whole work is very much like a succession of those unconnected absurdities which may be heard from a man talking in his sleep; and that degree of "method" which we do perceive "in his madness," can only be a source of regret, as the one consistent idea he seems to have throughout is how he may best strip every form of religion of all that is beautiful and true, and hold it up as a thing to be scorned and scoffed at. For the scholar and the priest we have vainly sought throughout the book; it seems to us that there is no character who could sustain either title; since the first must surely be a man of some refinement of intellect; and the last at the very least a Christian. Now there is not a single Christian in the whole three volumes, excepting perhaps an unhappy Welsh dissenter who has gone mad under the impression that he has committed the unpardonable sin. Of gipsies, however, we have no lack; and the clearest part of the book is that which concerns their various propensities. In fact, we have only been able to gather two distinct ideas out of the strange incoherent mass we are offered; the first is the best mode of mending pots and pans-that he really does make plain to the slowest comprehension;-and the second is how most grossly and wantonly to malign the different branches of CHRIST'S Church, which he does partly in the person of certain socalled priests, English and Roman, whom he takes care to inform us repeatedly are in reality unbelievers and scoffers.

We pardon the author's gipsy propensities, and do not quarrel with his incapacity to appreciate Catholic truth-we should not expect it from such a quarter. But what we do complain of is, that in order to bring discredit upon holy things, besides the infidel clergy before alluded to, he has introduced post-boys and other low characters to give a kind of epigrammatic utterance to his own corrupt imaginings in a garb which no educated writer dare adopt in his own person. And this is the agent of the Bible Society! But we suppose Mr. Borrow, like Lord John Russell, would shelter himself under the authority of the Bishop of London's charge.

The Pew Question: A case decided at Yeovil, in the Diocese of Bath and Wells, and County of Somerset. London: J. Masters.

LASTING honour be to Mr. George Hancock, the author of this pamphlet, and the individual, who, in his own person, carried through the emancipation of Yeovil Church from the tyranny of its pew-holding oligar chy. A worse case could hardly be conceived than this of Yeovil : "one individual owned thirteen pews, another eight, another seven, and so on." Further, a District Church had been recently erected; and many of the pews in the old Church were detained as the property of persons who were now otherwise provided for; and by them were either let, or locked up, as seemed them best. In July 1850, Mr. Hancock required of the churchwardens to be provided with a suitable seat or pew for his family without cost; at the same time giving them notice that in default of their complying with his request within four

teen days, he should commence proceedings against them in the ecclesiastical court. A vestry was called, the Bishop applied to for advice, and in three weeks' time Mr. Hancock was seated to his content. But the troubles of the churchwardens were not at an end. Another claimant appears in the person of a respectable yeoman. Of this gentleman the church wardens were not so much afraid as they had been of the attorney, and no notice was taken of the demand. The yeoman however knew what he was about. An appeal is made to the Bishop, who immediately orders the churchwardens, not only to seat the applicant, but to appropriate all the pews not actually used by the alleged owners to persons who might stand in need of them. The churchwardens now surrender at discretion, and give notice that they are prepared to act at once in obedience to the mandate; and in about the space of three months, the abomination of pew-ownership at Yeovil is entirely destroyed. The Vicar observes a dignified indifference throughout. Appended to the pamphlet is the "opinion" of Mr. Badeley, of the Temple, upon the law of the case. We trust that the example of Yeovil will speedily be followed by other pew-ridden parishes.

Ann Ash, or the Foundling, by the author of "Charlie Burton ;" "The Broken Arm," &c. (Parker,) ought to prove an excellent pattern to young women in her rank of life on the principle that no great moral progress can ever be made except a perfect example be presented for our imitation; but whether the character be fictitious, or taken from real life as the dedication would lead us to suppose, we cannot but think it somewhat too highly coloured, and beyond the probable, if not possible, virtues of a village girl. It is however a well told little tale.

