▲ Sermon, preached at Scarborough, at the Primary Visitation of the Most Rev. Edward Lord Archbishop of York, July 28, 1809. By the Rev. Francis Wrangham, M. A. F. R. S. of Trinity College, Cambridge. 38. 6d.

[Concluded from page 513.]

We have now gone through the quotations of Mr. W. We have taken an impartial view of the Institutes of Calvin, so far as his theological sentiments are concerned we say an impartial view, and the result is, we are fully convinced that Calvinism is by Mr. W. most grossly misrepresented. We challenge Mr. W. to produce any fair quotations from the writings of that Reformer, which affirm that God was the Author of man's depravation; that God converted the whole of his posterity into a mass of corruption; that the blessings of redemption are limited in their exhibition to a small number; or that, in their final enjoyment, a few only will partake of them; that the salvation of the Elect is secured in such a manner as to be attainable without, a holy life, or that the condemnation of the reprobate is not, in every case, the consequence of their wilful sia, we ask, where does Calvin say that the one, however they may act in this life, shall be saved? or the other, in spite of their exertions, are incapable of attaining it? know that Calvia accuses his adversary of calumniating his doctrine, by expressions remarkably si

We

milar to those which Mr. W. has employed, and resolutely disavows these inferences and statements as misrepresentations of his system, coned by malignity to serve a base purpose. Our limits forbid our enlargement. We refer the learned reader to the bactatys itself *; he will find much information from the

perusal of the whole, and full proof as to the injustice of charging the

sentiments upon Calvin, which he has repeatedly disavowed.

If, however, in Mr. W.'s judgment, there appeared just cause to animadvert on any of the peculiar sentiments of Calvin, in which he might appear to have expressed himself in language unwarranted by the sacred Scriptures, it certainly became Mr. W. to perform such a duty with decency and respect, if not with tenderness. Take the character of Calvin, on the whole, as a Scholar, a Theologian, an exalted Christian, and a disinterested and laborous Reformer, he had not many superiors in any age or coun. try. The most distinguished ornaments of the English church always spake of him in the highest terms of friendship and respect. Cranmer wrote to him for his advice; Hooper so esteemed him, that, from his prison, he wrote to him, and addressed him as a most excellent man; and Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, liberally acknowledges that Calvin was the wisest man that ever the French Church enjoyed. The Divines of Elizabeth and of the First James, always speak of him as the learned, the wise, the judicious, the pious Calvin. Perhaps, there is scarcely a parallel instance upon re cord, of any single individual being so unequivocally venerated for the union of wisdom and piety, both in England and by a large body of the foreign churches, as John Calvin.

We say, therefore, it became Mr. W. in treating any supposed mis takes of Calvin, to do it with decency. There was a time when Mr. WI's Alma Mater would have chastised such indecorum in the most promising of her sons; but the times are changed! It would doubtless be inferred by the unlearned part of his audience, and, perhaps, by some of his clerical brethren, that Mr. W. had read Calvin's writings for himself, especially as he pledged himself to regard Calvin's system as laid down in his owa writings; but,

we have some reason to suspect this; for he acknowledges that he is indebted to Dr. Kipling for extracts from Calvin's writings. It excites our astonishment, however, that Mr. W. could content himself with such second-hand and partial evidence! Why did Mr. W. carry (on such an occasion too before a Protestant Archbishop and his clergy) such a kind of warfare, with dislocated passages and garbled extracts, when, to a scholar like himself, the original in its integrity and continuity was of the easiest access! but, it is the fashion to review authors without reading them; and how venerable soever that author may be, the fashion must be followed! - but it is the climax of inconsistency to offer a charge against Calvinism, which even the evidence of his own witnesses, partial as they are, will not support :—yet this will appear to be the fact!

It has not escaped the recollection of our readers, that a controversy arose, some years since, respecting the true meaning of the Articles, and Homilies of the Church of England. The evangelical clergy, as they are distinguished, were called to defend themselves; and they did so, by adducing evidence that their preaching accorded with the sentiments of the reformers of their church. On the other hand, it was alleged, By their opponents, that these evangelical clergy were a sect within the walls of the Establishment: that the Articles, &c. so far from favouring their sentiments, were certainly constructed for the express purpose of excluding every thing of a Calvinistic nature.

Of

this controversy, though we were not interested parties, yet we were by no means uninterested spectators. It gave us pleasure to see the good old religion,' as Bishop Hall calls it, illustrated and defended by solid theological learning, by becoming temper, and, in most instances, by irrefragable arguments; whilst, on the other, we found only dogmatism, petulance, and indecent invective. We refer especially to Mr. Daubenny and to Dr. Kipling; the

latter of whom, in his zeal to prova his point, even, mistook express passages of Scripture for some of Calvin's sentiments. In this controversy Mr. W. has thought fit to volunteer his services; but he is peculiarly unfortunate in ranking himself on the Anti-Calvinistic side, to have chosen Dr. Kipling for his leader, and to have followed him in those very quotations and applications of Calvin, in which he had been fully convicted of having, though without intention, impugned the sacred Scriptures themselves. It is also well known to those who are acquainted with that controversy, that the very method which Dr.Kipling had adopted, to prove the AntiCalvinism of the Church of England, would prove that Calvin himself was no Calvinist.

