to rectify the inverted order which sin has introduced, and to form the Christian character." P. 28.

Pursuing the course already traced in the foregoing extracts, Mr. Lloyd divides his main "Inquiry" into four chapters. The first contemplates the subject in a "wide and comprehensive sense," and might, perhaps, be more aptly termed, qualifications for a full and complete discharge of the clerical office.' The second contemplates the same subject in a more direct and circumstantial manner. The third considers the same subject with the same limitation, but with greater particularity, enlarging fully on the universal applicability of the great doctrine of the atonement, and concluding, that an "orthodox faith, considered abstractly from its legitimate fruits of righteousness, cannot save us :-Truth and goodness cannot be disjoined in the life of the real Christian." The fourth, which constitutes the larger part of the volume, is occupied with the practical character of religion;" but entering no farther into this field than to "erect within the ample range of its extensive boundaries, some occasional landmarks indicative of the path of duty:" That is, Mr. Lloyd makes no attempt to embrace the whole subject, but contents himself with discussing at considerable length several detached topics the Sabbath, Humility, Candour, Gentleness, and Submission to Civil and Ecclesias tical Governors-each however selected, as bearing upon the author's view of the state of society, and applied to the correction and cure of its defects.

very

The second question, "What is the best mode of preaching Christ," in Mr. Lloyd's method of treating it, is one of inferior importance. The discussion, indeed, following as it does the highly wrought description of the power of godliness, produces an unpleasant effect of bathos. It requires transposition, or perhaps omission. The author has confined his views to an estimate of the relative value of extempore and written preaching, which he follows up by some good advice to the clergy to write their own sermons, and gives a few hints to assist them. Mr. Lloyd tells us, that he was himself once in the habit of preaching with the aid only of a few notes; but exchanged "this mode of address" for written sermons, from a settled conviction of its tendency to lead a man into an imperfect and inefficacious style of preaching. A rare instance we be

lieve, of the abandonment of the practice, when once adopted, but one, which cannot be too quickly and generally followed, be the ability of the preacher what it may. Let the Christian orator endeavour to give to his delivery an air of extempore address, if he please; or rather let him studiously do so, if he

would make a strong impression on his hearers; but let him secure distinctness, accuracy, and command of his subject by previous consideration and the fullest writing.

Speaking of the delivery of Sermons memoriter, Mr. Lloyd makes these remarks:

"Owing to its immense labour and inadequate results, I am disposed to renounce it as a work of supererogation, and to advocate the general practice, which obtains among the clergy of preaching written discourses, as the most conducive to the edification of their flocks, and consonant to the genius and taste of the more enlightened part of the nation. And this sentiment derives an additional recommendation from the reflection that it virtually discountenances that fanaticism, which is so predominant among different sects and parties, and which leads them to contemplate their extemporaneous effusions as the immediate effects of inspiration,-as an extraordinary gift exercised under a divine afflatus, and consequently impressing upon their discourses an apostolical authority and unction, highly illustrative of their spiritual pre-eminence and more extensive usefulness: And their hearers are led to recognize these high pretensions, and to hold both their persons and ministrations in such exclusive admiration, as generates a contemptuous pity for those, who preach their own compositions; and by these means, in conjunction with others, an imperium in imperio has been even created within the precincts of our own ecclesiastical establishment." P. 246.

Among the miscellaneous hints upon the subject of preaching to be found in this chapter, there are some observations so judicious and worthy of attention, that we cannot refrain from transcribing them. For instance, the following:

A Christian regard for the spiritual interests of the Church obliges me to observe, (and to the justice of the observation the moral sense of mankind will at once subscribe,) that personal religion is a necessary attribute in the character of a preacher, and essential to that eloquence which belongs to the pulpit. Indeed it enters, according to the authority of all the ancient rhetoricians into the nature of oratory. An orator,' says M. Cato, 'is an honest man, skilled in the art of speaking.' And Quintilian even ventures to affirm, That the orator ought to be a good man, and that he cannot be an orator unless such.' And if this position be well-founded, it receives additional strength from its application to the sacred subject of the Christian ministry, which would, unless it be fulfilled under the influence of genuine piety, soon degenerate into a vain display, or into a dull round of ceremony. The majesty of our religion, its exalted mysteries, the sanctity of its laws, the purity of its morality, cannot be properly sustained and enforced by a spirit purely human. There must be an unction from above, a hallowed flame of devotion in the inner man; afficiamur antequam afficere conemur.' P. 288.

And again :

6

"It appears that a minister of Christ should be, as the pure voice of revelation to the people. He should be wise to win souls.' This momentous end should so simplify and illustrate his motives of action, as clearly to demonstrate that his zeal is exercised not so much for the bulwarks, that defend the Christian faith, as for the faith itself;—not so much for the mitre, as for the cross ;-not so much for our ecclesiastical polity, as for the interests of the gospel. Whilst he distinguishes these subjects, he ought to hold them in conjunction, and display his sense of their relative importance in the spirituality of his conduct,—in a sublime independence of mind, which leads him to sacrifice whatever militates against the authority of God, and the moral welfare of his flock. In short, he should seek not theirs, but them,'practically recognizing the excellent advice of St. Jerom, Docente in ecclesia te, non clamor populi, sed gemitus suscitetur ; lachrymæ auditorum laudes tuæ sunt.' P. 239.

