also that, in 1634, the Articles of the Church of England were received as thofe of the Church of Ireland. See Collier, Vol. II. p. 763." (Pp. 54-57.) On the fubject of difcipline the remarks of this found and wellinfìructed churchman are most impreflive and most important, but we are under the neceffity of reporting them very briefly. He obferves, that many profeffed members of the Church feem hardly to conceive themfelves under any obligation to obferve her difcipline; and to this difregard of order he thinks that Calviniflic preaching, in which, generally fpeaking, doctrine is every thing, and difcipline nothing, has greatly contributed. Yet even lay men are under a tacit promife to obey the difcipline of the Church; at leaft, from the pofitive injunctions of Scripture, to "obey thofe who have the rule over us, and who watch for our fouls," they are under a pofitive obligation to obey it. With regard to clergymen, the cafe is ftill more evident. They have expreísly promised fuch obedience. It would, perhaps, be unjust to fay, that all Calvinifts are hoftile to our eftablifhed form of Church government; but that Calvinifm itfelf is fo, the Hiftory of England, and ftill more that of Scotland, abundantly prove. "Had it not been for the Arminianifm of England, there would be now, throughout the united kingdom, no other than titular bishops." (p. 63.) The fpirit of Calvinifm has always been unfriendly to the ufe of a prefcribed form of prayer; with which Epifcopacy feems fo intimately connected that they will generally be found to rife and fall together. To this difinclination to a form of prayer, the peculiar pretenfions of Calvinifts to inspiration, and their fo far believing in the fenfible operations of the holy fpirit as to think that he fuggefts both the matter and manner of their public prayers, naturally lead. Accordingly in the celebrated conference at the Savoy, even the Calvinifts who profeffed themselves friends to Epifcopacy and a liturgy gave in the following propofal : "That the gift of prayer being one fpecial qualification for the miniftry, they defire the liturgy may not be fo ftrictly impofed as totally to exclude the exercite of that faculty in any part of public worfhip and that, in confequence of this, it may be left to the difcretion of the minifter to omit part of the ftated service, as occafion fhall require." To this curious propofal, which would have rendered the appointment of a liturgy nugatory, the commiffione:s for the Church, confifting of divines as eminent as any of whom he could ever boast, made the following admirable reply. "Their propofal touching the gift of prayer makes the liturgy, in effect, wholly infignificant. For what elfe can be the confequence, if every minifter may put in and leave out at difcretion? As for the gift, or rather the spirit of prayer, it confifts in the inward graces of the holy ipirit, and not in extemporary expreffions. Such unpremeditated effufions are only the effects of natural parts, of a voluble, tongue, and of uncommon affurance. But, if there is any fuch gift as is really pretended, this extraordinary qualification must be fubject to the prophets, and the order of the Church. Confidering the mifchiefs coming by impertinent, ridiculous, and fometimes feditious, wicked, wicked, and blafphemous expreffions, under pretence of giving liberty for exercifing the gift of prayer; confidering the honour of God is fo highly injared, and religion fuffers fo much in this way; it is reafonable thole, who defire fuch an indulgence in public devotions, fhould first give the Church fecurity that no private opinions fhould be put into their prayers; and that nothing contrary to the faith fhould be uttered before God, or offered up to him in the Church, To prevent which mischiefs, the former ages knew no better way than forbidding the ufe of any prayers in public, excepting fuch as were prefcribed by public authority." (Collier, Vol. II. Pp. 878, 881.) Mr. Pearfon fays that he is much mistaken if many Calviniftic minifters of the establishment do not now wish for the liberty which was openly pleaded for at the Restoration; and, what is worse, if fome of them do not exercise it. There are, he is told, (and we KNOW the fact to be fo,) Calviniftic minifters of the establishment, who indulge in the ufe of extemporary prayer, in a way which is altogether inconfiftent with obedience to the difcipline of the Church. But, fetting afide the guilt of difobedience, we are decidedly of our author's opinion that, though extemporary prayer in public may, by its novelty, and fometimes, no doubt, by its extravagance, more gratify curiofity and please the fancy than a fet form, it is by no means fo well fitted to answer the purposes of devotion. To fay the truth it is only (and even that not always) the prayer of the minifter, and never of the congregation. But, be the reafon of the thing as it may, it is evidently the defign of our Church to prohibit, in public, the practice of extemporary prayer. Thofe minifters, therefore, of the eftablishment who practice it, whether in addition to the Liturgy or otherwife, are guilty of a flagrant breach of difcipline; and they farther give great occafion to fufpect that their fubmiffion to the ufe of a Liturgy at all does not proceed from their conviction of its utility, but