of philosophy, this word has very observations-delivered, however, little meaning; and it is held, we in a style most strange and unac presume, in no very high degree of countable-upon the bad tendency estimation by the Christian.-The truth is, since heathenism went out of fashion, " good fortune" has been consigned, as a loose expression, to the unthinking part of the community, and means," nothing at all." The logic will therefore stand thus: "We are indebted for our preservation, humanly speaking, either to the prudence of our rulers, or, to nothing at all." The conclusion may be just, but the terms are not happy. The degree of influence, which the Bishop of London attributes to "good fortune," or "accident" (the words, we imagine, are synonimous), is rather remarkable. In p. 10, we meet with the following observation: "Hence the tendency to aggravate every fault of government, and even every untoward accident which has befallen it, as in the course of events, in such times, many must occur." We wish that his lordship bad furnished us with a few exemplifications. For a good exposition of the doctrine of luck, or chance, or "accident," or "good fortune," we beg to refer our readers to the History of Betty Brown, the St. Giles's Orange Girl, as contained in one of the Cheap Repository tracts. "Poor Betty," says the narrative," here burst into tears of joy and gratitude, crying out, What! shall such a poor friendless creature as I, be treated so kindly, and learn to read the word of God too? Oh, madam! what a lucky chance brought me to your door!'-'Betty,' said the lady, what you have just said, shews the need you have of being better taught: there is no such thing as chance; and we offend God, when we call that luck, or chance, which is brought about by his will and pleasure. None of the events of your life have happened by chance; but all have been under the direction of a good and kind Providence."" (Tracts p. 117.) After two or three pages of just of a democratic and discontented spirit, the Bishop proceeds to inform his clergy, "that it is one of their duties to endeavour silently and quietly to heal these distrac tions, which exist among us, each within his own province; to allay heats and compose differences; to remove or to diminish the causes of offence," &c. (p. 11.) The advice is good; but we much doubt whether the example of moderation and justice, exhibited in the subsequent pages, be precisely of that character which will "compose differences" and tend to union. The subject is well deserving of attention. We are informed, in the same page, that the infidelity propagated at the beginning of these troubles (viz. the French Revolution), has inclined many to "licentiousness of opinion, or indifference in religion." "The extreme into which others have equally prejudicial to sober and sound relirun, shocked at this growing evil, has been gion. Men have sought for separation, when the circumstances required the strict est union; and to rebuild the shaken faith of Christians on the fluctuating basis of enthusiasm; and to heal the wounds which Christian obedience had received from corruption of mind, profligacy of manners, and vitiousness of life, not by the evangelical doctrine and grace of repentance, as the conversions, the inventions of men of Gospel teaches, but by new and unheard of heated imaginations, or ambitious views. They have bewildered themselves and their followers in the mysteries and depths of Calvinism, in distrust or contempt of the simplicity of the Gospel. Hence has there been engendered a new schism, halting be tween the church and dissension from it, which, whilst it professes to follow the pu rity of our church, or even to refine upon, it, is continually undermining the establishment, and acts also occasionally at the head of the most discordant sects in opposition to it. By nothing more than this has the peace and credit of our church been disturbed, whilst the most respectable ministers, if they enlist not themselves under this sect; are vilified by the uncharitable reflections and arrogant pretensions of these new puritans. Nothing more than this has contri buted in aid of other civil causes, to shake the just subordination of ranks amongst us; while it exalts the meanest and most ignorant of men into a spiritual superiority, teaches them to despise others, and draw around then a train of followers as igno rant as themselves. Add to this, that the notions of sudden conversion, absolute election, and the utter inefficiency of our own exertions and righteousness, (whatever they be of themselves, as I hold them to be most unscriptural,) are certainly not the means of producing Christian innocence and simplicity of life, but contain within them the seeds of pride, separation, dissension and mutual animosity, and for that reason, if for no other, are justly to be suspected; nor can any one shew that we are enjoined in the Gospel to teach men so." pp. 12, 13. All these events, be it remembered, have arisen, according to the Bishop's view of the subject, from the French Revolution, and are therefore, in the order of time, posterior. Now let us come to the historical fact. Is it true that men have embraced wild theories of sudden conversions, and other inventions of enthusiasts, in order "to rebuild the shaken faith of Christians," shaken by the infidelity of the French Revolution? We look around us in vain for the proof.Are the men to whom the Bishop alludes, in the church of England? We presume that they are not. Are they among the Methodists? The history of Methodism will prove that sudden conversions, according to their notions of the matter, were common and notorious nearly half a century before the commotions in France. We need only cite, in proof of this fact, a witness whom his Lordship will allow to be competent: we mean Bishop Lavington. The circumstance, therefore, of the prevalence of such conversions since the French Revolution, proves nothing: it is, at the most, merely a continuation of the old system.