To sum up the whole, Mr. Harcourt's learning and deep reading cannot be denied; and if he had not attached himself to a particular system, both would have rendered his book a complete treasure. But we do not perceive how he has overthrown the chief objections of modern Geologians; nor do we see how this part of his title has been verified in his work. The mass of legends which he has collected, can, at the utmost, only prove the universality of the Deluge; but cannot, in any way, approach the arguments which have been drawn from fancied and "spadedeep" discoveries, against particulars recorded of the Cosmogony and of the Deluge. Something more than the Mythologicalsomething more than the Etymological-will be required for that purpose. Nor do we observe that any provision has been made against the allegation, that these universal notices of the event may, by colonists, have been transmitted from place to place. Viewing these volumes in this light, we cannot detect any close bearing in them on Geological points.

We ourselves believe, that memorials of the Deluge are scattered all over the earth; that the traditions of all nations contain a reference to that event; that allusions to it existed in the mysteries: but we do not believe that every tradition of every nation had such a relation, any more than we believe that every doctrine in the mysteries was so confined. From several works that have been written in this style on the subject, it would seem, that every Pagan idea of a Supreme Being was reducible to Noah, as a personage, and that every triad in every religious system exclusively pointed to his three sons. This we account an utter impossibility. There also appears to us to have been a great confusion between the Ark of Noah (n), and the Ark of the Covenant, (): for, even if the latter had been designed to have had a commemorative reference to the former, they were, in fact, exceedingly distinct; and of the latter, many of the Pagan ceremonies, which have been attributed to the former, were, plainly, most corrupt imitations.

In many of the points also, which seem to present the most striking analogies, no real historic data exist to prove that there existed any analogy at all: hence an uncertain and a most faulty Etymology, collecting words from all quarters of the globe without regard to any inherent connection which might have been in them, has been pressed into the service. For example, though the Latin Arca, doubtless, came from the Sanscrit Arg'ha, it will not follow because the Latin word has been applied to the ARK, as a certainty, that the Sanscrit word had any relation to it; though we have little hesitation in affirming, that the ap

plication of the Sanscrit term to a boat-shaped vessel, used in performing libations, would be accounted conclusive evidence by the favourers of this system. But ere any historic conclusion had been drawn, the absolute certainty of a philological connection between Arg'ha and the Ark, should have been demonstrated, and in defect of power to demonstrate it, the casual coincidence of sound should not have been brought into the argument, which coincidence, at best, is only between it and the Latin, not between it and the Hebrew, nor even the Greek. Were we to investigate all the instances of the same nature, much of the theory would be demolished; and were we to examine those which have a far less appearance of probability, the evidences which have been produced could be comprised in a far smaller compass.

In a Theological view, these volumes are very valuable: they prove the universal tradition of the Deluge, and very rightly represent it as a type of the Christian Sacrament of Baptism. The development of the doctrine of regeneration is one of the most able, sound, and splendid performances, that we have seen: it is sufficient to induce every one to be eager to possess the work. As we write honestly, and without partiality, whilst we have pointed out the parts which we conceive to be erroneous, we have felt a pleasure in drawing the attention of our readers to the meritorious portions with which these parts are intermixed; and in even justice to Mr. Harcourt, we have analyzed his researches into the primitive ideas on Baptism and Regeneration, and made copious extracts from them, that our readers may form a judgment of their own. With its faults, the work is a laborious and learned undertaking; but the merits preponderate over the etymological faults: and if Mr. Harcourt, bidding adieu to the Arkites and Helio-Arkites, will devote his abilities to critical elucidations of the Scriptures and of Scriptural Antiquities and History, few will be found having the ability to contend with him for superiority of talent.

But if it be deemed necessary to compare the biblical account of the Deluge with the mythological accounts of all nations, why cannot the facts with their historical vouchers be produced without the encumbrance of matter, which, if refuted, will become a hindrance?-Why cannot the legends be brought together, not as certainties, but as probabilities? These, discussed according to their respective value, would be useful n the highest degree; but when they are rendered ridiculous by appendages, which are inadmissible, it is to be feared, that the real value, concealed under the superincumbent lumber, will not carefully be sought.

33

ART. II.-A History of Popery; containing an account of the Origin, Growth, and Progress of the Papal Power; its political influence in the European States-system, and its effects on the Progress of Civilization. To which are added, an Examination of the Present State of the Romish Church in Ireland; a Brief History of the Inquisition; and Specimens of Monkish Legends. 8vo. pp. 452-Parker.

WITHOUT in the slightest degree identifying ourselves with all the opinions and sentiments to which the author has given publicity in the work we have selected to head this Article, on the subject of the ecclesiastical organization of the Church of Rome, and the influence she has exerted over Christendom, we cannot but express our conviction that the work is one of considerable importance-a desideratum, the want of which has long been felt by the literary and religious world, and, from the popu lar style of its composition and arrangement, one that is calculated to grow gradually into a standard epitome of the political history of Popery. There is here and there, it is true, a dash of morbid liberalism scattered through its pages, and a few indications of laxity of Church of England principles in the writer, which detract somewhat from the pleasure we should otherwise feel in giving it a rather extended notice. But, as a whole, it is an able and useful volume, and with the above short condemnatory remark, and its naturally attendant warning, we recommend it to the perusal of our readers.

