« PreviousContinue »
incontrovertible, have not only often been actually controverted, but repeatedly proved to be groundless. As to an apology for the doctrines of the Church of England, when those doctrines are truly represented, they stand in need of no apology; much less do they stand in need of such apologists as Mr. O. and his friends.
“Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
« Tempus eget." In the course of this chapter, however, many opinions occur, in which we entirely agree, though we do not dis, cover the propriety of their introduction. Mr. O. employs many pages in proving, what we suppose scarcely any of his opponents will deny, “ the worth of the Articles of the Church of England;" and concludes with a sentiment in which we, for our parts, very cordially join :
-". We think these articles, considered as a commentary on Scripture, deserving of the highest respect, on account of the strong internal marks of caution, moderation, good sense, and knowledge of the Scriptures and of mankind which they discover; and on account of the very extraordinary degrees of talent, learning, labour, and piety, which were united and exerted in their formation. We believe, after fully examining for ourselves, and attending to the most legitimate rules of interpretation, that they are supported by the true and genuine sense of Scripture.” . Ob! si sic omnia.
In the course of his Recapitulation,” into which it is not necessary for us to enter particularly, Mr. ( arrives at a conclusion, which is nothing less than a libel on the Church of England, and the great body of her clergy. Let our readers see and judge.
os We then are the true Churchimen; and whatever astonishment certain crities may express at the atfirmation, in a very fundamental and inportant sense of the word, Mr. Daubeny and his associates are dissenters from the Church of England." p. 397. As the spirit of this arrogant affirmation pervades the whole of Mr. O.'s work, and appears even in his title page, the reader may be so prepared for it, that' it might not excite much astonishment; but we are greatly mistaken if, when made in this express and undisguised form, it can be regarded by any one, who is not an intolerant as well as a decided Calvinist, without disapprobation and disgust. The direct tendency of this ata
Fol. II. Churchm. Ing. March, 180+ }}b firmation
firmation is, to alienate the minds of the generality of the people from their appointed pastors, to induce them to go in search of Calvinistic preaching in the churches of evangelical ministers; and, in cases where such preaching is not easily to be found in churches, to countenance their seeking it in conventicles. Mr. O, does not omit to provide his converts with an excuse for that schism, which it is the tendency of his affirmation to promote.
Allowing," says he, “ the very utmost to externals that can with any reason be demanded; yet, as the Lord himself asks, on an occasion very similar, and which exceedingly deserves our attention, · What is the chaif to the wheat?' What is the best external policy without the pure doctrines of the gospel? And, what credit would be allowed to a commander, who should keep up a vigorous defence of the out-works, but treacherously conspire. with the enemy to plunder the city? How inadequate is that defence, which suffers, the chief treasures, thatmake preservation desirable, to be taken away !” While it. is understood, that these pure doctrines, and these chief treasures, are neither more nor less than the peculiar doctrines of Calvin, which certainly are not to be found in the sermons of the generality of our preachers; it is in vain for a writer who thus expresses himself, to profess his disapprobation of the more openly schismatical proceedings of Dr. Haweis ; for, in our opinion, the writings of Mr. O. and the proceedings of Dr. Haweis are equally destructive of that unity which is the very life of the Church,
In the “ Appendix ” to the second edition, Mr. O. after an apology to Sir Richard Hill, and a re-iteration of his animadversion on a passage in Dr. Paley's “ Moral Philosophy,” notices Mr. Pearson's “ Remarks on the Doctrine of Justification by Faith," the only answer to Mr, O's work, or any part of it, which had then appeared. It is scarcely necessary to say, that Mr. O. was not convinced by Mr. Pearson's reasoning, of any of the errors alledged against him ; for we believe it seldom happens, whatever may be the effect of controversies on others, that the controvertists themselves give up their opinions. What Mr, 0. seems most anxious about is, to vindicate himself from the charge which Mr. P, brings against him, of un-, fair quotation. It may be worth while, therefore, to give our readers an opportunity of judging how far he has gucceeded,
Mr. O. is accused of quoting Dr. Hey unfairly in two instances. In the first, Dr. H. is represented as sug gesting a doubt, whether the disorderly propensities of inan were owing to Adam's transgression; and whether the compilers of our gth and 10th Articles meant to affirm that they are;" whereas, as Mr. P. contends, Dr. Hey's words are, “I should rather think, that the intention of the compilers was to leave men a liberty of assenting, who should doubt, whether the disorderly propensities of men were owing to Adam's transgression. Nor. Lect: Vol. III. p. 152. Mr. O. complains that this is only a part of what Dr. Hey says, and not the whole of it; for, that he had referred to no fewer than seven places more, which he supposed to bear upon the point, and of which Mr. P. has taken no notice. These seven places, as they stand in Dr. Hey's work, are, Vol. III. pp. 137, 154, 169, 176, 189, 219, and 255. These we have consulted, and do not find, that any one of them is more to Mr. 0.'s purpose than that which Mr. P. has noticed. Now, as it is evident that this is absolutely nothing to his purpose, it is of no avail that he would call in the others to its aid; for it cannot surely be necessary to remind Mr. Overton that seven or eight nothings amount to no more,
In the second instance, Mr. O. is stated to represent Dr. Hey as “suggesting doubts, whether all men may not be happy ultimately;" whereas Dr. Hey's words appear to be these ; “ It is owing to the moderation of our Church, that we are not called upon to subscribe to the eternity of hell torments: nay, we are not required even to condemn those who presume to affirm, that all men will be finally saved, though that was required in the last article of Edward VI. and I think reasonably.”. Nor. Lect. Vol. II. p. 390. Here again Mr. O. complains, that“ Mr. Pearson, in professing to quote the precise passage of Dr. Hey, stops at the beginning of the very words on which he (Mr.0.) would lay the greatest stress." We wonder, or rather we do not wonder, that Mr. O. did not give the additional passage, on which so much depended. That our readers may judge how far it will bear bim out in his representation of Dr. H.'s meaning, we will supply his deficiency in this respect. The additional passage is this : “ Though one were inclined to hope, with Dr. Hartley, that all men will be happy ultimately; that is, when punishment has done its propers
B b 2
work, in reforming principles and conduct; yet to affirm it, must always be presumption."