merely from its being prescribed by an authority which they dare not entirely dif regard. Many Calvinifts, Mr. Pearfon obferves, profefs a great regard for difcipline; and he read, he fays, with peculiar fatisfaction, the following paffage in Mr. Overton's work: But, "The great body of thefe divines," the evangelical, "as fincerely lament the schism of Dr. Haweis, as the heterodoxy of fome other Doctors" "without inquiring," he adds, " into the particular inftances, in which Dr. Haweis has hewn himfelf fchifmatical, I take the liberty of obferving that there are many methods befides that of open fchifm, by which the attachment of the people to the established difcipline may be weakened, and fchifm encouraged; and I cannot but with that you had been as particular in telling us what, according to your idea, is a breach of difcipline, as you have been in telling us what is not. A friend of mine once obferved to me that the preaching, which is called evangelical, may be confidered as a half way house between the church and the conventicle. How far this obfervation is well-founded, I fhall not undertake pofitively to determine; but if, in the preaching of Calvinistic minifters, fo great a ftrefs is laid on doctrines, and particularly on thofe doctrines by which Calvinifm is diftinguifhed from Arminianifm, Arminianifm, as to make difcipline appear of but little comparative importance, and, (to ufe your own expreffion) like the chaff to the wheat,' it is eafy to fee that a way is gradually opened for a feparation from the Church." (Pp. 71-73.) Nothing is more common among the lower fort of people, than for perfons to defert their own parish church to attend on fome neighbouring minifter, whofe preaching has got the character of being more evangelical. Though Mr. Pearfon does not, in general, approve of fuch conduct, yet circumftances, he fays, may occur in which it would be strictly defenfible. We have always regarded fuch conduct as fchifmatical; and we wish that our learned and candid author had pointed out the particular circumftances which, in his opinion, justify it: for his conceffion, ftanding, as it now does, without any fpecified limitations, may eafily, we conceive, be made a bad ufe of. The evil, however, does not terminate here. Thofe who have been accustomed to Calviniftic preaching in the Church, and who have been perfuaded · to confider fuch preaching exclufively as evangelical, will rather leave the church, and join the conventicle, than be deprived of fuch edifying fanaticifm. Add to this that Calviniftic minifters are never flow to infinuate, nay, are frequently careful openly to declare that their neighbouring minifters of Anti-Calviniftic fentiments, are "blind guides," and "dumb dogs," who know nothing of the doctrines of the church or of the fcripture. They thus become the direct promoters of fchifm, and infamoufly betray the truft repofed in them. What else is the tendency of Mr. Overton's arrogant declaration: "We, then, are the true Churchmen; and Mr. Daubeny and his affociates are Diffenters ?" "The evil of fchifm," fays this excellent Churchman, "is fo great, and the fin of it fo heinous, that every thing which is likely to promote it ought to be guarded against with the greatest care; and, perhaps, there never was a time, when that care was more neceflary than at prefent, there never was a time, when the duty of Church Communion was lefs understood in theory, or less attended to in practice. Many of the common people, taking upon themselves to judge what is true doctrine and what is not, confider it a fufficient excufe for frequenting a conventicle, that they hear there what is good. To break the unity of the Church, and to encourage the preaching of those who, not having given any fecurity for preaching true doctrine, may preach false, is confidered as a very venial offence, if an offence. at all. The person, from whom they hear doctrines of which they approve, and the place in which they hear them, is, it seems, a circumstance of but little importance." 6 "In the worship of God," continues Mr. Pearfon, "I once heard a fenfible lay-man fay, place fignifies nothing, fo that the heart be right.' When this maxim is taken by itself, what can be more true? When it is taken in reference to social worthip among Chriftians, and alleged as an excufe for neglecting the difcipline eftablished in the Church, what can be more falfe? If individuals are to determine what doctrines are to be taught, and who is to teach them, what places and times are to be appropriated to public worship, and what rites and ceremonies are to be obferved in it, what will foon become of Christianity among us? In the minds and hearts of true believers, indeed, it muft ever reign as the guide of their lives, and the ground of their dearest hopes; but, confidered as a Church, as a body of men united in the fame faith and worship, of which Chrift is the head, and of which it can truly be faid that by joints and bands having nourishment administered, and knit together, it increaleth with the increate of God,' we fhall probably look for it in vain. Besides, to return to the maxim itself, is it likely that the heart can be altogether right, where there is a wilful neglect of obfervances which, if not prefcribed by Chrift himself, are prefcribed by thofe who have