-Does he mean the regular dissenters? Sudden conversions are, we believe, little known among them: we are persuaded, that there is scarcely any class of these dissenters which does not regard such conversions with some portion of jealousy and distrust. themselves and their followers in Again: "They have bewildered the mysteries and depths of Calvinism."It is well known, that every the land-that is to say, every folMethodist (properly so called) in lower of Mr. Wesley-is, by profession, an Arminian, and therefore rejects the peculiarities of Calvin. "Hence has been engendered a new schism."-Though we cannot in general compliment the Bishop Longinus calls quaтw exλory xat for those ornaments of style, which η τροπική και πεποιημένη λεξις, yet we must confess that the metaphor in this last sentence is pre-eminently happy. The schismatics thus produced, have, it appears, the following marks: 1. They profess "to follow the purity of the church." 2. They act "occasionally at the head of the most discordant sects in opposition to it." 3. They are new puritans," reviling by uncharitable reflections, and arrogant pretensions," those " respectable ministers" who will not "enlist themselves under this sect." Therefore 5. They are" ignoraut" persons. 6. They hold the doctrine of "sudden conversion:" 7. tion:" 8. of absolute elec of" the utter inefficiency of our own exertions and righteousness.' If, with all these marks, we cannot discover the individuals, we shall have no reason to boast of our good fortune. The first and eighth marks-the last being taken in a certain senseapply, or ought to apply, to the bishops and the whole of the clergy. The second will suit Bonaparte; or the Archbishop of Canterbury, who stands at the head of the Naval and Military Bible Society. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth-the last being taken in its widest meaning-apply to the Antinomians. The first, fourth, sixth, and eighth (in a restricted interpretation), apply to the Methodists: perhaps also the the fifth, although certainly some of them have no title to rank under this description. The fourth, and perhaps the second, belong to the Socinians. Several classes of the dissenters may possibly be found to divide among them the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth; but there is little need for us to adjust their respective claims, Our readers will perceive, that, with regard to the eighth mark, we cannot speak with confidence. The parenthesis "(whatever they be of themselves, as I hold them to be most unscriptural)" probably means, that the doctrines just recited are inconsistent with Scripture. But what, in that case, the Bishop understands by the words "the utter inefficiency of our own exertions and righteousness," we do not well comprehend. The doctrine is certainly, in some way or other, held by our church, as might be shewn by means of a certain Enchiridion published some years since by the learned author of this Charge: but we know not that we can better explain it, than in the words of the church herself, in her Homily on the Salvation of Mankind. "Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments, therefore can no man, by his own acts, works, and deeds (seem they never so good), be justified and made righteous before God."-" No man," saith St. Paul," is justified by the works of the law, but freely by faith in Jesus Christ. And again he saith, We believe in Jesus Christ, that we be justified freely by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, because that no man shall be justified by the works of the law."-" And therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith; which, nevertheless, is the gift of God, and not man's only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying."-" All the good works we can do be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification; but our justification doth come freely by the mere mercy of God." We are far from intending to affirm that the Bishop dissents from this view of the subject; though his words naturally lead to that conclusion. We think it possible, that, after all, the real object of the parenthesis is to intimate, that, whatever our exertions and righteousness be of themselves, he holds them to be an unscriptural ground of reliance. If we be right in this conjecture of charity, we must at least allow that the Bishop has marvellously failed in point of perspi cuity. From our examination of the several marks, which have been produced as descriptive of some troublesome sect, it is evident that his lordship is alarmed without reason. No sect, we will venture to say, exists in this country, which will answer to the description. His lordship had before partly attributed our happiness to "good fortune”that is, to nothing at all; and therefore, to strike the balance, it was but fair to charge our miseries upon a similar phantasy. It is thus, they tell us, that algebraists set off their negative against their positive quantities, and, after engendering equations, often produce nothing. We are perfectly at a loss to conjecture, where his lordship can have gained his historical facts. He tells us (p. 15), that with "the old dissenters, such as Presbyterians, Independents, and Anabaptists"-"there was honest ground of dissent;" and "in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity they did. not differ from us." We are next told, that the modern dissenters hold the doctrines of Calvin.-And did not the old dissenters, with scarcely an exception, do the same? And if the latter were conscientious and honest men, does not charity require us to believe that many of the former may be conscientious also? And if, notwithstanding the known and avowed Calvinism of the old dissenters, the Bishop admits that "in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity they did not differ from us," by what process of reasoning, we would ask, does he arrive at the conclusion, that Calvinism, in the present day, constitutes a fundamental difference between the church and any other class of religionists? "But look again," says the Charge, "to the present state of these dissenters." For the sake of conciseness and perspicuity, we will just enumerate his new marks of the schism, as they stand at pages 16 and 17. 1. "At one time they incline to the extreme rigour of Calvinism." 2. At another time they soften down the same doctrines." 3. "They partly continue within the church," partly" separate from it." 4." When separated, they do not even know what denomination to give themselves." 