both the Scriptures of truth and the records of her own misdeeds. For religious earnestness, when connected with a diligent pursuit of information, is reasonably as much dreaded by her as floating ice is by the intrepid mariners who seek to discover a North-West passage. Those of her votaries who have been surrounded with the halo of Papal sanctity had zeal without knowledge, and a fervour of spirit that was unassociated with enlarged and comprehensive views. Her position is both unhappy aud criminal; and, as a consequence of this, she regards with suspicion every book that issues from the press without her permission. While she utters her anathemas against Protestant publications treating of religion, she eyes askance the discoveries of science; and would, if possible, substitute the scholastic quiddities and syllogisms of the middle ages for the experimental discoveries of the Baconian philosophers.

Persons unacquainted with the vagueness of Romish teaching would naturally suppose that infallibility was a subject concerning which the most perfect unanimity had ever existed in the Church of Rome; but the initiated are well aware that on this, to them, most momentous topic, there have always been conflicting opinions among accredited and influential members of that Church. Prior to the rise of the Jesuits, the most prevalent opinion seems to have been that this superhuman gift could be exercised only by a General Council convened by the Pope, and presided over by him personally or by his legates. But the disciples of Loyola-those faithful soldiers of the Papal see par excellence-have always maintained that the Pope himself, speaking officially, or as they term it ex cathedra, is infallible. Mr. Wylie has made a slight mistake when he affirms that the Council of Trent gave what our friends in Scotland call "a deliverance" on that vexed question. The Tridentine fathers left the subject in all its previous ambiguity and uncertainty. They satisfied themselves with claiming that privilege for the Papal Church, without attempting to specify the party or parties who are supposed to be exclusively entitled to its possession. This has, consequently, remained an open question in the Church of Rome until this day. But, as the influence of the Jesuits is now paramount and Ultramontanism is fashionable among the adherents of the Papacy, it is probable that the "buils" of Pio Nono, if preceded by the required notice and issued after the prescribed preparation, are in many quarters regarded with a deference due only to the statements of inspiration.

The Church of Rome, in her efforts to magnify her priesthood,

VOL. XXXI.-P

has committed an egregious blunder by inculcating, as one of the most important of her peculiar doctrines, that which cannot possibly be true. In her teaching concerning transubstantiation there is a mixture of daring impiety and of puerile absurdity. A proverb says that "there is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous." Rome in her futile attempts to ascend, even above the inaccessible heights of infinity, has fallen into a preposterous inanity, which would expose her to unceasing derision if the subject were not felt to be too grave for the indulgence of a sarcastic propensity. The Scriptures assure us that the human nature of Christ is now in heaven; but Rome maintains that it is also upon earth, and not confined here to one locality, but so multiplied as to his identity that he is at the same time present at myriads of places at the same time. She tells us that, when a popish priest has pronounced the words, "This is my Body," a wafer is changed into the Person of the Redeemer, God-Man. A similar change takes place in the consecrated wine; and, not only so, but a consecrated wafer, if broken into various crumbs, would be as many Persons of the Saviour; and every drop of consecrated wine, if separately drank or poured out, would undergo the like marvellous and incredible transformation. The bread and wine thus transformed is, according to her teaching, entitled to latria-i.e., to the adoration due only to God. At such a doctrine impiety itself may stand abashed, and without murmuring yield to Rome the palm for superiority in blasphemy. A Mohammedan philosopher and traveller in the twelfth century, after visiting many countries and conversing with persons of different religious creeds, informed his co-religionists that Christians-meaning the members of the Christian Papal Church were the only persons who believed that they were accustomed to eat the object of their adoration!

By means of the confessional, Rome has contrived to make the individual power of her priests felt by all her members, and especially by those who are the most sincere and anxious. At the same time, by what she calls "reserved cases"-i.e., offences for which absolution, except in danger and death, cannot be obtained without appealing to the bishop of the diocese, and in very aggravated cases to the Pope himself-she holds the ambition of the priests in check, and compels the laity to look to the Pope as the supreme arbitrator of their spiritual destiny. Persons may confess as frequently as they please, but they must enter the confessional at least once every year. In the Papal States, and wherever the civil authorities are at the bidding of ecclesiastics, no one can abstain from making an annual confession without incurring serious penalties. Rome, therefore,

through the pontiff, exercises over the Popish nations an authority that compels statesmen to treat her with respectful deference; and to the priests the foibles and vices of all the sincere members of her community are unavoidably known. Those gentlemen, however modest may be their appearance and unassuming their behaviour, are in reality the rulers of all who regard them as their spiritual guides.