received authority from Chrift to direct the steps of that flock over which the Holy Ghoft hath made them overfeerers?" (Pp. 76-79.) Mr. Pearson remarks that, from the days of the early Puritans to those of Whitefield and Wesley, the principal fchifms which have distracted our Church have all originated from Calvinifm. The followers of Wefley are generally regarded as Arminians; but this, Mr. Pearfon fays, is a fallacy. In many opinions which are peculiarly Calviniftic, particularly on the fubjects of juftification, of the new birth, and of what has been called the faith of affurance, the followers of both as cordially agree as they do in hoftility to the difcipline of the Church. Mr. Pearfon is right, and has produced from Wefley paffages which are well deferving of notice. "The Methodists had wandered many years in the new path of falvation by faith and works, before God fhewed them the old way of falvation by faith only.""My being born of God was an instantaneous act, enabling me, from that moment, to be more than conqueror over thofe corruptions, which before I was always a flave to.""I felt faith in Chrift, and an affurance was given me that he had taken away my fins, even mine." Mr. Pearfon, therefore, juftly concludes that, whatever the followers of Wefley may think of fome of the Lambeth articles, they would freely fubfcribe to the fifth and fixth. We are firmly perfuaded that he is not miftaken when he adds, "My opinion is that, in doing fo, they would, if certain hindrances did not ftand in the way, be joined by the far greater part, if not the whole, of thofe who are characterized by the term evangelical.." (P. 85.) We cannot conclude our extracts from this valuable pamphlet without inferting the following, which is of fingular importance. "It will not be foreign to this part of the subject to obferve that Calviniftic preaching encourages the error, too prevalent among the lower orders of the people, of preferring, in the public fervice, the Sermon to the Prayers. I would not deny the ufefulness of preaching when judiciously conducted, nor refuse to it its due degree of eftimation; but, certainly, when the Sermon is compared with the Prayers, it is of but inferior importance. In hearing a fermon, we may, perhaps, be inftructed in our duty, or excited to its performance; but in joining with fincerity in the prayers, we are actually performing a confiderable branch of our duty. Now, it has not efcaped the obfervations of difcerning perfons that, in the miniftry of many of those who are called evangelical preachers, there is often a carelellnets and haste in the reading of the Liturgy, well adapted to excite a belief that the the Prayers are not confidered by the reader, what in fact they are, as the most important part of the fervice, but merely as a decent introduction to the Sermon which is to follow. How far the gratification of vanity, and the defire of 'preaching themselves, not Christ Jesus the Lord,' may be concerned in this, or how far it may arife from di.affection to the Prayers themfelves, I fhall not prefume to determine; but I am fure that the thing itself is of very pernicious tendency." (Pp. 57-89.) Mr. Pearson, in the course of his remarks, has favoured us with a copy of a moft extraordinary letter, which, as illuftrative of the genuine fpirit of our Evangelical Calviniftic Methodists, it would be altogether unpardonable to withhold from our readers. "I am always forry to find," he fays, addreffing himself to Mr. Overton, "that we are retrograde in liberality of thinking; and you, Sir, I am `affured, will not be proud of an ally who, in his attempt to fhield you from my attack, has manifefted fentiments of which even Baxter, the believer in witchcraft, and the perfecutor of thofe accufed of it, would have been alhamed," The letter, which had on it the Leicester poft mark, was occafioned by Mr. Pearson's Remarks on Juftification, and was as follows: "REV. SIR, "Practical infidels would thank you for your publication; but the perufal of it produced no emotions in my mind but thofe of grief and pity: grief that Rempftone has fuch a blind guide, and pity for you, reflecting on the confequence of fuch doctrines as your's." May God in mercy fhew you the way of falvation, for as yet you are utterly a stranger to it; and may you, before death, become a TRUE CHURCHMAN; for now I fcruple not to fay you are not. I am, Sir, Mr. Pearfon, in a postscript, fays: "It is but just to add that, when Mr. Overton was informed of my having received the anonymous letter of which a copy is given, p. 59, he pronounced the fending of it to be a cowardly attempt;' affuring me that he entertained very different ideas of fuch principles as mine from thofe expreffed in the anonymous letter,' and that he viewed that letter with as great difapprobation as I could do." How Mr. Overton could make such a declaration we are totally at a lofs to conceive. To those who have read Mr. Overton's book, the fentiments of the letterwriter, compared with his, will appear, both as to matter and expreffion, fufficiently mild. Is Mr. Overton practifed in the art of TRIMMING? While Mr. Pearson's pamphlet was in the prefs, he saw the mafterly publication of Dr. Kipling. It is a fubject of pride to the AntiJacobin Reviewers that Mr. Pearfon's judgment with regard to that |