confidered as peculiarly and properly Calvinistic. "Both Calvinifts and Arminians (he obferves) appeal to fcripture in justification of their respective opinions; but it is one thing to cite a text, and another to give a confiftent interpretation of it." (p. 5.) and he proceeds very juftly to reprobate the pride of opinion, the pertinacity of prejudice, the violence of party, and the folly of building up exclutive fyftems, and then defending them as the unadulterated gospel of Chrift, and the only teft of true Churchmanship. "Thus, (he fays) the fyftematic Calvinift will very logically prove, or at leaft feem to prove, that man is entirely paffive in the work of falvation, in other words, that he is a mere machine in the hands of that God who imparts his grace only to thofe whom he hath purposed to fave; while the fystematic Arminian, if he pufh his principles to their utmost extent, after he has to all appearance no lefs logically demonftrated from fcripture that man is perfectly a free agent, will not cafily avoid demonftrating also that he is able by his own unaffifted firength to perform the commandments of God. Both thefe pofitions may easily be maintained, with a great shew of fairness and impartiality, by arguments drawn from insulated texts; and it may perhaps be a difficult matter to point out the precife link in the chain of reasoning where the fallacy lies; nevertheless, if fcripture be attended to as a whole, we shall find fomething true and fomething false in each of them." (p. 7-8.) He then "proceeds to thew the two chains of reasoning, by which high Calvinifm and certain pofitions which even the highest Calvinift would tremble to admit, and by which high Arminianifm and certain pofitions which even the highest Arminian would tremble to admit, may be refpectively demonftrated, or, to speak more accurately, apparently demonftrated from fcripture." (p. 11.) This he has done in the most fatisfactory manner by setting forth the directly oppofite conclufions which may be drawn from two feveral texts of fcripture, if the argument be carried to its utmost limits. ; "But (he obferves) Calvinifts and Arminians will doubtless agree in faying, that I carry the matter much further than I have any right to do much further than they are prepared to follow me; and moft fincerely do I believe the truth of their affertions. Nevertheless I would ask the systematic Calvinist, what right he has to ftop at any particular link in the one chain, and the systematic Armenian, what right he has to ftop at any particular link in the other chain? If fyftems must be conftructed, the conclufions after thefe links are respectively as valid as the conclufions before them." (p. 17.) We entirely agree with the learned author that the horrid nature of the principles which may by legitimate deduction be derived from the two fyftems in question, when carried to their utmost limits, their inconfiftency with, and oppofition to, holy fcripture, fufficiently vindicate our articles from the charge of fupporting any thing like this or that fyftem, and confirm the truth of the Bishop of Lincoln's obfervation, quoted in the title-page, "our Church is not Lutheran, it is not not Calviniftic, it is not Arminian; it is fcriptural." He then lays down the following plain rule for the confutation of falsehood. "Admit no conclufion in any system, unless the conclufion itself, as well as the thefis from which it is deduced be explicitly fet forth in Holy Scripture. This rule is equivalent to two very wife declarations of our Church, that whatever is not read in Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it thould be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requifite or neceflary to falvation; and that we must receive God's promifes in fuch wife as they be generally fet forth to us in Holy Scripture." (p. 19, 20.) He then proceeds to compare the two preceeding chains of conclufions, link by link, with the Bible, in order to fhew the vanity of building fyftems, and the folly of contending for fuch mere creatures of fallacious reasoning, as far as refpects foundness of doctrine.▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ Other bad effects he defcribes as flowing from it. "Violent contentions for favourite opinions are too frequently the harbingers of that bane of Chriftian meeknefs and charity, open Schifm. Obfcure matters of doubtful difputation acquire an importance in the eyes of a party man, which they by no means deferve. By long brooding over them in private, by affociating with none but thofe who hold the fame fentiments, and by reading no works but those which are written on one fide of the queftion, his paffions become inflamed in proportion as his judgment is unexercised; and he can confider none orthodox but thofe who think precifely like himself; and who, in addition to the formularies of the Church of England, admit all the peculiarities of his system." Hence the mutual prejudices and dislikes of the Calvinists and Ar minians. "Such are the unhappy disputes of the prefent day, which ferve only to irritate the minds of the contending parties, to grieve all moderate men, and to delight the advocates for infidelity and fchifm." "Meanwhile, that venerable branch of Proteftant epifcopacy, the established Church of England, purfues the noiseless tenour of her way, unmoved by the din of theologic hatred, and unbiaffed by the confident appeals of her reftlefs children. Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces! Thou haft chosen the word of God for thy guide, and may that God be thy protection in the midst of all thy troubles! To the Calvinift the Church declares the doctrine of univerfal Redemption. To the Pelagian the afferts the existence of original fin. To the Antinomian fhe declares that good works are a sine qua non of falvation, though not the meritorious caufe of it; and informs him, that, though Chrift died for all, yet none will be faved but the pious only. To the Latitudinarian the avows, that, they are to be had accurfed who prefume to say that every man fhall be faved by the law or fect which he profeffeth, fo that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. And the Romanift, The teaches, that we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift by, faith, and neither for our own works Za 2 works or defervings, nor for the fupererogatory works of faints. In fine, (to adopt the Bishop of Lincoln's judicious remark,) our reformers followed no human authority; they had recourse to the Scriptures themselves as their fole guide. And the confequence has been, what might have been expected, that our articles and liturgy do not exactly correfpond with the sentiments of any of the eminent reformers upon the continent, or with the creeds of any of the Proteftant Churches there established. Our Church is not Lutheran, it is not Calvinistic, it is not Arminian; it is fcriptural." (p. 46.) Having thus prefented our readers with an analysis of this judicious and convincing work, we fhall conclude with recommending it to their perufal and giving it the ftamp of our hearty approbation. One fhort difquifition, however, we beg leave to fubmit to the learned author's confideration. At p. 39. he obferves, that "Faith is declared to be the fpecial gift of God," and he quotes in proof of it that text of St. Paul to the Ephefians, "By grace are ye faved, through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." Now we admit that faith is the gift of God, inafmuch as we admit that "every good and perfect gift cometh down from the Father of lights." But we certainly cannot admit the text here quoted to be any particular proof of it. "By grace ye are faved through faith, and that (nai Tro) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." The words (nal TOTO) cannot poffibly be reftricted to the word "Faith" immediately preceding; they muft comprehend the whole of the preceding fentence, "By grace ye are faved through faith." "Salvation by grace through faith" then, is here declared "to be the gift of God, and not to be of ourselves, nor of our works, left any man fhould boaft." We beg to refer the learned author to the original, and we think he cannot hesitate a moment to fubfcribe to the correctness of our interpretation. We have ftated it, because many authors befides Mr. F. have quoted this text for a fimilar proof, and we think it no proof at all. Another reafon with us for ftating it at present is, the controverfy which has given birth to this little work. Mr. Overton has thought proper to charge the clergy of the Church of England, thofe of them at least whom he confiders as his opponents, with objecting to the doctrine of "Salvation by grace through faith in the ever-bleffed Redeemer." Now the foregoing text of St. Paul is one of the ftrongest and most exprefs in fupport of that doctrine; and we do not conceive how any man can be of the Church of England, or can call himself a Chriftian, who denies it. We unequivocally avow and maintain the doctrine; and we unequivocally declare our belief that no clergyman of the Church of England denies it. Godwin's Godwin's Life and Age of Chaucer. As we wish to omit no opportunity of displaying the reformation which, as we conceive, has, in many inftances, taken place in Mr. G.'s manner of thinking, we copy, with pleasure, fome geLeral observations with which the ninth chapter of his book com mences. "There are,” he says with great propriety and good sense. ́" few truths more ftriking in the hiftory of human affairs, than that things which may be burtful and injurious in one ftage of fociety, had probably their period, in a different ftage, when they were eminently advantageous and salutary. No speculation can do less credit to the discernment of its authors, than that which, examining institutions and practices in the abstract, decides indiscriminately that this is good and universally desirable, while that is fitted only to be the plague of mankind. Every thing has its place; and it would be difficult to find any caufe influencing the mind of man in fociety, however now perhaps antiquated, infipid, or poisonous, which was not at one period genial and nourishing,. restraining the ferocious and