ractacus before the Emperor Claudius, and in the sad fact that Rome was for a time a great mart of British slaves. For several years, Vespasian served under Plautius in Britain; "and it was on the broad plains of Old England that Vespasian and his son Titus learnt the art of war, which they were to practise among the steep defiles of Palestine, and against the walls of Jerusalem." Tacitus has made us familiar with the British campaigns of Agricola, and the jealousy of Domitian. When above threescore years of age, the emperor Septimius Severus died at Eboracum (York); and of his two sons, the latter was murdered by the former near that city. It was also in York that the first Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, breathed his last. As the history extends onward from Augustus Cæsar into the times of Charlemagne, there would be ample room for an unprincipled Jesuit to attempt to undermine Scriptural Protestantism, and make darkness appear light, or for an honest historian to show how Scriptural Christianity was gradually corrupted into Romanism. The credulous willingness of the laity to be deceived, tempted priestcraft to take advantage of that willingness for its own ambitious purposes. And the late Archbishop Whately, as quoted by our author, has clearly shown that "the secret of Rome's spiritual strength is mainly to be found in the fact, that all its errors have originated deep in the corruptions of our nature, and are rooted in man's fallen heart." He sagaciously traces the chief errors of modern Romanism to such perennial sources of corruption, as superstition, fondness for speculative mysteries, vicarious religion, pious frauds, undue reliance on human authority, intolerance and trust in names and privileges-all equally characteristic of the unenlightened Jew, and Protestant Pagan and Romanist. While Mr. Massy appears to be firmly attached to the Scriptural Protestantism of the united Church of England and Ireland, yet, when engaged in stating simple historical facts connected with, or showing the falsehoods and impostures of, Romanism, he is no prejudiced partisan, as candid Romanists would feel obliged to allow, were they to read his book. He is no hasty assailant of popery, but manfully encounters it when his subject calls upon him to do so. Being a sincerely inquiring and well-informed defender of what he believes to be Scriptural and historical truth, his book may be put into the hands of the young as a safeguard against some of the dangerous errors of the day. It seems well adapted to be given as a prize book in the higher classes of our grammar schools to those who are already acquainted with the history of republican Rome. While this volume gives us information concerning the Roman emperors, Pagan and Christian-concerning various political, civil, and military details, and concerning such barbarian invaders as Alaric, Attila, and Genseric-it also furnishes a useful outline of interesting historical notices (which are felt not to be forced upon, but to belong to, the narrative), of important ecclesiastical facts and illustrative anecdotes. The Papist endeavours to awe the mind of the youthful Protestant by descanting upon the spiritual power of the Roman Pontiff, which entitles him not merely to precedence, but to supremacy, over all earthly bishops, and to be the summoner and virtual head and lord of every œcumenical council., Let such minds be well grounded in the true history of the great œcumenical council of Nice. Constantine summoned the council, and appointed both the time and place of meeting. "Foremost in dignity was Alexander, the aged Archbishop of Alexandria, who was known by a title which he alone officially bore in that assembly-that afterwards world-known title of Pope. This peculiar Alexandrian title originated thus. Down to Heraclas (A.D. 230), the bishop of Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian bishop, was called 'Abba,' or father, and his clergy 'presbyters,' or elders. From his time, more bishops were created, who then received the title of Abba, and consequently the name of Papa (ab-abba,' or grandfather) was given to the primate (the Archbishop of Alexandria), who was the genuine Pope. The Pope of Rome' was a phrase that had not yet (A.D. 325) become known to history; for after becoming the general title of superior bishops, or even of abbots, it was fastened on the bishop of Rome so late as the seventh century. . . . . Only eight Western bishops attended the Council, of whom one was the Abrahamic old man, called Hosius 'the holy,' the learned bishop of Cordova, in Spain. Sylvester, the bishop of Rome, pleaded sickness, and was represented by the two presbyters, who, according to the Emperor's arrangement, should have accompanied him." (pp. 282, 284.) The conclusion is thus related, "Finally the Council passed a decree giving to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch, severally, the same preeminence over their respective surrounding bishops; so they had no idea of any supremacy in the chair of Peter.' "Bishop Hosius first signed the decrees, and the Roman presbyters then affixed the signature of the bishop of Rome, who in no other way took any part in this the most momentous and memorable Council that ever sat in Christendom." (pp. 287, 289.) If, instead of a system of restless aggressions, either by open assault or Jesuitical craft, against so-called heretics, Papists were quiet and unassuming, it might be deemed ungenerous to press upon a fallen enemy, and we should feel compassion for their delusions, while we despised and loathed the Antichristian apostasy which held them fast bound in its chains. As the case is, young Protestants of either sex should be early made familiar, not with the petty absurdities, but with the more awful and prominent acts of evil, which deform the history of the rise and growth of the papacy, and furnish the true character of the apostasy. Take the following account of the death of the famous bishop, the great Gregory. The narrative, without branding the bishop, stamps indelibly the blasphemous and lying character of the system with which he was so intimately connected. Gregory's death was sudden, and his body was hurried without honour to the tomb. The fury of the multitude drove them to wreak their vengeance by destroying the library which he loved