was a strong and uniform expression of displeasure and indignation on the part of the Greeks, at the impudence of the Calvinists in imputing to them errors which they had incessantly viewed with horror and alarm. In no single instance, as appears from the documents, which they give in the most authentic form, do they favour the doctrines of the pretended reformers."

In treating the subject of purgatory, the learned Doctor assumes a more playful style, and relaxes from the sternness of the polemic into occasional jocularity. After shewing that the limbus patrum, or a middle state of souls, perfectly distinct from heaven or hell, must be alluded to in the text, "He went and preached to the spirits in prison," and in that article of the Creed" He descended into hell," he humourously remarks:

"It is hence apparent that the catechist and his friends bear some resemblance to Moliere's rustic gentleman, who had been talking prose all his life without knowing what was meant by the term; and these good souls, God help them! have been in the habit of admiring St. Peter's epistle, and of reciting the creed, without considering that the doctrine of a middle state is there clearly expressed."

He subsequently remarks, that between those who die in spotless innocence, and those who expire in obdurate enormous guilt, there must exist a third class, who having true" faith, working by charity in Jesus Christ," are still guilty of minor and more venial transgressions. These he argues may be hurried out of the world by sudden death, without even time to breathe a prayer for mercy: and he triumphantly asks

"Will the God of all sanctity, who cannot endure iniquity, admit such persons instantly to his eternal kingdom, and place them with the first class of the faithful here described? That is utterly impossible, for we learn, that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.* Will the God of all justice discard them from his presence for ever, and place them with the sinner and unbeliever? That is incompatible with the justice of him who will render to every man according to his works. What then remains to be done with respect to these good though imperfect individuals, but to confine them to the prison of purgatory, till their stains are washed away, and they are prepared for a purer abode?"

He afterwards adds:

"The catechist has really my warmest and most friendly wishes; and I beg leave to repeat to him, what a venerable and witty clergyman once said to his opponent on the same subject: I hope you may not go farther, and fare

worse.

*Rev. xxi. 27.

After discussing the other controverted points, he concludes with some brief remarks on reformation. He asserts that this word is totally misapplied when employed to designate the change of religion introduced by Luther and his followers. He argues, that its proper meaning is to repair and beautify, not to pull down and destroy. He proves that the Catholic church had at all times evinced her anxiety, and directed her efforts to promote true reformation; that in all her provincial, her national, and her general councils, her first object was to preserve the sacred deposit of faith unchanged and uninjured her second to enforce real reformation in manners, the correction of abuses, and the establishment or revival of salutary discipline. His description of the very different conduct pursued by the self-appointed and self-designated reformers is, unfortunately, but too correct.

"They withdrew themselves from that authority which Christ had established; they trampled upon the rights of the church; they introduced a heterogeneous mass of human opinions, which they called doctrine, and shewed as little disposition to maintain any agreement with each other, as with the church, which they had abandoned. The grand principle of Protestantism, which they introduced, of making every man the architect of his own faith, was perfectly well calculated to flatter the natural pride of the human heart, to destroy all subordination, and to perpetuate that scene of division and discord, by which the boasted reformation has ever been distinguished."

He afterwards briefly sketches the history of the reformation in England.

"The reformation, so called, was not the act of the church of England reforming itself; it was a daring attempt of the civil power to change the religion of the land for interested purposes, and to remove Christianity in its original form; under which this country had flourished for nine hundred years. The church was not an acting party in this most melancholy business: the work was achieved by laymen, and completed by legislative enactments. Henry VIII. it is well known, bécame captivated with the charms of a young damsel, whom he wished to make his wedded wife, while his aged consort was still living; and because the Sovereign Pontiff at that period refused to admit his fictitious plea to obtain a divorce, that wicked, violent, and despotic monarch rejected an authority, which he had before reverenced; and from which he had derived one of the brightest jewels in his crown. Under the reign of his juvenile successor, Somerset the protector, in order to promote his own interested views, and to satisfy the rapacity of his partizans, completed the destruction of the Catholic church in this kingdom. He held forth the plausible plea of reforming the church, that he might enrich himself with its abundant spoils. After the short reign of Mary, her sister Elizabeth, fearing that her crown and the pontifical authority could not easily be recon

ciled, and willing to pursue the plan of plundering the church with more security, threw herself into the arms of the reformers, in opposition to the most solemn assurances, accompanied with the most frightful imprecations, which she had before uttered, to calm the disquietude of her sovereign and sister. This is the simple, plain, undisguised, unvarnished history of the event; confirmed by the accounts both of Catholic and Protestant historians."

These extracts, lengthened as they have become, can convey only a faint idea of the mass of learning and triumphant reasoning with which this work abounds: they may, however, enable the reader to form some judgment of the powers of argument possessed by the reverend and learned author, and of the elegance and fluency of style by which his pen is distinguished.

