The words Elect and Chosen constantly denote collective bodies of men who were converted to the Gospel, without any restriction to those who will obtain eternal salvation; and an infallible certainty of eternal happiness, in consequence of a divine decree, is not attributed to any number of Christians, or 10 any single Christian, throughout the New Testament. Salvation is uniformly mentioned as contingent and conditional. P. 303.

Respecting Calvinistic Predestination, the peculiar subject of the elaborate work before us, the learned Bishop speaks thus:

"Calvinists, or the advocates of absolute Predestination, rejoice (since they can rejoice) in a religious system, consisting of human creatures without liberty, doctrines without sense, faith without reason, and a God without mercy." P. 320.

From this unphilosophical doctrine (unphilosophical because it makes God the author of sin), our readers will see the real character of the Bugbear, which the Dean professes to expose. Of course he shows its utter inconsistency, not only with the divine attributes, but with the intention of Christianity, i. e. to make men wiser, better, and eternally happy.

But people do not stumble, unless there is something to cause stumbling; and as we have not room to do justice to the work before us, as a whole, we shall exhibit the Dean's elucidation of certain Texts, which have occasioned such stumbling.

The first is the metaphor of St. Paul, about the Potter having power over the clay, &c. (Rom. ix. 20, 21, 22). The Dean shows, that it is a quotation from Isaiah, xlv. 9, only meant to illustrate

suggested by either; in both, Esau and Jacob are considered merely as representatives of the nations who were respectively to descend from them, the Edomites from Esau, the Israelites from Jacob; and the prophetic declaration in the history denotes, that contrary to the expectations arising from primogeniture, contrary also to him who willeth," to the personal inclination of Isaac, who dedisregarding the prophecy to the reverse, signed the blessing for Esau, forgetting or pronounced at their birth, and finally, contrary also to him who runneth,' to the efforts of Esau, who ran to execute his father's commands for securing the blessing to himself,-in opposition to all these, the Israelites were to be the chosen people of God, in exclusion of the Edomites, who were to be their inferiors, both in temporal and religious concerns. This PREDESTINATION OF NATIONS to execute the Divine purposes in the PRESENT WORLD, not the PREDESTINATION OF INDIVIDUALS TO ETERNAL HAPPINESS OR MISERY IN A FUTURE STATE, was most clearly meant both in the prophecy and the Apostle's argument, so far as refers to Esau and Jacob. For when before the children were born, Rebecca went to enquire of the Lord-he said unto her Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

The reason of this preference was "the impossibility for God to choose any people out of an idolatrous world, who should preserve amongst men his law, his worship, and his word, and therefore the descendants of Esau were of course rejected."

The learned Dean then proceeds to the case of Pharaoh (Rom. ix. 17), and shows in like manner that any absolute and unconditional predestination was no more intended in his instance than in any other.

We know not, in short, any doctrine more pernicious to the interests of society, or more insulting to the wisdom of God, than this irrational, detestable, and even silly construction of Predestination; viz. that God has arbitrarily fixed the salvation or reprobation of men, without any regard to their faith or conduct, so that, in the language of the infamous Lambeth Articles, "It is not in the will or power of any man to be saved."

We care not that such opinions have been given (and we will not qualify our terms) by theological old women and preaching quacks, because the folly is most mischievous, and qualified

terms will not express our abhorrence of doctrines which reduce Christianity to a nullity. The subject is solemn; and it is absolute, undefecated, essential absurdity to suppose, that Christ could possibly come to save sinners, when the lot of all men, whether they should be saved or not, was previously fixed, ab æterno. Yet the advocates of such blasphemy, (for what else can it be to make the Almighty a fool?) are called good men, pious men, &c. We have not however heard them called sensible men also, because perhaps the latter are thought to know a manifest truth, viz. that Revelation cannot be adverse to reason (though we may not comprehend it), because God cannot do any thing which is contrary to reason.

We assure our readers, that we have seldom read a more edifying and useful book than this of Dean Graves.

4. A Vindication of certain Passages in the History of England. By J. Lingard, D.D. 8vo, pp. 112.

THE certain passages are: 1. Dr. Lingard's statement of the massacres of the Protestants on St. Bartholomew's day (which he contends was an unauthorized ebullition of popular fury, for injuries of an iconoclastic form, sustained by the Catholics); 2. other murders, leagues, &c.; 3. the inconsistency of Cranmer; 4. the amour between Henry VIII. and Anne Boleyn. The Quarterly and Edinburgh Reviewers have accused Dr. Lingard of partiality and misstatement, from a bias towards the Catholics in these particulars.

There can be no doubt that Dr. Lingard wrote his History of England with a view, so far as he was able, of vindicating the Catholics; but no man living is able so to do, because no Protestants ever went the same lengths of murdering people by wholesale.