Some time ago, the Evangelical Alliance offered three prizes on the inexhaustible subject of Popery. The volume whose title is affixed to this essay was thought by the adjudicators worthy of the first prize. A writer competing for a prize should not be very severely criticised, for he generally labours under great disadvantage. His manuscript must be given in by a specified time, and that very commonly too brief. He has not, therefore, an opportunity to make considerate, and it may be needed, emendation. This volume seems to us to bear occasionally the impressions of a haste that will affect its literary reputation. There are also certain trifling inaccuracies which, probably, would not have appeared if the author had had time to have carefully examined its contents. As prize essays are now fashionable, we venture to suggest the desirableness of leaving competitors entirely to their own conceptions and abilities. The usual plan, we believe, has been to advertise, with the announcement of the prize, a rough syllabus of what the successful essay must necessarily contain. Whether this be done by societies, or by liberal and opulent individuals, it is in our opinion an injudicious mode of proceeding. A writer of competent information and talent would be much more likely to succeed if left untrammelled by any advertised programme. Besides, we suspect that those gentlemen who consent to fill the laborious and thankless office of adjudicators decide according to their opinion of the merits of the respective manuscripts without rendering a rigid conformity with the conditions of the advertisement a test of their excellence.

The price of the volume before us is not unreasonable, considering its tastefulness, not to say elegance; but we presume that the donors of the prizes wished to procure for the successful essays, and especially for that considered the best, an extensive circulation among the labouring classes, as well as among those who can afford to purchase expensive publications. This laudable object will not be realized without a cheaper edition.

212

Notices of Books.

De Ecclesiastica Britonum Scotorumque Historia Fontibus: disseruit CAROLUS GUILIELMUS SCHOELL. Berolini: Hertz. Londini : Williams et Norgate, 1851. Royal 8vo.

THE Celtic Church, which was established previously to the arrival of the Latin monk Augustine in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent, A.D. 597, consisted of two branches-viz., the British and the Scottish or Irish. The sources of the history of this Church are of different times and differ in value: they have, however, been used almost indiscriminately in compiling the history of the primitive Church of this country. Hence much uncertainty has arisen, and many tales have been substituted for true history, which can only be composed after a careful investigation of all the sources whence it is derived. This circumstance induced the learned author of the present ingenious and well-written disquisition to examine the sources of the history of our ancient and primitive Church. In the execution of this undertaking he proposed to investigate the early historians down to the middle ages, as well as other documents referring to Church history. He forebore, however, to treat upon such topics as are already fairly established, or to review more at length those writers who discussed this subject in the last century; but his pages amply attest his familiar acquaintance with the learned works of Usher and Stillingfleet, as well as with the researches of more recent authors.

In giving an outline of the results to which Dr. Schoell has come, we shall follow the order of his dissertation. It consists of two parts, the first of which treats on the sources of the old British Church history; and the second on the sources of the Church history of the Scots or Irish.

1. With regard to our earliest historian, GILDAS, the author rejects the supposition that there were two writers of that name— a supposition which has been founded on the impossibility of reconciling repugnant traditions of later date. Gildas, not finding any authentic statements concerning the introduction of Christianity into these islands, has had recource to foreign writers-viz., Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, Prosper, and especially to Eusebius. He applies to this country the passage in Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History," book ii. c. 2, 3, as translated into Latin by Rufinus; but this passage is borrowed from Tertullian (Apol. v. 1), and is now supposed to be a very doubtful authority. In the same manner Gildas's account of the persecution of Christians bv Dioclesian is taken, almost verbatim,

from Eusebius. He seems to have been ignorant of the fact that the persecution in the West was very different from that of the East. After deducting what Gildas has-not very judiciously-borrowed from Eusebius, little more remains than the facts, that, in the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity had been introduced into this country, into which the Arian and other heresies found their way; and, finally, that the British churches were destroyed by the heathen Saxons. From the fourth to the sixth century nothing is reported; but the history of the sixth century is faithfully delineated in the writings of Gildas. As these are the chief sources of British history for that period, Dr. Schoell expatiates upon them; and by a careful examination of the passages of Scripture, which are frequently quoted by Gildas, he shows that Gildas was not only well versed in Scripture, but that he has also translated some passages from the Septuagint Greek version more accurately than other versions have rendered them. There can be no doubt but that Gildas was a good Greek scholar: at the same time it is interesting to find that several Latin words occur in his writings which are nowhere else to be met with. A comparison of the rites and institutions of the British Church, with those used in the contemporary Gallican Church, shows how very little these two Churches differed from each other. Dr. Schoell concludes his researches concerning this our earliest historian with a high tribute to the piety, trustworthiness, and learning of Gildas..

2. BEDE, to whom we are indebted for almost everything we know respecting the British Church during the seventh and eighth centuries, has contributed very little towards illustrating its history previously to the arrival of Augustine. There are only two points of sufficient importance to be noticed here-viz., the conversion of Lucius and the mission of Germanus.

Bede seems to have perceived how unfounded was Gildas's opinion concerning the introduction of Christianity into this country: he, therefore, gives another report concerning the conversion of Lucius. It is impossible to say from what source he derived his narrative of this event, whether from British traditions or from the second catalogue of the Roman bishops. With regard to the time of this alleged conversion, Bede contradicts himself, in his Chronicle and in his History; but the tradition itself implies so many improbabilities and difficulties that there can be little doubt but that it is a Romish fiction. It is remarkable that Gildas, who wrote in the second half of the sixth century, knew nothing about it; that it is wanting in the first catalogue of Roman bishops; but has been added in the second catalogue, which was written after A.D.