tion, "What a mercy, my brethren, that the field was not in the well!!"

We have quoted strong cases, but not stronger than others we could quote. They are the genuine consequences of that vicious mode of parodying the Bible, from which good sense is the only preservative. Considering how much of this harlequin trumpery is bandied about in the Church under the garb of spiritual preaching, it is little short of a miracle that the religion of Christ Jesus is not burlesqued out of the world.

ANECDOTE.

A Baronet of the last century, whose mansion was in Yorkshire, was supposed to be dead; when the following conversation took place between his jester or fool, and his servants :

Serv. Our master is gone. Fool. Ah! whither is he gone? Serv. To heaven, to be sure. Fool. To heaven! no, that he is not, I am certain. Serv. Why so? Fool. Why, because heaven is a great way off; and when my master was going a long journey, he used for some time before to talk about it, and prepare for it; but, I never heard him speak of heaven, or saw him make any preparations for going: he cannot therefore, be gone thither. The Baronet, however, recovered, and this conversation being told him, he was so struck with it, that he immediately began to prepare for his journey to the eternal world.

REVIEW.

ART. V.

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. 524.)

PLAIN dealing is honourable in all ; but especially

in the ministers of religion. Thus saith an authority which Dr. Hobart cannot avowedly reject. We use great plainness of speech: but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God-We also believe, and therefore speak*.

The use of "Confessions" or "articles" adopted by the Churches, is, accordingly, to give a plain and summary exposition of the sense in which they understand the word of inspiration; and if the "public Creed" do not plainly express the "belief" of the Church, it becomes worse than useless. It is extremely uncandid in any man, or body of men, to profess adherence to any article which is not believed to be true, or to maintain pub

* 2 Cor. 3, 12. and 4. 2, 13.

lic standards which do not plainly express their private sentiments about the same doctrines. Assured. ly, it is as necessary that we should observe honesty toward God, and toward man in things pertaining to God, as that we should be honest in our common transactions.

Dr. H. says, "It is worthy of remark, that "in the General Convention of the Protestant Epis"copal Church in the United States of Ame"rica, when the articles were ratified, there was "not one advocate of the Calvinistic doctrines *." That Convention could not have been ignorant of the interpretation given of the thirty-nine articles, in the articles of Lambeth, published by the highest authority in the Church of England. They could not but have known, that the Protestant Church of England was Calvinistic, in doctrine, for nearly a century after the Reformation; and that a great part of it has always embraced the Anti-arminian creed. They must have understood that the Calvinistic Churches universally admitted the Calvinism of the thirtynine Articles. Why, then, if they were themselves Arminian, did they not speak as they believed, and so alter their Creed as to render it a candid Confession of their own faith? The object of a Creed, we repeat it, is to express unequivocally the faith of the Church; and certainly an Arminian Convention, if they wished to be fully understood by all men, might have contrived articles equally explicit with the Sermon of Dr. Hobart-clearly Arminian. If the fact, respecting the convention, be as Dr. H. states it, although it does not at all affect the grammatical signification of the "Articles," it proves beyond all dispute, that plain dealing, according to our old fashioned ideas of it, did not, at that time, suit

*Note, page 22.

the policy of this most excellent Church! The Doctor, indeed, contends, that "this fact is a deci"sive proof that the American Church does not ac <6 knowledge that the articles admit of a Calvinistic interpretation." But wherefore, if Episcopalians are willing, even now, to be explicit, do they not adopt a public declaration equally expressive of an Arminian, as are the Lambeth articles of a Calvinistic interpretation, instead of explaining by private opinions the public standards of the Church? If the rule be once admitted, that articles of faith are to be explained by private opinions, ecclesiastical standards must lose their value, and provoke the indignation of every honest man: for by this rule, they can be made to signify every thing or nothing.

Dr. H.'s opinions are now to be tried by their own merit. He considers the Doctrine of the Church*, 1. "As to those practical points in which professing Christians generally agree."

2. "Or as to those more theoretical opinions on which there is greater diversity of opinion."

"

When we began to read that part of the Sermon which treats of "practical points," we were highly gratified, and thought for once that Dr. Hobart preached the Gospel. We proceeded, and were painfully undeceived. It only resembles the Gospel of Christ.

The same indistinctness of perception and language, which usually characterizes this preacher's style, here also occurs; and the general impression, made by the discussion, is decidedly hostile to what we consider the power of godliness.

Under the 1. Practical points, he considers the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God; the conditions of our acceptance; the strength by which we perform these conditions.

* Page 5.

Under the 2. Theoretical opinions, he considers Predestination, Redemption, Free-will, Grace, and Perseverance in grace.

The 1st class of Doctrines are inaccurately called practical points, as distinguished from the 2d class, which are not a jot more theoretical or less practical than the former. Nor is the assertion correct in point of fact, that, in the former, as explained by Dr. H. 'professing Christians generally agree." The fact is quite otherwise.

This is, by far, the most dangerous part of Dr. H.'s sermon; for it is here that error, pernicious error, is blended with precious truth. In showing the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, the preacher appears to ascribe the glory of our salvation to the merits of Christ's righteousness; but in describing the conditions of our acceptance, he ascribes the whole efficacy to our own performance, faith, repentance, and good works. In thus asserting plainly that the condition of our acceptance is by ourselves fulfilled, whilst his remarks upon Christ's righteousness are arranged under an obscure phrase, which appears not to be understood by himself, and was not likely to be understood by those who heard him, the absolute contradiction between both parts of the discussion is not readily perceived, and the sinner is directed to rely more upon his own, than the righteousness of the Saviour. We say, the phrase meritorious cause appears not to be understood by the author himself, because we would rather ascribe its misapplication to the lack of knowledge, than to ill design. Meritorious cause, being synonymous with condition, both the terms are misapplied; and there is a perfect contradiction in treating them separately, and causing them to represent ideas which are perfectly distinct from one another.