« PreviousContinue »
lation to the consciences of the penitent, we forbear any questions about pres' destination or election. We lead all our readers to the word of God, and defire them to learn his will from his own word, and not to search after other speculations. Most certainly, as the preaching of repentance relates to all men, and implies an accusation against all, so the promise is universal; and the offer of forgivenness is made to all, according to these general declarations of holy writ: Come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest: Whosoever believeth in him shall not perilh, but have everlasting life: The fame Lord is rich unto all who call upon him.' In these universal promises let each person believe that he himself is included, and not give way to despair."
All these are, undoubtedly, weighty considerations; and the prefumptive evidence from them is strong, that our original reformers, were not Calvinists, nor our public system of faith intended to be un. derstood in a Calvinistic sense. But our author refers to public documents, which speak a more decided and positive language. The first is the preface to the book of homilies in 1562, when our articles, as they now stand, received the sanction of both houses of convocation. The design of the homilies is said to be, “ That the people may learn, &c. lo that they may pray, believe, and work according io knowledge, while they shall live here, and, after this life, be with Him that with his own blood hath bought us all.” 11 1562, then, the particular unconditional election of Calvin was not understood to be the doctrine of our Church. The second document appealed to is. Parker's preface to his edition of the Bishops' Bible, fu called be cause, at the desire of Cranmer, different parts of the translation were , undertaken by different bishops of the day. In this preface, Parker, on the words of Christ, “ Search the Scriptures," comments thus: “ These words were first spoken to the Jews; but they concern all, of what nation, of what tongue, of what profession foever any man be; for to all belongeth it to be called unto eternal life, so mally as by the witness of the Scriptures desire to find eternal life. No man, woman, or child, is excluded from this falvation; and, therefoin., 10 every one of them is this spoken. For he that hath care of all ac. fepteth no man's perfon; his will is that all men should be saved, his will that all should come to the way of truth.” In 1,572, then, Cala vinistic election was not understood to be the doctrine of the Church. . With regard to the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, when Calvinira made considerable progreis, Mr O. should have noticed the Lambeth articles, which in 1595, were expressly drawn up with a view to fèitle the disputes at Cambridge respečiing Calvinism. The articles of the Church were held to be inadequate for the purpose ; therefore, these Lambeth articles were deemed to be necessary. Whitgift in his let. ter to the University, required that body to make good their proceed. ings against Barrett by any articles of the Church; but Whitaker, in reply, declines this point, only saying, as we have seen, “ We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barrett hath taught untruth, if not against the articles, yet against the religion of our Church publicly received.”
It is also to be observed, that these Lambeth articles gave great of. fence, not only in the University, but at court; in consequence of which they were quickly suppressed. When afterwards, at the Hampton-court conference in 1603, they were proposed by the non. conformist ministers, to be annexed to our ecclesiastical forms, the proposal was rejected on the part of the Commissioners for the Church of England, consisting of the Archbishop of Canterbury, eight bishops, seven deans, and two doctors. Of the synod of Dort we have spoken already.
Few words, our author remarks, need be said relative to that most decisive proof which on this subject, our different public forms, when compared with each other, are calculated to furnish. Admit. ting the principle, which seems incontrovertible, that our reformers did not mean to contradict themselves, it follows undeniably that the articles of our Church are not to be Calvinistically interpreied. For the Liturgy, on the article of universal redemption, is confessedly and decidedly Anti-Calvinistic.
“ The only posiulatum, therefore,” fays Mr. D. “ required on this occafion is, that partial redempt.on and universal redemption cannot conftituto the doctrine of the same church; and it has always been a matter to me unaccountable how a Calvinist can reconcile the use of numberless parts of that excellent Liturgy, with the peculiar doctrines (which he professes to maintain. Such is the ground in which this subject was placed in my fourth letter to Sir Richard Hill; ground, I am inclined to think, not to be Ihaken. Mr. O., in his allusion to it, in p.93. has only proved how much easier it is to sNEER at an argument than to answer it.” (Pp. 432, 433.)
With all this we most decidedly agree. The curious passage of Mr. O.'s book which is here referred to, together with our observa. tions relating to it, will be found in our XVth Volume, Pp. 13, 14.
