than a new process commences, and it becomes universally luminous: is not this Design? The extinct land animal, equally allotted as the food of those kinds which are appointed to remove offence from the earth, gives no light, because light was not required: light is produced where it was necessary, and no where else.

Even yet we have not traced all. There are marine animals without organs of vision. Yet those have been rendered sensible to light, and so sensible that they will pursue that of a lamp with unerring certainty, receiving the impression perhaps, as vegetables do, on a sensible surface, but exceeding them, by adding the powers of locomotion. Surely Providence has cared for the meanest of its creatures, in thus creating what we may safely call a separate arrangement in nature, of the element of Light, for their especial uses.

To return to Paley. We are not convinced that he acted judiciously in limiting, as he has done, his astronomical views. To shew that what is, could not rightly have been otherwise, and thence to prove Design, was unquestionably necessary; but it was not beyond the true plan of a Natural Theology, to mark, to the utmost of our knowledge, the magnificence, the power, and the extent of Omnipotence, as it is displayed in this part of creation-the awful sight of an universe in motion! Even reasonable conjecture as to what is yet imperfectly known of its ways in the great system, was not inadmissible; and need we say what a range for this end has been opened by modern discoveries? If we have insinuated a condemnation of that dryness and apparent severity of logic which pervades this work, it is here perhaps especially that the author has, by thus cramping himself in the trammels of an attempt at rigid demonstration, renounced advantages which are never trifling, where we must write for the excitement of the more generous, grateful, and lofty feelings of human nature.

The title of the work that we would urge on the leisure and science of our contemporaries, might be that ancient one, “The Wonders of God in Creation;" and under its plan much ought to be admitted, even where our yet imperfect knowledge cannot clearly explain the Design. That which cannot be explained, must continue to rank among Wonders, until it is explained. In surrendering all that, to us, still appears marvellous and obscure, we should deprive ourselves of a vast range of materials; we must also remember that He is The Wonderful, that to admire his wondrous works is our natural impulse as well as our duty, and that if among them there is probably much that our

faculties will never be able to take altogether out of this hallowed precinct, much even of that magnificent obscure may be the province of religious feeling.

Yet let us name the rising science, if a separate science it be, of Magnetism; let us indicate enquiries into less obvious parts of creation which seem to connect animal and vegetable existence; and where the vegetable world itself appears to pass into the realms of inanimate matter. In all this, and in far more, our researches, imperfect as they may be, cannot fail to elicit something which will demonstrate the resources, the power and wisdom of the Deity. By this we shall show Providence every where, and if even we are still to be partially. condemned to the wonder of ignorance, learn to adore.

Thus at least, at the very least, we shall teach: and if we can teach, it will be to convey our knowledge inseparable from the idea of the stupendous Being who created all and governs all. This we desire, and this we yet expect to see executed ;-soberly also, and with science, as a work addressed to a rational and scientific age. It must not repel those whose suspicious severity of mind, or whose unsettled conviction renders them reluctant to receive its wisdom;-it must not exclaim more than it demonstrates ;-it must not hazard its sacred ends in its attempts to influence the feelings, where it should primarily address itself to the understanding.

The Difficulties of Romanism.

By GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D., Rector of Long Newton. 12s. London. 1826. Romanist Conversations: or Dialogues between a Romanist and a Protestant, published at Geneva in 1713: translated from the original French. By HENRY HUNTINGFORD, LL.B., Fellow of Winchester College. 1s. London. 1826.

THE exposures of Popery, Romanism, or Roman Catholicism (for we will not trouble ourselves about shades of nomenclature) cannot be multiplied too much in the present times. We therefore greet the appearance of two works, each, in its kind, of con-. siderable merit, though very different in rank and claims." To begin with the more important: Mr. Faber's work is a review of Romanism, in answer to a French publication with which Monseigneur Trévern, formerly Vicar-general of Langres, and now Bishop of Aire, has, it appears, disputed, if not shaken or subverted the faith of some of the trą

velling English laity in France. We have not seen the French work which Mr. Faber has chosen as his text-book; but, from the answer it appears not to deserve the high degree of deference which our learned English apologist shews to both it and the writer. Traces of an insidious smoothness of style, more dangerous than all the roughest controversial violence of old times, frequently appear in the allusions to, and quotations from the Discussion Amicale.

66

"Your own theologians," says the Bishop of Aire to his English friend, no less than ourselves, have in their hands the ancient liturgies of the primitive Church, and the works of the early ecclesiastical writers; but they will have small inclination, I suspect, to bring you acquainted with such documents. Ask them to communicate these documents to you: desire them to specify the opinions which they express. You will soon find, that they take your request with no very good grace; and, in truth, to deal plainly with you, it is impossible that they should. Ah well, Sir, I will spare them their embarrassment: and, so far as you are concerned, I will go on to accomplish their defective ministrations *."

Such an opinion of the general character of the English clergy, as to religious sincerity, very naturally leads to the following proposal of an union between our national Church and that of Rome. We present the Bishop's plan of reunion amicale, in Mr. Faber's and the Bishop's words.