Before we conclude our remarks on this able production, we cannot help expressing our opinion, that Dr. Coombes has cramped his energies, and adopted a less lucid arrangement by following the devious track, and stopping to demolish the gratuitous assertions of an obscure and anonymous tract-writer. The admixture of matter which this produces, of a mere local and temporary nature, forms an alloy at least to the sterling merit of the work; it also loads it with a superfluous weight, which, by decreasing its buoyancy, may prevent its sailing successfully down the stream of time. We think too, that it must be inefficient as to its intended object. The work on which he comments cannot extend to more than half a score pages, and in circulation must sink to the level of the lowest ranks of society; to direct a bulky volume of deep learning and research against such a production, is like levelling a train of heavy artillery against a mole-hill-the force employed is unnecessarily great, and the balls fly innoxious over the rubbish they are meant to demolish. We would recommend that in the second edition the two objects which he had in view be kept entirely distinct-that a short pithy refutation something in the style of the objectionable work itself, be separately printed, (and as there is a great dearth of able tracts calculated for circulation among the poor, such a production would be useful, not only at Shepton Mallet, but in every paat of the kingdom), and that the real Essence of Religious Controversy be given in a condensed form, entirely separated from all superfluous matter.

[THE following Extracts are taken from an article, entitled "The Present Administration," in the last number of The Edinburgh Review.]

"The friends of the Catholics have, indeed, too long kept out of sight the real difficulty which impedes the progress of all measures for their relief. There has been a nervous reluctance-perhaps a natural unwillingness, to approach this subject. Yet it is of the utmost importance that it should at last be fully understood. The difficulty, we believe, is neither with the King nor with the Cabinet-neither with the Commons nor with the Lords. It is with the People of England; and not with the corrupt, not with the servile, not with the rude and uneducated, not with the dissolute and turbulent, but with the great body of the middling orders;—of those who live in comfort, and have received some instruction. Of the higher classes, the decided majority is, beyond all dispute, with the Catholics. The lower classes care nothing at all about the question. It is among those whose influence is generally exerted for the most salutary purposes,-among those from whom liberal statesmen have, in general, received the strongest support,―among those who feel the deepest detestation of oppression and corruption, that erroneous opinions on this subject are most frequent. A faction with which they have no other feeling in common, has, on this question, repeatedly made them its tools, and has diverted their attention more than once from its own folly and profligacy, by raising the cry of No Popery. They have espoused their opinions, not from want of honesty, not from want of sense, but simply from want of information and reflection. They think as the most enlightened men in England thought seventy or eighty years ago. Pulteney and Pelham would no more have given political power to Papists than to ourang-outangs. A proposition for mitigating the severity of the penal laws would, in their time, have been received with suspicion. The full discussion which the subject has since undergone, has produced a great change. Among intelligent men in that rank of life from which our ministers and the members of our legislature are selected, the feeling in favour of concession is strong and general. But, unfortunately, sufficient attention has not been paid to a lower, but most influential and respectable class. The friends of the Catholic claims, content with numbering in their ranks all the most distinguished statesmen of two generations, proud of lists of minorities and majorities adorned by every name which commands the respect of the country, have not sufficiently exerted themselves to combat popular prejudices. Pamphlets against Emancipation are circulated, and no answers appear. Sermons are preached against it, and no pains are taken to obliterate the impression. The rector carries a petition round to every shopkeeper and every farmer in his parish, talks of Smithfield and the Inquisition, Bishop Bonner and Judge Jeffries. No person takes the trouble to canvass on the other side. At an election, the candidate who is favourable to the Catholic claims, is almost always content to stand on the defensive. He shrinks from the odium of a bold avowal. While his antagonist asserts and reviles, he palliates, evades, and distinguishes. He is unwilling to give a pledge: he has not made up his mind: he hopes that adequate securities for

the Church may be obtained: he will wait to see how the Catholic States of South America behave themselves! And thus, as fast as he can, he gets away from the obnoxious subject, to retrenchment, reform, or negro slavery. If such a man succeeds, his vote does not benefit the Catholics half so much as his shuffling injures them. How can the people understand the question, when those whose business it is to enlighten them, will not state it to them plainly? Is it strange that they should dislike a cause of which almost all its advocates seem to be ashamed? If, at the late election, all our public men who are favourable to Emancipation had dared to speak out, had introduced the subject of their own accord, and discussed it day after day, they might have lost a few votes; they might have been compelled to face a few dead cats; but they would have put down the prejudice effectually. Five or six friends of the claims might have been unseated, but the claims would have been carried."

:

With mingled feelings of delight and vexation we have perused the article from which the preceding extract is taken of delight, that a cause so sacred and so just should have enlisted so much talent and liberality in its service; of vexation, that the exertions of the Catholic body should be so little known, or so little appreciated. It is true that those exertions fall immeasurably short of what they ought to be, when considered with reference to the great object in view; it is true that Catholics have not sufficiently exerted themselves to combat popular prejudices, but it is not less certain, that the efforts now making, if steadily persevered in, are decidedly the best calculated to prepare the public mind for the favourable termination of our claims. We feel that our question is in the hands of the people of England; and that it is our first duty, as well as our interest, to disabuse them of ancient prejudices, and to put them fairly in possession of our tenets.

"A

As a proof that Catholics have not been idle, we have inserted in another part of this number an extract from a letter signed Lay Member of the Church of England," which lately appeared in the New Times, and which we believe has since run the gauntlet of most of the provincial Journals. If any thing were wanting to encourage the labours of Catholics, that stimulus is found in the confusion and alarm which their late activity has excited in the camp of the enemy. Whilst we allow our countrymen to continue in ignorance of our real principles, his triumph is secure; but teach them that the cause which they defend is unjust, as it is inglorious, and bigotry will be left to fight her battles deserted and alone.

There is one passage, however, in the letter alluded to, which we ought not to pass unnoticed. Speaking of Dr. Baines's Sermon, he says, "Another, and the least apparent trick of this publication