city, a vigour, a comprehension, a pungency of idiom, a felicity of reference in the structure of a word or the peculiarity of a phrase, which never can be transferred. There is a clear opening of sense to an eye practised in the original, which a thick cloud mantles the moment it passes into a version. There is a precision of construction obvious to a scholar of taste, the causes of which are more a matter of feeling than of argument; and though perfectly decisive, are too delicate to be perceived by the uncultivated sense. Yet, in their effects, they tinge and beautify the whole discussion of a subject. In conclusion. The adversaries of evangelical truth and hope, are much addicted to the practice of assailing our faith through the medium of criticism. What they want in solidity, they make up in boldness and in show. When you press them with the subject, they will criticise all your heavy matter away into the thin air of metaphor; little concerned if, in following up their principle, they criticise God himself into a figure of speech. When you press them with a plain text, they will flout at the translation, abuse the translators, and hear nothing but the original. When you produce the original, as little to their comfort as the translation, they smell a corruption in the text, and it must be purged by manuscripts; any manuscript being good enough to amend or discard an orthodox expression. When the manuscripts are rebellious, which commonly happens, unphilosophical Christians as they are, they must receive the castigation of critical acumen, i. e. the guesses of an Arian or Socinian mender of the Bible, are to sway our consciences in the question of heaven and eternal life; or we are to be degraded from the rank of rational believers to the pitiable plight of bigots, fanatics, and simpletons. To repress this effrontery, and to shield the community from the assaults of this rabid fury; as well as to meet the several exigencies enumerated above, there is no effectual means but the living teacher skilled in the original tongues, and imbued with the correspondent learning. The times awfully demand it. And if such employment does not require a separate profession for the ministry, and able and educated men in it, there is not, and cannot be, a human occupation to which every human being is not always and every where equally competent. SELECT SENTENCE. Some men speak much of the imitation of Christ, and following his example; and it were well if we could see more of it really in effect. But no man shall ever become like unto him by bare imitation of his actions, without that view, or intuition of his glory, which alone is accompanied with a transforming power to change them into the same image. Owen. REVIE W. ART. IV. The excellence of the Church: a Sermon, preached at the consecration of Trinity Church, Newark, New-Jersey, by the Right Reverend Bishop Moore, on Monday, May 21, A. D. 1810. By John Henry Hobart, D. D. An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York. Published by request. New-York, T. & J. Swords, pp. 41. 8vo, (Continued from p. 459.) IT is not the intrinsic value of this discourse, that induced us to pay particular attention to it. Its importance, in our estimation, is derived from circumstances of another description. The station which Dr. Hobart occupies, as a minister of Trinity Church, and as the foremost of those who have stood forth to assure the world, that they possess learning and talents adequate to the defence of the Episcopal cause, confers upon himself and his writings an importance, in public estimation, which it does not become us to overlook. We take an interest in every thing which can influence the religious opinions of men; and we are encouraged to hope, from the improvement which Dr. Hobart has made under the hands of the critics, that we shall be able to render him, in the course of time, at least consistent with himself, and a little more cautious in his assertions. The sermon under review, furnishes us with some foundation for this hope. In page 23, where he ex hibits the proof of the excellence of the prelatical ministry, he rests his cause upon two arguments, 1. Inability to account for a change in antiquity, from Presbytery to prelacy; and, 2, the supposed prelatical powers of Timothy, Titus, and the angels of the seven Churches of Asia. He must, accordingly, have given up as untenable, the arguments, formerly urged with great confidence, from the three orders of the Jewish priesthood; from the ministry of Christ, the twelve, and the seventy; from the ministry of the apostles, elders, and deacons; and from the preatical powers of James at Jerusalem. So far, good! The Doctor now presents the hierarchy resting upon two pillars; and these are not more strong than those which have already given way. The first, Doctor Hobart's inability to account for a change, is an argumentum ab ignorantia. It may last until he shall be induced to acquire for himself a knowledge of antiquity, from the original sources of information; and cease to trust to misquoted and misapplied passages, found in the controversial writings of men, interested in the defence of the English establishment. A knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, than which, nothing better becomes a divine, is the only effectual remedy for the opinion that Timothy and Titus, and the Asian angels were diocesan bishops. But this is not the place for the argument. Dr. H.'s text is Psalm xlviii. 12, 13. and it is used by way of accommodation. It should have been the first care of the preacher to do justice to his text, by explaining its meaning. For it is essential to correct sermonising, that the "mind of the Spirit," in that part of the word which is selected as the subject of discourse, be perspicuously declared; otherwise, the preacher incurs the charge of handling the word of God deceitfully. Every workman who needeth not to be ashamed, must know how to divide aright the word of truth. Regardless, however, of the rule which requires that the subject of the sermon should be found in the text, Dr. H. undertakes to discuss the excellence of his own Church-" of our Church." This is an offence against the laws of the pulpit; the more inexcusable, as it does not at all appear perfectly obvious, without explanation, that David ever contemplated the application of the text, either to the "39 articles," or to the "book of common prayer. In the bold designs of genius, there is always something which extorts our admiration; and did we not feel some veneration for the word of truth, we should allow Dr. H. the praise of daring enterprise. It is assuredly a more arduous task to prove the superior excellence of the Episcopal Church, than to illustrate the duty recommended in the text by the king of Israel. As we are bound to accompany the preacher, we must now, like him, take our leave of the text, and attend to his description of The excellence of our Church In her ministry, In her ordinances and worship. The discussion of these three topics, occupies twenty-five pages of the sermon; and sixteen of them are devoted to the doctrine. It is the principal design of the preacher, both in the sermon and the notes, to prove that the doctrine of the Church of England is not Calvinistic. Upon this ground he rests the proof of its excellence. He assumes as the basis of his reasoning, that Calvinism is a very bad thing; and that whatsoever is opposed to it must be good. His argument reduced into the form of syllogism would appear as follows: |