so well. A terrible famine then desolated Rome, and the people ascribed it to Gregory's mismanagement of the revenue. Peter, his archdeacon, attempted to appease them by affirming that he had often seen the Holy Spirit, in the visible shape of a dove, hovering over the bishop's head, as he sat writing in that library! When he was required to confirm his assertion by an oath, he ascended the pulpit, but before he concluded his solemn adjuration, he fell down dead; and that awful catastrophe was instantly turned by the monks into a testimony to his truth. Hence Christian travellers are shocked by seeing every picture of Gregory I. in Rome blasphemously surmounted with the Holy Spirit, as a dove floating above his head." (p. 465.) Will it be objected, that it is improper for the youthful mind, even for self-defence in dangerous times, to be made familiar with such a shocking transaction. Is then the youthful mind injured by reading in a proper spirit the awful narrative, of which the following is a portion ?" But Peter said, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie against the Holy Ghost? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things." The wretched Archdeacon Peter, while, like Ananias, he played the part of a crafty deceiver, was the greater blasphemer of the two. Our limits do not permit us to bring forward another passage from the history, in which we find the Pope himself, and not his archdeacon, to be the daring blasphemer. We can only refer the reader to the account of St. Peter's forged letter to Pepin, by which Pope Stephen II. prevailed upon that king to cross the Alps a second time, deliver Rome from the Lombard Astolph, and confirm the Pope in his temporal sovereignty. CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. 102, Cemetery Road, Sheffield; July 4th, 1864. Sir, I had not that accurate acquaintance with our Clerical Subscriptions to which I pretended when I addressed you in May. "The Act 26 and 27 Vict. c. 125, . . . . does not repeal the Subscriptions required to be taken by 13 Eliz. c. 12." "Dioceses in Great Britain retain the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy as before 1858." I quote from an authority whose words are beyond gainsaying. Your Reviewer was correct: I was wrong. I apologise for having presumed to correct him.-I am, Sir, &c., CATOR CHAMBERLAIN. [WE have never seen these verses in print, but their authorship is not doubtful. None but Charles Wesley could have written them. Our readers will think them worthy of a place in our pages.-EDITOR.] "NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE, BE DONE."-(Luke xxii. 42.) To do, or not to do, to have Or not to have, I leave to Thee: Thy only will be done in me. All my requests are lost in one; Suffice that, for the season past, I leave them now to Thee alone; Thy gifts I clamour for no more, After the flesh no longer known: Welcome alike the crown, the cross; Nor life, nor death; but ever groan- NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. WE are favoured every month with a quantity of new books and pamphlets, the authors or publishers of which no doubt expect that we shall return the compliment by inserting some notice or review of each. Now, apart from other considerations, let it be sufficient to say that the briefest notice of each would completely fill the Christian Observer, without leaving us a single page for anything besides. We acknowledge the courtesy of our often unknown friends; and, as far as our duty to our readers permits us, we are willing to oblige them. Some of these unsought, but not unwelcome, presents are evidently sent to challenge a controversy-a kind of amusement to which we have no objection, when the subject is of sufficient importance. Our last parcel contains two works, a pamphlet and a tolerably well-filled octavo, which are evidently thus meant. The title of the former runs thus: Popular Appeal in favour of a New Version of Scripture. Part I. Perth. 1864.-The first sentence informs us that "the demand for an improved version of Scripture in our native tongue is daily increasing." We devoutly hope not: We do not believe that a new version, executed with even tolerable fidelity, would seriously affect the truth of the Gospel; but it would fare ill thenceforth with the English language. Both book and pamphlet, we observe, come from Scotland; and our friends north of the Tweed must bear with us if we tell them that they are not the best judges upon this important question. They do not appreciate, as we do, the English Bible for its grand old idiomatic periods. These are lost upon them, and even appear to deface the sacred volume. An admirer of Shakespeare has just issued an essay to prove that the great poet was well read in his Bible, and that his writings are richly tinged with its magnificent imagery, its breathing thoughts and burning words; and this must have been the older Bible, of which our present authorised version is little more than an amended version. If a new version were now given to the world, we are afraid that very few of our future Miltons or Shakespeares would make themselves acquainted with its literature, as affording them a standard of the English language in its loftiest and most venerable form. "A Licentiate of the Scottish Church," (Plea for a New English Version of the Scriptures. By a Licentiate of the Church of Scotland. London: Macmillan & Co. 1864,) devotes a vast deal of ill-directed industry to the subject. Amongst other heads of accusation, there is one in which he charges our present version with bad grammar. We must beg to remind him that it is the language which makes the grammar, not the grammar the language. Genius overrides all grammar, or rather creates it. Grammar says, Greek as well as English, that a verb in the singular shall have its dependant noun in the singular; but if old Homer has thought fit to indulge in a neuter plural, the question is settled, and grammar bows, and compromises, and makes exceptions. It is in the variety of its idioms that the capacity of any language lies. They are the feelers of the shell-fish or the tendrils of the vine; they partake of the qualities of both; they enable us to approach a subject with the utmost delicacy, or to strike it with dexterity, or to cling to it with tenacity. It is generally observed that Scotch |