« PreviousContinue »
ů by Prince Eugene, so arranged the whole combined ey acted as one body. Tallard, alisted by the Elector ade such dispositions that they were two detached arorough occupied ground (which the French a little bele leized) that enabled every company and every man to
Tallaid pent up a great body of his troops in a village >uld not annoy the enemy, and could very little support diers. Seeing the dispositions of their commander the zir allies went on with the boldest confidence. The with his army all moving in harmony, defeated the I with his army in broken and detached bodies. In Marlborough and Tallard we find victory and defeat. Earlborough gained a victory by equal superiority of s At Malplaquet, having to contend against Villars,
the still superior ability of Marlborough prevailed, las not so fignal. Galway, commanding in Spain, nan, at the head of as good troops as any which mmanded, was defeated, at Almanza, in enconnter- , superior genius, the Duke of Berwick. The fertile Earl of Peterborough recovered victory to the English next battle that is mentioned is the batile of Fonteures of which, our author touches delicately, and n a great measure, on the failure of the Dutch. brings us to war since the introduction of the Prufa
litary arrangements from n prefatory pages, traces military arrangements from treeks to the commencement of the seven years war.
clear and concise sketch of the successive battles of irt of his narrative more strongly evinces his doctrine,
are likely to make the best generals. Indeed in quently the mere invention of the moment that dey. Dr. Thomson now conducts us to a period
But ate with regret, our campaigns in America. zorious at Rosbach, Miltiades at Marathon, Alex, efar at Pharsalia, and Marlborough at Blenheim, y evince the efficacy of talents and efforts to inwe with SUCH A BRITISH ARMY, totally inefficient. il to any that ever existed; but the soldiers had his pait of his narrative our author, we think, 5 extracts from the history of Stedman...
which was not without its influence on that event as well as the gen ral refult of the campaign. The succeding battles in the Low Cour tries between the French and Germans are mentioned, but with hard any remark, and we must say, that no portion of the military memoi present rear such a small portion of military instruction as the can paigns 1793 and 1794 in Germany and the Low Countries. Indee we cannot see one lesson in the account of these two years, either example or of warning, and very important vears they are in militar history, and through that importance infinitely more important in po litical history. The operation of the English troops in 1793 and 179 we do not recollect to have seen once mentioned. Pichegru appear to us to have been a general equal to any, and, except Moreau, fa superior to any other general chat supported the French revolution We regret that he is not mentioned. After a short sketch of parties a Paris, our auihor proceeds to the first Italian campaign of Buonaparté and very properly passes unnoticed mere rapidity of movements. Nei ther does he mention the battle of Lodi, which certainly appeared liker the desperation of phrenzy than the cool intrepidity of a rea hero. He attributes some degree of merit to the stratagem of tha adventurer for escaping from a detachment of Austrians. The expedient, however, of pretending to be followed by a large body of mer was quite obvious to invention, and very common in practice. Attending this leader to the close of the campaign we are happy to find the Dodor does not aflign his success to distinguished ability ; but to rapid movement and versatile dexterity. There was another cause on which we wish he had touched, the want of fidelity among many of
the Austrian officers. Our author does not assert that Buonaparté . surmounted great difficulties: we think he had not great difficulties
to surmount. He bestows high praise on Moreau ; and then proceeds to the siege of Acre, which he repeats, in a great degree, from his own Annual Register. This celebrated operation draws forth very few reflections. The Austrian and Russian campaign of 1799 is also sketched, but with litile accompaniment of remark. Of the battle of Marengo our author presents a short and impartial account, and closes his memoirs with the battle of Alexandria.
The scantiness of remark in the last nine years of the Memoirs we are far from imputing to want of powers in the author, to deduce from the history of that period as valuable lessons as from any former period. But we are aware of the delicacy of the subject, and make allowances for the peculiar circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, without entering into an investigation of the design, plan, or execuition, of every military measure that was adopted by Britain and her allies, we must, on the whole, obferve, that as far as this nation was concerned, without being implicated in the counsels or operations of allies, we were signally successful ; and Britain, even in her military efforts of the last war, maintained that superiority which Crecy firit proved, and so many fucceeding scenes have/confirmed. We should not have hesitated to take up British effort, and with our author had
o the wars that arose from the French revolution. e first campaign, 1792, he imputes the successes he close of the year to the enthufiasm of supposed e, but chiefly to the immense numbers which
field. The description of the battle of Jemappe any novelty of discovery or particular remark, ontests with the Pruffians and Austrians, but here zation. The battle of Fleurus is accurately narby retrospection of that separation of the allies,
done the same. We rather, however, regret the want of what might, and we think would have produced able and valuable remark, than censure the omiffion.
