Scripture, to the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Christian Church, and to the public Formu laries of the Church of England. By GEORGE TOMLINE, D.D. F.R.S. Lord Bishop of Lincoln, and Dean of St. Paul's, London. 8vo. London. 1811. If we know any thing of ourselves, we think that we should have objected to such a title as this, whoever were the author, whatever were the subject he undertook, and whatever were the side of it which he embraced. If modern times have improved in nothing else, they have certainly improved in literary manners; and it is now seldom seen, that a controversialist, however confident he may be that he has achieved his object, announces in his title-page any thing more than the attempt. The proper place for such an assumption as that before us, is, not the beginning, but the end, of the book; if, indeed, it lies not rather in the judgment of the competent reader.-The very subject forms an additional objection. Every one, who has read at all on the controversy, knows the extent of what can be determined upon it; and he must feel surprised to find a high partisan, either for or against Calvinism, expect to convince any but those who have been convinced before. But this was not the only impression, and a legitimate one, of the simple title of the work. We felt unable to account for the ap. pearance of such a discussion at the time. When, however, the opportunity offered of glancing over its contents, a solution suggested itself, and that was, that the work, being evidently an elaborate one, must have been on the author's thoughts a sufficient time to carry back our calculation to the period, when the controversy was warm, and the combatants on both sides active. At that season, we may reasonably suppose, that the principal operations of the mind discovered in this vo lume were performed: and although the contest was short, as it was hot, and the victors on both sides (for vanquished there were none, in their own opinion) have long contented themselves with the quiet enjoy. ment of the fruits of their respective victories, the Bishop of Lincoln felt naturally unwilling that the result of considerable labour should be entirely lost to the world. With out any intention of disparaging the work, we certainly do think that it is not seasonable and we as cer tainly much regret, that, since it has been deemed expedient again to disturb the ashes of Calvin, an indi vidual is no longer living, who would now, we doubt not, feel himself called upon to vindicate the real merits of the venerable reformer. Indeed, as far as either the charac ter or sentiments of Calvin and his adherents are defensible, we distrust not the power, any more than the good-will, of many now living, although in inferior stations, to defend them. The remark is not new, but suffi ciently important to bear repetition, that in the present mode of conducting the controversy concerning Cal vinism, it is necessary to all, who would conceive correctly, and act justly, to make certain distinctions. It is necessary, in the first place, according to the suggestion of the de parted prelate, just alluded to, to understand what is Calvinism and what is not. It is necessary, likewise, to adhere strictly and uniformly to one interpretation or definition of it; for if the term be used to express, at one time, those sentiments only which are absolutely peculiar to Calvin,-at another, those which in some particulars only agree with Calvin's,-who does not see, that a power is thus conferred, which may be greatly abused? The theolo gian, with this prerogative, may ac quit or condemn at pleasure, all those of his brethren, who, with whatever proximity they may approach, fail of a perfect conformity with, the 1811.] Review of the Bishop of Lincoln's Refutation of Calvinism. system of the Genevese Reformer. If he be a friend, nothing more is necessary than to establish the fact, that in some points he differs from Calvin: then, Calvinism being a perfect machine, in which the absence of a single article is universal destruction, the accused or suspected person is at once acquitted of the erime. But change the character, and let him be one, whom, perhaps, for other reasons, it is expedient to condemn; and then the rigid inte grity of the system as demonstrably secures his condemnation, because he is convicted of agreeing, in some point or points, with the proscribed Reformer. It will hardly be expected of us, on the supposition that we materially disagree with the work, and feel confident of our powers to establish our own views on the subjects of disagreement, that we should formally undertake, much less that we should profess, a refutation of the Refutation. The nature and limits of our labours scarcely admit any thing so elaborate; and we conceive an attempt of this kind the less necessary, as we, with the public, have been given to understand, that some such a work is in hands well exercised in controversial divinity, and able to set the general subject on its just foundation. The advocate, not we trust of Calvin or Calvinism, but of evangelical religion, and of the man and his opinions only so far as they agree with their legitimate source, although his work do not profess to return refutation for refutation, will, we hope, at the same time, discover, that his strictures, however detached, do not decline, but fairly meet and grapple with the main body of every adverse argument or position. Anti-Calvinism, as well as Calvinism, may, perhaps, in some respects, be found to be a system; and the demolition of one critical part of the building may carry with it large portions of dependent materials. A polemic, who would most effectually consult his own ease and the perspicuity of CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 117. 