thority by Juftin Martyr, and was commented on by Irenæus, which proves that it was in circulation among Chriftians before the second century; otherwise as a modern production thofe great writers would never have regarded it as of divine authority, which it is clear they did by admitting the truth of its predictions. If then in that early age the Revelation of St. John was regarded as a genuine book of prophecies, it is clear that the doctrine of Chrift's divinity fo explicitly and repeatedly declared therein, must have been then a fundamental article of faith in the whole Chriftian Church; for if it was not, fo glaring a novelty, and one productive of fuch momentous confequences as the entire alteration of divine worship, would have been rejected with abhorrence. (To be continued.) W. Literary Remains. CERTAMEN RELIGIOSUM, or a Conference between King CHARLES the First, and HENRY, late Marquis of Worceter, concerning Religion, in Ragland-Castle. Ann. 1645. London, 1649. octavo. TH HE editor of this remarkable book was Dr. Thomas Bayley, younger fon of Dr. Lewis Bayley, bishop of Bangor, and the author of that well known religious treatise, the Practice of Piety." In 1645, king Charles having loft the battle of Nafeby, and his cause being now defperate, retired to Ragland Caf tle, belonging to the Marquis of Worcester, in Monmouthfhire, where he remained feveral days. The Marquis was a man of great ingenuity, as appears from his "Apophthegms" publifhed in 1650, 8vo. But before this vifit of his majefty, he had joined the Romish Communion, and, moft converts, was very zealous for his new profeffion. the fhould therefore make an attempt upon the mind of his fovereign, was not at all out of character, or unlikely in fuch circumftances, when they were brought nearly upon a level with each other. The converfation one even ing at Ragland flided gradually from the subject of the king's misfortunes, to the cause of them, which the marquis infinuated was owing to his majefty's not giving the Church [i. e. the Romish perfuafion] a refpite from her oppreffions" and his ingratitude to the members of that communion, who had faithfully fupported him. The king defended himfelf fufficiently from this accufation, which brought on a farther difcourfe concerning the nature of the true Catholick Church, and the claims of Rome to that exclufive title. The interlocutors in this conference were the king, the marquis, and doctor Bayley, who was at that time a refident in the caftle, and afterwards openly profeffed himfelf a Romanist. When the account of this conference was published by him, it was attacked as fpurious by Hammond L'Eftrange, in a small tract in duodecimo, and more at large in a quarto piece, by Chriftopher Cartwright, of York. Dr. Peter Heylin alfo charged it as a forgery in the prefatory epistle to his edition of the Papers of King Charles, under the title of "Bibliotheca Regia," 1649, 8vo. ; but it is remarkable, that in the edition of the fame collection, published in 1659, the doctor inferted Bayley's account of the conference, with an explanatory note, and omitting the charge which he had before brought against it, an admiffion furely that his fentiments, concerning the substance of the conference at least, were altered. It was faid, by those who cenfured the book as the ficti tious reprefentation of what never happened, or as the exaggerated statement of a cafual converfation, that the king is made in it to argue weakly, and the marquis with confiderable ftrength. The reverse, however, is the fact, for though the marquis has the advantage of the monarch in the length of his fpeeches, he falls infinitely fhort of him in wit and reasoning. If the defign of Bayley at the time of the publication, had been to fhew the fuperiority of his patron, the marquis, and to recommend what he is made to fay in behalf of the church of Rome, he managed the matter in a way little adapted to his purpose. For inftance, when the king objected to the Roman Church the many ridiculous VOL. XIV. Chm. Mag. Jan. 1808. H ftories ftories contained in her legends, the marquis had o other way of vindicating the inventions of craft and cus lity, than by comparing them to the hiftories of Balaam, Samfon, and Philip and the Eunuch, thus placing the autho rity of fables, the authors of which are unknown, on the fame footing with that of the Scriptures. The king having required fatisfaction concerning the Catholick Church, and the grounds why the Church of Rome is to be obeyed as fuch, received this cogent anfwer. Mar. quis, "Gracious Sir, the creed tells us that it is the Cathofick Church, and St. Paul tells us, in his epiftle to the Romans, that their faith was spread through the whole world." To which the king replied, "That was the faith which the Romans then believed, which is nothing to the Roman faith that is now. Marquis. The Roman faith then and now are the fame." 86 66 King. I deny that, my lord." Marquis. When did they alter their faith ?” King. That requires a library; neither is it requifite that I tell you the time when: If the envious man fows his tares whilst the husbandman is afleep, and afterwards he awakes and fees the tares, are they not tares because the husbandman knows not when they were fown?" The following illuftration of the unity of the Catholick Church, and the independence of particular churches, is curious, and exhibits the royal difputant as a reafoner of no ordinary powers. "My lord, I have not done with