishop who understands by the Millennium a Carnival of a thousand years scandalizes me. He reminds me of Mohamet promising his disciples the Houri and all the pleasures of the world in Paradise. You see, then," he added, "that your edifice, which has cost you so many centuries of subtle insinuation, is a colossus of chalk, built upon the point of a needle; and we have dealt it a blow which has made it totter."

Gavazzi showed no less dignity and skill in dealing with some of the subsidiary arguments from Tradition, as, for instance, the universal recognition of the fact of St. Peter's visit by artists of all kinds, who had embodied it in some of their finest pieces. "Sirs," said he in reply, "let us put the artists on one side. We do not follow them in their fantastic caprices. They have painted the Magi as kings, Veronica with the countenance of the Saviour, the Cherubim with wings, and only one head; they have put an eye within a triangle and called it the Eternal Father." This sally is said to have afforded the audience considerable amusement. In an equally summary way the same speaker disposed of a similar argument founded on the supposed presence of the relics of St. Peter in Rome. "No conclusion can be drawn from this. The body of St. Stephen is said to be buried in one of your Roman basilicas; but will you by any chance thence infer that Stephen was martyred here? The relics were transported hither, if here they are." In a magnificent piece of pleading, occupying three hours in the delivery, Signor Gavazzi entered into a detailed examination of the various heads of argument, rebutted the objections of his antagonists, and exposed their evasions, hunting them down from point to point, and meeting them at every turn, now with a triumphant superiority of logic, now by a dexterous application of the lighter weapons of sarcasm and repartee. His naturally great powers of destructive criticism and of copious and vigorous expression were raised to a special state of efficiency on this occasion by the thorough study he had given the subject several years ago, when he had written a book upon the question. Such, we are told, was the effect of his speech, that at its close Signor Sciarelli rose to intimate that, in consideration of the impossibility of confuting Gavazzi's statements, he waived the right of reply which belonged to him as opener. This we cannot help regarding as an impolitic and incautious step. We believe that Signor Sciarelli would have done a much wiser thing, had he used his privilege of reply to gather up the loose threads of the discussion, and put the net gains and losses of the two sides in a clear and concise form before the audience and the public.

Father Guidi closed the debate, in a speech much more remarkable for its insinuation of objections, for the self-complacency of its assertions, and the serene composure of its assumptions, than for the solidity of its reasoning, or the clearness of its insight. Attempting to deal with the question according to the rules of formal logic, his arguments wanted body and pith, and, according to the confession of the Catholics themselves, fell flat and tame on the minds of his hearers. He made no attempt to grapple with the difficulties of the case, but repeatedly took for granted the very points requiring to be proved.

Casting our eye back on the whole controversy, we can now at this distance gather together and place before our minds in a concise shape the vari ous conclusions established by it beyond dispute. These may be shortly summed up as follows:1. The failure of the Protestants to produce any positive proof of their assertion that St. Peter was never at Rome. 2. The equal, and for them much more fatal, failure of the Romanists to produce any positive evidence of their assumption that the Apostle was at Rome. 3. The consequent necessity of deciding the merits of the question by striking the balance of probabilities on either side. 4. The enormous disproportion between the few slender possibilities on the Roman Catholic side, and the numerous weighty probabilities on the Non-Catholic. 5. The consequence arising from putting this overwhelming mass of probable proof against those feeble and distant possibilities— namely, that no judge in a court of law, sitting upon a case like this and arriving at similar conclusions, would have any difficulty in determining on which side the truth really lay.

It remains for us to notice in a word the practical results of this unique discussion. The Roman Catholics, for their part, have virtually acknowledged the crushing nature of their defeat by their refusal to accept a second challenge from their opponents to argue the question of St. Peter's Primacy. Thus left masters of the field, the latter have not been slow to profit by the great opportunity which has been so unexpectedly laid at their feet. "Although," to quote the words of one of the ministers some weeks after the event, "the discussion did not tend to fill men's minds with the vital themes of evangelical

Christianity, it has, nevertheless, greatly helped the cause of truth. It has been, in the hands of God, a powerful instrument in the way of interesting our fellow-citizens in religious questions. All the places of worship in which the gospel is preached, and they are many, are now better attended than before. Several are too small to

| hold all who desire to be present. Signor Gavazzi has begun a series of lectures to prove the anti-scriptural character of the primacy and pontificate of St. Peter. These meetings are crowded. What, therefore, our adversaries had intended for evil, God has overruled for good, and the extension of his kingdom."