DR. BEAVEN'S Elements of Natural Theology, lately published by Rivingtons, are what we might have expected from the author of the "Catechism on the Articles," which was noticed in our December number. Both works have the great excellencies of soundness and clearness. In the present, a large amount of matter is compressed into a small compass, and the reader easily put in possession of the main part of those "invisible things of GOD," which" are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." We are glad to find the eclectic principle (using the word, of course in its good sense) so thoroughly insisted on, not only in sketches of the history of Natural Theology, but as of itself supplying us with an independent argument respecting the existence and will of God. The main portion of the work is of course devoted to the statement and explanation of the argument from design. In the remarks made on this point, and those on providence, we observe that the author has adhered to what seems to us an error common to most who handle the subject of Natural Theology, viz. arguing as if man, instead of being a mere speck in the universe, a simple link in the chain of Divine handiwork, were the sole end and object for which all things are and were created. This line of argument ought surely to be much modified, or the conclusions drawn, if not incorrect, will at least be found fault with by the infidel as "not proven."

"The Devotional Library" has just been enriched by a reprint of READING'S Life of CHRIST. (Bell.) It is sound in doctrine and devotional in feeling, and though of course not to be compared with the corresponding work of Bishop Taylor as regards beauty of expression, it is more methodically composed, and contains a good deal of illustrative information gathered from Josephus and other writers of the period.

The Rev. G. J. HILL'S Cottage Tracts, published by Ridler, of Bristol, is another useful local series. The language is very plain; and the doctrine put carefully in the form that is least likely to give offence to ignorant persons. It is with this view, we presume, that Mr. Hill continually speaks of the Holy Sacrament as "the LORD's Supper," an expression which to our mind is calculated to lead to some misapprehension.

Pamphlets on the state and prospects of the Church still multiply upon us beyond the possibility of separate notice. Already were we in arrear with the Hon. COLIN LINDSAY's Letter to the Duke of Manchester, (Masters,) and another Voice from the North. And now we have a bulky Plea for Toleration, by Mr. HARPER, (Ollivier,) containing a large array of facts which his own unwillingness any longer to tolerate arbitrary episcopal rule by no means absolves the Bishop of London from considering; Down with the Tractarians and Protestant Peculiarities elicited by Papal Aggression, emanating, we presume, from the same source; Mr. NEWLAND'S Increase of Romanism, (Masters ;) three several series of "D. C. L.'s" admirable letters reprinted from the Morning Chronicle, (Ridgway;) The Embarrassment of the Clergy, from the Morning Post, (Bosworth ;) Historical and Practical Remarks on the Papal Aggression, (Rivingtons ;) &c. &c. Five Sermons for Troublesome Times, (Rivingtons), by the Rev. HERBERT RANDOLPH, are bold, earnest, and faithful. The same may be said of Mr. J. M. GRESLEY'S Plain Sermons on present Events. (Masters.) Mr. STEPHENS has rightly named his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, (Batty,) "popular." It is so in the worst sense, as stereotyping popular prejudices. The author is in the main sound; but he views everything in a controversial aspect.

Mr. E. A. FREEMAN'S Essay on the Origin and Development of Window Tracery in England, with nearly 400 Engravings, (J. H. Parker,) can only just be mentioned in this place. It is a work which should be studied by every professional architect.

Mr. NEALE has published, as an Appendix to his valuable History, A List of all the Sees in the Holy Eastern Church, with the Names of the Possessors as they existed in 1848, translated from the Original Russ, with Notes. (Masters.)

CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND LIBERAL PRINCIPLES.

An Apology for the High Church Movement on liberal principles. In a Letter to John Williams, Esq. M.P. for Macclesfield. By the REV. ROBERT OWEN, Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. Parker: Oxford and London.

