We then come to Part II. of which ch. i. treats of the canont of the N. T. and of the inspiration of the books contained in it. The contents of ch. ii. are The history of St. Matthew-the genuineness of his gospel-its date-the language in which it was written-observations. In the same order, we have the history, &c. of the other three Evangelists, in as many short separate chapters. Chapter vi. gives an account of the Acts of the Apostles, in only three pages. Ch. vii. and the sixteen following relate to St. Paul and his writings. The ten remaining chapters are devoted to the Catholic Epistles and the Book of Revelation; with a very brief abridgment of the New Testament history. This closes the first volume. The chief purpose of Vol. II. Part iii. is to explain and defend the thirty-nine articles: but the exposition is prefaced by a short historical account of the English translations of the Bible, and of the Liturgy. The articles are first given, altogether, in Latin; and then each of them is printed separately in English, before its respective explanation. Our limits permit us to at tend only to a few. The doctrine of the Trinity included in Art. I. is discussed and defended at considerable length. We shall not enter into the arguments: but we must observe that there is as much candour as judgment displayed by the Bishop in abandoning the contested passage in 1 John in 1 John v. 7. to its fate. It would be improper (says he in a note, p. 90) to produce a doubtful text in support of so important a doctrine as that of the Trinity but I must own, that after an attentive consideration of the controversy relative to that passage, I am convinced that it is spurious.' The R. R. commentator also owns that the word Trinity does not occur in Scripture, nor do we find it in any of the early confessions of faith: but (he adds) this is no argument against the doctrine itself, since we learn from the fathers of the three first centuries, that the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost was, from the days of the Apostles, acknowledged by the catholic church, and that those who maintained a contrary opinion were considered as heretics.' Is not this abandoning the protestant rule of faith, and arguing precisely on popish principles? Above fifty pages are employed in explaining the second article, which relates to the sonship, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ. This is the most laboured part of the work, and *To those who wish to have a clear concise historical account of the liturgy, we would recommend the Introduction to Shepherd's Elucidation of the Morning and Evening Prayer. contains contains nearly all the arguments that have been advanced to support the absolute divinity of Christ:-but still no objections. are answered. On article 8th we observe, with pleasure, that the Right. Reverend author disapproves the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian creed. Great objection (says he, p. 219,) has been made to the clauses of this creed, which denounce eternal damnation against those who do not believe the catholic faith, as here stated; and it certainly is to be lamented that assertions of so peremptory a nature, unexplained and unqualified, should have been used in any human composition.'Again, p. 222, I am ready to acknowledge that, in my judgment, not withstanding the authority of former times, our church would have acted more wisely and more consistently with its general princi ples of mildness and toleration, if it had not adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian creed. Though I firmly believe that the doctrines themselves of this creed are all founded in Scripture, I cannot but conceive it to be both unnecessary and presumptuous to say, That "except every one do keep them whole and undefiled, without doubt be shall perish everlastingly." This reprobation reminds us of Archbishop Tillotson's wish, respecting the whole creed, "that the church were well rid of it." While these clauses remain in it, we trust that the Bishop of Lincoln will never enforce its being read; and that he will think that something less should be required at ordination, than an unqualified "assent and consent to all things and every thing." On the articles of Original sin,—Free will,-Good Works,— Justification,-Works of supererogation, - Christ alone without sin, -Predestination, and Election, &c. the Bishop endeavours to prove that the doctrine of the English church is different from that of Geneva. The defence of art. 18th is not in our judgment very strong and successful; and the article itself is deeply tinctured with uncharitableness. In the Bishop's commentary on art. 22. are some just remarks, mixed with inaccuracies, and even with some (we doubt not, involuntary) misrepresentations. The popish doc-' trines concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping, and adoration of images and relics, are not exactly what they are here. said to be; and a note at p. 355. contains an assertion which we apprehend the catholics will term a manifest calumny;: although it has been often repeated by ill-informed protestant writers. In explaining a part of art. 23. the Bishop allows that the difference of bishops from priests is a point which can be decided only by the testimony of antient ecclesiastical writers.' Not, then, by Scripture, the sole rule of protestant faith:but by tradition. Were a papist to quote Irenæus, Polycarp, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, &c. for any point of popish doctrine, contrary to that of the church of England, is there a protestant controvertist who would not exclaim with Chillingworth: Away with your traditional testimonies-the Bible, the Bible only, is our rule of faith?" We must, however, in justice to the R. R. author, add that he speaks with moderation on this subject: we subjoin his own words: But though I flatter myself that I have proved episcopacy to be an apostolical institution, yet I readily acknowledge that there is no precept in the New Testament which commands that every church should be governed by bishops. No church can exist without some government; but though there must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the offices of public worship, though there must be fixed regulations concerning the appointment of ministers; and though a subordination among them is expedient in the highest degree, yet it does not follow that all these things must be precisely the same in every Christian country; they may vary with the other varying circumstances of human society, with the extent of a country, the manners of its inhabitants, the nature of its civil government, and many other peculiarities which might be specified. As it has not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of temporal comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has he prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness. But he has, in the