With regard to the first passage, Dr. Lingard is unable to show, that the Court of France was ignorant of the projected massacre, and, if it was not ignorant, it must have connived at it. It is mere quibbling to say, that the massacre was not authorized. Of course it was not, because it was not an act which could emanate from authority. Was it prevented? No. Was the Government able to prevent it? Yes. But of this again.

The questions about Cranmer are personalities. He was obliged to tem

porize from the character of the Sovereign, and every Protestant admits, that the difficult circumstances in which Cranmer was placed, did extort from him improper concessions. But these are arguments ad hominem, not ad rem. All we have to do with Craumer is doctrine, and if the man was not personally a Hero, as he was intellectually a Sage, it is a mere question of private character, and has no kind of bearing in vindication of Popery, or deterioration of Protestantism.

With regard to the last question, the marriage of Henry VIII. with Anne Boleyn, and previous seduction of her sister, what is that to the purpose? Henry VIII. was the founder of the Reformation; and is there any objection to Christianity, because Judas was an agent of the sacrifice of Christ, upon which sacrifice the blessing depends. But to return. Suppose Protestants were to make it a point in a History of England, that Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who lost his life in the Catholic cause, had yet maintained that it was lawful for Henry to marry his brother's widow (contrary to Leviticus, xviii. 16, 20, 21, and Mark, vi. 18). This would be a weak argument in favour of the Reformation.

The fact is this, Philosophers and Statesmen know that doctrines had little to do with the decisions of Princes on the subject. In the views of some it was deemed eligible to recognize the disputed authority of the Pope, in that of others to discard it. As to the writings of the time, so infuriate were party principles, it is difficult to say what was true and what was false. Sanders (De Schism. Angl. p. 216, quoted by Fuller Ch. Hist. B. v. p. 255) says, that "Queen Mary had a great minde to make up his [Henry's] tomb, but durst not for fear a Catholic should seem to countenance the memory of one dying in open schism with the Church of Rome." Heylin, in his History of the Reformation, states, on the contrary, "that Mary admitted of a consultation for burning the body of her father, and cutting off the head of her sister." Facts however are not to be disputed, and when Dr. Lingard professes to maintain, that the massacre of St. Bartholomew's was not sanctioned by the Court of France, we request to know, how Coins came to be struck on the occasion, with these inscriptions, "VIRTUS IN REBELLES,"

and "PIETAS EXCITAVIT JUSTI TIAM." He will see the fact recorded in Camden's "Elizabeth," anno 1572, p. 228, edit. 1615. All we can concede to Dr. Lingard is, that the Protestants had insulted and provoked the Catholics, and that had the Court legally punished them for so acting, it would then have done its duty in an inculpable form.

Dr. Lingard writes with temper, and his quotations show him to be a writer of extensive and recondite erudition.

5. Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting.

By

Dallaway. Vol. II. pp. 414. THIS volume opens with one of Mr. Walpole's happiest efforts, the character of James the First, and the architecture and taste of the æra. Mr. Walpole was not popular, and has been called frivolous. That he was not a patriot or philanthropist, which the English wisely expect their Nobles and Honourables to be, we admit; and censure in that respect would be fair, but the distinguishing vituperations with which he has been loaded, have been like those showered down upon Lord Chesterfield, by persons utterly ignorant of the manners and taste of high life. Had either of these titled men written good books for children, they would have been praised, but have been laughed at for eccentricity. It is true, that immoralities should not have been recommended in Chesterfield; but the publication was posthumous, and the fault of their appearance lay with the Editor. In our younger days these Letters were read as a Hoyle, giving an accurate knowledge of the whist of the world, as it is played; and inculcating the best possible methods of acquiring the prudence necessary for passing through life safely and successfully. In a state of high civilization (and it may be added of reason only), it is necessary that the art of pleasing should be studied, for if the felicity of private life be a great support of virtue, as it certainly is, that felicity will never result where the management of temper and manners is neglected.

Wise men, who have to live in the world, know the value of Chesterfield, and will endeavour to prevent vulgarity and ill-temper, and habits of giving GENT. MAG. January, 1827.

offence in their children and families; and if Shakspeare and Gibbon have been expurgated, why not also these instructive Letters? Now Walpole was a Chesterfield in the Arts, and we think that with regard to them his opinions are fully as valuable, as are those of the Earl with regard to knowledge of the world. For let us recollect, that every body can tell us things as they ought to be, and teach us the innocence of the dove; but we must know things as they are before we can acquire the wisdom of the serpent; and most certainly Chesterfield teaches us knowledge of the world, and Walpole taste in the Arts.