It is curious to mark, how in many things the world aims at the same apparent object as the Church, the difference being in their means of reaching it. Thus, it has been a dream of philosophers that the progress of civilization and enlightenment is to root out not only the outward vestiges of barbaric passions, but to infuse also an inward amelioration of man's nature; so that in course of time all harsh and discordant sounds are to cease in one eternal harmony. And is not this the mission likewise of the Church? she too, by her Divine ordinances seeks man's renewal and good; and by the Catholicity of her truths discord is to be hushed. Thus the same result would seem to be aimed at by these two different systems; but that neither have yet attained their full effect is owing to causes equally different. If the Church has failed, it has been, not, because she is insufficient of herself to the task, but because she has too often been wanting to herself. And that philosophic systems have failed, is because their theories have turned out both wrong and insufficient in themselves. Wanting in Catholicity, they could not secure unity, even where they have been accepted. Inward amelioration they have been unequal to produce, because they at once ignored the only power equal to that task, as being superior to man's heart. And as to outward improvement of any real kind, events have been indicative that their effect here has been but shallow and partial. And again, what are all their notions and general objects but, in fact, corrupt images of what the Church not only can, but does produce wherever her influence is truly felt? Thus universalism is but a weak and undefined attempt to create what Catholicity possesses: Peace, and unity founded upon negation, a heartless and ever unattainable end, which Christianity and the Church not only command as a first precept, but can alone effect by the positive rule of "one LORD, one faith, one baptism, one GOD and FATHER of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all."

And now, to take the question socially and politically. Where do those terms, the watchwords of the most liberal party, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, find their most perfect realization, but in the legitimate workings of that Church, which gives freedom on its truest basis, by teaching submission not to arbitrary or individual will, but to law, divine, eternal, and independent of man's choice; VOL. XI.-MAY, 1851.

P P

and the only real equality, by admitting her children all to equal hopes and equal blessings and equal inheritance; and fraternity, the closest and most loving, for it consists, not only in the practical exercise of the rule of love "one towards another," but in a membership of one glorified body, as well as being children of one common Father; where "high and low, rich and poor,' are taught to join together, the recipients of the same laws and the same privileges? This is the Church's system and end; and if not obstructed by man, her power is equal to the great work. On the other hand, let us see the effect of the so-called liberal system, which looks upon everything positive as intolerant, and so dooms Church authority by the same sentence. In spite of enlightenment, this boasted era, the nineteenth century, has shown itself as full of perverse passions as any of its predecessors. Whatever of love or peace the world may believe in, is chiefly indifferentism to any definite truth whatever; or if a truth be embraced, it is the fruit of self-will alone, and therefore, naturally and necessarily intolerant to all who may differ from it. What wonder then, if under the guise of liberal principles, we see persecution walk the stage?

But let us come to facts. Lord Ashley and his party are to be heard uttering warnings of how liberty of conscience is endangered; and entering into solemn league for the suppression of all who differ from them. The point of their cry is; that enlightened toleration and freedom of mind are exposed to destruction by the encroaching attitude of Church powers, whether as seen in the recent act of Rome, or still more, in the existence of Church principles within the pale of our own communion: since, to use archiepiscopal language in answer to their address; "it is certain, that the principles which have been loudly maintained and zealously propagated under the equivocal title of Church principles have a tendency to lead those who embrace them to reconciliation with the Church of Rome, as the Church, in which those principles are most perfectly carried out and established." And we learn from the address, to which this was in answer, the particular points that appear so threatening. It is not Romish corruption, so much as Rome in her influence over the mind. What is called spiritual thraldom we find both here and in the speeches on the question in Parliament, to be the chief object of dread. But the address goes on with still greater cogency of expression to identify Church principles in our own pale, "as being opposed to the truth of CHRIST's gospel, and as threatening to bring our people under the iron yoke of priestly despotism." These last words contain the secret of the fear. Priestcraft, in its worst sense, is made identical with Church influence; hence, the doctrine of the priesthood must fall, or else liberty of conscience, toleration, and private judgment are in danger. But the Church involves the doctrine of a priesthood; therefore, where the Church advances, freedom must retrograde. And to judge from