Our author has some adinirable reflections on Mr. O.'s moderate Calvinism. On this subject, he very justly observes, Mr. O. appears to deceive both himself and his readers. « Our reformers,” says Mr. O., ". Wilhed unequivocally to teach that man's salvation is wholly of grace, but that his perdition is of himself; and neither to make God the author of sin, nor man a mere machine, and unfit to be treated as a moral agent." Then, says our author, our reformers were no Cal. vinists. But, adds Mr. O., “this is not in the smallest degree belying the principles we have ascribed to them, and mutilating the subješt.” This assertion, however, is notoriously false.. For Calvinistic election unquestionably mutilares the doctrine of salvation by grace, confining that to some chosen individuals, which the word of God declares to have been equally designed for all. Mr. O., indeed, obviates this objection by ihe use of the single word moderate. What, then, is meant by this new-fashioned term, moderate Calvinism? Cale vinism, in its very essence, is a doctrine made up of frightful ex. tremes. « The annexing [of] ihe epithet moderate to it is something like enveloping a nauseous medicine with wafer paper, to render it less unpalatable to the patiert, and more easy to his swallow ; and I
am inclined to think that one of the greatest fallacies, of which there are many to be found in Mr. O.'s book, liês concealed under this fpe. cious guise.” (p. 437.) · Mr. O. cites Sir Richard Hill as an instance of a moderate Calvinist who agrees with St. Auftin. . Now, St. Austin's doctrine is, “ that God had decreed not to impart sufficient saving grace to all men in general, but only to a select few, whom he had predestinated to falvation, and that the rest of mankind must therefore inevitably perish.” Calvin, indeed, uses rougher language than this, for he fays, “ that by God's eternal, unconditional decree, mankind were divided into elect and reprobate; the former to be certainly saved, the latter to be as certainly damned.” A rigid Calvinist, then, has only not to speak of the divine decree which pre-ordained the fall, and to say with Au. guftine, that those who are not elected must " inevitably perish;" or, with Sir R. Hill, to exchange the obnoxious term reprobation for the softer one of preterition; and he immediately becomes a moderate Calvinist. But he who can here find a difference in doctrine may congratulate himself on the acuteness of his discernment.
Mr. D. then recapitulates his foriner observations on justification, and proves incontrovertibly, what cannot be too frequently pressed on the public attention, that Mr. O. and his clients, notwitstanding the Jate impudeni, and, we think, imprudent, assumption of the exclusive title of the “ True Churchmen," are absolutely no churchmen at all. Mr. O. adopts Cranmer's idea of juftification; yet he rejects Cranmer's application of it, by confining it to subjects capable of faith. Infants consequently are incapable of it. Because, as the “ Necessary Do&trine," allerts, baptism is “the way by which God hath determined that man BEING OF AGE, and coming to Christendom, should be justified; it certainly does not hence follow,” says Mr. O., " that it is the way by which those wlio are not of age, and therefore not capable of faith and repentance, are justified.” (Overt. p. 181.) ACcordingly this facrainent is, by Mr. O,, degraded into a “bare ad. mission into the Christian religion; or, as he might with equal truth and propriety have said, "a bare entry of the child's name into the parish-register." Mr. O. would fain persuade his readers that he is well acquainted with the works of Augustine, to whom he professes the highest deference; and we have already shewn how differently that Father thought on this subject. We shall here produce, for Mr. Oi's confideration, a significant canon of the Council of Carthage, held under the direction of the same Augustine, and leave him to digeft his reflections on it at his leisure: “ QUICUNQUE NEGAT PARVULOS PER BAPTISMUM CHRISTI A PERDITIONE LIBERARI, ET SALUTEM PERCIPERE SEMPITERNAM, ANATHEMA SIT.” It may also be worth his while to deliberate what answer to give 10 the obsera vations here subjoined from our author. .
" The title (which] Mr. O. has prefixed to his publication is • The True-Churchmen ascertained,' by whom we understand persons living in fri& conformity to the doctrine and discipline of that Church of which N 3
they are members. From Mr. O.'s doctrine, of justification, then, feeing that, so far as it applies to the sacrament of baptism, it is in direct contradiction to the plain language of our Homilies, Articles and Liturgy: it folJows that, to establith his claim to true churchmanship, reference must be had to his conneciion with a church, whose doctrine on this subject, at leaft, is at decided variance with that of the Church of England ; and how Mr. O. s representation of baptisni, as the bare admillion into the Chrif: tian religion,' is reconcileable with his professional acknowledgment of • one baptisin for ibe rumision of sins,' I profess myself incompetent to determine.” (Pp. 453, 454.)