"Once defined, the principles of the Latin Church are IRREVOCABLE She herself is immutably chained by bonds, which at no future period can she ever rend asundert. In regard, therefore, to doctrine, any concession is plainly impossible. Yet, as the bishop undertakes to promise for her, she will cheerfully do every thing that in reason can be expected. Let the Church of England adopt all the doctrines of the Church of Rome; and the Church of Rome, on her part, will be disposed to make grand concessions on point of discipline. Such concessions her principle of IMMUTABILITY does not forbid. Hence, in return for the sacrifice which we make on doctrinal points, she will freely concede to us communion under both kinds, the marriage of ecclesiastics, divine service in the vulgar tongue, all the ceremonies, all the vestments, all the sacerdotal ornaments, all the decorations of the altars and churches. By this arrangement, as the Bishop justly observes, matters would seem precisely the same as before. The change would be absolutely invisible. It would be a simple alteration of our faith, which resides only in the intellectual part of our nature: while

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 8, quoted by Mr. Faber.

+ Ib. Letter. xviii. ap. id.

the external worship would strike the eye, exactly as it did before the union was thus happily effected *.”

The hollow faith which the Bishop of Aire attributes to our Clergy seems, in his Lordship's opinion, to have been of long standing among us. He is a great admirer of the learning of Bull, Pearson, and Beveridge, " for whom Christian antiquity had no secrets." Christian antiquity is every thing to him, in regard to religion, and he is also positive that the ancient Christian writers are at variance with our doctrines!

M. de Trévern does not waver a moment as to the reasons which must have influenced those luminaries of our Church to continue in her communion. Of Bishop Bull, he says, Qu'est ce donc qui le retient? Qui l'arrête? Deplorable foiblesse ! L'aveu de la verité tout entiere l'eût exposé a de trop grands sacrifices +. Such is the unblushing charge which the Bishop of Aire brings against a man whose learning and virtues have extorted the praises of the most violent opponents of Protestantism!

Mr. Faber assures us that "perhaps there is not a more worthy man breathing than the Bishop of Aire §." What personal knowledge he may have of this French prelate, we are not aware. If our apologist has such positive and experimental proofs of his worth, as may outweigh the strong indications of a character perfectly dead to the noblest sympathies of mind, we shall be most ready to overlook the indirect evidence already brought before the reader. But if Mr. Faber has no better vouchers than his own good nature, and some vague reports of the Bishop's politeness to the English travellers, whom he wished to allure to his Church; we must suspend our judgment, and even sincerely regret the excess of mildness and courtesy which could make Mr. F. consider the having to answer such a work "as a privilege ."

To exclude from works connected with the inertests of religion every thing like insult and raillery, is an unquestionable duty. But moderation in language may be carried so far as to

Faber, p. 356, from Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 403.

Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 400.

§ Ib. p. 362.

What right to the excessive politeness of an English Clergyman the Bishop of Aire has, the reader may judge from the following words of Mr. Faber. "As the Bishop lays the deep foundations of English Reform, in the profound ignorance of the reformers themselves; so is he willing to ascribe its otherwise unaccountable permanence to the scarcely less profound ignorance of those birds of darkness, our modern Anglican Clergy." Discuss. Amic. Vol. ii. p. 399-403, 409.

injure the cause of religion. We Protestant Catholics are placed between two sorts of enemies who, though extremely different in principle, yet agree in a strong reluctance to give us credit for religious sincerity. The Roman Catholic, who derives his assurance from the unconditional surrender of his understanding to the authority of his Church, cannot conceive how any man may be firm and established in his faith, without a similar subjection of his intellect. The unbeliever, who rejects all divine authority and scoffs at the proofs and documents of revelation, finds it incredible that one who freely uses his understanding, should ever arrive at conclusions so absolutely the reverse of his own. He is besides accustomed to show some deference to established opinions, and, unless tainted with the fanaticism of infidelity, he not only tolerates but praises professional decorum, in the Clergy. He will even admire the talent of the divine who produces an able argument, and will take in it that kind of interest which a clever lawyer excites when propping up a bad case. But argument alone will never be to him a proof of sincerity. To an unbeliever, in fact, no one can appear a sincere Christian, who does not exhibit a certain degree of that earnestness which he calls bigotry.

That the reverend author of the Difficulties of Romanism, stands above all suspicion of indifference to his Christian faith and Church, is a matter of certainty to every one, who, free from the prejudices of the two classes just mentioned, has any knowledge of his works and character. But we cannot answer for the impression which his excessive mildness will produce, especially among the Roman Catholics. In point of argument Mr. Faber's work bears the marks of knowledge, and diligence His adversary is disarmed, and laid helpless before him. But he does all this with such an excess of politeness, that we fear Monseigneur de Trévern will still flatter himself that his antagonist almost regrets the blows which he has inflicted. Will the man who charges the great Bishop Bull with insincerity, do more justice to him, who when his Church is branded with bastardy, her luminaries with hypocrisy, and the whole of her Clergy with ignorance and dissimulation, still persists in a language of the utmost deference towards an author who ostentatiously assumes the tone and language of friendship in addressing those insults to Englishmen? The work of the Bishop of Aire appears to us to have been overrated by our apologist, no less than the claims of this French antagonist to complimentary language. The French prelate, who accuses our Clergy of general ignorance, seems to us not