a system of Chronology, consistent with itself, and which we may be able to compare with the Scriptures." The principle on which he has proceeded in this investigation, is, as far as we know, entirely new; and if subsequent examination shall confirm what now seems extremely plausible, we may set down the principle as an important discovery in Egyptian Chronology.

By a careful comparison of the various chronological fragments of the Egyptian historians, as they have been preserved by their transcribers, the writer ascertained, that those copyists to whom we are indebted for those fragments, were all imbued with the idea that the Egyptian historians had added to the number of years actually taken up by the reigns of the various kings, in order to magnify the antiquity of their nation that in order to reduce these dates to what they supposed to be the truth, they set down to each king the smallest number afforded by any manuscript they used, or else abridged them without the authority of a manuscript. But as the copyists proceeded independent of each other, they not only gave numbers varying from the original, but also from each other. Having ascertained this fact, the author infers, that the true dates of the Egyptian historians were above the present reading of any copy, and from hence he conceived the design of comparing all the copies of lists of Egyptian kings, and to assume the largest number furnished by any one as the probable original number belonging to that king.

After a most laborious process he completed the above design, when he proceeded to compare the result with those fragments which give dates in their astronomical cycles, and also with the chronological references to Egyptian history in the Bible, when, much to his astonishment, he found a perfect coincidence and harmony running throughout the whole; every "fragment" fitting as exactly as if it had been once detached from the place to which it was restored, and every Egyptian king, mentioned in the Bible, standing precisely where the Bible places him. The result is, that the sojourn and exodus of the Children of Israel, the reigns of Shishak, Zerah, Tirhakah, and Necho, are all recognized in the lists of the Egyptain historians; and by their own chronology, corrected in accordance with the above principle, contemporary with Moses, and Solomon, and Rehoboam, Asa, Hoshea, Hezekiah, and Josiah, in the strictest conformity with the Sacred narrative.

The subject is one of importance, and we hope will attract the attention it deserves, to induce which is the object of this

notice. This little tract exhibits abundant evidence of the learning, the extensive research, and the habit of thorough, original, and independent investigation, by which Mr. Chapin has already distinguished himself in the opinion of those who happen to know him as the writer of several very able historical and critical disquisitions, published without his name.

13. The true Intellectual System of the Universe: wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted, and its impossibility demonstrated. A Treatise on Immutable Morality; with a Discourse concerning the true Notion of the Lord's Supper; and two Sermons: By RALPH CUDWORTH, D. D. First American Edition; with references to the several quotations in the Intellectual System; and an Account of the Life and Writings of the Author: By THOMAS BIRCH, M. A. F. R. S. In two volumes. Andover and New-York; Gould & Newman. 1837.

We have great satisfaction in announcing the first American edition of this great work, the first volume of which is now published in a very handsome style by these truly enterprising publishers. It is honourable to them, and it reflects honour on our country. Besides the Intellectual System-that stupendous monument of learning and criticism-and the other pieces published by Birch, this edition contains also the treatise on Immutable Morality. The other volume will soon be out.

14. The Church of Rome in her primitive purity, compared with the Church of Rome of the present day: being a candid examination of her claims to universal dominion. By JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Vermont. Burlington, (Vt.). 1837. 12mo. pp. 406.

If the Church of Rome is ever purified from her corruption, or disenthralled from the triple bondage of the Papal despotism, it must be by argument. It can never be accomplished by misrepresentation or ridicule. She needs reforming, not revolutionizing. She has within herself all the requisites of a Church, all the elements of purity, and needs only purging

from the dross which dims the silver, that she may arise and shine in her original brightness and splendour. Hence the object of those who desire to benefit that Church should be, the spread of information. Make the whole body of the Roman Communion, yea, even the body of the Roman Clergy, intelligent, in the most comprehensive sense of the word, and as formerly in England, and as more recent indications in Ireland prove, they would arise and shake themselves from that spiritual lethargy which has so long rested like an incubus upon all her efforts at self-purgation. It is in accordance with this view that Bishop Hopkins has written; and we trust his work will not fail of accomplishing in some measure the object for which it is designed.

While we rejoice that the Bishop has proceeded upon the correct principle in his examination, we cannot forbear also expressing the high satisfaction we have derived from the spirit in which it is written. Though deceived and deluded, the Romanists are our brethren, by profession members of the household of faith, to whom it is our duty to do good as we have opportunity. Nor can we revile and defame them without sinning against the perfect law of love set forth in the gospel, or without casting reproach upon the name of Christian. seek not to palliate their guilt, to mitigate their faults, or to excuse their errors or their crimes. But we ardently desire to see the time when the glory of Rome shall again be as it once was, when she studiously sought to walk in the ways of the Apostles, when the plain common sense of the Scripture," as understood and expounded by the unanimous consent of "the Fathers," was the only standard of infallibility she allowed.