This character of James, and the taste of his day, is as follows:

"It was well for the Arts, that King James had no disposition to them; he let them take their own course. Had he felt any inclination for them, he would probably have introduced as bad a taste, as he did into Literature. A Prince, who thought puns and quibbles the perfection of eloquence, would have been charmed with the monkies of Hemskirk, and the drunken boors of Ostade. James loved his ease and his pleasures, and hated novelties. He gave himself up to hunting, and hunting in

the most cumbrous and inconvenient of all dresses, a ruff and trowser breeches. The nobility kept up the magnificence they found established by Queen Elizabeth, in which predominated a want of taste, rather than a bad one.

In more ancient times the man

sions of the great Lords were built for defence and strength, rather than convenience, the walls thick, the windows pierced wherever it was most necessary for them to look abroad, instead of being contrived for symmetry or to illuminate the chambers. To that style succeeded the richness and delicacy of the Gothic. As this declined before the Grecian taste was established, space and vastness seem to have made their whole ideas of grandeur. The palaces erected in the reign of Elizabeth are exactly in this style. The apartments are lofty and enormous, and they knew not how to furnish them; pictures, had they had good ones, would have been lost in chambers of such height. Tapestry, their chief moveable, was not perfect enough to be commonly real in magnificence. Fretted ceilings, graceful mouldings of windows and painted glass, the ornadisuse. Immense lights, composed of bad ments of the preceding age, had fallen into glass in diamond panes, cast an air of poverty on their most costly apartments. That at Hardwicke, still preserved as it was furnished for the reception and imprisonment of the Queen of Scots, is a curious picture of that age and style. Nothing can

exceed the expence in the bed of state, in the hangings of the same chamber, and of the coverings for the tables. The first is cloth of gold, cloth of silver, velvets of different colours, lace, fringes, and embroidery. The hangings consist of figures, large as life, representing the Virtues and Vices, embroidered on grounds of white and black velvet. The cloths to cast over the tables are embroidered and embossed with gold on velvets and damasks. The only moveables of any taste are the cabinets and tables themselves, carved in oak. The chimnies are wide enough for a hall or kitchen, and over the arras are freezes of many feet deep, with miserable relievos in stucco, representing hunting. There, and in all the great mansions of that age, is a gallery remarkable ouly for its extent. That at Hardwicke is of sixty yards."

The magnificent temper or taste of the Duke of Buckingham, derived from his voyage to Spain, led him to collect pictures, and pointed out the study of

them to Prince Charles. Rubens and Inigo Jones were warmly patronized; and painting and architecture appeared, says Mr. Walpole, " in the purity and

lustre of Rome and Athens."

Charles had great judgment and taste in the Arts, and Mr. Walpole observes,

"Queen Elizabeth was avaricious with pomp; James I. lavish with meanness. A Prince who patronizes the Arts, and can distinguish abilities, enriches his country, and is at once generous and an economist." P. 92.

We know that it is the custom in philosophical history to make surgical subjects of the characters of our Kings, and preserve them so operated upon in spirit glasses; but they limit themselves to their political capacity-they look only for the organ of Government, as if they were phrenologists, investigating only a collection of sculls. But we are disciples of Lavater, and have studied in his school the genius and talent pourtrayed by projecting eyebrows, the obstinacy of protuberant lower parts of the face, and the shrewdness of sharp noses and pump-handled chins. In short, we cannot decide character without busts at least, including muscle as well as bone. And though we physiognomists may be as great quacks as the phrenologists, yet a craniological golgotha is not so pleasant a school of that popular thing quackery, as a picture-gallery. Therefore we cannot forbear giving the best character ever drawn of Charles the First. It is one

by Gilpin, extracted by Mr. Dallaway, in pp. 92, 93.

"If Charles had acted with as much

judgment as he read, and had shewn as much discernment in life as he had taste in the arts, he might have figured amongst the greatest Princes. Every lover of picturesque beauty, however, must respect this amiable Prince, notwithstanding his political weaknesses. We never had a Prince in England, whose genius and taste were more elevated and exact. He saw the Arts in a very enlarged point of view. The amusements of his Court were a model of elegance to all Europe; and his cabinets were the receptacles only of what was exquisite in Sculpture and Painting. Now men of the first merit in their profession found encouragemeut from him; and these abundantly. Jones was his Architect, and Vandyck his Painter. Charles was a scholar, a man of taste, a gentleman, and a Christian. He was every thing but a King. The art of reigning was the only art of which he was igno

rant."

