got into the sequence which has befallen them, may be obvious enough to the author, but will not, we suspect, be quite clear to his readers. Then, in addition to all this, is the title of the work. Look at it, good reader, and tell us, if you can, to what country, or what age, the author can belong?

But strange to say, with all these oddities, meeting you at the gate and in the vestibule, there is enough in the material and structure of the work to constitute it really a good one. The aim of the author is not to go into the historical, or even into the scriptural department of the popish controversy, so much as to examine the various assumptions of the papal system, considered as matters exposed to the scrutiny of reason. We cannot pretend to be satisfied with all that he has said within these limits, nor with his manner of saying it; but there is an iteration and earnestness in the man, and withal a measure of clearness and force of conception, which we believe will fit him for usefulness in the kind of labour on which he has entered. If this should be the case, we shall not be disposed to quarrel with his quaint style, or even with his new words, for we are not disposed to attribute these to affectation so much as to a simple honest wish to do his work well-to strike the nail home. We have no reason to think that Mr. Rogers is particularly versed in the controversial pieces which belong to the history of our theology during the commonwealth, but his work has all the characteristics of that period, good and bad, with one exception only-its enlightened spirit of toleration. His sentences seem to come down like the blows at Marston Moor and Naseby. There is that sort of heartiness in them which never fails to interest; and like the true Cromwellian soldier, he not only does not understand what it is to be beaten, but seems to be incapable of thinking that he has done quite enough even when his victory is complete.

We trust that we have already said enough to induce many of our readers to possess themselves of this singular volume; but we must now add a few extracts in illustration of our remarks. The work consists of two chapters, the one on 'popery in general,' and the other on 'popery in special.' Each of these chapters is divided into a number of sections and sub-sections; and it is due to the author to add, that in the body of the work there is nothing of the rambling style which pervades the Introduction. There is a distinctness in all the parts, and a consecutiveness in the whole. The following passage exhibits something of the manner in which the writer exposes the difficulties attendant on the popish doctrine, which makes the seat of infallibility to be in a general council.

What is a general council? 1. How many men must come together to form one? 2. What clerical rank must they severally have ? 3. From how many nations must they come? 4. By whose authority must they meet? 5. When and where must they meet? 6. How

must they proceed when met? 7. Must they determine by unanimity, or may they determine by a given large majority, or by a mere majority of one? 8. What degree of probability must they require a proposition to have? Probability can be great, can be middle, can be small, can ascend to certainty, can descend to doubt. How probable must a proposition be? Now afore we can decide if a given council be what many papal folk are pleased to call a general one, we must answer the foregoing eight questions, and others that might be mentioned. This would be found no trifling task, the answering of all the questions being a very puzzling and perplexing affair. A general council is a very vague and indefinite thing, for what is the criterion or standard of this generality? Of four people two might consider a given council general, and two might deem it special, the generality and speciality being perhaps equally probable. This kind of generality is a thing whereabout A may believe, B may disbelieve, and C may doubt. Can papal writers lay down rules that will enable reasonable people clearly to know the exact essence or real nature of generality and speciality in relation to councils; to know alway when a council is general and when it is special? I trow not, I opine that they cannot. The generality of a council depends on no immutable criterion is determined by no indisputable or indubitable rule, but varies with the various opinions of various people, altering the shape like a Proteus, and changing the color as a chameleon. Moreover, mankind are far from being agreed in relation to the number of general councils that have been held. Some will have six councils to be general, others will have seven, others eight, others eighteen, and others more. The main body of papal folk affirm eighteen to be general; eight eastern called by the emperors, and ten western called by the popes. But if all these are to be deemed general why are those of Constance and the like to be deemed special ?-pp. 113, 114.

From this maze of difficulties there an important practical inference clearly deducible, the justice of which is worked out in the following passage with good effect.

Now is it probable that infallibility is joined to so indefinite and indeterminate a thing as a general council, a thing with difficulty recognized. A thing that can hardly be known; is joined to some kind of council, we hardly know what? Would God put infallibility in a place where we should have great toil and trouble in finding it, and where many would not find it at all, would never believe it to be? Would he annex it to mere indefinitude? If infallibility be given to the world, it is given for the world's good. What the better are we, however, by knowing that infallibility is somewhere, but where we do not know; that it belongs to something, to a general council; but to what thing, to what council, we cannot tell? We may as well doubt or disbelieve that infallibility pertains to a general council, as, believing it, doubt or disbelieve, that a council is general. We are as far from infallibility in the latter way, as in the former. And God will not send infallibility in a form visible to very many people; He

will not make her dwell with a personage whose dwelling can hardly be discovered, can scarcely be known by a large portion of mankind. God will not give infallibility to some councils, and omit to tell man what councils they are, telling him that they are general ones, and leaving him in doubt and darkness as to what councils ought to be deemed general. It follows that papites greatly err, and leave the probable far behind them, in making infallibility depend on general councils.'-pp. 114, 115.