When we consider the proofs which have been given by Mr. Daubeny and others, of Mr. O.'s misrepresentations, in various instances, of the meaning of those ališ thors whom he has quoted, inore especially of those whom he intended to censure, and whose meaning, in order to make them fit objects of censure, he was frequently obliged to misrepresent, it is with astonishment that we see any professed critics venturing to make this declaration respecting his work:-“ After comparing Mr. ().'s authorities with the originals, and examining them with a view to estimate the doctrines inculcated in the context, we are of opinion, that he has very faithfully depicted the principles of the reformers and their suct'essors; and several collateral testimonies might be produced, which speak the same language. A presumption arises hence of his being equally fair in his representation of the sentiments of nodern divines. Not having collated all of them, we cannot speak so decidedly on this point; but, so far as we have gone, we have remarked only one inaccuracy, and that of no real importance." Christian Observer for May 1809, p. 319. Our astonishment is, it possible, increased at seeing the same critics, when the above charge of inisrepresenting Dr. Hey's meaning is before them, even though their own credit was concerned in inquiring whether it was well-founded or not, thus evading the inquiry:-“ As the whole of the passages referred to are not before us, we cannot pretend to decide the question." Christian Observer for July 1809, p. 442. How far such disingenuous proceedings agfce with the simplicity of the Gospel, we leave our readers to deterinine.
As this controversy scems, for the present, to be drawing to a conclusion, we shall take our leave of it by observing, that the Church of England is under an obligation to Mr. O. for having given occasion, however undesigireilly, to a discussion, in which her doctrines have been resened from much inisrepresentation, and hierself set in that light, in which, when she is truly represented, she must'ever appear, as the “beauty of holiness," Among the less intorinel part of the community, it was beginning to be received as an acknowledged truth, that the doctrines of the Church of England were but little removed from the absurd creed of Calvin ; and that all ber ininisters,
who entertained more enlarged and rational opinions, were hypocritically subscribing to doctrines, which they did not believe. Thanks to Mr. O. all pretences for insinuations of this kind are now done away. It was the boast, we are informed, of some of his coadjutors or adherents, when his book first appeared, that it was unanswerable. This boast, unless they will go ayininst the very face of demonstration, they can make no longer; for, certainly, no book was ever more completesis answered, in every sense of the word, than his has been. Mr. O. has been clearly convicted of so many “ false reasonings," so many “ incorrect statements," and so many
palpable misrepresentations,” that the very groundwork, on which his system rests, is entirely gone. As it is probable, however, that Calvinism, which is not easily abashed, may soon lift up its head in some other form, we shall conclude this article with a list of those pube lications to which Mr. O.'s work has given rise, and from which, as from a well-stored armory, in case of any
future attack on our Sion, the weapons
be supplied. These we shall put down, as nearly as we can, in the order of their appearance *.
Mr. Pearson's “Remarks on the Doctrine of Justifica. tion by Faith; in a Letter to Mr. Overton.”
Mr. Ludlam's “ Reply to such Parts of the Rev. J. Overton's Apology, as concern the Publications of T. Ludlam, A. M.”
Dr. Kipling's “ Articles of the Church of England not Calvinistic."
Mr, Pearson's “ Remarks on the Controversy between the Arminian and Calvinistic Ministers of the Church of England; in a second Letter to Mr. Overton.”
Bishop Randolph's Primary Charge, 1802.
Anti-Jacobin Review for May 1803, and subsequent Months.
Mr. Daubeny's “Vindiciæ Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ.”. Bishop Dainpier's Primary Charge, 1803. * Mr. O.'s publication has been referred to, and his principles controverted in various parts of our work.' See. particularly, Vol. III. p. 37 Vul. IV. p. 46, Vol. IV. p. 108.