5. They are called, however, "Pædo-baptists, Anti-pædo-baptists," 68 Dissenters, Protestant Dissenters," "Wesleyans, Whitfieldians *, &c." This," says the Bishop, " is the very same thing, I conceive, with that which St. 10. Attempts have been lately made "to introduce preachers of this stamp as lecturers into the London churches, which I hope will be obviated." Are these things said of one class of men, or of many classes? Of churchmen, or of dissenters? Of Calvinists, or of Arminians? The 1st article seems to bear upon rigid Calvinists. The 2d, upon the moderate Calvinists, or perhaps upon Arminians. The 3d, glances at the Methodists. The 4th, seems to point to the Theophilanthropists. The 5th, happily specifies the parties to whom it alludes; but the variety of names is a sufficient proof that all the marks specified cannot apply to each. The 6th, refers, we presume, to dissenters in general, although dis teachers. Paul exclaims against with so much indig-senting teachers are also legalised nation; I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas.'" p. 16. 66 we We have some doubt, whether this interpretation be correct. The argument of St. Paul in this place implies, that certain of the Corinthians transferred to individual apostles a degree of honour which ought only to be paid to God. Hence he contends, in terms which may be thus paraphrased, are nothing as of ourselves, but must be cousidered merely as instruments. You seem disposed to look upon us as the authors of your religion; whereas we can do no more than plant and water: the blessing and the increase are from God alone; to him attribute the glory. And whilst you love and obey us for our works' sake, as labourers to The 7th, we believe, is not strictly correct with respect to any body of gether with God, always bear in mind, that ye belong neither to Paul, nor to Apollos, but that'ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.' Whilst we notice this misconception, we must also state, that we do no more vindicate the multiplicity of names than the multiplicity of sects. The "Whitfieldians," &c. &c., imply nothing else, we presume, by this distinctive appellation, than this; viz. that they understand the Scriptures according to the interpretations of their respective leaders. So long as sects exist, itik évident that they must have a name. men. If any persons within the church do assume the name, it is probably by way of distinction from those who arrogate to themselves the title of "sound churchmen." The 8th, probably refers to the dissenters generally. The 9th, belongs exclusively to the Antinomians. We are much deceived if all the sects enumerated in the 5th article, with this single exception, do not abhor these execrable principles as much as his Lordship. The 10th, is obviously enough intended for some London lecturers, and among others, we presume, for the Rev. Dr. Povah. They are designated as preachers of this stamp." Of what stamp, we would ask? We have nine stamps before us: they surely do not belong to them all! We can only say, “Quo teneam Vultus mutantem Protea nodo?" What instruction are we to derive from assertions which are either so general as to embrace all parties, or so marvellously narrow and confined as to include none? The only professed object which we can discover in these pages, is to shew the clergy by what rule they must walk, if they would "allay heats and compose differences. This is doubtless the true way "to remove or to diminish the causes of offence;" and the Bishop therefore, in a subsequent part of his Charge, introduces, as an appropriate corol. lary, the following sentence: "The humility and meekness which Christianity inculcates is the most likely remedy for the distractions and contentions of the country" (p. 18); -a truth in which we heartily con cur. We are afterwards presented with an account of the measures lately adopted by parliament for the improvement of small livings. The account is confusedly given; but the pages which contain it are the most gratifying in the book. The Bishop then adverts to some obserCHRIST, OBSERV. No. 111. vations of his clergy, which state the want of churches to be one cause of the growth of dissenters; and he justly exclaims, "It is a disgrace to the country that many of its inhabitants should have no means of public worship, or be driven to such, rather than lose all public exercise of religion, as neither they themselves, nor the state for them, approve of. The more so, nacles of those who dissent from us spring since we see the meeting-houses and taberup on every side, as soon as their congregations are gathered. The demand therefore is great, that ample means be provided, so that there be room for the several distinctions of rank, and that the poorest man at the same time may have his place allotted to him, which I esteem to be his birth-right as much as the enjoyment of his personal liberty and the fruits of his labour; and that all may meet together and humiliate themselves in the house of God before the common Father and Redeemer of all." p. 25. We most entirely concur with the Bishop in his sentiments on this momentous subject; and we sincerely wish that our rulers, both in church and state, were properly awake to this enormous evil. We should, in that case, have legislative remedies speedily provided for the almost insuperable difficulties which stand in the way of the erection of churches and chapels within the pale of the establishment. The parish of Marybone has a single church for a population of 80,000 souls! And yet we vehemently censure, as Calvinists, and Methodists, and deceivers, and false flatterers, the thousands and tens of thousands of our brethren, who seek to obtain in other places that heavenly wisdom, which the crowds in their own churches will not allow them to receive from the regular clergy. After a few words about the propriety of renewing terriers, his Lordship adverts to another griev ance. "There is another which I. consider as a grievance, and you must allow me to remonstrate with you on the subject. I mean the having recourse to register offices, as they are called, for the occasional supply of duty." (p. 28.) This dis 2 A |