"There was, in their way of teaching, something favourable, and something judicial. The people set themselves against the truth; therefore our Lord withheld his plainer instructions from them: but he did so, not with a view to increase, but to retheir blindness. move, The 221st skeleton states the nature and necessity of regeneration, in a plain and forcible manner. The 244th is upon the parable of the blind leading the blind; in which the nature of the subject led the author to animadvert upon the presumption of those, who undertake to be spiritual guides, without being qualified for the office: their final doom he represents as proportioned to the transcendency of their guilt. We wish to render this portion of the work under consideration conspicuous; because, with a note at the bottom of the 429th page, it furnishes a specimen of fidelity and prudence combined, which is not always to be met with. The note is as follows:- re “The whole of the subject" (the guilt and final doom of corrupt guides) quires to be treated with peculiar tenderness, lest we appear to be bringing only a railing accusation against our brethren, when we should be seeking rather the edification of our flock. We must not, indeed, shrink from expounding any portion of God's word; but we must always be careful to "speak the truth in love" It were to be wished that this hint was attended to by some hearers, who seem to think that, if the clergy do not come up to their standard (often a very unjust and capricious one), of what the sacred office requires, they are authorized to treat their entire ministration with contempt: little considering that there is no employment, in which the enemies of religion will more cordially unite with them, than in vilifying, whether justly or unjustly, the characters of its ministers*. ing to its legitimate interpretation, we prize, and rely upon as the very foundation of all our hopes for eternity; but we strongly suspect, that in no sense was it alluded to by our Lord in the parable before us. It may possibly reconcile some persons to our opinion, that Calvin, in his commentary upon the place, has interpreted the wedding garment of sanctification alone, or of the garment of holiness*. The next grand division is THE MIRACLES. And the first discourse upon the subject professes to trace "the analogy between bodily and spiritual cures." It is, undoubtedly, a pious and rational exercise, to take occasion from analogous circumstances, whether common transactions or miracles, to lift up our minds to the contemplation of spiritual objects: but we agree with Mr. Simeon, that it is "too much to say, that the miracles wrought by our Lord were types of the spiritual blessings he conveys.' The miracles had their proper office, and were intended to convey certain instruction. Instruction immediately spiritual may be derived from other, from its proper, and from abundant sources; nor need we ever distort the word of God, and thus virtually accuse it of penury, to find such instruction where it was never intended to be delivered. The discourse upon zeal (skel. 279), abounds with excellent matter, both as enforcing the duty, and as guarding it against abuse. "Our zeal," says the author, "mustbe regulated by the word of God. It must be in a good cause; and in support of truth and virtue. from bigotry, ostentation, or wrath. It It must be pure; and free must be discreet, not precipitating us into unbecoming conduct. It must be proportioned, in a measure, to the occasion that excites it. And it must be uniform, opposing sin in ourselves as much as in others." We could with pleasure bring forward the substance of the 302nd ske The 272nd skeleton, upon the wedding garment, has, we apprehend, in violation of the simplicity of its meaning, been made to refer to the righteousness of Christ, by which believers are justified. The doctrine, accord-markable for simplicity, and an abhorrence *We trust the author of Village Dialogues did not view the subject in this light. * See the Harmony of Calvin upon the place, or a translation of the particular passage in Macknight's Harmony. Indeed, the Commentary of Calvin is re of far-fetched interpretations. Even Mosheim was not a stranger to his merits as a commentator, nor too prejudiced to do hin justice. Ecc. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 425, 426. leton, which considers those miracles which were wrought, so to speak, in a mass-that accumulation of supernatural acts, which the Evangelists occasionally relate, and which evidenced a more than ordinary exertion of omnipotence. The resurrection of Christ, his ascension, his exercise of supreme power over the invisible world, each of them separately considered as manifestations of the miraculous power of the Redeemer, would likewise afford us subjects, upon which we could dwell with much gratifi cation. We shall content ourselves at present with noticing the 319th skeleton, which points out "the use and intent of our Lord's Miracles." The discourse is divided into the immediate and ultimate end of them. Under the former division, Mr. Simeon states and proves, that the miracles were wrought for present, and recorded for future, conviction. Their ultimate end he demonstrates to be, the spiritual and the eternal life of men. (To be continued.) LXVII. A Charge, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford. By Jous, Lord Bishop of that Diocese, at his Primary Visitation, in June, 1302. Published at the request of the Clergy. 