of worship, than the unmeaning ceremonials of the Romish demonolatry. In Spain, the two systems came fairly into opposition; and who is there who would not rather have lived under the splendid reign of the Moorish kings of Granada, than under their Gothic contemporaries, or in the later days of Ferdinand and Isabella, or of Charles the Fifth? At this present time, the very Turk is universally esteemed by travellers, the better man in comparison with the Frank or the Greek, -the more honourable in his dealings, and we were going to add, the better Christian. But the Turk must not be confounded with the nobler Mauritanian. The caliphs of Granada and of Bagdad were the patrons of literature and science; and had, the Saracen empire been but able to maintain itself in Spain, as the Turkish lords of Greece have been suffered to do at the other extremity of Europe, it is highly probable that the Spaniards would have been by this time far more advanced in civilization and in all the elements of social happiness. In that case, the Inquisition might never have kindled its flames, and the progress of the Reformation in the Peninsula would have had less to contend with.

There is no other satisfactory explanation which can be given, of the superiority of the Mahommedan superstition to the Romish, as ascertained by the infallible test given by our Lord," By their fruits ye shall know them,"-than that the former contained more of the substance of revealed truth mingled with its errors, than the latter. We may well believe indeed, that, had this not been the case, the Arabian imposture could never have displaced, to the extent which it did, the profession of Christianity. Not only shall we be led to this conclusion by considering the extinction of the corrupt churches as a judicial visitation; which in every instance, perhaps, we are warranted to believe was the case. But it would have been morally impossible, had the Christianity of that age been the truth as it is in Jesus, the living transcript of the New Testament doctrines, that it should have yielded to either the Koran or the sword of Mahommed. The bare fact, that it gave way before such a system, proves that it was not the genuine religion of the Bible. All our wonder, then, that the moslem should have exhibited more tolerance, more of the social virtues than the orthodox churchmen, may cease, when we trace their conduct respectively to their real principles. The corruption of the best things is proverbially the worst. If the lower classes of Papists in Ireland in our own day, were but Mahommedans, or Parsees, or Pagans of the same class as the Loo-choo islanders, we should hear of fewer outrages; they would be more sober, more manageable, and more within reach

of the moral means of extending the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. So far is Popery from being even second-best-the best thing next to Christianity.

The Koran must be compared with the Bible; and then, even infidels being the judges, we have nothing to fear. Let one single sentence be found in the New Testament authorizing or sanctioning persecution in any shape, intolerance of any kind; and then we may consent that the religion of Christ should bear all the opprobrium of all the Crusades, Inquisitions, autos da fe, massacres, and penal laws of every shade of enormity, down to the present time. But till churches or states can shew their commission or warrant to curse, fine, injure, or destroy any individual on account solely of his religious opinions, on the authority of the New Testament, they must answer for the policy they have adopted. Christ is not its author, nor hath God required it at their hands.

The history of intolerance is highly deserving of being familiarized to every Christian. On this account, we can cordially recommend the present work, as comprising a mass of interesting and valuable matter illustrative of the evils which have arisen from this fruitful source, and as forming, so far as it goes, a spirited epitome of ecclesiastical history. Mr. Clarke has not, however, as he might have done, traced the principle in its more specious and subtle modes of operation. There are other weapons of intolerance besides the axe, or the faggot, or the branding iron, and other ways of persecuting besides fine and imprisonment. There may be a partial, where there is very far from a total abandonment of the principle which is opposed to intolerance; that moral means alone are legitimate or allowable in the service of religion. We never study the subject aright, till we are led to look inward for the source of the mischief, and to detect the pope and the inquisitor in our own bosoms.

Some very shrewd and just remarks, and much curious matter occur in the section on schism, heresy, &c. It has often been urged by Roman Catholic writers, as an objection against Protestantism, that the Reformation has proved the fruitful mother of innumerable sects and schisms; and even some Protestant writers have been so far forgetful of history, as to lament that this evil should have arisen from that event. There cannot,' remarks our Author, be a more unlearned prejudice,

⚫ than that heresy is the special reproach of the times in which we live. If all the opinions held now on religious subjects by different parties, were collated and compared with those of any former age,

would not the result be honourable to the sound understanding of the present generation? In the first century, there are counted ten heretics or heresiarchs; in the second, thirty, a greater number than is to be found in any succeeding century. There are scarcely any of the early fathers of the church, who were not, in some part of their lives, implicated in heresy. This was notoriously the case with Tertullian, Origen (the Aristotle of the church), and Augustine himself. It was often determined by mere incidents, as uncertain as any game of chance, who should be pronounced a heretic, and who not. Athanasius was condemned by six councils as a heretic. Of these, the one held at Milan consisted of 300 bishops, and the one at Arminum of 550. This consent of such a prodigious number of the clergy against the champion of Nice, gave rise to that saying, "Athanasius against all the world, and all the world against Athanasius."' pp. 419, 20.

