and believing for himself,-such is the great maxim which Bayle enforces in all his works, beginning with the “Pensées sur les Comètes," and ending with the "Dictionnaire Philosophique." It would seem almost common-place for a writer in the nineteenth century, even to state the axiom of liberty of conscience to the exclusion of everything else; but when Bayle wrote, this axiom was far from being acknowledged even by the Protestant Churches. Witness the literary warfare which the celebrated Jurieu carried on with such indefatigable earnestness against the Rotterdam lecturer. Bossuet and other Roman Catholic divines, who were spectators of this feud, could not with very good grace set up their usual cry for the unity of the Church, considering the open schism produced by the quarrels between the Jansenists and the Jesuits; yet they did so; and, what is still more, they succeeded in convincing some people, that because all the severity of the laws passed by an absolute monarch was brought to bear upon any person mad enough to speak out his own mind, therefore it was nothing in France but "Peace! Peace!" La Bruyère was nearer the truth when he said: Qu'un homme né Chrétien et Francais est embarrassé pour écrire, les grands sujets lui étant interdits.”

66

Bayle's ideas of tolerance were very much akin to religious latitudinarianism; Jurieu's views of church discipline may almost be said to have been inquisitorial. We are not more inclined than M. Sayous to sympathise entirely with either of the two antagonists. His character of the latter is worth reading; we select a few passages from it :

66

"Jurieu was a man of no mean intellect; his extensive learning, his wit, which was wanting neither in power nor in point, would have secured to him a reputation as lasting as his own is now compromised, if he had written nothing but works such as the "Traité de la Dévotion," and especially his Histoire des Dogmes," the most esteemed of all his publications. But his pride, hurt by the unexpected rivalry of Bayle, embittered him; helped on by spleen, and by a fluency of writing which was proof against fatigue, he overstepped every limit. Once possessed by the mania of disputing, he spent his time in picking quarrels with any one who ventured to come across his way; as if for the purpose of compelling his adversaries to fight, he used to provoke them by the most irritating critiques. His violence with Bossuet is well known. Readers are less aware that in the course of the discussions respecting Quietism, he attempted to play the part of umpire by taking up the cudgels against both parties at the same time. Whilst attacking Arnauld and the Jansenists he made use of the most offensive personal satire. . . . Jurieu's theological controversies are not free from pro

fane associations and from flights of eccentricity which are worse than shocking . . . we must, however, beware of seeing in him a being naturally disposed to do harm, and whose faults cannot be excused. When he had not lost his temper, he was a courageous man, devoted to the victims of persecution, and who spent all the influence he enjoyed with William of Orange in procuring to the French refugees situations and employment. In his theological disputes, we cannot accuse him of lacking penetration; ever ready with sallies of sterling wit, he was not quite so much of a visionary as Bayle would make us believe; but he never kept within the bounds of moderation, and by his want of tact he always spoiled the best causes which he interfered with."—Vol. II., pp. 334-337.

Amongst the Huguenot refugees who found in Holland peace and liberty, we must not forget the distinguished band of pulpit orators, whom the names of Bourdaloue, Bossuet and Massillon did not succeed in casting into the shade. The sketches which M. Sayous gives of Claude, Superville, and Saurin, are extremely valuable as contributions to the history both of French Protestantism and of French literature; and his chapter on the Basnage family is full of interesting details which were hitherto not generally known. We shall quote the portrait of Saurin :

"Like Bossuet, Saurin had some of the elevation, the proud boldness of the eagle. On the whole we find between those two model minds striking analogies and great contrasts. The Protestant has all the strong parts which the Catholic prelate boasts of; he is deficient, on the other hand, in gracefulness and calm majesty. His glance is searching and comprehensive; . . his eye has not the nice penetration, nor his hand the delicacy, which scans all the springs of conscience; but amidst terrors and ruins his imagination recovers all its powers; repose is hateful to it, and it is not acquainted with calm.

"Cardinal Maury has remarked that Saurin is seldom a great writer. I must add, that as a writer he would always be first-rate, were it not for the impatience and exuberance of expression which does not allow him to compress his ideas or to reduce his impetuous and fluent periods to those proportions which produce majesty and the eloquence of expression. He is apt also to overlook careless writing, antiquated words, in short the awkward appearance of what has been called the "style réfugié;" according to Maury's observation, he was deficient in that which Paris society would have given him. But these defects do not quench the fire of his vehement eloquence. He lacks not so much elegance and taste as that onction, that indescribable quality, which may fail in appealing to the mind, but which enchains the heart, and is like the charm of the pastoral authority. By way of compensation, Saurin, as a writer, is full of touches, hit off with the most admirable skill.

His forcible expressions often take us by surprise; and he attacks and overcomes us before we have anticipated his intentions. No sacred orator has more of those unforeseen expressions, and no one can produce any such without being really a superior writer." Vol. II., pp. 108, 111.