An analysis of the professional and biographical characters of the respective Artists of the reigns of James and Charles, would far exceed our limits. We must therefore confine ourselves to

points. That which we shall begin with is Painting on Glass. The first interruption given to it, says Mr. Walpole, was by the Reformation, which banished the art out of Churches; but though this exclusion was not, precisely speaking, total, there certainly is a new character in the stained glass which followed the Reformation.

Rude as might be the execution, and stiff as might be the designs of the ancient Glass-painters, we must own that, for Church-work at least, we greatly prefer it to the modern. We request it to be granted, as a postulate, that transparencies can never have the genuine lights and shades of Nature, or good canvas paintings; that they look like things on fire, animated only with flame. We admit that glass is the most pleasant form of exhibiting transparent painting, but then we think it inevitably subject to gaudiness, to the flatness of a daub, to the predominance of glare and colour. Now, in the ancient school, we think that we see an effort to keep down this drunkard's visage, as the general character, because there is a greater darkness produced by the antique, a more reverential dimness than by modern glass. The Flemish school acts upon a different plan. It applies to historical painting

the showiness which is in Nature given only to birds, flowers, and insects, and thus deviates from the standard, the closest possible assimilation of canvas painting. Cocks and hens, peacocks, pheasants, butterflies, flowers, and coats of arms, all things of colour and blazonry, are far better exhibited in glass than on canvas, for they depend upon colour for their effect; but historical character, denoted by the eye, the features, and the expression, is unsusceptible of the same minute precision on glass as upon canvas. Stronger attitude and bolder design seem therefore necessary in glass The splendour of the colouring is the danger. In ancient times state was carried to excess; in the modern it is too neglected. Now, a painting of a great man in a modern sitting-room, is in our judg ment much the same thing as would be the representation of Achilles in a modern chariot; and whoever has seen the beautiful print of Knightley Hall in Baker's Northamptonshire, will think that a noble Baronial Hall in the Gothic style, made a sepulchral museum, would be a very proper ap pendage to the seats of ancient families, -even of those who, for the sake of comfort, live in modern houses. Now in a hall, splendour of tint might be pardonable, if at any time it is not too gay to harmonize with the Gothic, or rather does not overpower every thing else; but in Churches, we think that the colouring should be more kept down, than it now generally is. Retention of the mullions in the old Churches, contributed much to attemperate excess of glare.

Mr. Walpole's account of the history of stained glass is very superficial; indeed says little more than that the art was continued in escutcheons of arms, in hall windows. Mr. Dallaway supplies his author's deficiency, and sorry we are that he was ever enabled so to do. There was a consistency in every thing connected with Gothic architecture. The old glaziers and paper-pattern makers (humble as they were) would have despised the toys of the Flemish school, as incongruous. But when that paltry school obtruded itself, then, says Mr. Dallaway, came up

“Sundials with flies, insects, and butterflies-small portraits, oval or round, and about five or six inches, by seven or eight in diameter-Esopian figures of animals placed

singly on lozenges, and beasts, birds, and flowers"

in short, things merely fit for twelfth cakes and gingerbread.

We regret that we are obliged to conclude this notice, with a passage relating to a most beautiful part of painting now popular, but recent in date, for well we recollect that drawing-books in the Dutch style, of trees like brooms and gooseberry- bushes, and rocks, like unfinished walls, and cottages like tiled sheds, were sold as studies for pupils, and Wilson and Gainsborough were known only to connoisseurs. But these were the days of curls, pigtails, and cocked-hats, and every thing artificial; now, at last, Nature has formed our taste. Mr. Dallaway adds,

"In Norgate's MSS. it is remarked, landscape is an art so new in England, and so lately come ashore, as all the language within our four seas cannot find it a name, but a borrowed one, and that from a people that are no great lenders but upon good security-the Dutch. For to say the truth, the art is theirs, and the best; that wherein his latter time, as he quitted all his other withall, Sir P. P. Rubens was so delighted practice in picture and story, whereby he got a vast estate (15,000 crowns) to studie this."

We can only repeat, that the same taste, the same valuable additions, and in this volume, as in that preceding. the same instructive corrections, appear The plates are not only of most beauti ful execution, but of such admirable character in the disposition of light and shade, and minuteness of finish, as almost to convey the idea that they are living beings, looking at us. traits convey, though small, is of the short, the expression which these porhigh character in our opinion of pattern pieces, while the plates themselves work by a competent Editor, of the are fit accompaniments to a standard best qualification for such a work, taste of the first order.

In

6. NICHOLS's Progresses of James the First. Volume II.

(Continued from Vol, xcvi. ii. p. 615.) IN the Procession to Prince Henry's Funeral the newly created Order of Baronets had their place. Six carried the canopy of black velvet over the Prince's effigy, and ten others bore the banuerols around it. Ninety-three only had then been created.-At the Queen's