The number of schisms in the Church prior to the Reforma tion, is not less remarkable. Bellarmine confesses twenty-six, and another Romish writer reckons thirty. And if the nature of these heresies and schisms be compared with that of the divisions with which Protestantism is chargeable, it will be found, that the disagreements of Papists have been, to say the least, quite as wide as any which have subdivided the reformed churches. The external uniformity of the Church is, we presume, not more apparently disturbed by the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Moravians, Quakers, Independents, and Baptists of our own day, than it was by Arian and Nicene councils, by rival Popes, by the filioque schism, by the disputes between the Molinists and Jansenists, and by the several monkish factions which were often at bitter variance with each other. At no period has unity been the character of the Romish church; and it is only by her arrogant exclusion of the Greek, the African, and the Asiatic churches from an equal title to the name of the true Church, that the semblance of uniformity can be pretended to attach to the body catholic. This is a point which, in our controversy with the Romanists, ought not to be lost sight of, as an argumentum ad hominem. But what are heresy and schism?

The word heresy, observes Mr. Clarke, is often used to denote a class or party, without being designed to convey any idea of right or wrong, goodness or badness, in the persons composing it. This is evi-' dently the case where we read, in Josephus and the Evangelists, of the sect or heresy of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. The Apostle Paul, too, has used the word in such a way as puts it beyond doubt that he did not connect with it infamy, or what has since been. called heretical pravity; for he mentions it as a circumstance honourable to bis character, that, in his youth, after the strictest scct, or heresy, of his religion, he lived a pharisee. It is not to be denied, however,

1

that this word in the plural number occurs several times in the New Testament in a bad sense; for instance, heresies are ranked among the works of the flesh; and it is foretold that false teachers, denying the Lord that bought them, should bring in heresies of destruction.

The words schism and heresy, when used in a bad sense, denote evils nearly allied to each other. We have an apposite example in the 11th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians: "For, first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions (schisms) among you; and I partly believe it; for there must be also heresies among you." The following note on this passage contains sentiments too just and pertinent to be omitted.

"It is plain that by schisms is not meant any separation from the church, but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one church, and notwithstanding all their strife and contention, there was no separation of one part from the rest, with regard to external communion. And it is in the same sense that the word used, ch. i. 10. and xii. 25, which are the only places in the New Testament besides this, where church schisms are mentioned. Therefore, the indulging any temper contrary to this tender care of each other, is the true scriptural schism. This is therefore a quite differing thing from that, orderly separation from corrupt churches, which later ages have stigmatised as schism, and have made a pretence for the vilest cruelties, oppressions, and murders that have troubled the Christian world. Both heresies and schisms are here mentioned in very near the same sense : unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosities which occasioned heresies, that is, outward divisions and parties: so that whilst one said, I am of Apollos, this implied both schism and heresy. So wonderfully have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism from their scriptural meaning. Heresy is not, in all the Bible, taken for “an error in fundamentals," or in any thing else; nor schism, for any separation made from the outward communion of others. Therefore, both heresy and schism, in the modern use of the words, are sins that the Scripture knows nothing of; but were invented merely to deprive mankind of the benefit of private judgement and liberty of conscience." Mr. J. Wesley's" Explanatory notes" on 1 Cor. xi. 18. pp. 386-388.

The improper conventional acceptation of these words, has now become, however, too deeply rooted in the minds of men, to admit of their ever being understood in their simple and Scriptural sense. And assuredly, there is such a thing as heresy in the ecclesiastical sense of corrupt doctrine. But then, it must be remembered, that a national church may be as properly charged with heresy in this acceptation of the word, if holding a corrupt faith, as the most insignificant sect. The abettors of Baptismal Regeneration are not less really heretics than Roman Catholics or Socinians. This being the case, it may be as convenient to lay aside the use of a word which, it will be seen, cuts so many ways at once, which is

Y

never used but to convey opprobrium, and has much more generally been applied to designate real Christians, than the enemies of Christ. As to schism, there is too much of it in every community: it is apt to spring up at every parish vestry, as well as in Dissenting church-meetings. As it consists, however, not in dissent, but in dissention, prudence and a conciliatory spirit are the only preventives of the evil, and separation, where these fail, is the only cure. Where associated Christians can agree to differ, there is an end of schism; and when separate bodies, holding the fundamental articles of the Christian doctrine, shall agree mutually to recognise their common relation to the one church of the one Lord, there will be an end of heresy.

Upon the whole, Mr. Clarke's work is well adapted to promote just views of the subject of religious liberty, and as he has compressed a great deal of important historical information into the volumes, it may serve the purpose of a church history for young persons, better than some more elaborate but exceptionable works. He might have made it much more valuable, by giving more history and less disquisition, by using more research, and always citing his authorities.

Art. VII. Memoirs of the Life and Character of the late Rev. James Hervey, A.M. By the Rev. John Brown. Third Edition. 8vo. pp. 543. London. 1822.

THE name of Hervey is not likely speedily to lose its attraction, though the works of that excellent man have outlived somewhat of the admiration which was lavished on them by the undiscriminating criticism of former times. With much activity of imagination, he had not the slightest originality of mind or severity of taste. His meditations and contemplations, with some occasional beauty, and a prevailing character of pious feeling, will always be acceptable and useful to young readers, but have long since failen from the station which was once assigned to them in English literature. We cannot say that our acquaintance with the theological writings of Hervey is either recent or minute; it is long since we read any portion of his Theron and Aspasio, and our recollections of that work extend little beyond its general character, which then appeared to us of mixed merit. By some it has been extravagantly estimated, while by others it has been as much depreciated; and we are not willing to undertake the task of qualifying ourselves to hold the balance. Mr. Brown has displayed much ability in stating the doctrines advocated by Hervey, and in describing the controversies to which his publications gave rise. Mr. B.