The Military Memoirs constitute a performance of combined information and instruction; always useful, and at present peculiarly seasonable and interesting. We have fairly and candidly itated points on which we differ from the author, in the same fairness we must pronounce our opinion that, on the whole, it is a work of meritorious design, beneficial tendency, and judicious selection, particularly deserving of the perusal of officers and those who have the appointment of officers. The work is indeed an historical illustration, in military subjects, of the grand maxim of, Juvenal, that a rigid auhirence io the dictates of wisdom in a great measure controuls the power of fortune. “ Nullum numen habes, fi non prudentia desit
Daubeny's Vindicia Ecclesia Anglicana.
(Continued from Vol. XVII. P. 371.) O N Mr. O.'s chapter concerning Repentance our author makes no
U remarks; and on that which treats of Original Sin, we find none which we deem of sufficient importance to be laid before our readers. But his strictures on Mr. O.'s sixth chapter, which relates to Justification, are rich in found criticism, and in equally sound divinity. He begins with observing that much of what has been written on the subject has been advanced more with a view to support some pre-established system, than with an eye to the truth. But the real merits of the cause, he thinks, lie within a narrow compaís.
Our venerable reformers laboured to eradicate the gross and profitable .error which had long prevailed in the Church of Rome with regard to · the doctrine of human merit..
“ Whoever, therefore, considers Christ to be the only meritorious cause of man's salvation, and works as requifite to determine the quality of that faith which can alone be instrumental to the falvation of the party, will believe every thing necellary to be believed on this important lubject. He will see that works, the fruit of faith, while, to make use of the language of our reformers, they are decidedly' fhut out from the office of justifying,' must still be prelent in the justified party, (in all cases where works are possible) as the sine qua non,, withouć which he will not finally be saved. "For with out holine's (we are told) no man fhall see the Lord.' This necessary discrimination between man's title to salvation, and his personal qualification for it, contains the whole pith of the argument employed on this much, though in my judgment, unnecessarily, controverted subject.” (Pp. 233-235.)
Mr. O., in order to prejudice his readers against those who talk of two justifications, a first and a final, invidiously ascribes the distinction to “ Taylor the Socinian." But if the distinction be a true one, it is
2. Ive rather, however, regret the want of what might, would have produced able and valuable remark, than cen
y Menoirs constitute a performance of combined infortruction; always weful, and at present peculiarly feaCerelting. We have fairly and candidly stated points on r from the author, in the same fairness we must pro. nion that, on the whole, it is a work of meritorious Cal tendency, and judicious selection, particularly de
erufal of officers and thole who have the appointment of vork is indeed an historical illustration, in military suband maxim of Juvenal, that a rigid auhirence to the om in a great measure controuls the power of fortune, um numen habes, fi non prudentia desit :
Daubeny's Vindiciæ Ecclefia Anglicana.
has been advanced more with a view to support
caule, he thinks, lie within a narrow compass.
inlirumental to the salvation of the party, will believe v to be believed on this important subject. He will see t of faith, while, to make ule of the language of our decidedly • fhut out from the office of justifying,' must e justified party, (in all cases where works are possible) vithout which he will not finally be saved. "For with told) vo man thall see the Lord.' This necessary disman's title to salvation, and his personal qualification for le pith of the argument employed on this much, though neceilarily, controverted lubject.” (Pp. 233-235.) r to prejudice his readers against those who talk of a firsi and a final, invidiously ascribes the distinction cinian." But if the distinction be a true one, it is
not to be rejected because held by a Socinian. Or must we renounc the doctrine of the Trinity because it is held by the Church of Rome This mode of arguing, or rather of bialling the reader's mind, is infinitely disgraceful to those who adopt it. But Mr. O. can by no mean: allow that 66 to be baptized” and “s to be justified” are of the famo import, though the Homily on Salvation employs them as fynonymous. We wonder not at this ; for his scheme excludes the notior that justification is annexed to baptism. Mr. O. is a strenuous advocate for the literal sense of our public standards, when their language suits his purpose. But, in the present case, because Dr. Hey allows that the word “justification” is seldom or ever used as synonymous with “ baptism,” except in our article and homily, Mr. O, thinks it "highly improbable that it is so used there." " This,” says Mr. D. " appears to be strange reasoning. For, upon this principle, the articles and homilies, which are appealed to as the standard for the church doctrine, are not to be received according to the letter, but according to the fense (which] Mr. O. thinks proper to affix to them." (p. 238.) But our reformers, when they joined the words “justified' and “ baptized” as synonymous, really meant what they said : for they lay it down, as a fundamental position, that “ infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy, are by Christ's sacrifice, washed from their fins, brought to God's favour, and made his children, and inheritors of his kingdom of Heaven," (Hom. of Salv. p. 17.) But this, we presume, Mr. O. himself will allow to be a good description of persons justified. The paffage of the homily which we have here produced is also produced by Mr. O.; but, to guard, we suppose, against the “ iniquity of quotation,” he has given it in a form which, instead of teaching what it actually does teach, the justification of infants by baptism, makes it applicable to Christians in general. This was easily done. Nothing inore was required than to suppress the words “ infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy," and to substitute the simple pronoun we. - Had,” says Mr. D. « the au. thor of a Guide to the Church' thus quoted, he certainly would not have been spared." (p, 242.)