8vo. pp. 25. Oxford, 1802. THE Right Reverend Author of this Charge having described in just, yet melancholy terms, the state of the present times, concludes, with equal justice, that they " demand from the Clergy an increase of diligence and of labour." (p. 5.) This conclusion, after some further remarks upon the same copious and distressing subject, he repeats : "I return to my conclusion, that the times require of you increased attention, and redoubled labour. It is from a parochial Clergy that the remedy is chiefly to be had, being planted in every part of the kingdom, to be at hand for such assistance. Even in what has passed, your steadiness and good conduct have contributed much to stem the torrent. The country owes thanks to its clergy. Follow up then this good work. Seek for every opportunity, not indeed violently and obtrusively, but silently and gently, of extirpating these Doxious principics, and of infusing better; of routing out these seeds of animosity, dissension, and resistance; and of planting in their room, those of brotherly love, Christian humility, meekness, and charity Religion, with these its heavenly graces, is the proper cure for the evil, if it be but duly administered, which is your charge." (pp. 7, 8.) There are some other just observations upon different important topics: but the passage, which, in our opinion, as well as, apparently, in that of the British Critic, deserves the chief attention, is the following. We will extract it at length, that nothing of its force may be lost. "But with others, the impression has been so strong, as to create a new evil. The revulsion has driven them into the contrary extreme. They have imbibed a spirit of enthusiasm; and, led away by the warmth of imagination, consider others who cannot follow them in the same track, as insensible of their duty, or deficient in it. They encourage, therefore, the irremission, or beyond their commission; gularities of those, who act without comand, in seeking for greater purity of religion, they wound the Church of these realms, established for its support: they find ready associates in all those who were before employed, through enthusiasm, vanity, or interest, in gathering congregations, or drawing after themselves a multitude of followers; or who are now inclined to enter upon the same task, flattering to the pride of man. Out of this compound has arisen a set of men, styling themselves Evangelical ministers; a title, which if assumed, as it is exclusively of others, is in itself separation and schism. When they go farther in practice, uniting themselves into a party, and seeking to bring the persons and labours of all others into disrepute, it is confederacy and conthren, have escaped your notice, how easpiracy. For it cannot, my Reverend Bregerly they beset men of more serious dispositions than common, engage them in new connections, uniting the most discordant elements, and endeavour so to involve them, that their return may be difficult. The true character of the Church of England, I apprehend, is open and generous; leaving men to the natural causes of connection, and to the performing their duty in their proper province. My suspicions are excited, wherever I see indications of party. Then as to this preaching itself, presumptuously called Gospel preaching, so far as it has fallen under my observation, it consists chiefly of a jargon of words, drawn indeed from Scripture, but divested of all precision and meaning in the application of them, the same being repeated on every subject; and its whole character * See Brit. Crit. for September, 1802. is totally different, and stands at the farthest distance from the original Gospel preaching; I mean the plain and rational discourses of our blessed Saviour, recorded in the Gospels, and handed down to us by his holy Apostles, as our grand exemplar of teaching. Its aim is directed to the imaginations of men, to cause them to think or fancy themselves inspired; a bold assumption of the special privilege of the Apostles and their immediate successors, and an intrusion into their pale: All this is accompanied with the grossest flattery to each other: men of the most moderate talents, and of the meanest acquirements, are no sooner enlisted into this sect or party, whatever be its denomination, than they are taught to think themselves, and others are required to believe them, to be persons of commanding talents, and under no necessity of listening to the authority of others: their works, of the meanest stamp, are studiously disseminated, and as extravagantly cried up, even while they are such as a man of real learning throws aside with disgust. Meanwhile the sober and pious labours of the most respectable Clergymen, who happen to be of a different temper, are disregarded, their smallest faults are uncharitably exaggerated, and unmercifully reviled. Let it not be said that I am dealing out reproaches; I am not solicitous to fix motives upon any man, inuch less to ascribe the same to all. I am will ing to believe that these things are with many, in their origin, the mere aberration of good and pious minds; but so far as they are the cause also of deviations from the true doctrine and discipline of the Church, I think it my duty, and I doubt not but that you, my Reverend Brethren, will also think the same, to obviate their effects: for their effects are undoubtedly pernicious, both in themselves, in the vain and idle notions which they engender; and because they tend to render the Clergy of the Establish ment odious in the eyes of their neighbours and parishioners; to bring into question, without authority, the merit or demerit of their labours; and to take out of their hands those whom the law has entrusted to their care. St. Paul himself, an inspired Apostle, and specially commissioned,was care ful of exceeding his province. I must insist upon it, that if life and vigour be to be restored to religion, and its salutary influence increased, it must be done by the instrumentality of the Church; that such is the