Had Mr. W. come in as a Moderator in this controversy, to soften the asperity of party, to shew that pious men, on both sides, were agreed in the great essentials of evangelical truth, he might have done greater justice to his text, and far more honour to himself; he might also have administered an useful lesson to his clerical associates on the solemn occasion, instead of exasperating the spirit of party, and in calumniating the venerable Calvin.

We are told in the Notes, with a kind of triumphant air, that Geneva · has now ceased to be the principal mart of this sombre doctrine.' Calvinism is departed! And what remains? It is said Infidelity prevails, and is accompanied with a general corruption of manners*. It is certain also, that Voltaire boasted that he could not find a Calvinist in Geneva. It will be worth a religiophilosophical-investigation to trace the connection between there two facts in more places than Genevà; and, if it be found that certain effects result from certain causes, a moral tendency will be pretty strongly established.

A little after, we are told that Modern Calvinists are pious and exemplary, and, in proportion to their abstinence from the grand peculiarities of their creed, useful

6

characters. On this principle we should be sadly afraid of their becoming rather too much like modern Geneva! An Eina of Theology,'whose fires, perhaps, are not very injurious to the unharmless gaieties of life. We speak out; we have been accustomed to hear of clergymen on the horse-course, or at the county election,-or the theatre, whose abstinence from the grand peculiarities of their creed, is the greatest abstinence they exemplify; and we devoutly rejoice to know that the number of those who preach and adorn the peculiarities of their creed, are increasing in the national church.

However, says Mr. W. so long as we have the prodigal son who, under ordinary influence, willed to 'arise and go to his father' (proving the synergism of conversion) so long as by looking upon the serpent of brass, every one that is bitten shall continue to live, we will prefer Luke xv. and Numbers xxi. to the confessions of Austin, and the Institutions of Calvin.' We have no objection to the sentiment which prefers the sacred volume to human compilations; the Bible is the religion of Protestants.' But if Mr. W. conceive this willing and looking' to be independent of divine grace, we beg leave to remind him on the first subject, that the Bible says, 'It is God (even in the misery of a prodigal) who worketh in us to will and do.' Dr. K. mistook this text for Calvin's sentiment, and thought it approached almost to blasphemy. We hope Mr. W. will not follow with equal steps. On the latter text he may also recollect, that looking to the great Antitype of the brazen serpent, is, in the Bible, not only commanded as a duty, but promised as the blessed fruit of divine influence:- -I will pour upon the house of David, &c. and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and mourn.'

Why does Mr. W. hide, under a Greek term (Synergism) a senti ment which might have been expressed in plain English, Co-ope ration of conversion ?' Is it be. cause he did not wish openly to avow a sentiment which favours a

disposition in the human mind, already too prevalent, to aggrandize human ability at the expence of God's honour, and thereby to im pair in the mind of man that sense of his universal and unceasing dependence upon Divine Grace which should by all means, and at all times, he cherished, in order to animate him to greater fervency and frequency in prayer, to quicken his gratitude, and to advance his humility? Or does Mr. W. mean to intimate that the Greek of the New Testament will warrant his assumption of the epithet as applied to conversion? The noun synergos is used 13 times in the New Testament, and its kindred varb five or six; but in no instance is either of them used of a sinner's co-operation with God in his own conversion;'-but always of Christian and ministerial co-operation for the furtherance of the gospel.

6

It is

Mr. W. attempts in a note to distinguish, in toto cœlo, between the sentiments of Calvin and modera Calvinism. In this note he has abandoned his two precursors, Dr. K. and Mr. D. who were both of opinion, that the distinction is unreal;' and, if we are allowed, with Bishop Horsley, to define Calvinism such as the venerable Calvin himself would have owned, not enriched and embellished with the extravagances of modern visionaries," they must be nearly the same. to be regretted that the dying advice of Bishop Horsley, on this subject, has not met with sufficient attention, especially from the preachers at visitations, who, having chosen` this hackneyed topic, and addressing his clergy on the subject of the Calvinistic controversy, this learned prelate said, If ever you should be provoked to take a part in these disputes, of al things I entreat you to avoid what is now become very common, Acrimonious abuse of Čalvinism and of Calvin ; at least, take especial care, before you aim your shaf s at Calvinism, that you know what is Calvinism. I must say, I have found great want of this discrimination in some late coniroversial writings on the side of the Church, as they were meant to be.

1

OUR readers will recollect that we reviewed another pamphlet on this subject, by the same author, a few months ago. Mr. Wickes again appears, gravely to argue the matter, and controvert the opinion of Sir Wm. Scott; to whom the following question was submitted:

Whether a Clergyman ought to refuse burying a child baptized by a Dissenter? The case, at large, respecting a refusal to baptize the child of one Bott, is then stated; wherein it appears that Bott requested the curate of the parish of Belton, Rutland, to bury his child; when he answered, You may lay your child by the rest of your family, but I will not bury him, nor shall any one else; I will bury no Dissenter: I will bury only Roman Catholics and Churchmen.' Bott, - therefore, made a grave in the church-yard, and put the child in himself.