On this inomentous subject our author appeals, as we had also done*, to the rubric at the end of the baptismal service, and to the reference made by the XIth article to the homily on salvation. The argument drawn from these inconteftible authorities we venture to prophesy that neither Mr. O., nor any of his " regular Evangelical Ministers," will ever dare to meet. On this point they have only one alternative, which is either to relinquish the doctrines of Calvin, or their new designation of the True Churchmen." But, says Mr. (). “the notion" that justification is synonymous with baptism, " is overthrown by their own hypothesis ; namely, that is supposes
me to do their part faithfully;' and that we are then only put in a
See AXT: JACON REVIEW, Vol XV, P.130264.
way of being eternally happy, if all things go on well; but that w may lose our way.” That a-person once justified can lose his way i a doctrine which Mr. O., we know, like a good Calvinist, regard a absurd. It is nevertheless the doctrine of the Church, as we have unanswerably proyed in another place* For our reformers, as Mr D. observes, held the doctrine of assurance of salvation only so far a: infants dying in their infancy were concerned ; whilft, in all other cases, they considered baptism as the conveyance of benefits subject to contingency, as an admission into a state of salvation which might afterwarus be lost.” Of this question the judgment pronounced by the Church with regard to the penitent thief is decisive.
'But, argues Mr. O. if it be true that justification may be lost, and also chat it is the same as baptism, then, in order to regain it we must be rebaprized. If Mr. O. thought that this consequence followed, he was grossly ignorant of the doctrine both of the Church of England, and of the Primitive Church. His favourite Auguftine taught a very different lesson. “ Semel perceptam," says that father, “ parvulus gratiain non amittit, nisi propriâ impietate, fi ætatis acceílu tam maJus evaferit. Tunc enim etiam propria incipiei habere peccata, quæ non regeneratione,” or a repetition of the sacrament of baptism, “auferantur, fed alia curatione fanentur." (Ad. Bonif. Epift. 98.) This other cure consists in repentance, and renewed obedience. By employing this cure the person baptized retains the benefit of his original baptism, which needs not be repeated. “And in this fenfe," adds our author, “ though not in the sense in which it is uled by some modern teachers, the maxim'once regenerate and always regenerate' is a true maxim in Christianity, and was an established one in the Primitive Church." (P. 247.) We are far, however, from being of opinion that Mr. O. believed in the juítness of his own inference from juftification's being synonyinous with baptis. We observed t, as Mr. D. also does, that he produces, from the homiíy on salvation, a passage which renders his own realoning ridiculous. We said that we supposed that he intended to be witty. But, perhaps, we should have been nearer the truth if we had said that this was one of his meanest attempts to confound the question, and to puzzie his readers.
Mr. (). however, talks of baptism as “ a bare adinillion into the Christian religion, (p. 180.); and the doctrine of the Christian Observer is that “ Baptism is only the outward sign of an 'admission into the Church, adıninistered by fallible men, and may or may not be accompanied by the inward and spiritual grace of justification, which is the act of God alone." (Chris. Obs. July 1802.) Mr. O. tio, having laid it down that a man is justified only when he rigntly believes (p.179.), very evidently disbelieves that infants are justified by bap- i tism. Thus do Mr. O. and the Christian Observer, to use the words
* See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. Pp. 279, 280.
