of the earth and other planets; prescribes to some an eccentric orbit, extending, probably, into other systems; causes satellites to attend upon and revolveround their primary planets; and not only this, but by a kind of conservative energy empowers them to prevent any dislocations in the vast machine; and any destructive aberrations arising from the actions of these mighty orbs upon each other. If we consider further what God effects both upon and within every individual sphere and system, throughout the whole universe, by the constant action of those viceregal powers, if I may so call them, that rule under him, whatever name we give them; I say, if we duly consider what these powers actually effect, it will require no great stretch of faith to believe that they may be the inter-agents by which the Deity acts upon animal organizations and structures to produce all their varied instincts.-Vol. II. pp. 242, 243.

And again :

What if the heavens in action, which under God govern the universe; what, if these powers-employed as they are by the Deity so universally to effect his Almighty will in the upholding of the worlds in their stated motions, and preventing their aberrations,-should also be the intermediate agents, which by their action on plants and animals produce every physical development and instinctive operation, unless where God himself decrees a departure that circumstances may render necessary from any law that he has established ?— Vol. II. pp. 244, 245.

Our learned historian has evinced no common talents, no ordinary share of ingenuity, in his elaborate discussions upon this intricate question. We have given merely the result of his argument, having no space for the several steps by which he arrives at his conclusion. The hypothesis is original, and better, perhaps, than other theories which have been adopted on this mysterious topic, and has a fair claim to consideration, though we much doubt whether it be capable of solving all the cases that belong to this interesting subject. Our author appears to be conscious of this fact, and would, therefore, explain the phenomena which might seem repugnant to his scheme, by reminding us that instinct is in some sort mixed with intellect; and that the Deity sometimes dispenses with the general law of instinct, or permits it occasionally to be interfered with by the will of the animal, or other agency, or even suspends its action, as in the instance of the two milch kine, who conducted the ark of the Lord to Beth-shemesh.* There would appear to be one considerable advantage resulting from the adoption of Mr. Kirby's hypothesis, viz. that it relieves us from the necessity of endeavouring to define the exact limits which separate instincts from reason, as if the possession of the one were incompatible with that of the other; whereas they are propensities superadded to reason, or "mixed" with the faculties intellectual. At all events, whatever may become of this question, there is one opinion in which we must all concur; viz. that "both man and beast are so fearfully and wonderfully made,' as to manifest that they are the work of a wise, a designing, an almighty, and beneficent mind!"

To this pious and delightful conclusion our excellent author makes 1 Sam. vi. 11, 12. + Wallace on Brougham, p. 23.

the whole of his able treatise every where subservient. It is the topic in which he seems most to rejoice; to which he perpetually recurs with increasing devotion; and which, like the master air of some sacred voluntary, or the chorus of some holy song, reminds us, ever and anon, between the details of his work, of the harmonizing unity of his one theme, the power, the goodness, and the wisdom of God, as "manifested in the creation of animals, and in their history, habits, and instincts."

In our ascent from the most minute and least animated parts of that Kingdom to man himself, we have seen in every department that nothing was left to chance, or the rule of circumstances, but every thing was adapted by its structure and organization for the situation in which it was to be placed, and the functions it was to discharge; that though every being, or group of beings, had separate interests and wants, all were made to subserve to a common purpose, and to promote a common object. Well, then, may all finally exclaim, in the words of the Divine Psalmist :- " O Lord, how manifold are thy works, in WISDOM hast thou made them all!"—Vol. II. pp. 526, 527.

us.

Thus we take our leave of the learned and laborious author before It is impossible to read his pages without admiration. They reflect equal credit upon their author, and upon the judicious individuals who appointed the Rector of Barham to execute this useful work. Amongst the series of Bridgewater Treatises, Mr. Kirby's volumes will secure a conspicuous place. The plates are good and numerous. The notes display great and diversified reading; nor must we forget the peculiar care and accuracy of the index.

