tify your ambition to dictate and command."Further, it is evident, that if God give a warrant to any man to exercise a limited controul over another, that man cannot without dereliction of duty exceed his warrant. If, for example, God give to one man a warrant to teach, exhort, admonish another, and to warn him of punishment that awaits him in eternity if he refuses to listen, but give him no authority to use violence, to inflict penalties, in order to enforce attention and compliance; yet, if he, because he happens to be the strongest man, shall, besides teaching, exhorting, &c. proceed to assault, rob, or murder the person to whom he is sent, he is evidently acting with gross injustice, and it would be as lawful to resist the aggressions of such a man as to resist the demands of a highwayman. From all this it follows that in no case can authority be justly exercised over the minds or actions of men, without a previous appeal to their judgment. If submission be voluntarily offered to another by any one, then he who makes the offer does so at the dictate of his judgment; but if authority over others be asserted, then he who asserts such authority must prove to the satisfaction of those over whom he asserts it, that he has the warrant of God for doing so, and he must also satisfy them as to the extent of the authority granted to him.' Examination, pp. 8-10.

These are dicta aurea; and they suggest the proper duty of all rational creatures in reference to religious claims: viz. To examine them with the nicest care; to demand the proofs of an authority asserted to be of God; to submit to such an authority, only on clear, indisputable evidence of its Divine origin; and to resist, as we would thieves and robbers, all persons who, limited to the business of teaching, attempt to injure our persons or our property. "We," say the Roman Catholic Clergy, "are ex

clusively the persons whom God has appointed to be the "teachers of Christian truth, and in that capacity we are to "controul the minds and the actions of men." And we, with Mr. Carlyle, must have no quibbling on words, no vague reports that cannot be distinctly traced to an authentic source; no doubtful reasoning; but a fair, open display of God's grants to the privileged individuals, and unequivocal proof of the authenticity of it.'

Mr. Carlyle's representations are so just in themselves, and so perspicuously and properly put down in his book, they are so well calculated to set men to think for themselves on points concerning which no man should think for another,—they are so simple, so reasonable, and altogether so much to the purpose, that we cannot suppress our wish that the widest circulation possible may be given to them. Let them be conveyed to the cottages and cabins of the Irish Catholics, and impressed on the minds of the thousands who inhabit them; and they will begin to refuse to submit their consciences to the disposal of men who enforce all their pretensions to authority by unintelligible jargon ;

who can neither display a Divine warrant to justify their claims, nor produce unsophisticated arguments in their support. Let this pamphlet become the teacher of the degraded population of Ireland, and the spell of priestcraft will be broken; the terrors of superstition will no longer perform their part at the will of the priests, to ensure the submission of their deluded de

votees.

Dr. Smith's Reasons for rejecting the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome, are,

Because it is an usurped authority;-because its tendency is to destroy the very essence of real religion;-because it demands belief in doctrines palpably absurd, unscriptural, and pernicious ;-because it is an impious invasion on the office of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Spiritual Lawgiver ;-because it is subversive of the use and value of the Holy Scriptures ;-because it promotes the vilest forms of tyranny-and because, while it assumes the right of prescription, it is, in fact, an audacious system of innovation on the old, apostolic, and primitive religion of Christ.'

The first point of the controversy examined by Dr. Smith, is that splendid falsity-the supremacy and infallibility of the Romish Church under the headship of the Pope. It is an easy matter to set down a series of propositions, and to assume their truth; as, for example:-That Jesus Christ constituted Peter the prince of the Apostles, with authority over them ;-that Peter was Bishop of Rome, with supremacy over all other Bishops and Christians;-that this authority is the inheritance of the Bishops of Rome as the Successors of Peter. But examine these propositions severally, and in their mutual relation; demand proof of their truth and consistency; and you prescribe a task which all the partisans of the Roman Catholic Church, with Cardinal Bellarmine at their head, will find too hard. Ask them to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome. They cannot.--Ask them to prove that by the will of Jesus Christ any exclusive prerogative was annexed to the Church of Rome. They cannot. That any authority which Peter might possess, was to pass to any other person. They cannot.--It is all imposition and delusion. Not a syllable do we find in the whole New Testament, to substantiate any such propositions. Rome is no more constituted the seat of sovereign authority over Christian communities, than is Antioch, or Thessalonica; and such a personage as the Pope, was as little in the contemplation of Jesus Christ, when founding the Christian Institute, as were the monks of Dominic, or of Benedict.

We are, we must confess, astonished at the pertinacity with which the tenet of papal supremacy is maintained by Catholics. Is it possible for them to find it in the New Testament among the appointments of the Divine Head of the Church? Can they

indeed believe that the dissolute, the infidel Leo the Tenth, was the representative of Peter?-that that monster of iniquity, Alexander the Sixth, was the vice-gerent of Jesus Christ? Is it less than blasphemy against the Saviour of the world, so to believe? What shocking absurdities must a partisan of papal supremacy digest?