favage paffions, or forwarding and maturing the faireft offspring of intellect. Thus, perhaps, the fecularized and degenerate religion established by Conftantine and his fucceffors contributed to bring on the darkness and ignorance of the middle ages: yet that very religion, acting upon the barbarous ufurpers of the Roman empire, tended to keep alive fome of the arts of a more cultivated period, and to prevent the darkness from becoming univerfal and complete." (p. 161.) The fterling merit of the general principle here laid down, we are forry to obferve, is confiderably lowered by the ill-chofen terms with which the illustration is ushered in. When Mr. G. talks of "the fecularized and degenerate religion established by Constantine and his fucceffors," he uses language at once the moft improper and the most indiftinct. It is the canting whine of a difcontented diffenter, who, because his own opinions are not established, delights to rail at all establishments. We do not say that this is Mr. G.'s character: but we fay that he speaks as fuch a character would speak: his phrafeology too has as little claim to just discrimination and truth of fact, as it has to liberality of fentiment. Whatever the religion might be which was established and maintained by fome of Conftantine's fucceffors, and however fecular encouragements might promote its corruption, nothing can be more false, unless Chriftianity itself be an impofture, than that the religion established by Conftantine was a degenerate religion. We are willing, however, to believe that the expreffion was an unintentional overfight. We, therefore, pass it without farther remarks; and, as we take infinitely lefs pleasure in cenfure than in praise, proceed to topics which are more to our mind. The fubjects of this Chapter are the sculpture and painting of the 14th century the metallic arts, embroidery, and mufic. On each of these much curious information is communicated, and many important 73 portant reflections are made. The English, it appears, were anciently dexterous in the art of working cafkets in gold and filver: nor do they feem to have lefs excelled in embroidery. Our readers may be gratified with a fhort account of the celebrated tapestry of Bayeux, which was worked in England, and which has lately, we are told, been employed as one of the means best fitted to encourage Buonaparte's hordes to invade that country where it was produced. "It is a web of linen, nearly two feet in breadth, and 242 in length, embroidered with the hiftory of the Norman expedition, from the embassy of Harold to the Norman court in 1065, till his death in the following year. The fcenes of this bufy period are fucceffively exhibited, and confift of many hundred figures of men, horfes, beafts, birds, trees, houses, caftles, and churches, with infcriptions over them, explanatory of their meaning and hiftory. This work is understood to have been performed under the direction of Matilda, confort to William I, and was not improbably executed by the hands of English women, whofe fuperiority in performances of this kind was then univerfally acknowledged." (Pp. 164, 165,) as No nation is fo barbarous as not to have its mufic. Profane mufic was cultivated, among cur ancestors, by the minstrels; nor was facred mufic lefs encouraged and improved by the churchmen their contemporaries. When Auftin, the monk, and the companions of his miffion, were first introduced to Ethelbert, King of Kent, they approached him in proceffion, finging litanies; and "they trufted," our author fhrewdly obferves, "probably as much to the charms of the Roman chant, as fettled by Pope Gregory the Great, as to the arguments of the Apoftles and Evangelifts, for the converfion of their idolatrous hearers." (p. 18c.) During the 11th century important changes were introduced into the fcience of mufic. The chief of these were counterpoints, or the method of finging in parts; the invention of the mufical fcale by Guido Aretino; and that of the time table, or mode of notation, by which the relative length of each found is determined, by Franco of Cologne. The character and refinements of modern mufic may be faid to owe their origin to these three discoveries. In commendation of such refinements much may justly be advanced; but they ought not to make us forget the real and indestructible merits of the ancient mufic. The mufic of the dark ages equals that of any age or country in its power over the paffions: "Nor has," fays Mr. G. "any lapfe of time, or progress of improvement, been able to fuperfede the favour with which mufic of this ancient and fimple character is regarded by the mafs of almost every nation in Europe." (p. 181.) The reafon of thefe facts, he adds, is obvious; and he affigns it in the following paffage, of which it would be somewhat difficult to decide whether it difplays the greater fhare of good fenfe, or of good taste. In the ancient mufic, the founds produced by the finger or the inftrument were fubordinate to the words; and every man, not infatuated with the paffion for mufic, will admit that, however rapturous or impreffive may |