you yet; though particular churches may fall away in their feveral respects of obedience to one fupreme authority, yet it follows not that the church fhould be thereby divided, for as long as they agree in the fame unity of the fame fpirit, and the bond of peace, the church is ftill at unity; as fo many fheaves of corn are not unbound, because they are fevered. Many fheaves may belong to one field, to one man, and may be carried to one barn, and be fervient to the fame table. Unity may confift in this as well as being huddled up together in a rick, with one cock fheaf above the reft. I have one hundred pieces in my pocket, I find them fomething heavy, I divide the fum, half in one pocket, half in another, and fubdivide them afterwards into two feveral leffer pockets, the money is divided, but the fum is not broke, the hundred pound is as whole as when it was together, because it belongs to the fame man, and is in the fame poffeffion: fo though we divide from from Rome, if neither of us divide ourselves from Chrift, we agree in him, who is the centre of all unity, though we differ in the matter of depending one upon another.' According to Dr. Bayley, the Marquis prefented to his majefty a paper concerning the "Antiquity, Univerfality, and Sanctity of the Church of Rome." To which the king returned an answer. This laft is appended to the account of the conference, and, it must be confeffed, has more references to the Fathers than the king could well be fuppofed capable of making at such a time and in fuch a condition. But this does not invalidate the preceding dialogue, which has all the ease of a converfation, and in which the feveral parties fpeak perfectly in character, and urge fuch arguments as perfons feparated from books would naturally adopt, in fupport of their refpective opinions. At all events it is a proof that Charles was a steady Proteftant when he was at Ragland, otherwife Dr. Bayley, who became a convert to the Roman Church by the perfuafions of the Marquis of Worcester, would never have reprefented him as fo powerful an opponent of Rome as he has done in the "" Certamen Religiofum." Review of New Publications. A View of the Evidences of Chriftianity at the Clofe of the pretended Age of Reason: In eight Sermons preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, in the year 1805; at the Lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury. By EDWARD NARES, M. A. Rector of Biddenden, Kent, and late Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. 8vo. pp. 543. 10s. 6d. boards. Rivingtons. THES 'HESE Lectures exhibit a view of the great ftruggle between Christianity and its various adverfaries in what has been falfely called the age of reafon. The plan is a great great one, requiring a depth of learning, an extenfive courfe of reading, and confiderable judgment. The objections of Infidels againft Revelation are here claffed under the heads of HISTORY, PHYSICS, METAPHYSICS, ETHICS and CRITICISM. "Under the head of HISTORY Ipropose to consider the extraordinary defect of all records and historical monuments, that could be alleged to be in positive contradiction to the Mosaic writings; even now that the whole globe has been traversed, and every enquiry of that nature pursued and encouraged in a way unknown before. Under the head of PHYSICS I purpose to give an account of the invincible obstacles, that seem to be in the way of our attaining to any clear comprehension of the causes that have operated in time past in the body of the earth; so as to enable us to form any conjectures from thence concerning the high or low an tiquity of the general mass of our globe. I shall notice the consent of many celebrated naturalists to the low antiquity of our present continents, as deduced from observation, and the extraordinary facts that tend to corroborate the Scripture accounts of an universal deluge. Under the head of METAPHYSICS I shall have some remarks to make on the present state of the questions, concerning the materiality of the soul, and the necessity of human actions; and I shall have frequent occasion incidentally to notice the inefficacy of all speculative reasonings on certain subjects connected with Theology. Under ETHICS I propose to consider the indispensible necessity of a divine revelation for moral purposes; to notice some of the most offensive moral principles and systems of modern reformers, and to shew how ably Christianity has been vindicated from the charge of omissions in this line. And under the head of CRITICISM I shall endeavour to point out the great abuses to which it has been exposed; its great utility to secure us from the misrepresentations of modern Deists; and the satisfactory manner, in which it has recently been applied to confute the dogmatical assertions of modern Unitarians. "But there are still some points, which will require to be considered in a more general way, and which cannot be distinctly brought under any of these heads. Such as the very extraordinary difference lately manifested in respect to the separation of the two covenants, and the divine authority of the Old Testament; and in regard to the prejudices and prepossessions, which have been said to stand in the way of the due exercise of reason, and more particularly in this place." In the first lecture it is flated that Chriftianity has flood the test of enquiry for above eighteen centuries, during which it has maintained itself against every fort of oppofition on the part of man. 1 |