Page images
PDF
EPUB

Whoe'er thou wert,

Nameless, unknown ! Partner of my retirement now, Yet fit companion thou for me, My nearest intimate,

Who hear no human voice,
My best companion thou !

Nor human visage see !
On thee to muse

From me, from thee,
The busy living world I left;

The glories of the worid are gone! Of converse all but thine,

Nor yet have either lost And silent that, bereft!

What we could call our own!

What we are now,
Wert thou the rich,

The great, the wise, the fair, the brave, The idol of a gazing crowd?

Shall all hereafter be,
Wert thou the great,

AU hermits in the grave.

[Ch. Obs. To whom obsequious thousands

bow'd ?
Was learning's store
E'er treasur'd up within this shell ?

PURITAN.
Did wisdom e'er within
This empty hollow dwell ?

A PRETTY correct anticipation
Did youthful charms

of the use of the term Calvinist E'er redden on this ghastful face ? is given by Fuller in his account

Did beauty's bloom these cheeks, of the use of the term Puritan, This forehead ever grace ?

“We must not forget, that SpalaIf on this brow

tro,* (I am confident I am not E'er sat the scornful, haughty frown, mistaken therein) was the first,

Deceitful pride! where now who, professing himself a ProtesIs that disdain ?-'tis gone!

tant, used the word PURITAN, to If cheerful mirth

signify the defenders of matters A gayness o'er this baldness, cast, doctrinal in the English church.

Delusive fleeting joy! Where is it now !--'tis past !

Formerly the word was only

taken to denote such as dissented To deck this scalp

from the hierarchy in discipline If tedious long-liv'd hours it cost, Vain fruitless toil! where's now

and church government, which That labour seen ?-'tis past !

was now extended to brand such But painful sweat,

as were Anti-Arminians in their The dear earn’d price of daily bread, judgments. As Spalatro

first Was all, perhaps, that thee

abused the word in this sense, so With hungry sorrows fed ?

we could wish he had carried it Perhaps but tears,

away with him in his return to Surest relief of heart sick wo,

Rome. Whereas now, leaving Thine only drink, from down

the word behind him in this Thiese sockets us'd to flow !

extensive signification thereof, it Oppress'd perhaps

hath since by others been improvWith mis’ry, and with aged cares,

Down to the grave thou brougit'st ed to asperse the most orthodox A few and hoary hairs !

in doctrine, and religious in, 'Tis well, perhaps !

conversation.” Book x. Sect. vi. No marks, no token can I trace

[Ch. Obs. What on this stage of life

* The name of this unhappy man, Thy rank or station was !

true only to bis own avarice, was

Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Nameless, unknown !

Spalatro, misspelt by Fuller Spalato. Of all distinction stript and bare, He is celebrated as the editor of FraIn nakedness conceal'd;

Paolo's History of the Council of Oh! who shall thee declare ?

Trent in London.

Review of Dew Publications.

A Serinon, preached before the so. We are not however tobe sur

Convention of the Congregation- prised at this. A preacher must al ministers in Boston, May 27, be contented with the best text 1807. By John Reep, D. D. he can find ; and if we underpastor of the First Church, stand the scope of Dr. R.'s serand Congregational Society in

mon,

it would not have been Bridgewater. pp. 38. Boston. easy for him to have found a Munroe & Francis. 1807. passage of scripture, from which

The occasion on which this it could be legitimately deduced. sermon was delivered; the char So far as Dr. R. reprobates an acter of the auditory ; the prin- assumption of authority over the cipal subject of which it treats; consciences of men; so far as and the respectability of its au he opposes uncharitable and rash thor, all conspire to confer upon judging, prejudice, bigotry, ranit a greater degree of impor- cour, violence, and bitterness of tance, than usually belongs to censure, we cordially concur with single discourses. We shall, himn : and though some of his therefore, examine it more at remarks on these topics may not length, and with more care, than be so immediately suggested by we have commonly bestowed on the text; yet 'we sball offer no similar productions.

objection against their being inThe passage of scripture se troduced and urged. But when lected, as the foundation of this he speaks against the use of discourse is Matt. xxiii. 8, 9, 10, creeds and conjussions ; when he “ Bul be not ye called Rubbi ; fur proposes that we should regard one is your Master, even Christ, those, who agree with us, and and ail yc are brethren. And call those, who differ from us, with

man your father upon the respect to the most important earth; for one is your Futher, articles of Christian faith, “ with who is in heaven : Weiher be yc equal satisfaction ;” (p. 38) when called master, for one is your Blus- he seems entirely to forbid our ter, eren Christ."