If natural theology, in common with other sciences, bestow upon the student the pleasures of contemplation, these pleasures have been augmented by the happy labours of Mr. Kirby. If natural theology be associated with a peculiar improvement arising from the nature of the truths with which she is conversant, to that improvement Mr. Kirby has largely contributed. If natural theology soar far above all other sciences from the sublimer nature of its objects, rising from the creature to the Creator, her superiority has been maintained with singular felicity by Mr. Kirby. If natural theology subserve the cause of revelation, this connexion between the works and the word of God, is carefully illustrated by Mr. Kirby. If, lastly, natural theology should help her disciples to see, wherever they tread the paths of scientific inquiry, new traces of Divine intelligence and power springing up around their footsteps, this sanctifying influence is discernible in every part of Mr. Kirby's volumes, whose piety can be equalled only by his learning; and whilst they reflect a magnifying ray upon each other, so that, in our author's instance, the scholar is completed in the Christian, the one point to which his talents dedicate their undivided potency, may be summed up in three words

Τῷ Θεῷ Δόξα.

ART. II.-The Church's self-regulating Privilege, a National Safeguard in respect of real Church Reform; or, Reasons for reviving Convocations, or restoring Provincial and Diocesan Synods. By JOHN KEMPTHORNE, B. D. Rector of St. Michael's, Gloucester. London Hatchard & Son. Gloucester: Jew. 1835. 8vo. Pp. xvi. 203.

Ir Mr. Kempthorne's work were not as excellent as it is, he would still have done good service to the cause of truth, of religion, and of the Church. No subject, in the present state of political and ecclesiastical matters, requires to be more thoroughly understood, and more decidedly brought into public view, than the CONVOCATION; yet on none does a greater want of information prevail, even among Churchmen themselves. The Convocation has been so long suppressed for all useful purposes, that the few who are aware of its existence know little of its nature or its history. The former can only be learned from the study of our general ecclesiastical polity, or from those voluminous writings from which we derive our acquaintance with the latter. The latter, stored in the controversial treatises of Wake, of Atterbury, of Hody, has little attraction for an age indifferent to the subject, and averse from a laborious and profound acquirement of any thing. The treatises themselves are, in consequence, become scarce, and even those who are desirous of information on the subject have little opportunity of realizing their wishes. Mr. Kempthorne, in a slender octavo, has courted the impatience of modern literary taste, while he has crowded into his narrow limits a surprising quantity of valuable matter; he has, moreover, brought his arguments to bear with well directed energy against popular objections, and upon popular discussions: his work is intrinsically excellent, full of sterling remark and valuable suggestion; and it has what may be called extrinsic excellence also,-it gives the reader a curiosity relative to its subject, and directs him to sources where he may assuage his thirst; it opens the whole question, where it does not discuss it, and thus bids fair to call the attention of Churchmen, especially of Clergymen, to the point; which is all, in our opinion, that is necessary, in order to produce, after a very short interval, that general demand on the part of the Church (laymen as well as Clergymen) for the restitution of her right, which, we are satisfied, never will, never can,-be resisted.

We should be almost ashamed to offer to our readers any sketch of the nature or history of the English Convocation, did we not often encounter, in quarters where ignorance of any kind might be least expected, an extraordinary absence of information on this subject. We trust, in doing so, our conduct will be taken in good part by those whose information is superior to our own, for the sake of such as need to be informed on a subject always important, but now emphatically so.

Many well-intentioned persons frequently ask, Why does not the Church do this or that? Why does not the Church remove her own abuses? Why does not the Church alter this or that prayer? Why was it that the Church did not make better provision for her children during the last century, thus leaving so much important ground for dissenters to occupy ? Questions of this kind we almost daily hearand they are very often not answered at all, or answered falsely, by the sincerest friends of the Church. "Yes," it is said, 66 we cannot but allow that the Church has been too remiss-it is the fault of the Church that so and so has not been done." Meanwhile, querist and respondent have never settled their own notion of the Church, and would be much astonished to find (what is nevertheless the case) that neither had any notion at all upon the subject. Yet the Church cannot be an abstraction. Volition and agency, choice and rejection, cannot be predicated of an unsubstantiality. Who then are the representatives of the abstraction? Who are the concretion of the idea? Press the question hard, and you may probably extract, "the Bishops." Yet the most superficial answerer might, in a moment, see the incorrectness of such a reply. The Bishops have no power, properly speaking, over the affairs of the Church. All they can do is to exercise what means the law allows of punishing scandals in their own individual dioceses-and the Archbishops have an appellate jurisdiction. But further than this, and the influence of an individual peer in the House of Lords, no Bishop has any power in the concerns of the Church at large. But how is this, says our inquirer? Has the Church absolutely no power in her collective capacity? Can the Church do nothing of herself?