581 his argument, must direct his ope rations on this principle. of the preface, appears to have This work, which, by the date been intended as a new-year's gift to the world, is divided into eight chapters. The subject of the first chapter is, " Will, and the Operation of the Holy Original Sin, Free Spirit." Throughout the work, it is not easy to perceive what is the ob ject of attack, whether it be Calvin, or the Calvinists so called, whether assumed to be the same, or whether, any difference being allowed, some times the one and sometimes the other. But whatever be the object, has described it with singular infewe seem to think, that the bishop licity, when he applies to it, evi dently as descriptive of its character, ral approbation of virtue and detes the following words: "The gene tation of vice, which have univer sally prevailed, prove, that the mo ral sense was not annihilated, and that man did not become by the fall an unmixed incorrigible mass of pol lution and depravity, absolutely ins capable of amendment, or of knowing powers, any part of the duty of a or discharging, by his natural dependent rational being." p. 3. After reading this passage delibe rately, we ask any of our readers, or the right reverend author himself, whether a single Calvinist can be to be a just, or not a most unjust, refound, who would acknowledge this. presentation of his opinion. And if the contrary be the fact, what has the Bishop of Lincoln spent his time in refuting? Certainly, in this instance, neither Calvin nor Calvinism. When individuals, who have com mitted to the press their own senti. ments, are oppugned, nothing can be deemed more essential to justice, than that their own words should either be quoted or referred to. But there is not here the slightest approach to such equity. The bishop has not allowed that facility to correction, which every fair disputant should welcome, by the most distant reference. For the establishment of 4 G the author's own opinion concerning the fall, which is stated by himself, (p. 2), to be between the two extremes of the Socinian and Calvinistic hypothesis on that subject, he refers to his former work, "Elements of Christian Theology;" and in this adds, for confirmation, the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments, and of the public formularies of our church. We can conceive nothing more superfluous than the collections from the sacred Scriptures, which doubtless the objects of attack themselves admit, and of which they can give their account. If the principle of interpretation had been ably and fairly discussed, something would have been done. But this, which is the very hinge of the controversy, is left perfectly untouched. Our remarks must, of necessity, be general; or we should have a volume to write on this chapter. But general ones, we believe, will be quite sufficient; and unless the bishop be supposed to have achieved his purpose by demolishing a mormo, certainly of his own creation, we conceive, that most readers will partake of our surprise, in finding, as they proceed, those very doctrines admitted, which constitute the distinctive opinions of the persons, whom all the world will understand to be the persons attacked, and upon whom this work has the direct tendency of fixing the stigma of Calvinism. The bishop, in a great part of this chapter, seems absolutely to write, as if it were necessary to the system of those against whom he writes, that they should not admit a single righteous character (humanly righteous) among men, and that not only among the heathens, but in the very church, both of the old and of the new covenant. He reasons as if these persons, denied, and must deny, that any deeds of external goodness were performed by the gentile world, and constantly, at least to our limited comprehension, confounds a state of grace and a state of nature. There is a position (p. 6), which appears to us incorrect" a law given by a righteous and merciful God proves the possibility of obedience." This is true with respect to the original state of those who are to obey. But should they bring themselves into a state in which they can no longer obey, then, and for the time, the position is inaccurate. This fact may be illustrated from the analogous one of human laws, which, without any imputation of injustice in the instance, punish offences committed in a state of intoxication. The bishop has likewise converted the hypothetical into the categori cal, when he affirms, that St. Paul, expressly says, that "the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law." Scarcely any thing in the course of the extraordinary chapter under consideration, created more surprise in our minds than the round assertion, that the conver sion of the 3000, on the day of Pentecost was gradual; and that their faith" was not suddenly communicated by the supernatural operation of the Holy Ghost, but was the natural and progressive effect of what they saw and heard upon their understandings." We could never see any natural impossibility in sudden conversions, although we believe them infrequent, and sus picious for the time: but this is the last passage of Scripture we should have selected for proof of the contrary opinion. For if the conver sion were not sudden in this case, we know not a single alleged one which can be so denominated; for the most intrepid advocate for such conversions will admit, we appre hend, that some words, some declaration, or persuasion, and consequently some time, must in every case, precede the effect. We question whether the journals of either Mr. Whitfield or Mr. Wesley will af ford an instance of conversion in any other sense instantaneous. The miraculous character of the whole transaction on that memorable day would naturally lead to the expecta tion of something miraculous in the chief and most beneficial effect of it. And this character would perhaps -sufficiently screen it from being made a precedent. From the words just quoted, and some others, it appears to be the Bishop of Lincoln's opinion, concerning divine influences, that the independent natural exertions of men carry them a certain distance, and then divine influences join them, and co-operate for the rest of the cause. He does not at times appear to allow the operation of those influences from the beginning, although jointly only; nor, that grace is necessary to all, which is the opinion of many Anti or Non-Calvinists, but offered to all. He seems anxious, on the contrary, (we mean not to misinterpret), to vindicate to man the pure praise of the beginning, and some advance in the work, of his own salvation; after which a part becomes due to divine assistance. And yet such is the inconsistence or infelicity of expression in the author, if it be not obtuseness of intellect in us, that after quoting from the article upon Free-Will, The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God," he