Images de page

Here we have on the one side, the apostolick protestant Episcopalian Assistant Rector, gravely and peremptorily saying that the Church is the support and bulwark of " the truth,” without which it (i. e. the truth) could not long continue to stand: and on the other the apostolick Roman Council, saying that to the Church only, it appertaineth to judge of the sense and interpretation of Scripture. The former unquestionably means by " the truth of the Church,” the Scriptures; and therefore as he insists that the Church supports and defends the Scriptures, he must unite with the latter in claiming for the Church the right of judging of the sense and interpretation of Scripture. We say that he must thus unite; we ought rather to say that he has thus united with the apostolick council; for his rule and that of the Bible and Common Prayer Book Society of this city, is “ give not the Scriptures, i. e. the truth,” without giving with it the Church, i. e. the liturgy of the Episcopal Church. If our author does not identify (in p. 20, 21, 22, 23) with Scripture, the above-mentioned liturgy, he reasons most strangely and absurdly. But we cannot mistake his meaning; inasmuch as he has been at such pains to be plain. He informs his hearers and readers, " the Church supports and defends the truth.” If they ask, wbat is the truth ? bis answer is the word of God, or the Scriptures. If, which denomination is the Church? Our's, i. e. the Episcopal, of course. If they prosecute the inquiry and desire to know, what constitutes your Church? The Episcopal liturgy, the Episcopal liturgy, the Episcopal liturgy, that is, the Church of the living God! But may not the word of God be given without the Episcopal liturgy? Ob no; for the latter, which is the Church, is the candlestick, and the former is the light. “The candlestick being taken away, the light is in perpetual danger of being thrown down and destroyed.” How can that be? Because the Church, i. e. the Episcopal liturgy, the production of sinful, frail men, is the support and bulwark of the word of the infinite and holy God! Worthy is such a view of the Church, and the Scriptures, to be advanced by the man of sin; but utterly unworthy, when advanced by a protestant, boasting of the apostolical constitution and evangelical liturgy of bis

Church. We refer him and his coadjutors, the Bible and Common Prayer Book Society of this City, to Whitby on this passage, who refutes the popish interpretation which they have adopted. Such interpretation, whether given by protestants or papists, wherever we meet with it, reminds us of a pleasant story, which amused us in early life. A Collier being asked, what he believed, answered, what the Church believes. Being again asked, what that was, he answered, what I believe. And again, when the inquiry was, " what do you and the Church both believe ?” he replied, " the Church and I both believe the same thing." Thus it is that men roundly claim for themselves the faith of the Church. On examination, the faith of the Church is just what each of them believe. Hence Universalists, Arians, Socinians, Materialists, as well as Arminians, sign the articles of the Church of England.

5. We proceed lastly to consider the author's misrepresentations of Calvinistic doctrines. On this subject we shall not long detain the reader. The radical defect in the treatment of our doctrines, is the babit of our opponents to exbibit garbled extracts, or if any thing like a system, a caricature, so as to produce effect.

We have already extended this article to such a length, as to compel us to draw to a conclusion. We shall subject to the process of examination only two of the author's misrepresentations. The one is with respect to the heathen world. The Larger Catechism to which Dr. H. refers, does not determine the fact whether there is mercy for the heathen world; but it states the truth, that the light of nature cannot save. We do not pretend to limit the application of Christ's blood to the heathen in a manner of which we have no conception. In the third sect. of the tenth chapter of the West. Confess. it is assumed as a principle, “ that persons incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word, may be elect.” But of this

say a little more under the next head. The other misrepresentation relates to persons dying in infancy. Because elect infants are named in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it does not necessarily follow that there are reprobate infants. The word as used evidently alludes to such cases as those of Jeremiah the prophet, and John the Baptist. We, who believe in the doctrines of this Confession, do not conceive ourselves as prevented, in good faith, from believing, so far as we can be said to believe without positive information, that all infants, whether Christian or heathen, dying in infancy, belong to the election of God. But as this is not revealed, it is right in public Confessions of Faith to go no farther than the written word. Therefore in the West. Confess. “ elect infants” are mentioned, not bowever to constrain the supporters of that Confession, to believe that there are any infants repro: bate. The great truths recognized in the Calvinistic system are these. “ There is but one way of salvation, that is, through Christ; they who hear and are capable of improving this way, and reject it, shall perish; they who, though born in a Christian land, are incapable from infancy or idiocy, of improving this way, may be saved." Upon the saine principles, without relinquishing one single article of our faith, we consider that God may apply to all infants dying in infancy, and to the dying pagan,

we shall

the blood of Christ. We state it hypothetically; merely to show that Dr. H. has not sufficiently examined the standards of the Calvinistic Churches.

But we must draw to a conclusion, assuring our readers that when the proper occasion offers, we are not unwilling to enter the lists in defence of Calvinism.

Though we have declined taking a part in the Episcopal controversy, yet we cannot resist the temptation which the present address affords us, to endeavour to teach the author a little wisdom, prudence, and moderation in the controversy. In p. 28 he says, “In the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, composed within 200 years of the Apostolick age, the lists in question (viz. of Bishops) will be found as copied from the records of the different Churches by Eusebius himself.”. Then in a note our author gives the succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem, as given by Eusebius, who he says, transcribed the same from the Church records. As Dr. H. has not referred to the place in Eusebius where be found the above account, we had to search for it as well as we could. It is in the fifth book and twelfth chapter of bis history we meet with these words, ai twv avtot dia adoxai rigis x8ri, episcoporum series, quæ in archivis illius ecclesiæ, servantur, ostendunt, in plain English, “after whom the successions of the (Bishops) there do show." Upon this passage, Valesius, the editor of Eusebius, after mentioning that the Churches founded by the apostles, did keep a record of their bishops with great care, adds, “ these our Eusebius had diligently examined, as appears from this place and he has digested the Bishops of the principal sees from these tables only.” Thus then Dr. How has palmed upon his hearers and readers Valesius for Eusebius, the Editor for the Historian. Besides the plain import of the words quoted, we have more decisive authorities from Eusebius himself, concerning these said Bishops of Jerusalem, so imposingly introduced in the pote to p. 28. In the fourth book and fifth chapter of his history, Eusebius says, “ moreover, the space of time which the Bishops of Jerusalem spent in their presidency over that see, I could in no wise find preserved in writing : for as report says, they were very short-lived : But thus much I have been informed of from old records, that unto, &c.” Such then is the fact as stated by Dr. H. from Valesius, contradicted by Eusebius himself. Of this contradiction, see Pearson de success. prim. Rom. Episc. c. 2, p. 8, as quoted in Reading's Cambridge ed. of Eusebius by Valesius, p. 225.

We now conclude our long review. Nothing but the standing of the author, and the credit which he has with his party, would have excited us to pay so much attention to so short a pamphlet. The style is better than that of the author's other productions.

The characteristic fault of the man appears throughout, to make assertions without proving them, and to discolour, for the purpose of exciting disgust, doctrines wbich be does not understand. Many things are introduced, not for giving unity to the whole, but to disclose party views. We honour his honesty in avowing his sentiments, and respect his motives; but wish he may in future afford a better specimen of his talents, and tbe correctness of his reading.

[blocks in formation]

O'er barren fields and sandy wastes

It spreads, to bless the sterile land, And o'er the dreary desert hastes

To crown with life, by Christ's command.

« PrécédentContinuer »