It is

It is, we believe, a point yet to be settled, whether the Pope be personally infallible. The more enlightened Catholic writers, assert the negative; but in Italy and Spain, and in some other countries, the affirmative has been warmly maintained. Now, whether Catholics in England, or Catholics in Italy, are best qualified and empowered to settle this matter, is, we presume, a question which waits the decision of the proper judge, when the parties can agree in their nomination of one. however unquestionable, that the Popes of Rome have declared, and acted on the declaration, that they are infallible; and papal infallibility is just as intelligible and as tenable, as the infallibility held by the moderate Catholics; namely, the infallibility of the Church. Infallibility, says Mr. Eustace, in his Classical Tour, belongs to the whole body of the Church extended over the universe. Can the terms of such a proposition be so defined as to be understood? Where are we to find this body?. And if it were possible to find it, what are the circumstances which give infallibility to its opinions and decrees? For the complete refutation of this dogma, if indeed refutation can be predicated of gross absurdity, we refer to the pamphlets before us. In that by Mr. Carlyle, the reader will find a specimen of the manner in which what are called 'Councils of the Church are constituted and managed, in the history of the Council of Trent; that Council which prostrated its understanding before the Legates of the Roman Pontiff, displayed the most ridiculous folly in its deliberations and decisions on the Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, and pronounced curses against every man who shall say that in these words, Do this in remembrance of me, Christ did not constitute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain them, so that they and other priests should offer his body and blood.' The history of Councils would most admirably illustrate the infallibility of the Church. We must again quote from Mr. Carlyle's Examination.

Mr. Ryan acknowledges that personal infallibillity did not descend to the bishops, but instead of this he substitutes an infallibility of a totally different kind, a collective infallibility which, he asserts, did descend to them. But this is a kind of infallibility, of the very existence of which we have no proof, stronger than the assertions of the bishops themselves, and their adherents. When the Apostles met together after they had received the Holy Ghost, their assembly was of course infallible, because the individuals that composed it were

so; but that a number of fallible persons should by meeting together become infallible, would be as extraordinary a thing as if a number of mortals, by meeting together, should become immortal. Doubtless the power of God can do any thing, but I could not believe that the power of God would be exerted in doing this, unless it were clearly and explicitly asserted by one who could shew, by the most unequivocal proofs, that he had the authority of God for making the assertion. Nay, if I saw the assembly pretending to infallibility, aoting contrary to the morality plainly laid down in Scripture; if I heard them pouring out curses and imprecations on those who re. fused to give them money; if I saw them openly and avowedly withstanding the authority of our Lord himself, and breathing out revenge and fury against all who refused to submit to them, I would not believe that they were infallible, even if an angel from heaven were to appear and assert it; for 1 am warranted by scripture to reject even the testimony of an angel, if he should preach contrary to what has been preached by Christ, and his Apostles.' pp. 54-55.

Mr Carlyle very solidly reasons against the notion that the Jewish priesthood was superseded by the Christian. The priestly office is never, he shews, in the New Testament, predicated of the Apostles, or of Christian ministers, but exclusively of Christ; and after establishing his point that the Christian ministry is analogous to the prophetical office, to which it belonged to instruct the people, he has the following passage, which it will be perceived has a bearing against some other Church, as well as against the Church of Rome. The supporters of the Episcopal Establishment in England, have rung in our ears the official names of the Jewish priesthood, as the prototype of the Christian ministry. They, we think, may take share with the Romish Hierarchy, in the application of such a hint as the following.

"If any one should wonder why the clergy of Rome do not rather derive their succession from the prophets than the priests, I would only remind him, that the priests had a divine right to tithes and offerings, that they had a superb temple, that there was a high-priest who wore an ephod made of gold and violet and purple and scarlet twice died, and fine twisted linen embroidered with divers colours, and a golden breast-plate set with precious stones, and an embroidered coat, and a tunic with golden bells attached to it, and a mitre with a plate on it of the purest gold: whereas the prophets were usually poor and despised, and were dressed in coarse garments, and lived in great self-denial and privation. If this reason do not satisfy him, he must find a better for himself, for I can give him no further assistance.' Examination. p. 40.

Dr. Smith objects to the Roman Catholic religion, that it tends to weaken and destroy the very essential principles of personal religion. The Church of Rome denies salvation, in the "absence of mere external and ritual observances :' and its best members maintain that repentance, faith, and holiness, are un

available to salvation in all cases in which the communion and sacraments of the Church of Rome are refused.

Such a stress,' Dr. Smith very justly remarks, upon mere externals, cannot but proportionably diminish a sense of the importance of real and spiritual qualifications; and is distinctly opposed to the word of God.' The essence of all true religion is the submission of the heart to God.

To this the Scriptures direct us as the means of determining our spiritual state; never to external observations. They never say to us-To be saved it is necessary that you be in communion with the Church of Rome. What connexion is there between a man's eternal safety, and his membership with a corporation of priests, whose head is resident in the capital of Italy? The telling of beads, the repeating of pater-nosters, and ave marias, the walking in processions, the bowing before shrines and images, the observing of festivals and fasts, the payment of clerical demands, and a long et cætera of rites and ceremonies, constitute the religion of innumerable multitudes, guided by the spirit of delusion which pervades the system of the Romish Church. These rites and ceremonies are substituted in the place of reverence and love towards God: requiring neither principles of truth, nor the purified affections of the heart in their observance; but appealing solely to the senses, and presenting to the devotee nothing beyond the customary forms with which they are identified, they induce a perfect satisfaction in an external submission which can be of no avail in promoting the great ends of Christian worship and edification. The pageantries of Catholic superstition may arrest the imagination and please the fancy; but they possess no virtue to purify the conscience and to sanctify the heart. Millions attracted by these, and servile in their obedience to the authority which enjoins them, pass as good Catholics;' and imagining themselves to have need of 'nothing,' know not that they are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.

We are already encroaching on the limits within which our remarks should be confined. As we cannot but suppose that our readers will put themselves in possession of the pamphlets which we have noticed, there is the less occasion for us to enlarge. We shall extract the following paragraph from Dr. Smith's discourse, as a specimen of manly protestation against that primary error of all secularized Churches-The denial of 'the right of private judgement in religious matters, in its ap 'plication to the Church of Rome, and to the Church of "England.'

Is it necessary to say that this is an insult on the common sense and common rights of mankind? Can this be a part, still less a fundamental principle, of that religion which flowed from the fountain