most explicit terms, enjoined obedience to all governors, whether civil or ecclesiastical, and whatever may be their denomination, as essential to the character of a true Christian. Thus the gospel only lays down general principles, and leaves the application of them to men as free agents.' Respecting art. 24. and 25. the Bishop uses the common, arguments against the performance of publie prayer, or the administration of the sacraments, in an unknown language; and against the additional number of sacraments admitted by the Romanists. At p. 438. we find the following judicious note: It is much to be feared, that the expression, "we eat and drink our own damnation," in our communion service, deters many persons from participating of the Lord's supper; and therefore I recommend it to all clergymen occasionally to explain to their congregations the meaning of the original passage from which it is taken, as well as the sense of the word damnation, when our Bible was translated. That the compilers of our Liturgy did not intend to apply the word damnation, any more than St. Paul the word Keipa, to eternal punishment, is evident from what follows: "We kindle God's wrath against us, we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death." One On art. 27. the R. R. writer is mostly historical; and he does not attempt to defend the definition given of baptism, against those who deem it only a sign of profession and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others, who are not christened. In this respect, there is very little difference between the church of England and the church of Rome. In commenting on arts. 28. 29. 30. 31. the Bishop combats successfully the popish doctrines of transubstantiation, communion in one kind, and the mass. Respecting art. 32. the R.R. author allows that many things are said in praise of a single life in the writings of the antient fathers, and that some attempts were made very early to impose celibacy on the clergy;' and he makes the following just and pertinent reflection: The allowed necessity of a Christian separating himself from the criminal pleasures and pursuits of this world soon connected the ideas of holiness and solitude; and the reputed sanctity of those persons who condemned themselves to live alone in the deserts, attached a degree of merit to celibacy, and by degrees led to those monastic institutions which have produced such various mischief, though not without a mixture of some good. Siricius, who, according to Dufresnoy, died in the year 399, was the first pope that forbade the marriage of the clergy; but it is probable that this prohibition was but little régarded, as the celibacy of the clergy seems not to have been com pletely established till the papacy of Gregory the Seventh, at the end of the eleventh century, and even then it was loudly complained of by many writers. The history of the following centuries abundantly proves the bad effects of this abuse of church power.' In the remarks on the 36th and 37th articles, we find the fol lowing paragraph: The rejection of the pope's authority in these kingdoms, and the making of our sovereign the head of our church, were among the steps which led to a reformation of our established religion. But this supremacy does not convey to our kings a right to administer God's word or sacraments. These holy functions can be exercised by none but those who are lawfully appointed to them; nor has such a right been ever claimed by any Christian prince.' Perhaps, if the English Roman Catholics had been convinced that the oath of supremacy implied no more than this, they might have not scrupled to take it, some years ago, when they applied to the legislature for relief. We must now terminate our account of this work, and we shall close it by transcribing the R. R. author's concluding ob servations: I have thus endeavoured to explain the meaning of the "Thirtynine Articles of Religion," and to prove that they are founded in Scripture, and conformable to the opinions of the early Christians. Riv. SEPT. 1800. E All persons, when they enter into holy orders, or are admitted to any ecclesiastical cure or benefice, are required by law to subscribe these. articles, with a design that those, who are employed in the ministry of our established church, whether as curates or incumbents, should unfeignedly believe the truth of the doctrines which they contain. "The avoiding of diversities of opinion, and the establishing of consent touching true religion," was the professed object of these articles; and consequently they lose their effect, if they do not produce a general agreement among such as subscribe them. "I do willingly and ex animo subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England," is the indispensable form of subscription; and therefore it behoves every one, before he offers himself a candidate for holy orders, to peruse carefully the articles of our church, and to compare them with the written word of God. If, upon mature examination, he believes them to be authorized by Scripture, he may conscientiously subscribe them; but if, on the contrary, he thinks that he sees reason to dissent from any of the doctrines asserted in them, no hope of emolument or honour, no dread of inconvenience or disappointment, should induce him to express his solemn assent to propositions which in fact he does not believe. It is not indeed necessary that he should approve every word or expression, but he ought to believe all the fundamental doctrines, of the articles; all those tenets in which our church differs from other churches, or from other sects of Christians. He ought to feel that he can from his own conviction maintain the purity of our established religion, and sincerely and zealously enforce those points of faith and practice, which our church declares to be essential to salvation. This appears to me the only just ground of conscientious subscription to the articles; and let it be ever remembered, that in a business of this. serious and important nature, no species whatever of evasion, subterfuge, or reserve is to be allowed, or can be practised, without imminent danger of incurring the wrath of God. The articles are to be subscribed in their plain and obvious sense, and assent is to be given to them simply and unequivocally. Thus only can a person offer himself at the table of the Lord as his minister with safety; thus only can he expect to receive the divine blessing upon that course of life to which he then solemnly devotes himself." Some animadversions on these volumes have appeared in two or three pamphlets, which we shall notice in another Number of our Review. ART. IX. The Farmer's Boy; a Rural Poem, in Four Books, 1800. THI HIS poem is ushered into the world under the obstetric auspices of the ingenious Mr. Capel production of a journeyman shoemaker, originally destined to be a Farmer's Boy. Lofft, but it is the who was himself The preface con |