The reply to this question is, in brief, a history of the CONVOCATION. The Church has power in her collective capacity, just as the three estates of the realm have power in theirs. But then, if the King should exert his prerogative to prorogue sine die every parliament he called, on the first day of meeting, and before any business had been transacted; if he should have invariably acted on this principle for a century; then, we suppose, the state could scarcely be chargeable with the abuses which had overrun the country in the interim. If you appoint a gardener, and then lock him up in your tool-house, you must not complain that flowers droop, or that weeds multiply, and least of all must you upbraid him with the result. Now this is exactly the position of our Church. The constitution has given her a parliament, which is fully competent to all ecclesiastical ends, and which ALONE is competent. The Bishops in the upper house, the Archdeacons, Deans, and two representatives of the Clergy from each diocese in the lower, constitute the Convocation, the only legitimate and constitutional body by which the internal affairs of the Church can be directed. They meet with every meeting of parliament; and their meeting, formerly, was for the despatch

of business; and all the business of the Church was directed by them exclusively until the year 1717, when they had prepared a censure against a work of Dr. Hoadly; who, being a court favourite, had interest enough with the minister of George I. to procure a most unconstitutional and unwarrantable exercise of the prerogative—that of an indefinite adjournment of Convocation. Since that time they have never been permitted to do more than meet; although this privilege is any thing in effect but unimportant; because it is a distinct admission on the part of the crown that the rights of Convocation are not abrogated, but only suspended; their power is not annulled, but restricted; and all that is necessary to restore the right is the simple omission of the suspension on the next occasion. Nevertheless the practice is most tyrannical, and most injurious. In using this strong language, we would not be misunderstood: we speak of the act in the abstract, without the excuses which succeeding sovereigns may plead for its continuance. Excuses, however, they are, not justifications. For George II. not even an excuse can be pleaded. But when, in the time of his truly pious and excellent successor, there existed, throughout the nation, a strong universal feeling in favour of the Church; when there was prevalent, among timid Churchmen, the desire, as they called it, of "letting well alone;" when this sentiment had worked its way into high places, where it still lingers; no wonder it found shelter beneath a crown. To "let well alone," though homely wisdom, we hold to be sound wisdom; but the error was, that it was evil, and not well, that was let alone. There was, it was true, a strong feeling in favour of the Church:-but, in too many instances, it was a prejudice; and though a prejudice on the right side is far better than one on the wrong, it is a prejudice still; and, as it was taken up without reason, may be as unreasonably parted with. The Convocation would, certainly, have brought the merits of the Church question fairly before the people: it might have made a few prejudiced Dissenters out of a few prejudiced Churchmen; but it would have produced a nation of reflecting Churchmen, attached to the Church by enlightened principle, a living bulwark against all the fiercest assaults of disaffection. The insensibly increasing evil of the want of churchroom, which has now reached so alarming a height, and which has driven thousands of Churchmen into the abyss of schism,—could the progress of this mischief have eluded the vigilance of a Convocation?-Would it not naturally have forced itself upon the attention of that body through the Archdeacons and town Clergy?— Must it not have been taken up ?-Would not the public then have felt an ardent interest in it?-Could the legislature have passed it unnoticed? Can there be any doubt what a Christian House of Commons (which we then had) would have done?-Can the evil be calculated which might then have been prevented? It is to be feared that this