We have frequently been struck with the very little attention that appears to have been paid to Popery, as a Political System, by the great mass of Protestant writers, as well as by the public generally; and the consequent apathetic and criminal negligence that exists with regard to the necessity for a political as well as religious opposition to its encroachments. Indeed, if the true character of Popery, as a political as well as religious system, was duly considered by the public, they would soon see the inconsistency of permitting the members of the Church of Rome to exercise any political power in Protestant England; and with the irresistible impulse occasioned by the conviction that national independence and greatness, and individual security and happiness, demanded their expulsion from the British Legislature, would petition that the vassals of the Roman Pontiff might be banished, and that for ever, from the councils of the empire. Let us not hear the ridiculous and oft-exploded dogma reiterated, that politics and religion are distinct and separate; in this question, at least, they are inseparably interwoven. As without religion there can be no true morality, equally without religion

can there be no true politics. The Bible was intended to supply instruction to man as much in his legislative as in his more private character. It was ordained to be his counsellor and guide in the discharge of every duty, whether to his king, his family, his country, or his God. Its laws are as binding upon rulers and governors in Church and State, as upon the heads of congregational or domestic circles. Public functionaries are as much amenable to the behests of the Omnipotent as private individuals. And whatever the mushroom wisdom of this superficial age may venture to assert to the contrary, religion is indissolubly connected with politics; and politics without religion would be a species of carcase without animation, a fabric without foundation, an arch without its key-stone, and a planetary system without its centre of gravitation and laws of attraction. The infidel illumination of the nineteenth century may flash her unsubstantiated rays across our path, and deny the stability of the principles of eternal rectitude and truth which are to be found in the revelation of the Almighty; but we will still retain our solemn impressions, still maintain the supreme and unerring authority of the Bible, in opposition to that and every other notion that is "earthly, sensual, and devilish." If we may make use of an every day illustration, the jejune and effeminate illuminati of the present age have forsaken the pure and steady light of heaven, which pours its useful and refreshing influence upon every object, and reveals the substantial qualities, proportions, and relations of things, to bask in the lurid and distracting, fitful and confounding glare of hell, which rolls its black and delusive clouds of sulphurous smoke around the path of its unhappy victim, hiding the face of heaven, and dazzling and distorting the mental vision, till the yawning gulph of perdition opens to receive him! The man who looks upon Popery as a harmless and pleasing object, is as much the subject of the deceitful craft and subtlety of the devil (whose master-piece Popery certainly is), as he is the soft and pitiable fool who displays, in painful ignorance and imbecility, his forgetfulness of history, and his unacquaintedness with the very alphabet of Popery. The mere politician, who pays no regard to the repeated and multiplied aggressions of Popery, and only exclaims, in listless indifference, when he hears of its advances, or sees its progressive march, "Oh, I have nothing to do with theology !" is either an egregious simpleton, an empty coxcomb, or a thoroughpaced and determined traitor. Popery, as the history sketched by the author before us amply testifies, in her entire ecclesiastical structure is eminently political: her assumption of supreme power and authority, and the unavoidable and uniform fruits

produced by so arrogant and haughty a position, entertained in political equally with religious matters of jurisprudence, give an abundant and undeviating testimony to the accuracy of the solemn truth, that national security and independence are incompatible with the exercise and enjoyment of political power by Papists in a Protestant country. We are quite ready to prove to those who look simply at secondary causes, and the working of natural principles, that what is wrong in Christian principle, must be dangerous in political practice; that what is wrong on religious grounds, must be so, even on the lower ground of political expediency. As there are many who doubt the veracity of this most important statement, we will just exhibit its correctness with respect to the granting political power to Popery; a deed which was never sought to be justified (as its advocates knew well it could not be), on religious principles, but purely on the dictates and requirements of political expediency.

We will begin with enumerating a principle, which no one, we think, possessed of common sense, or conversant with the rudiments of national law and government, can for a moment question or deny :-"That to entrust with political power, and especially with any legislative authority, the subjects and vassals of a foreign and hostile potentate, is irreconcilably at variance and thoroughly incompatible with national security and independence." Now, it is an easy thing to prove that Papists are the vassals of an hostile potentate; and, being such, it inevitably follows, if our above-stated axiom be correct, that it is diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles of national policy, right, and justice, to consign to them political power or authority in this Protestant country. There are three things which incontrovertibly prove the vassalage and abject subjection of Papists to a foreign power: first, the oath taken by every Roman Catholic Bishop; secondly, the oath taken by every Roman Catholic Priest; and thirdly, the condition of the laity and their thorough subjection to their priests. The oath taken by the Romish Bishops is as follows:

"I will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, the Apostle, and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord N. Pope N. and to his successors canonically coming in. I will neither advise, consent, or do any thing that they may lose life or member; or that their persons may be seized, or hands anywise laid upon them, or any injuries offered to them under any pretence whatsoever. The counsel which they shall intrust me withall by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice-I will help them to defend and keep the Roman Papacy, and the Royalties of St.