+ See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. P. 265.
cternally happy, if all things go on well; but that we way.” That a person once justified can lose his way is iich Mr. O., we know, like a good Calviniit, regards as > nevertheless the doctrine of the Church, as we have
proved in another place*. For our reformers, as Mr. helt the doctrine of assurance of salvation only so far as in incir infancy were concerned ; whilst, in all other oficered baptism as the conveyance of benefits subject is as an admission into a state of salvation which might
1t." Of this question the judgment pronounced by th regard to the penitent thief is decisive. Mr. O. if it be true that justification may be lost, and je lame as baptism, then, in order to regain it we must
If Mr. O. thought that this consequence followed, he prant of the doctrine both of the Church of England, nitive Church. His favourite Augustine taught a very
“ Semel perceptain," says that father, “ parvulus gittit, nisi propriâ impietate, si ætatis accessu tam maunc enim etiam propria incipier habere peccata, quæ ne," or a repetition of the sacrament of baptism, "au. 2 curatione fanentur." (Ad. Bonif. Epift. 98.) This s in repentance, and renewed obedience, By employ
person baptized retains the benefit of his original needs not be repeated. “And in this senle," adds lough nor in the sense in which it is uted by some
the maxim once regenerate and always regenerate' in Chriftianity, and was an established one in the ;" (P. 247.) We are far, however, from being of 0. believed in the juftness of his own inference from lg fynonyinous with baptism. We observedt, as'
thuc he produces, from the homily on falvation, a ders his own reasoning ridiculous. We said that je intended to be witty. But, perhaps, we should
the truth if we had said that this was one of his . o confound the question, and to puzzle his readers. s, talls of baptism as "a bare adiniilion into the
(p. 180.); and the doctrine of the Christian Obptifm is only the outward sign of an 'admission into
istered by fallible men, and may or may not be acUward and spiritual grace of justification, which is ne." (Chris. Obf. July 1802.) Mr. O. too, havat a man is justified only when he rightly believes
i tently disbelieves that infants are justified by bap r. O. and the Christian Observer, to use the words
Daubeny's Vindiciæ Ecclefice · Anglicanå. of our excellent author, sin direct contradi&tion to the express doc trine of our Church, think-the former, that persons under age canno be justified by baptism; the latter, that the inward and spiritual grac may, or may not accompany the outward and visible sign ; whiiit both. with the XXVch and XXVIIth articles, as it were, staring them in the face, which tell them that 'baptism is not only a sign of profesfion, but also a sign of regeneration ; by which, as by an instrument, the promises of God are visibly signed and lealed' to the baptized party, appear to be equally agreed in considering baptism as only the outward sign of admillion into the Church ;' or, in Mr. O,'s
words, the bare admission into the Christian religion.” (p. 255.). . But the Christian Ohrerver has farther discovered that the sacra. Vyment of baptilin may he ineflectual, because it is administered by fala
lible men. Is the Christian Observer, then, a believer in the Roman Catholic p:iuc ple, that the intention of the Minister is necessary to the validity of the facrament? Or does he think that the weakness of the instrument employed can make void the positive institution of Chrift? So, at least, we are ceriain, thought not St. Paul. “We have,” he says, " this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” (2 Cor. iv. 7.) The sentiments of our Church, on this momei tous subject, are no less explicit, and are fully explained in her XXVIth article. We have no hesitation, therefore, whatever, to ftile, with our author, these
positions of Mr. O. and of the Christian Observer, downright herelys · and most heartily do we concur in the following weighty reflections ; .'" Sorry am I to think that such erroneous opinions, relative to a sacra. ment of our Church, thould constitute part of thai new syilem of divinity, now industriously circulated by those of our Clergy who, in their zeal for the honour of God, leem to be attempting to rcform upon the reformation ; a species of divinity suited to self-constituted Ministers, who know no commillion but that of their own assuming; but certainly unsuited to the character of clergy who have a divine coin million to produce for the office which) they undertake. To depreciate the sacraments of the Church, on the score of the fallibility of the Minister, whole office it is to dispense them; and thereby to lead serious people to look for immediate communications from · Heaven, which they will not fail to do if they are taught that the fallibility of the Minister may prevent their receiving benefit from his ministry, is to fet aside the plan on which Christ thought fit that the affairs of his kingdom should be transacted; an effect which, if not counteracted, must ultimately terminate in the annihilation of Christ's visible church on earth. The pofition, that baptized per ons may or may not be justified, certainly corresponds with the Calvinistic doctrine of election, according to which justia fication is the exclusive portion of certain chosen individuals; in which case it must be admitted, ihat the facrament of baptism can make no alteration in the case of parties whole condition had been previoully and irrevoa cably determined. *This may be found doctrine with divines of the Gene. van fchool; but certainly it bears no affinity to that of the Church of Enge land, which, after the exaniple of her Divine Head, is no refpecier of persons in this case. All properly admitted within her pale by baptism, NO, LXXI. YOL, Xyild,