in such a manner, as to leave him not very secure in the occu pation of his ground. The weakness of the cause is apparent in the irritated tone of the defender. His favourite system has been exposed, and unwilling to have himself involved in the catastrophe of his theory of Christianity, he retorts insult on those who have thus driven him to the necessity of mustering his forces to the defence. The scurrilous language which he hurls back at the exposer of his traditional creed, shews a tenderness which shrinks from the touch. Nothing but the furor brevis of his anger can excuse the vehemence of his retort upon his venerable antagonist, Dr. Daubeny-upon whom, in this present instance, all the violence of his theological rancour is poured forth. Forgetful alike of the dignity both of age and of station, he deals out invective and ridicule against one, whom a candid opponent, however he may have differed from him in opinion, could not but have treated with respect, if it were only for his work's sake: for the zeal and ability with which, at his advanced period of life, when he might well have felt himself entitled to repose from the active duties of the ministerial office, he has yet advanced to the vindication of the truth as adopted and taught by his Church. But Dr. Baines, it seems, has no notion of respect being due to any one who dislikes his religion. The grey hair has no charm in it to arrest his hand. He labours hard, indeed, to convince his readers that he feels an utter contempt for the Archdeacon of Sarum-a feeling one might suppose not very desirable or amiable in a Christian pastor; but he fails entirely, and shews all the vexation imaginable through the ill-disguised affectation of contempt. For our part, we feel proud of the contrast which he has exhibited to the world between the devotee of superstition and the assertor of the reformed doctrine. Comparing Dr. Daubeny to Priam buckling on his armour in defence of Troy, and falling under the relentless blow of Pyrrhus, he leads us to represent to ourselves himself under the character of the latter. He forgot, in his zeal to be facetious, that he was drawing so just a picture of the merits of the two causes and their respective defenders: the venerable age, the rightful cause of the brave old king, corresponding with the tried service and the true religion of our veteran champion; whilst the unmanly outrage and unjustifiable plea of the youthful warrior, are very suitable, emblems of the uncharitable tone and erroneous principles of the light-armed advocate of Popery.

Never, perhaps, was there a more unfair controversialist than Dr. Baines. He is continually flapping himself with all the self-importance of the gallinaceous combatant of the farm-yard, and crowing out his note of victory when he well

knows that he has been completely beaten just before from the field. Perhaps it is too much to expect that he should own himself to be worsted in any point; but, at least, common candour requires that he should not persist, in every new publication, in asserting that he has triumphantly carried points which he positively has not. But confident affirmation is a mode of argument for which he has a sinister predilection, and not altogether inconsistently with the mode of teaching adopted by his Church, which makes the dogmas of its ministers its rule of faith. Agreeably to this, he naturally seems to imagine that the avròs on of the Doctor and the Bishop, must serve for "confirmation strong as proofs of holy writ." And what would the fair converts, the innuptæ puellæ, the Andromedas of the day-whom the Bishop-errant has rescued from the fangs of Protestantism-say-if he were to acknowledge that he had been unhorsed in the fray, and at the mercy of his foe?

We have in a former number laid before our readers the origin of this controversy so pertinaciously provoked by Dr. Baines, and traced his career of hostility to our Church, through the successive velitations in which his valorous sophistry had displayed itself. We then only noticed such replies to him as might be regarded his more immediate antagonists, and to which he had expressly directed himself. We left Dr. Daubeny's able and comprehensive work then untouched, fully anticipating that we should have an opportunity of calling attention to it on a subsequent occasion. That opportunity is afforded us by the present intended reply of Dr. B. to a part of itcouched under the specious name of an "Inquiry into the nature, object, and obligations of the religion of Christ, with a comparison of the ancient and modern Christianity of England"

a name to which it as much answers as if the pamphlet were entitled, "An Inquiry into the Nature of the Bath waters, with a comparison of Bath under King Bladud and Beau Nash."

To state the subject of the pamphlet at once correctly and briefly, we should say that it consisted of-1st, Abuse of Dr. Daubeny-2ndly, Objections to the freedom of religious enquiry -3rdly, Popular panegyric of the Church of Rome, with accompanying slander of the Church of England. These are the topics which are brought together under the heterogeneous head prefixed to the work-that the puffers of lotteries and quack medicines might not have a monopoly of their ingenious device of inviting attention, by some plausible catchwords, to' their articles of information.

The first fourteen pages, accordingly, besides a preface in

See Christian Remembrancer for November, 1824.

the same style, are the merest trifling in the world. Little has the Church to boast of a Bishop who can condescend thus to play the mountebank, and exhibit his antics to the wondering public, little accustomed to behold such a prostration of the episcopal dignity. We wonder the indignant crozier did not come forth anò nássaλov, and obliterate the unseemly characters, which the profane quill had traced in derogation of the high pretensions of its holy Catholic Apostolic Roman master. But the author was, be it conceded, himself ashamed of what he had done, for we find him, in an introductory notice to the general reader, directing him to " begin at page 14." Procul este profani. It is not fit that you should irreverently look on the friskings of the Romish dignitary.

We will gladly take the hint ourselves, and pass over these objectionable pages, for we can dwell with no satisfaction at the exposure of his own dignity, which the author has incurred. We prefer going on to the exposure of his arguments.

