REVIEW. 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 requests New-York, T. & J. Swords, pp. 41. Svo. (Continued from p. 459.) IT is not the intrinsic value of this discourse, that Ꭲ 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 prelatical 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: Whatever is not Calvinistic must be excellent, The articles of the Church of England are not Calvinistic, Ergo, the Church is excellent in her doctrine. Dr. Hobart does not even attempt to give us any other proof of the excellence of the thirty-nine articles, than their anticalvinistic tendency; for his practical points are of the same cast with his theoretical opinions. Although we are not prepared to admit, that whatever is opposed to the doctrines usually called Calvinistic, must be true; yet we shall not attempt to disprove the major proposition of the above syllogism. But neither are we prepared to jump with the preacher into his conclusion. We dispute the truth of the minor proposition. We believe, that the doctrine of the articles, although not so explicitly declared as the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, is, so far as the Calvinistic and Arminian controversies are concerned, the common faith of the Reformed Churches. In order that the reader may judge for himself, we shall, after making a few remarks, present him with the words of the Articles and those of the Confession of Faith side by side. He will then perceive the doctrine of both to be the very same, only more obscurely expressed by the Episcopal Church. This difference is readily accounted for. Presbyterians are plain people. We write in order to be understood. Our object is to exclude, not convey a double meaning. Dr. H. acknowledges, that if the Articles of the Church be Calvinistic, the ministry of their Church merit reproach. "Churchmen are continually told, that the Articles of the Church are Calvinistic. assertion, therefore, ought to be refuted, in order that her clergy may be vindicated from the reproach*." The Should we succeed in proving that these Articles are Calvinistic, the Doctor himself, not we, must be considered as the defamer. He admits, that their clergy, in such case cannot be vindicated. Far be it from us to dispute the correctness of the admission. The Thirty-nine Articles were formed by a convocation, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, from the forty-two Articles of Edward VI. originally drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley. The original compilers, and those who reviewed and adopted them, were all agreed in sentiment about the doctrines of grace, with Mr. Calvin and the other reformers on the continent. This continued to be the case with the Church of England until the time of Archbishop Laud. To him, his biographer, Dr. Heylin ascribes the praise of rendering fashionable in England the Arminian creed*. Heylin understood the Articles otherwise than Dr. H. explains them. Although himself an Arminian, he says of the 17th article,—" In this definition there are these things to be observed, 1. That predestination doth pre-suppose a curse or state of damnation in which "all mankind was presented to the sight of God, 2. "That it is an act of his from everlasting. 3. That "he founded it, and resolved for it in the man and "mediator Christ Jesus, both for the purpose and "performance. 4. That it was of some special ones alone, elect, called forth, and reserved in Christ, "and not generally extended to all mankind. 5. "That being thus elected in Christ, they shall be brought by Christ to everlasting salvation. Leav"ing reprobation to be gathered upon logical inferences from that which is delivered on the point of election, for contrariorum contraria est ratio†.” Cyprianus Anglicus, pages 38, 39. † Introd. p. 20. |