We shall finish our account of this valuable work with the following short, but interesting extract. It is addressed to the younger students in divinity, who, we hope, will profit by the sound admonition of this faithful and well-initi ućied guide.
" It too often happens that divines who, from a certain predisposition · of mind, or some concurrence of circunstances, become advocates for Cal
vinism, commit theinselves upon it in early days, when, to make use of Barrett's words, they have · scarcely faluted the threshold of divinity,' and are not, therefore, qualified to judge of a cause which can only fairly. be ascertained (can fairly be ascertained only ] by much comparative reading, accompanied with a cool and discriminating judgment. The fact is, Calu vinistic divines, generally speaking, aísociate only with Calvinifts; read, for the most part, only Calviniftic books; and then too easily satisfy thenselves with the confident persuasion that they are arrived at the ne plus ultra of their proteilion. The great misfortune in th's, as in many other cases, is that, however partial may be their knowledge of a subject, when once men conimit themselves upon it,' vestigia nulla retrorfum ;' the pride of human nature insensibly mixes itself with the business, and they feel themYelves, as it were, pledged to maintain the ground [which] they have Haken ; and, therefore, for the most part,) they industriously and determivedly keep out of fight that evidence which might convince them of their crror.
“ From these premises the conclusion is obvious; that all early commitment on any particular uneitablished fyftem of divinity is scrupulously to be guarded againsi; because it precludes the attainment of that general information, which is the necessary prelude to complete proficiency in any Icience. When men form themselves into fects and parties, they, for the most part, renounce the exercise of reason, and oftentimes are governed by names niore than by things. The scie ce of divinity', as it is of all other the most important, so it is the most com; rehensive. It is a science commensurate with eternity, and will be bronght to perfe&tion only in that ftato where we tall know even as ive are known. In this science therefore it feems to be more particularly necessary that students should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digeit, before they comniit themfelves to the public; de oxilado Selv, som forv, wybuziv poce@mas.” (Pp. 469, 470.)
A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin and Scripture
proper Names; in which the Words are accented and divided into Syl-lables exactly as they ought to be pronounced, 'according to Rules drawn
from Analogy and the best Usage. To which are added, terminational Vocabularies of Hebrew, Greek and Latin proper Names, in which the Words are arranged according to their final Syllables, , and classed according to their Accent's ; by which the general Analogy of Pronunciation may be seen at one View, and the Accentuation of each Word more easily remembered. Concluding with Observations on the Greek and Latin Accent and Quantity; with some probable Conjectures on the Method of freeing them from the Obscurity and Confusion in which they are involved, both by the Ancients and Moderns. The second Edition, with large Additions. By John Walker, Author of the Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, &c. &c. Ostavo. Pp. 285. 7s. Boards.
G. and J. Robinson, T. Cadell and W. Davies. 1804. TROM this ample bill of fare the public will be able to judge T what they are to fit down to. The author has shown much industry, and very considerable acuteness of observation in the execu. cution of his work; and we hope that he will reap the fruits of his labour, for tiresome and laborious indeed must have been his task.
To this second edition has been added some critical observations, and two terminational vocabularies of Greek, Latin, and scripture proper names. For the publication of the vocabularies the author gives the following reason in his advertisement.
" That so much labour should be bestowed upon an inverted arrangement of these words, when they had already been given in their common alphabetical order, may be matter of wonder to many perions, who will naturally inquire into the utility of such an arrangement. To these it may be answered, that the words of all languages seem more related to each other by their terminations than by their beginnings; that the Greek and Latin languages seem more particularly to be thus related ; and classing them according to their endings, seemed to exhibit a new view of these languages, both curious and useful; for as their accent and quantity depend so much on their termination, such an arrangement appeared to give a'n easier and more comprehensive idea of their pronunciation than the common claslification by their initial fyllables. This end was so desirable as to induce me to Spare no pains, however dry and disgusting, to promote it ; and if the method I have taken has failed, my labour will not be entirely lost if it convinces future prosodists that it is not worthy of their attention.” • Those who have neither time nor inclination to peruse the niany volumes which have been written on the pronunciation of the Greek and Latin languages, will find much of what has been advanced on that subject in the present work. We are however afraid that the violent Greeks and Romans among us, who speak so highly of the variety and harmony of the Greek and Latin languages will « let slip the dogs of war” against Mr. Walker for accusing them of monotony. " Let us," fays he, view the Greek and Latin pronunciation on N 4 . '.