We

In the Preface and Introductory chapter, the author has given the reasons and motives which led him to undertake the work in question, and a general view of the course to be pursued in the examination. Upon this it will be sufficient to re:nark, that the Bishop has undertaken to show, upon principles of argumentation, approved by HER Canon Law, and by editions of Councils and Fathers approved by HER authority, that the Church of Rome has varied from herself, and that the Church of Rome OF THE PRESENT TIME is not the Church of Rome of THE PRIMITIVE AGE; from which he infers the necessity that she should return to her original self before passing sentence of condemnation against others for not conforming to her standards. This mode of treating the subject does not, of course, allow him to use many arguments which might with great propriety be urged against them; but if, as we believe, he has succeeded in making out a case

against them from the testimony of their own witnesses, surely their mouths should be for ever closed.

Chapter second cocains extracts from the Corpus Juris Canonici, to show that the Romish Church allow the Holy Scriptures to be the foundation of the Canon Law-after which rank the General Councis-then follow the doctors of the Church, among whom are reckoned, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen. Basil, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustin, Ambrose, Jerome. Prosper, the Epistle of Leo to Flavian, such of the writings of Rañaus and Origen as Jerome does not reject, with several others of later date. The same law also commends the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, and the works of Irenæus, Ciement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. The Councils are quoted from the collections of Hardouin and Manse: and the present belief of the Romish Church is copied from the Prælections of Tourneby, Dr. Challoner's Catholic Christian, the Doway Catechism, and Mr. Butler's Letters to Mr. Southey. From these works, which have received the sanction of the Romish Church, the Bishop draws all his proofs.

In chapter third it is shown by quotations from the above works, that the Romish Church of the present day believes the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ-holding the place of the Redeemer, of God himself, on earth-the supreme head of the Church, from whom all ecclesiastical power and spiritual life proceed to whom belongs all power in the Church-who has authority to make and unmake, translate and depose, all bishops and other clergy at his will, and to settle all ecclesiastical difficulties whatever.

Chapter fourth contains an examination and refutation of this divine right of supremacy derived from their proof texts, by an inquiry into the sense of the passages, and by a comparison of them with other portions of Scripture. In chapters five and six, the testimony of the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions is also shown to be inconsistent with their claim of supremacy; and in chapter seven it is shown, that, according to the opinion of the best Roman critics, the Decretals which favour that doctrine are a forgery. Chapters eight and nine contain an examination of the testimony of Clement of Rome, and of Irenæus, in which it is shown that their narratives are wholly irreconcileable with the doctrine of Papal Supremacy.

In chapter ten the Bishop has instituted an inquiry into the probable origin of the doctrine of the Supremacy, but not, as we apprehend, with his usual success. He finds the origin of the Supremacy, or, we should rather say, has conceded to

the Romanist its existence long before history makes any mention of it. He sees the germe of the Supremacy in the policy "of the primitive Church at Rome," which he accounts for by "the influence of their location, their habits of dwelling on the theory and practice of universal empire, and their desire to secure the unity and peace of the Church." But all this, when predicated of "the primitive Church of Rome," is wholly unsupported by any authentic history. But our author has well shown, that in whatever the original idea of Supremacy consisted, or whenever it took its rise, it was as unlike the present claim as light is dissimilar from darkness.

The five following chapters contain an examination of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Cyprian, Firmillian, and the bishops of Africa, of Lactantius and Eusebius-in which it is shown that the whole current of their testimony is opposed to the claims of the Papal Supremacy. Chapter sixteen contains a view of General Councils, and their requisites, upon the principles of the Canon Law, from which we make the following summary. To constitute a General Council, it is necessary that it should be called by the Popethat all bishops should be summoned-that the Pope, by himself or another, should preside in it. The only exceptions allowed, are, when it is doubtful who is the lawful Pope; or when the Pope is notoriously a heretic; or the See be vacant, or the preceding Council has determined the time and place of the succeeding one.

Our author then proceeds to show, in several succeeding chapters, that the Council of Nice, and many other of the General Councils, were convened by the emperors, and not by the Bishop of Rome; and that the Canons passed at these Councils, as well as the testimony of Athanasius, Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, Chrysostom, and Isodore, are decisive against the present doctrine of the Church of Rome.

In chapter thirty-two the Bishop has attempted, and with more success than in the case already spoken of, to trace the doctrine of the supremacy to the secular preponderance of ancient Rome, aided and assisted by imperial laws and canons of later Councils.--The three succeeding chapters are taken up with an examination of the present variations of opinion existing in that Church in regard to the extent of the prerogative of the supremacy, but which will not bear to be abridged, and which we have not room to give at length. The two last chapters are occupied with an examination of some of the points of argument and difference between the Protestant and