T. T. G.

XIV.

SONGS IN THE NIGHT.

ACTS xvi. 25.

RAYING, they hymned God:" for such are the words when literally rendered. Prayer and praise in the dungeon that night were not two distinct and successive acts. They sang in concert their address to God; and, doubtless, like the psalms of David, the address included both requests for mercy and ascriptions of praise. It may, indeed, have been the psalms of David that they sang-both the prisoners had the verses by heart: they had not a book, and did not need one.

God heard their prayer, we know, for he gave it a signal answer. But there were also other listeners: "the prisoners heard them." One would like to know who these prisoners were. Like the contents of other prisons, they were probably of various characters and conditions. Some may have been the callous habitués of the place; and some may have been men of the highest consideration, awaiting trial for political offences. But to all the inmates alike the sound of psalms at midnight would seem strange and startling. It was probably whispered through the prison in the evening that two Jews had been brought in-severely scourged accused of teaching some new doctrine regarding the resurrection of the dead. Then the tender yet joyful song of two blended voices rose on the midnight silence of the prison. The wakeful listened, and the slumberers awoke. The hymn was probably in the Greek tongue, and the more acute ears would catch glimpses of its meaning.

That was a night much to be remembered by the inmates of the jail. It is altogether probable that some who heard that strange psalm-singing were among the Philippian Christians to whom Paul subsequently addressed his most affectionate letter from another prison in Rome.

"Songs in the night" are the special gift of God, and

they are well fitted to arrest attention and impress their mark. When there is evidence of peace with God prevailing over the heaviest of outward troubles, it takes effect on the conscience of an observer. It is a great thing to see one taken up from a miry pit, and his feet set upon a rock and his goings established; but it is when a new song is put into his mouth that many shall see it and shall fear, and shall trust in the Lord (Ps. xl.). It is specifically joy in believing when it bursts forth in great tribulation that takes effect on others and wins them to the Lord.

A lamp when lighted may burn by day, but it is only at night that it is seen by the neighbourhood. The darkness does not kindle or cause the light, but the darkness reveals it and spreads it around. It is thus that consistent joy in the Lord, when believers attain it in a time of trouble, becomes an effective testimony for Christ. Not a few owe their conversion instrumentally to the light that streamed from a saint in the hour of his departure-to the song that rose from the pilgrim when he was traversing the valley of the shadow of death.

Thus, though the speakers were bound that night, the Word was free; not only the word that went upward to the throne of God, but also the echo of that word, that pierced the gloomy partition walls and sank into the startled ears of weary and wretched prisoners. It seemed a roundabout road that the Word of the gospel took to reach these motley groups of Greek and Latin Gentiles; but the Word did not miss its way. There was a dead-wall between the apostles and their audience, and therefore they did not preach that night. But there was no wall between them and the Father of their spirits: praying, they hymned God in the inner prison, and the prayer sent upward fell down again on the other side of the partition, falling there on listening ears. In this circuitous method the gospel reached some needy souls.