law of this our national Church and realm, and, I believe I may venture to say, of Christ himself. If reformation be wanted, it should operate through that channel. A greater effect may perhaps be produced on the sudden by irregular means, making use of the love of novelty, and other seductive arts; but in no other way can it be permanent and lasting. Such sadden effects are apt to subside into disgust after a time, and then into a want of all religion; at any rate they depend upon particular persons, and cannot be expected to maintain themselves long. Let these over-zealous reformers reflect, that while they bring every thing within private suggestion, they encourage in religion the very principle, which in politics has proved so fatal to the peace and good government of states; be. ing no other than that of giving the reins to private opinion, in opposition to public authority." (pp. 11-15.) It has been observed that nothing requires so much precision as an accusation, both with respect to the crime alleged, and the persons accused. If the crime be indistinctly stated, there is much danger from the natural censoriousness of mankind, of its being considerably exaggerated. If the objects of the accusation be not accurately defined, there is equal danger from the same cause, and even from a more justifiable one, that the innocent may be involved with the guilty. It is in this latter respect that we conceive the fore-cited accusation to be peculiarly defective. The Bishop has afforded his readers no decisive mark, by which it may be ascertained, against what particular persons his heavy censure is directed. As, therefore, we cannot presume to peleft us no other rule, whereby the netrate his secret sentiments, he has precise objects of his accusation may be determined, than the interpretation which will be given to it by the world in general. Here indeed, we are less at a loss. From various causes not necessary to be specified in the present instance, in conjunction with the general complexion of the passage above extracted, it is no difficult matter to discover who are the persons whom the Bishop will be generally understood here to denounce. They are those Clergymen, we apprehend, who, professing to adhere in their doctrinal opinions to the plain and grammatical sense of the XXXIX. Articles, and professing also to imitate, in their ministerial labours, the zeal and earnestness of the first Reformers, have been distinguished by the title of Evangelical: a title by no means of recent date, as the Bishop intimates at the commencement of the above extract, but in current use many years before the period of that revulsion,' ," to which he ascribes its origin. Only on the supposition that we are not deceived in this ap propriation of the indefinite charge under consideration, do we either call in question the propriety of that charge, or offer any vindication for the objects of it. Our vindication, however, of the persons alluded to, will not be superfluous, although we should be under an error in our supposition that they were designed by the Bishop. What particular characters may have come under the cognizance of this diocesan, we certainly possess not the means of ascertaining: therefore neither can we deny, that persons may be known to his Lordship, to whom his censure may justly apply. We cannot pretend to decide with respect to what is unknown to us. Concerning, however, many of those whom the generality of his readers will suppose to be implicated in the present charge, we do not speak without some authority, nor without some deliberation, when we express our conviction, that, making the necessary allowances for the infirmity and imperfection of our common nature, there is not one of the long list of charges brought against them which can be substantiated by adequate and legitimate evidence. What we say, we say with respect, yet with confidence and firmness. Enthusiasm is a charge almost universally preferred against those whose religion has any influence upon their lives; and the imputation of such enthusiasm, we are by no means anxious to wipe off from the characters of the persons here selected for vindication. What is really enthusiastic (in the bad sense of that equivocal word) they know how to distinguish from that vital religion which is often stigmatized with the name, as well as their accusers; nor are they less decided in their disapprobation of that false and unsanctified substitute for true piety. (See Christ. Observ. vol. 1. p. 586.) That the persons in question assume exclusively to themselves the title of Evangelical, is an imputation not sufficiently supported. We know that many of those to whom it is given decline the name, as savouring of the ostentation and arrogance which are charged upon them. Yet, could they even be proved to be guilty, to what does their guilt amount? From the episcopal throne, many admirable charges have been delivered, com plaining of a defect of evangelical CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 13. preaching, and recommending the resumption of it. The anxiety which dictated such admonitions will not, we trust, be imputed to censorious ness. Let us suppose, then, some of the persons addressed to be sensible of their own deficiency in this particular, and to determine to comply with the admonition. It is not impossible that they might succeed. Would there then be no difference between their former and their present charac ter? And is there no name by which that difference may be expressed? Or, are they, or others for them, to be denied the use of that name: The governors, and those not the least. eminent, of our Church, must have been strangely infatuated to make so important a distinction, where no distinction existed, and so