The third section of the second chapter relates to the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition. On the anti-scriptural tendency of the Romish doctrine concerning Tradition, Mr. Rogers makes the following just and forcible observations :--

Setting up oral tradition as a rule of faith, is lowering and degrading the Bible, and leads to practical disregard to the written word. I may however be told that if there be apostolical tradition or unwritten revelation, the Bible ought not to have the whole of our reverential homage or religious regard, but that the written and unwritten revelation ought to share the homage or regard between them. And I may be told that if there were apostolical tradition, the Bible would receive its proportional and due share of our attention. I however affirm that if there were the unwritten word, the written one would not be proportionally and duly attended to, but would be comparatively neglected and thrown aside. Tradition would then be regarded too much, and scripture too little. The foregoing would be the effect on two accounts. 1. The bare doubt or mere uncertainty about what traditions ought to be deemed apostolical, would keep the mind in a state of painful solicitude and feverish anxiety, and therefore would hold it disproportionally and unduly to tradition and from scripture. If apostolical or oral traditions did exist, they would cause so great an amount of doubting, disbelieving, and debating, of questioning and answering, denying and affirming, as to occupy the far greater part of time on oral tradition, and to leave but a very little time for the written word; the dubious and difficult matter of tradition absorbing our time and thought to the comparative exclusion of the sure and plain realities of the Bible. If people had ground for deeming portions of divine revelalation to be dwelling in the memory of man, or floating down the tide of time in the form of oral traditions, they would be led by piety and curiosity, to try and find them out; and in hunting after unwritten and changing tradition would neglect the written and unchanging volume. Account 2. The clergy assuming to be the guardians of oral tradition, and the medium of transmitting it from age to age, would naturally, in order to augment their dignity and importance, and to maintain and extend their power over the laity or people, lay too great stress on tradition, and too little on Scripture; would naturally, in order to exalt themselves, magnify that whereby they would be magnified, namely, tradition, and undervalue that whereby. they would be rendered less important, namely, the divine scripture. The priesthood, as the channel or conveyer of oral tradition, would be tempted and drawn to honor and uphold the unwritten at the expense

of the written word, and therefore to become more wanted and influential, unduly crying up the value of the former, in order unduly to cry up their own value. Now as, on the two accounts foregoing, tradition would deprive scripture of its due part of attention, we may infer that probably no apostolical traditions were given to the kirk.'

-pp. 158, 159.

There is another extract on this subject which we had marked for insertion, and which is so racy with our author's manner that we cannot forbear introducing it.

'How utterly improbable the pure descent of tradition! nearly impossible that the unwritten word or oral traditions would be transmitted or handed down from Christ and the apostles to us, quite uncorruptedly, or quite free from alteration, addition, or subtraction. Regard two points. 1st. How could we depend on the memory of thousands or millions of men in a great multitude of particulars? We could not depend thereon. 2nd. How could we depend on the honesty of so many men in so many matters. We could not depend thereon. Now from the foregoing two points, we learn that the very great number of individuals forming the long line of the priesthood, might easily corrupt oral tradition, corrupting in a twofold way, through want of memory and want of honesty, being defective in power and inclination, being both unable and unwilling. Hardly two men relate one and same particular alike, or tell one and same tale or anecdote without considerable variation. We may perhaps be told that no tradition ought to be received, but what would agree with the rule of Vincent of Lerins, but what would have been held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, always, every where, and by all. Many a papite often desire to appear fond of the rule, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Alas for them! May we not infer a priori or with a kind of anterior probability, that by the real application of the rule, the whole or very nearly the whole of papal traditions would be quite swept away? How many, or rather how few, papal traditions would fully come up to the foregoing rule! Now God foreknowing the result, that oral tradition would become corrupt, corrupted by men through weak memory, or weak morality, or both, did not commit a part of his revealed truth to the unsafe conveyance of oral tradition.'-pp. 161, 162.

An instructive confirmation of the remarks in these extracts is furnished in the bull of his holiness Pope Leo XII. against the Bible Society. You are aware, venerable brethren,' says this successor of St. Peter, that a certain society, called the Bible Society, strolls 'with effrontery throughout the world; which society contemning 'the traditions of the holy fathers, and contrary to the well known 'decree of the Council of Trent,* labors with all its might, and by

* Some of our readers may not be uninterested with a translation of this well-known decree. Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the

every means, to translate, or rather to pervert, the Holy Bible 'into the vulgar languages of every nation; from which proceeding 'it is greatly to be feared, that what is ascertained to have hap'pened as to some passages, may also occur with regard to others; 'to wit, that by a perverse interpretation, the gospel of Christ be turned into a human gospel, or, what is still worse, into the "gospel of the devil.' To avert this plague, our predecessor published many ordinances, and in his latter days Pius VII. of 'blessed memory, sent two briefs to show how noxious this 'most wicked novelty is to both faith and morals. We also, ' venerable brethren, in conformity with our apostolic duty, exhort 'you to turn away your flock by all means from these poisonous 'pastures.' When this famous bull reached Ireland, the papal prelates did not scruple to describe it as 'replete with truth and wisdom;' in short Peter had spoken by Leo,' and the Bible Society scriptures were entirely, and without any exception pro'hibited' to their flocks.

The extracts we have given must suffice to enable our readers to judge for themselves with regard to the character of this work. The discussions of the author concerning papal infallibility, tradition, and the forbidding of the Bible, are followed by others relating to the use of an unknown tongue, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the worship of the host, the withholding of the cup from the laity, idolatry, merit, purgatory, absolution and excommunication, auricular confession, the celibacy of the clergy, the seven sacraments, and some other matters, and on all these topics Mr. Rogers has fixed the impression of his own singular taste and cast of thinking. The controversy altogether is one on which libraries have been written. No one, accordingly, will expect to find it fully exhibited within the limits of a small octavo. Nor is there competency in Mr. Rogers to deal with the subject in any thing like the full length and breadth of it. There is both originality and force in him, within certain limits. But in regard to the historical, and the more critical departments of the subject, he would be found a sorry match, whatever the suggestion of some of his friends may have been on that point, for such men as Dr. Wiseman and the writers in the Dublin Review. Many of their

Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is on this point referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may by the advice of the priest or the confessor, permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to read or possess them without such written permission, he shall not receive absolution, until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary!'