After a general account of the contents of Archdeacon Daubeny's work, in which the course of the Archdeacon's discussion of the points controverted between the two Churches is skimmed over in flippant style-follows an attempt to prove that it is impossible that the Church of Rome can be in: error-first, from a view of the laity belonging to that Church, and then from a view of its clergy. Its lay members, it is argued, cannot be duped into a belief of its doctrines, because "there are amongst them men of talents and integrity, who shine in the highest ranks of literature, and who in honesty, sincerity, and honourable principle, yield to none of their Protestant neighbours." Now, we would ask Dr. Baines, whether he means to assert that all these men of talents and integrity, who are to be found on his side, have directed their talents and integrity to the investigation of the truth of the Papal system, and have impartially declared for it after mature and dispassionate inquiry? We are confident that he cannot prove this, especially in a Church which claims to give the law to Scripture, and takes upon itself, in its ministerial character, the responsibility of infallible guidance. And if he cannot prove that these talents and this integrity have been brought to bear upon this particular subject of their religion, the assertion, which we do not at all disbelieve, that there are men of talents and integrity, shining in the highest ranks of literature amongst them, will not avail as an argument against the erroneousness of their tenets. The testimony of the most intelligent and honest observer of nature will not be of any value, unless it appears that he has personally visited foreign countries, and accurately directed his attention to its particular circum

stances. Besides, has Dr. Baines never considered the force of prejudice, and especially in such a thing as religion, whose subject matter lies amidst all the complex interests of human life? Has he never read, "that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called," but that humility of understanding, an infant simplicity of mind, are more indispensable qualifications for religious wisdom, than shining talents and honourable principle ?-Are" honours and rewards" on the one hand, disgrace and persecution on the other, supposing them to be really as they are stated by Dr. Baines, the only strong motives of action? Is there no such. thing as sectarian ambition in the world-a desire to exalt that particular class of religionists to which men themselves belong when once they are pledged to it? Is there no such thing as religious pride deterring men from abandoning their profession, from the fear of shame? Is there no such thing as a superstitious horror of doubting the truth of a religion which has taken its hold on the mind, especially when anathemas, excommunications, and penances, await the dissentient? Is there no force in truth, when mixed with falsehood, to render that falsehood current? And lastly, is there not such a sin as indifference: to all religion in the world, from which even enlightened minds. are not free, and which suffers men to remain adherents of a cause merely because they care little about religion itself? If the number of talented and honest disciples, which a particular creed can boast, is any valid criterion of its truth, Paganism has as good a title to be called a true religion on that account as any other. Can the Pagan laity, might have asked some Pagan Baines in days of yore, be dupes of their Priests, when such masterspirits as Homer, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, Varro, &c. were numbered in their communion? But the argument derived from the talents and integrity of the laity is still weaker than this; for let it not be forgotten that the infallible authority of the Roman Priesthood is a sacred article of the Roman Church; and that man must be bold indeed who ean uplift his voice against the thunders of the unanswerable conclave. Who is more ready to be duped, than he who is pledged to believe in the word of his Priest? If the Priests are wrong, the whole supposititious system falls to the ground; therefore the Priests must be believed. A doubt of their veracity of interpretation would be with such religionists the beginning of infidelity. It is nothing, therefore, so very unaccountable, that many literary and virtuous characters should be found within the pale of Rome, amidst all her corruptions.

The next argument is taken from the character of the Roman clergy. These, it is urged, must be wonderful men in point of

talent, learning, and address, to succeed, as they do, in secur ing their own people, and making ravages amongst the flocks of the Archdeacons of Bath and Sarum, if the religion which they teach is false. Those who look to the esprit de corps which animates their clergy, will not see any such ground of surprise as that here suggested. It is their combination as an insulated body of men, detached from all other social connexions by the very nature of their institutions, which gives them that "magic influence" which Dr. Baines puts forth as so incredible, on the supposition that the religion is wrong. Further, let the bond which unites them be taken into consideration— they are pledged to defend the rights of their Church—an ambitious Church, claiming dominion over all the world—and that dominion a spiritual one-realizing in a more frightful form the wish of Nero, in having the hearts of all its subjects bowed before it, as the heart of one man-and which now smarts under the vindictive recollection of the partial degradation which it has sustained from the awakened spirit of religious liberty, and is only waiting its opportunity to make us woefully feel the truth of the maxim:-Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem læseris. Is it any thing strange, then, that a body so separated from the rest of the world, and so cemented, should possess power? History instructs us, that it is nothing strange. Look at the influence which the Jesuits once possessed in Paraguay and California. Without force or any apparent constraint, they succeeded in bringing into subjection to them extensive tribes of the native Indians, achieving at once a conquest over the mind and bodies of men by mere dint of policy, and only with the subtle and invisible weapons of their ecclesiastical armory. The Priests of the Church of Rome, in fact, are as much bound to support a peculiar polity, as they are to support a religion. And it is on that account that they are so powerful a body. If their talents, learning, and address, were applied simply to enforce the truths of Christianity, the Protestant clergy of the Church of England would cheerfully meet them on this ground-to the arts of intrigue the latter are not formed by constitution, nor inclined to condescend.

But, adds Dr. Baines, the clergy of his Church have no assignable motive for their conduct but religion. Pleasure, interest, and ambition, are quite out of the question. Their Church, he says, is a severe mother to her clergy; so thoughtour Reformers-they felt her painfully to be an injusta noverca --but let us take his explanation. They can have no pleasure in this world, because they are forbidden to marry--they are required to recite the divine office every day, in addition to all their public duties-to fast, abstain, and confess their sins no.