We doubt forming an unfavourable opinion, the propriety of this selection. or expressing a fixed and decided

The text was intended to put abhorrence of heretical sentithe disciples of Christ on their menis ; when, in short, he exguard against a spirit of urabition borts us to hate nothing but vice, and domination, especially over and to despise nothing but selfish, the consciences of men in mat illiberal notions, we are constrainter's of faith. The sermon is ed to pause and to ask, Whether chielly employed in endeavours this strain of address can be recing to shew, that Christians onciled with scripture ? and, inought not to think or speak ill of deed, ivhether it comports with each other on account of dier some things advanced by the auences of opinion. There is now thor himself, in different parts and then indeed a remark in of this discourse ? unison with the text; but the body Can it be reconciled with of the discourse, we think, is not scripture? We think not. The

no

Some

sacred writings speak of damna- against their delusion. Nay, ble herezies ; of contending ear this is not only the plain mean122s!ly for the faith once delivered ing of the passages above cited, 13 the saints; and of rebuking and of others of a similar kind, m?n sharply, that they may be but it is the necessary result of sound in the faith. The apostle another principle plainly taught John declares, ilhosoever trans in scripture. If all modes of gresseth, and abid'th not in the religious faith were equally safe, doctrine of Christ, hath not God: as to the final attainment of salHe that abideth in the doctrine of vation, we might well feel both Christ, he hath both the Father surprised and indignant to see and the Son. If there come any men, zealously contending for a 2Nto you, and brings not this doc- particular creed, and bearing a trine, receive him not into your warm testiinony againsi different house, neither bid him God speed. opinions. But when the Holy The apostle Paul says, A men Ghost has pronounced that is an heretic, after the first heresies to be damnable, will not and second admonition, roject. every real Christian strive to What is the meaning of these avoid such heresies himself, and passages ? Not that we should warn others, as he has opportuundertake to judge the hearts of nity, against embracing them ? men ; not that we should at While he loves the most extravlempt or desire to be “ Lords agant heretics, as men, is ever over the conscience ;” not that ready to do them gooil, and daily we should condemn rashly and prays for their conversion and without evidence, or

salvation ; he will feel it to be as with harshness and malevolence, much his duty to abhor their or presume to decide on the fi- false doctrines, and, if they are nal state of those, who hold un- doing secret mischief, to detect sound opinions ; but that we and expose them, as to countercarefully discriminate between act the poison administered by the truth, as it is in Jesus, and an unprincipled physician, or to opposite errors ; that we love unfold a conspiracy against the the former and abhor the latter, state. in proportion to the degree in Nor is such conduct in the which they appear to be hereti- least degree inconsistent with cal and mischievous ; that we Christian charity. Dr. R. in oppose the abettors of heresy, some instances, uses this word, not wiib personal malice, but in what we must think an unwith the firmest decision, and scriptural sense. An eminent with detestation of their false writer, has justly said, that principles; and that, instead of “ Charily, in the language of employing language or conduct, scripture, means an ardent and which can be considered as giv- unleizned love to others, and a ing countenance to their errors, desire of their welfare, temporal it is our duty, if the interests of and eternal; and may very well religion require it, to hold them consist with the strongest alup to public view, in their true horrence of their wicked princilight, in order to diminish their ples, and the deepest concern for influence, and to guard men their dangerous state.” That

censure

owe

none por

man, therefore, is the most char. Their intercourse may be frienditable, who is filled with the ly, and even affectionate. There warmest desire for the salvation is no good reason why they of men, and is most faithful in should contend with bitterness, warning them against those or cherish towards each other a principles, which corrupt and malignant or rancorous temper. destroy. And accordingly bish. But that each, so far as he is honop Burnet excellently observes, est to his principles, and in ear that « whatever moderation or nest in his way, must abhor and charity we may owe to men’s detest the system of the other, as persons, we

at all radically corrupt, as awfully deto their errors, to that structive, is too evident to reframe which is built on and sup- quire proof. Dr. Priestly did ported by them.”