In a survey of the literary men who, during the seventeenth century, wrote in French out of France, it was impossible to forget Leibnitz. M. Sayous has not only examined the style of that illustrious philosopher, and proved that it often bears the comparison with that of the great writers who have immortalized the age of Louis XIV., but he also gives an account of the well-known correspondence which Leibnitz carried on with Bossuet and Pellison on the often-discussed question of a reconciliation between the Protestant and the Catholic churches; and passing on to the Théodicée and to the other compositions which have placed the name of Leibnitz so high on the list of modern metaphysicians, he makes us admire in the writer an accurate logician and a deep thinker, as well as an accomplished artist. We must not, at the same time, conceal the fact that if we wish for a guide to true religion there are many safer manuals than the Théodicée. To quote once more from M. Sayous:

6

"If piety was a result of the intellect, nothing would be wanting in the Théodicée. Leibnitz proves to our mind that God is, that he is just, good, and that he deserves all our love; no doubt, by so doing he opens a way for holiness to penetrate to our hearts, and prepare us for the reception of heaven-born truths; but Leibnitz can do no more. The light which he seeks, and which he thinks he has found, may be sufficient for him; it has not warmth enough to produce piety. I began meditating,' says he, when I was still very young; I was not fifteen years old when I used to walk for days together in a wood, endeavouring to make a choice between Aristotle and Democritus; since that time I have changed my opinions over and over again with the hope of finding new light, and it was only twelve years ago that I found myself satisfied, and that I discovered the demonstration of subjects which till then had not appeared to me susceptible of proof.' Such are not the heavings, the anxieties of a soul which is seeking to know itself; such is not the joy of a soul which has discovered the truth. We find nothing there of those elements which make up an Augustine or a Pascal.”—Vol. II., pp. 204, 205.

We cannot but hope that the extracts we have given from the volumes before us may lead our readers to a careful perusal of the "Etudes Littéraires" and of the "Littérature Française à l'Etranger." We should have been glad to find space for a more complete notice of the last-named

work; but this is impossible; and in our hasty survey we have been compelled to leave absolutely untouched the chapters which M. Sayous has devoted to St. Réal, St. Evremont and Hamilton. Enough, however, has been said, we hope, to make it quite evident that for depth of learning, soundness of taste, and general accuracy, M. Sayous deserves a prominent place on the catalogue of contemporary writers. In concluding this very imperfect paper we recommend to our friends' attention the unusual activity recently manifesting itself amongst French Protestant littérateurs. Besides the author of the "Etudes," several distinguished writers have taken the field against the renewed agitation of the Jesuit party. We had occasion lately to examine in the pages of this review an important work of M. Bartholmess. M. Weiss's "History of the Refugees" is already well known on this side of the Channel; M. Peyrat's " Pastors of the Wilderness" has likewise been translated; re-impressions of standard Calvinist divines are daily advertised in the columns of the newspapers; and whilst those Benedictines of our age, the editors of " La France Protestanté," are raising a monument to the memory of our forefathers, the Société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme Français is constantly enriching our religious annals by the publication of new and interesting documents. We hail with unfeigned satisfaction this phasis in the history of the nineteenth century; so true is it, that stirring times always give birth to genius as well as virtue; like the lava which, flowing from the crater of the mountain, fertilizes the soil below.

ART. III.-1. Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer. Prepared by the Royal Commissioners for the Revision of the Liturgy in 1689. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. June 2, 1854.

2. A Revision of the Rubrics and Liturgy, with a view chiefly to the Abridgment of the Morning Service. By the Rev. JAMES HILDYARD, B.A., Rector of Ingoldsby, Lincolnshire. Groombridge. 1856.

3. Scriptural Revision of the Liturgy, a remedy for Anglical Assumption and Papal Aggression: a Letter to the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, M.P. By a Member of the Middle Temple. Groombridge. 1851.

4. The Synodicon. TO KAOOAIKON. The Catholic. An occasional periodical. March, 1854.

LITURGICAL REVISON.

317

5. Observations on a Petition for the Revision of the Liturgy, with the Report of the Discussion it caused in the House of Lords, 26th May, 1840. By the Rev. JOHN HULL, M.A., Vicar of Poulton-le-Fylde, and WILLIAM WINSTANLEY HULL, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, late Fellow of Brazenose College, Oxon. Third Edition. Seeley.

6. Moderate Revision of the Prayer Book on the Orthodox Principles of its Preface. By the Rev. C. H. DAVIS, M.A., Wadham College, Oxon. Jackson. 1853.

7. The Convocation's Problem solved: How to carry out the Church Services (Committees' Report), without altering the Prayer Book or its Rubrics. By the Rev. C. H. DAVIS. Seeley.

8. Revision of the Liturgy: a Lecture on the Establishment and History of the Book of Common Prayer, delivered at a Meeting of the Church Reform Association, Plymouth. By J. N. BENNETT, ESQ. Hall, Virtue and Co. 1851. 9. The Word of God compared with Man's Traditions: a Lecture on Liturgical Revision. By JOHN DAYMAN, M.A. Rector of Skelton, Cumberland, and formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxon. Houlston and Stoneman.

1854.

WAR makes sad havoc, not only of the lives of men but of the legislative measures of social reformers. The blossoms of parliamentary enactments which promised ripe fruit for the year 1854, were all nipped in the bud by the herald who proclaimed that Europe was no longer at peace. While the troops were landing at Malta, the House of Commons. were advising to be printed a copy of alterations in the Book of Common Prayer proposed by the Royal Commissioners of William III. Public opinion was evidently in favour of some modification of the Act of Uniformity of A.D. 1662. "You may take public opinion," it has been said, "to the well of truth, but you cannot make it drink." So the House of Commons may extract an original MS. from the quiet custody of Lambeth Palace, and order it to be printed; but it cannot insure its being read. The glare and glitter of marching regiments create an appetite for cheap war-books, instead of revised prayer-books. When the allied fleet was passing the Dardanelles, the galvanized skeleton of Convocation was engaged in recommending shorter forms of divine service, and additional prayers and thanksgivings suitable to the needs of the present times. But the gravamina refor