"

J

Without attempting to give a more minute analysis of Mr. Lloyd's book, we venture to recommend it to our readers, as deserving of the most serious perusal. He is very deeply impressed with the practical importance of sound Christian principles, and has treated the questions he proposes with energy, ability, and much spiritual knowledge. The one great aim of his "Inquiry"-this is, by the way, something of a misnomeris, as we have said, to enforce the application of the Atonement as the chief immediate spring and motive of moral conduct. Like all, who are zealous in inculcating some favourite point, he sometimes accumulates and exaggerates. Such a man never feels he has said all that can and ought to be said; and knows not when to stop, because his expressions, vigorous as they may be, never come up to the strength and force of his own convictions. Lack of intensity must therefore be supplied by repetition and multiloquence. Whatever comes within the grasp and purview of the enthusiast is seized upon with avidity, and pressed unrelentingly into his service. The limits of real knowledge are quickly reached, and the imagination must be tasked to make up deficiencies. These are, however, perhaps but slight evils; the cool observer will readily detect the boundaries between fact and fancy. But another effect, of much greater consequence, is almost sure to accompany the zealous pursuit of a favourite topic, and that is Intolerance. From this blot Mr. Lloyd's pages are not free. He can make no allowance, or certainly not enough, for difference of opinions: -his own sentiments seem so manifestly irrefragable, that the possibility that he may himself be mistaken, or that others may

not be wilfully perverse, seems never to occur to his mind. He meets of course with hostilities on all sides. His path is beset with foes, and his peace perpetually broken. The Socinians disgust him; the Antinomians alarm him; the Home-Mission-` aries exasperate him. They are" bold and impious sciolists," "infidels,"" fanatics," &c. With all our unfeigned respect for the author's powers, and disposition to defer to his views, we feel ourselves compelled to protest against this intemperance. We read his remarks on candour and gentleness, with unmingled pleasure, and fervently wish the same sweet spirit had never for a moment quitted his side.

Mr. Lloyd's fears have been roused by either coming too closely in personal collision with Socinians and Antinomian Calvinists; or he contemplates them through the mists of speculative apprehensions. These are the great foes against whom he buckles on his armour of might. The doctrine of the Atonement is to be dwelt upon and magnified to crush the Socinians; the necessity of inculcating good morals to confound the Antinomians: while ignorance and presumption are treated with a lofty scorn, and learning and study insisted on almost beyond the necessary limits, to overwhelm Home Missionaries. He scruples not to call Socinians and Calvinists infidels and fanatics. In his estimate of the theological scale, they seem to mark the freezing and boiling points; and flying. from each with equal horror and disgust, he himself of course reaches a point considerably above temperate. The fact is, the one party interprets too literally, the other too metaphorically. The great mass of believers take an intermediate course, and must therefore graduate in proportion as they recede from the literal to the metaphorical.

Mr. Lloyd can tolerate none of these varieties. He sees nothing but the most alarming consequences. We do not anticipate so much danger. The number of sects and divisions, and the population of each, have, we believe, pretty nearly reached their maximum. There is good reason for supposing, notwithstanding the parade of statistical reports, that their numbers have not of late increased in proportion to their former progress. Nor, looking at the state of the country, is it likely that such increase will go on. Of the bulk of society, a large portion will be always, if not perfectly indifferent, at least too much devoted to the business of life, to be very solicitous about religious tenets; these will, of course, adhere to the Church of their fathers: vast numbers are attached to the Establishment by habit, interest, or fashion; and not a few, we trust, by conviction and steady principle. It is only the residue

always comparatively small, that will ever, spontaneously or by persuasion, be worked up to the resolution of taking so strong and independent a step as separation.

But by no party is Mr. Lloyd's severity and indignation so excited as by the Socinians and Unitarians. He scruples not, as we have observed, to term them infidels. The epithet is not an unconsidered one; it recurs more than once; and struck us with a feeling of mortification, and with something like astonishment. Because, be they as heterodox as they will, the Socinians receive the Scripture as the rule of doctrine and practice, and profess themselves the disciples of Christ; and we, the orthodox, do no more, though, we may hope, on better grounds. They give indeed their own interpretation: and do not we the same? There is no reason, we believe, for charging them with peculiar laxity of morals. If, therefore, we fasten upon them the reproach of infidelity, it must be because they differ from us; and then for the same reason, they may retort upon us the odious appellation. If we are to term them infidels, because their belief falls below our standard; they may retaliate upon us with some equivalent opprobrium for rising above theirs. We are thoroughly convin eed that the Socinians are wrong,-fundamentally, dangerously wrong, but then we know that such a declaration is of very slender force; for they think the same of us and it is indisputable that every party will think the same of their opponents. We say not this to extenuate their errors we are indeed very unlikely persons to take up their defence or because we are troubled with any waverings about the soundness of our own belief; but solely from the persuasion that hard names are no arguments, and injure no cause but their own; and moreover, because we are sure, that the age, be it what it may in other respects, is well able to distinguish between virulence and facts. Polemies have but an ill name in the world; and chiefly, we believe, because the ablest performers in this line have been more remarkable for their powers of vituperation than for command of temper. If we really believe a man mistaken, there must be reasons for that belief, which a little attention will readily discover. Let those reasons be produced calmly, temperately, and by all means forcibly,-for that is the way to come at once to the point; and let others judge of their validity. If that judgment be in our favour, let us enjoy our triumph with moderation, and trust the result to the natural tendencies of things of error to be dispelled-and of truth to be esta blished. It is not becoming for any man, be the subject what