earnestly to recommend the attainment of an object, which could neither be ascertained nor expressed. But if the assumption of this offensive title be, as is affirmed, nothing less than separation and schism; if the persons assuming it unite in a party, (no matter whatof whom exclusive, and of whom admissive) and immediately become guilty of confederacy and conspiracy, we would willingly learn from some quarter by what name they are to be designated, and under what character they are to be considered, who arrogate to themselves the proud and exclusive title of Orthodox, and brand their opponents with the opprobrious one of Schismatics? The term party may be applied to any association, whether bad or good; and previous to evidence, can only be considered as discovering the hostile intention of those who use it. But of the party-so let them be named here vindicated, we do not hesitate to affirm, that nothing is more an object of their decided opposition, than whatever deserves the name of party, in the ill sense of the word. In the jargon, imputed to the objects of our defence, we may possibly diseern something of the misrepre sentation of prejudice; and the mutual flattery likewise laid to their charge, we may very naturally conceive to have grown, by the same means, out of some mutual commendations, which are not without their precedents in other parties. The abilities of these persons, which are represented by the Bishop as the meanest, may perhaps by other judges be differently estimated; nor do we think that they need to shrink from a comparison with the abilities of any other society or if it must be soparty in the Church. The remaining charges are so naturally, if not necessarily, connected with those, which our readers will judge whether we have or have not repelled, that we think it needless to delay any longer our solemn declaration, that we can regard the accusation here examined, so far as respect the persons whom we have selected for vindication, as no other than an unfounded and unjust charge -a charge which should not have been hazarded, and generally extended, without much serious deliberation, nor without decisive evidence of delinquency. If it can be proved against any who bear the clerical office in the Established Church, that they despise its authority, neglect its injunctions, disrespect its constituted rulers, or obstinately persist in any disobedience to its laws-such persons, we wish it to be distinctly understood, do not come within the limits of our vindication. We cannot conclude without re commending the absolute necessity of extensive enquiry, and accurate discrimination, whenever sentence is passed upon a body of men. There are generally so many sources of delusion, and so many temptations to misrepresentation, in every case where a multitude is concerned, that the ability and integrity of the judge should have their most perfect exercise. And as in such cases it seldom happens that a complete uniformity of character prevails, the pronunciation of the sentence should be attended with a distinction, not only between the innocent and the guilty, but between the degrees of guilt which attach to those who are justly condemned; and the more serious the accusation, the more necessary is such distinction. If it were not presuming more than we ought, we might likewise suggest that by an impartial judge too ready an ear should not be lent to accusers of every description; and that particularly the allegations of such accusers should be received with extreme caution, whose interest or whose prejudices incline them to wish for the condemnation of the persons accused. Whether such persons exist, there is not wanting in the present case suf ficient evidence to ascertain. Bet it be likewise observed, that profligate men have never been averse to the method of wounding religion through the sides of its abuses; nor have they ever been known to refuse a concur rence with men of very different views, in declamations against enthusiasm, superstition, hypocrisy, and the like vices. Upon the whole, we cannot but think it equitable, that if the persons accused are not permitted to have their accusers face to face, they should at least have licence to answer for themselves concerning the crimes laid against them; and we are persuaded, that if this and the other methods recommended were resorted to, those persons, whose churchmanship and even loyalty have so unjustly been called in question, would be found, in general, without a superior, even among their adversaries, in conscientious and disinterested attachment both to Church and State-to the State, in its constitution and laws, to the Church, in its discipline and doctrines. LXVIII. An Appendix to the Second Edition of a Treatise,entitled, "The Articles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistic;" being a Reply to the Christian Observer's Remarks on this Treatise*. BY THOMAS KIPLING, D. D. Dean of Peterborough, and late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Svo. pp. 19. Cambridge 1802. AFTER an attentive perusal of this pamphlet, which is not eminently distinguished by temperance, we do not feel ourselves called upon to retract any portion of our observations upon the work to which it forms an appendix, and of which it is intended as a vindication. To the first part of this publication, wherein Dr. Kipling-complains of our having misrepresented the ground of his argument, no other reply seems necessary, than that that may be the real foundation of an argument, which the author has not only no where avowed, but of which he may be perfectly ignorant. Of that part of our critique which the Dean has omitted, as not serving in the least to the determining of the * See Christian Observer, vol. i. p. 594, |