adds, "that is, a man cannot by his own natural faculties and unassisted exertions, so counteract and correct the imperfection and corruption derived from the fall of Adam, as to be able of himself to acquire that true and lively faith which would secure his salvation, or to call upon God with that sincerity, fervour, and devotion, which can alone give efficacy to our prayers. The human mind is so weakened and vitiated by the sin of our first parents, that we cannot by our own natural strength prepare it, or put it into a proper state, for the reception of a saving faith, or for the performance of the spiritual worship required in the Gospel: this mental purification cannot be effected without divine assistance," pp. 53, 54. The discerning and attentive reader will see that the bishop felt his difficulty, and how far the disturbing force of the articles has caused him to deviate from his own orbit. The author's appeal to the liturgy, and particularly the collects, appears to us peculiarly unfortunate; and his assertion, "that the morning and evening services of our church scarcely allude to the corruption of man by the fall of Adam," may perhaps be best answered by observing, that, from begiuring to end, scarcely a sentence is intelligible on any other supposition. The selection from the collects is scanty, and evidently af fords little more than difficulties which need note and comment. Without either, and without adducing those collects which request, not the increase of Christian virtues, but the absolute donation of them, we shall, as briefly as possible, extract certain passages from the number, in which we beg our readers particularly to observe the universality of the exclusive expressions.~ They who do lean upon the hope of thy heavenly grace”—“ O Lord God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing we do"-“ Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves"-" through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee" --" O God, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom, nothing is strong, nothing is holy"—" we who cannot do any thing that is good without thee"-" Almighty and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh, that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service." We will just quote a passage or two from the second part of the sermon (or homily) of the misery of man. "Of ourselves we be crabtrees, that can bring forth no apples. We be of ourselves of such earth, as can bring forth but weeds, nettles, brambles, briars, cockle, and darnel. Our purity be declared in the fifth chapter to the Galatians*. We have neither faith, charity, hope, patience, chastity, nor any thing else that good is, but of God, and therefore these virtues be called there, the fruits of the Holy Ghost, and not the fruits of man." At the close: “Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves: very sinful, wretched, and damnable. Again, we have heard that of ourselves, and by ourselves, we are not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed, so that we can find in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction." After such decisive declarations, it is surely very needless to take to pieces and fritter away particular passages, which the authors may have written without expecting such treatment. It is as plain as meridian day light what was meant by the passages just transcribed. The yet unconvinced reader is requested to read carefully and seriously the 9th and 10th Articles of the Church of England. From the 73d page to the end of this chapter, the application is made to persons called modern Calvinists, in which, as in different portions of what preceded, many passages occur perfectly coinciding with the practical parts of Calvinism itself; which is likewise confounded with Calvinism what is far more properly the doctrine of the followers of Wesley and Whitfield; and in which we grieve to see a vagueness and severity of censure, that, we have little doubt, will be considered as directed against a body of men, whose sentiments and preach ing are not prominently Calvinistic, perhaps not Calvinistic at all, but such, in substance and manner, as those of Christ and his apostles; acensure, too, which, had some parts only of this chapter been written, might have fallen upon the author himself. In the second chapter, "Of Regeneration," the right reverend author Alluding to "the works of the flesh" there enumerated. reasons himself to this conclusion: "The word Regeneration, therefore, is, in Scripture, solely and exclu sively applied to the one imme. diate effect of baptism once administered, and is never used as synonimous to the repentance or reformation of a Christian, or to express any operation of the Holy Ghost upon the human mind subsequent to baptism," p. 86. Before we proceed to our remarks on this passage and subject, we will just notice the singular inaccuracy of Dr. Nicholls, in a passage quoted, and, we must conclude, adopted, from him by the bishop in the next page: "There have been some very unreasonable exceptions taken against this ex pression," (regenerate, as applied to baptized children), " as if all persons who are baptized were truly regenerate, whereas several of them wicked." prove afterwards very Here the very term regenerate (and, we presume, truly regenerate sig nifies only truly the same thing), is used in the sense of personal sanctity and yet Dr. Nicholls imme, diately after sets off on vilifying that acceptation of it. But to return to his lordship: The word regenera tion occurs but twice in the New Testament, either in the original or the English translation, Matt, xix. 28, and Tit. iii. 5. In the first passage, it is questionable, whe ther the term has any relation whatever to baptism: it seems to denote the great revolution of things to take place at the day of judg ment. Consult Beza, Rosenmüller, and others. The other passage that well-known one," according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." The attempt, which has been usual, to serve this cause, by translating the word λ876, laver, in order to lead the mind to the vessel so called, and used in the Jewish temple, is unfounded and injudicious. For the word used for laver in the Septua gint is uniformly erg. The word Apoy is there only used twice; in is |