It is thus that in modern warfare they often overcome a fortress which is too strong to be taken by direct assault. The wall frowns thick and high between the defenders and the assailants. No missile sent in a

This is another fear. In a moment, one great fear left him, and another, a greater, took possession of his heart. It has been suggested by some critics, that this is the first terror not yet removed,-that the displeasure of his superiors is still the cause of his apprehension,and that his cry, "What must I do to be saved?" pointed to the punishment due to the officer who slumbered at his post. Those who take this view of the history must be under a strong doctrinal bias; for it is a view that is forced and unnatural. It is interesting, even as a critical study, to mark how manifold and complete is the evidence that his fear and his question now point to pardon and peace with God. (1.) Had the object of his fear been punishment by his superiors, he would not have fallen on his knees before Paul and Silas. They had no power to shield him. But he had now the presentiment that these men were servants of the Most High God, who could show him the way of salvation. On this supposition, his act becomes rational and consistent. (2.) The answer which they gave him shows what they understood by his question. They enjoyed the best opportunity of knowing what he meant. They saw in his terror his conviction of sin: they so understood his question, as to answer it by offering him Christ. (3.) And the man was satisfied with the answer he obtained. Assuredly, if he had feared for his head on account of the prison being open, to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ would not have protected him from the sentence of his heathen masters on the morrow. For his first fear, the appropriate and sufficient cure was the assurance, "We are all here;" for his second, the appropriate and sufficient cure was, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." These two distinct and successive consolations show what were the two fears which in rapid succession had occupied and oppressed his heart. The first fear was, lest he should lose his life for allowing the prisoners to escape; the second fear was, lest he should be cast out of God's presence because of his sin. Although it is not necessary that we should be able to trace the way of the Spirit in the rapid succession of this man's experiences, the difficulty would be much diminished if we should suppose that the jailer was an attentive observer of events, and was acquainted with all the circumstances that led to the commitment of the apostles. The things had not happened in a corner. The strange persistent cry of the Pythoness, articulately acknowledging these men as servants of the Most High God, and the subsequent change in her attitude and conduct, were matters of notoriety in the city. Now, although the jailer did not, when he received his prisoners in the evening, believe them to be the divinely inspired teachers of a new salvation; yet, if he was aware that this character had been ascribed to them in the raving responses of the prophetess, the shock of the earthquake at midnight would in a moment throw a new light over the whole scene. The startling announcement which he had heard with incredulity, and, perhaps, with sarcastic hilarity, in the

sunshine of the preceding day, might suddenly flash upon his conscience as a truth, when the earthquake had thrown open the doors, and yet the prisoners had not made their escape in the darkness.

These things are written for our admonition. The word that records them is a die deeply cut, that will receive broken hearts in succession till the end of the world come, and mould them anew, and turn them out new creatures in Christ. The cutting of that die at first was a great work: it was engraven when the Son of God was exceeding sorrowful even unto death. The drops were eating deeply in when he cried, "If it be possible, let this cup pass." It could not pass; it was poured out to the dregs. That fiery out-pouring cut its way in, and formed the matrix into which melted men might afterwards be cast. Only one such type was ever formed. None other than "God with us" could endure the baptism. Only one such type was made in the dying of the Lord Jesus; but it serves for all the world, and for all time. Whosoever will, let him come. Let melted hearts flow in; and forthwith they become new.

This precious answer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," it is not easy to describe and define. If you were asked to explain what sunlight is, you would not know how to answer. There is nothing better known to those who see; but there is nothing more difficult to make known to those who are born blind.

more.

Manifestly it behoved Paul on this occasion to put into his answer the whole marrow of the gospel. If it is possible to give in one mouthful the essence of all that he ever preached, he is bound to give it here and now. We are warranted in assuming that this answer contained all that is necessary to salvation, and nothing There is not too little there is not too much. It is manifestly a matter of life and death; and it is at his peril if the apostle treat it otherwise. The penitent sprang in, and fell down, and cried. His cry was, "What must I do to be saved?" The missionaries are bound, as they shall answer to God, to tell the man this, and at the moment nothing else. It would have been to trifle both with the sinner and the Saviour, either to have kept back anything essential, or to have dallied with redundant prescriptions. The missionaries are equal to the crisis. They spring out as eagerly and sharply as the jailer springs in. He hungers: they give him the bread of life. He is lost: they offer him the Saviour. They give him enough; and nothing more. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

XVI.

FAITH AND OBEDIENCE.

ACTS xvi. 31-40.

CAN faith save you, then, without works? Suppose a man should "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," and continue to exhibit a profane and impure life, will he be