Bp. Horsley, Ch. 1800.

Christenings of Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England;* by which act their right to baptism, by their own ministers, received a complete legislative cognizance.

Sir Wm. Scott, in his answer, says, I am of opinion that, if reasonable proof was offered to the clergyman complained of, that the child had been baptized in the manner described in the answer to the question proposed by me *, he acted ilegally and improperly, in refusing to bury it, and that he might be prosecuted, with effect, in the ecclesiastical court for his refusal.'

The ground upon which I hold the refusal of the curate to be unjustifiable is, that the child was not unbaptized, in the sense and intention of the compilers of our liturgy and rubric. What that sense and intention was, is very much a question of fact and of history. And I think that that history has been collected by different writers (but particularly by Bishop Fleetwood) with sufficient accuracy to authorize the legal conclusion I draw.'

ac

Mr. Wickes, however, is a dissenter from the official opinion of Sir Wm. Scott, and insists upon it, that if baptism be not administered cording to the form of the book of Common Prayer,' and in such manner and form as is prescribed in the said book of Common Prayer,' the non-performance of this initiatory rite, excludes the individual, through non-conformity, from the consequent privileges which are attached only to those who do conform; and as the rubrick very positively enjoins the rite of baptism to be performed only by lawful ministers, i. e. by those who have been ordained according to the form and masner of making and ordaining priests and deacons, prescribed in the book of Common Prayer, it follows, That those who are otherwise baptized than by such min sters thus lawfully ordained, are within

the meaning of the rubrick, and in the sense and intention of the compilers of our liturgy and rubrick, UNBAPTIZED; and, consequently, not by any specific law entitled to demand burial (we never before heard of any dead men demanding burial) of the lawful ministers of that esta blished church, of which they cannot, by the very mode of their baptism, be legally considered as meinbers, entitled to its subsequent privileges.' p. 32, 33.

But, with submission to the Rev. Mr. Wickes, we would beg leave to ask, Why is it, if persons not baptized in the church, but by Dissenters, or persons no way baptized in infancy, are not considered as members of the Church of England? why are they permitted to be married in the church--why are tithes and offerings demanded of them? (for Mr.W. says, they do not legally belong to the church, p. 21)—why are they uniformly admitted to the Lord's Supper, if they require it?and, if these duties are required of, and these privileges allowed to, them as reputed members of the church, why should the great privilege of having the funeral service read over them be the only one refused? aud, we may add, Why is it that, if Dissenting Ministers conform to the established church, they are permitted to become priests, and even bishops, though, according to Mr. W. unbaptized?

Mr. W. endeavours to justify his uncharitable conclusion by the authority of Dr. Croft, who gave it as his decided opinion, in the Birmingham newspaper, That no clergyman can be compelled to bury any individual, who has not been baptized in the church of England by a priest or deacon; and nothing short of an act of parliament will be sufficient to legalize such a proceeding whenever it is done, it is done by CONNIVANCE;'- and should I ever be called upon to read the service over a Dissenter, my consent would be a matter of connivance, candour, and indulgence, not of strict obligation.'

:

Mr. W. also gives us an extract from Wheatley, on the Common Prayer: Unless we betray our

own rights, by registering spurions among genuine baptisms, persons baptized among Dissenters can have no claim to the use of this office. The rubrick expressly declares, That it shall not be used for any that die unbaptized; but all persons are supposed to die unbaptized but these whose baptisms the registers own; and, therefore, registers not owning dissenting baptisms, those that die with such baptisms, must be supposed to die unbaptized.' P. 37.

Mr. Wheatley then offers his counsel on this case. 'But, indeed, the best way to put an end to this controversy is, to desire those that have separate places of worship, to have separate places of burial too; or at least to be content to put their dead into the ground without desiring the prayers of a minister, whose assistance in every thing but this and marriage, they neglect and despise.'

It is well known that many dissenting congregations have already separate burial places; and as the whole body is now told, That if a clergyman vouchsafe to bury a Dissenter, it must be considered as an act of candour, connivance, and indul gence, it is probable that many more will take his advice; and, as soon as they conveniently can, provide themselves with separate cemeteries; and as to those who cannot procure such, they may, perhaps, comply with the other branch of the advice, and be content to put their dead into the ground without desiring prayers,' &c. Several have, of late years, been obliged so to do, by the refusal of clergymen to read the service: but it ought to be mentioned, to the honour of several of the bishops, that when complaint has been made, they have uniformly insisted upon the clergyman's doing his duty; and the service has been afterwards read at the grave, in some cases very reluctantly indeed: we know of one in Northamptonshire, where it was supposed not to have been performed, notwith standing the positive direction of the bishop; but it was afterwards acknowledged that it was done at midnight, by the parson and clerk only, where no spectators might witness