not hesitate to concede this. When one class of men be. He acknowledged with characlieve that human nature is totally teristic frankness, in conversation depraved; that there is no sale with an American divine, that vation but through the atoning when Calvinists denied him the sacrifice of Christ ; that the Sa- title of Christian, and denounced viour is a divine person, and that him as little better than a sober to represent him as a mere man, Deist, he considered them as is subverting the foundations of speaking a language, which, suphis gospel, and destroying the posing their system to be true, hopes of the soul : and when was inevitable and right. another class believe, that man is Dr. R. tells us that

as pure and upright as primitive Christians differed ever ; that to speak of an atone greatly in their opinions, but ment is to dishonour God; that were remarkable for their broththe Saviour is a mere man ; that erly love and friendship.” If by of course to acknowledge and this he means, that the disciworship him as God, is gross ples of Christ, in the primiand abominable idolatry ; it is tive ages of the church, held difficult to conceive how these free and affectionate communion two classes can mutually regard with each other, while thcy eneach other with the same satis- tertained radically different opinfaction, as those who perfectly ions about such fundamental agree. If the Calvinist be right, points, as original depravity, the he cannot consider the Socinian, divinity and atonement of the as a Christian at all ; but must Saviour, and the necessity of the contemplate and represent him, influences of the Holy Spirit to when he has occasion to speak renew and sanctify the soul, we on the subject, as an enemy of know not whence he has derived the cross of Christ. And on the his information, and, until he proother hand, so far as the Socinion duces bis authority, must doubt believes in the truth of his own the fact. We know that one great principles, he must regard the reason why the pagans were so Calvinisi, as a superstitious and much enraged against the earliidolatrous corrupter of Chris est Christians, was their holding tianity. These persons may have and avowing such rigid and exmuch intercourse as neighbours. clusive opinions with respect to

« the

now

[ocr errors]

the only way of salvation. This more liberal neighbours.

We was a new doctrine, and it highly shall never think this kind offended them.

of liberality consistent with itself, But is Dr. R. consistent with until it learns to bear with the himself ? Here also we feel con most rigidly excluding system strained to answer in the nega- of principles, as well as of prace tive. He speaks much of chari tice. ty, and of a mild and indulgent On the whole, we are by no temper towards those who differ means satisfied with the strain of from us. But he seems to con- reasoning, which pervades this fine this entirely to those who discourse. We cannot think call themselves Christians. Why that Dr. R. has given a just or this restriction? Does a sober discriminating view of the manDeist differ from a Socinian near ner in which professing Chrisly as much, as a Socinian differs 'tians, who differ radically among from a Calvinist ? Certainly not. themselves, ought to feel toWhy then should we not include wards, and treat each other. We the Deist in our charity, as well agree with him in believing, that as she Socinian? The profound they ought not to indulge in ranremark, thats we differ from him côur or bitterness, or to dispute as much as he differs from us," ap- with a spirit of pride and dogplies as perfectly to the former, matism. But if Christians are as to the latter.

not bound to cleave to what they Dr. R. while he pleads for uni- deem the truth, with supreme tersal mildness and charity, is love, and ardent zeal ; if they are frequently severe on the rigid not enjoined to oppose error in and "excluding” advocates of every form, and especially those orthodoxy. But why so? If all, errors which affect the character without exception, who prosess of the divine Saviour, and the to believe in the Christian relig. foundation of our hope towards ion, and whose moral character God; if they are not under obliis good, are to be regarded “ with gations to withstand and deequal satisfaction," however they nounce, as unsound teachers, and may differ from each other in ar as false guides those, who preach ticles of faith, why not extend to another gospel; in a word, if the highest toned Calvinist, the they are not bound to consider same indulgence which is grant- those who reject the fundamental ed to the most lax heretic? It is doctrines of Christianity, and one of the most curious phenom. substitute the miserable and inena of modern liberality, that ev- sufficient devices of human wisery thing can be borne but strict dom, as enemies of the cross of unbending orthodoxy ; that eve- Christ; and with a mild and bery man is sure of indulgent and coming temper speak of them as even of respectful treatment, ex suchi, and when called upon, to cepting one, who has such a deep warn others against their fatal impression of the importance of delusions ; if they are not bound divine truth, and so tender a con to do this, (which may all be science, that he cannot yield to done without one uncharitable or the polite concessions, and tem- unchristian feeling towards the porizing compliments of his persons of the deluded) then we Vol. III, No. 4.

Y

« PreviousContinue »