Her sacred sign, to animate the brave; Along the ranks shall patriot Virtue move, an opportunity of fully and fairly meeting the strongest arguments which can be alleged in favour of that practice. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I PERCEIVE from one of your late numbers, that you agree with most religious persons in reprobating universally the practice of duelling. But permit me to state the circumstances of my case. I am an officer in the regiment of foot, but have never seen foreign service, nor, unless the invasion of this country should be effected, do I foresee any oppor Indignant Vengeance chides their long de-tunity of distinguishing myself. My lay; High on their centre shakes his wasteful spear, Stalks on their front, and thunders on their rear. Hail, Albion! fairest daughter of the seas, Where health and plenty court the western breeze; Where nobler youths the smiling vallies trace, And brighter maids the velvet meadows brother officers at present generally respect and esteem me; for my conduct, though manly, has always been, think, inoffensive. Notwithstanding my earnest endeavour to avoid quarrels, it is yet possible I may receive a challenge. The consequence day on the parade, every face that of refusing it would be that, the next was wont to greet me with joy would be coldly turned away from my salutation, and nothing would await me at mess but the silent disdain of all. Now from whatever considerations some persons may be enabled to bear the loss of friends, and the contempt of men, no one will deny them to be serious evils; indeed so deeply do they wound our natural feelings, that very them. But besides the ignominy, it many would, and do, prefer death to should subject themselves to the imis well understood that those who putation of cowardice by refusing a challenge, would shortly have it signified to them that his Majesty had no further occasion for their services. Now suppose, that to avoid certain disgrace and poverty, I consent to meet my adversary, with my heart free from every emotion of malice or revenge, and determined not to do him the least injury, you would still pronounce my conduct unlawful. But. when a merchant, to increase his fortune, encounters every variety of danger from the seas, from pestilential climates, from extremes of heat and cold; or when a man, urged by philosophic curiosity, traverses distant regions, beset with wild beasts and savages, you affirm such conduct to be at least lawful, if not commendable. Yet wherein does either of these cases (the former, if you please, for 32 extent. It is necessary, in the first place, distinctly to observe, that, in the investigation of a point of duty, we are ever to beware of confounding the distressing consequences which may ensue from a particular line of conduct, with the binding principle by which our conduct is to be decided. The consequences loudly claim cur sympathy and kindness on behalf of the sufferer; but they alter not the nature of religious obligation. The question, therefore, respecting duelling is not What shall I suffer, if I refuse a challenge?" but "Can I with a safe conscience accept a challenge?" On the latter question, it is surely impossible for a considerate man to doubt. What if the scriptures had left duelling indifferent? The law of the land would still be decisive. The law of the land prohibits duelling. What if the law were hard and unwise? Are you at liberty to disobey an existing law, because you deem it hard and unwise? Is this to be a good subject? Is this to "submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake?" But have the scriptures left duelling indifferent? Do not they prohibit murder? What is murder, but to take away life unlawfully? Is the motive, in which the guilt resides, less murderous, because the sword or the bullet misses its aim? But, though you meet your adversary, it is with a "heart free from every emotion of malice and revenge, and determined not to do him the least injury." Be it so. But are you less responsible for your own life than for his? Have you a right to throw it away? Have you a right deliberately to expose it to his unlawful attack? If to take away life unlawfully be murder; is it not murder unlawfully to take away your own life? If you unlawfully expose your life to the discharge of a pistol, is it morally of essential difference whether you pull the trigger by another person's hand or by your own? When the merchant encounters the hazards of seas and climates in the justifiable pursuits of commerce; when a Major Houghton or a Mr. Park exposes himself to lions and savages for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, ultimately to be turned to the benefit of the country which employs him, and of the regions which he explores; with such objects and motives the Occupation is in each case lawful. The risks inseparable from a lawful occupation are also lawful. When the duellist can prove his occupation lawful; then, and not till then, will he be entitled to the advantage of the analogy. For us Jesus Christ voluntarily endured poverty, ignominy, and death. If we refuse to endure poverty, ignominy, and, if need be, death itself, for his sake, are we his followers? In primitive times his followers "rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name," (Acts v. 41.) They "took joyfully the spoiling of their goods," (Heb. x. 34.) They proved themselves his servants "in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, by dishonour, by evil report," (2 Cor. vi. 48;) being "made a spectacle unto the world, as the filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things," (1 Cor. iv. 9-13.) Those who are called to make large sacrifices for the sake of Christian principle, and perseveringly obey the call, let us cherish and respect as they deserve. But shall we account them, shall they account themselves, unhap py? What saith the apostle "Eut and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye," (1 Pet. iii. 12.) What saith Jesus Christ? 66 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven." (Matt. v. 11, 12.) REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. CXI. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Lincoln, at the Triennial Visitation of that Diocese in May and June 1803. By GEORGE PRETYMAN, D. D. F. R. S. Lord Bishop of Lincoln. Ho. pp. 26. DISCUSSIONS on the Calvinism of the Church of England, have taken place at different periods of time, since the framing of the famous Lambeth Articles down to the present day. Indeed, the controversy has lately acquired new animation and additional import ance by the writings of Mr. Overton, Mr. Daubeny, Dr. Kipling, Academicus, the Bishop of Lincoln, and Presbyter, with many subsidiary advocates, all of whom appear in earnest to bring the question to a final issue: yet, while each disputant seems to gain more or less from his opponent, the main point still remains un. decided. The learned author of the Charge had, in his Elements of Christian Theology, maintained that the Church of England is Anti-calvinistic, by which we supposed he meant, that her doctrines are Arminian: but in the work now before us, he contends, "that our articles and liturgy do not exactly correspond with the sentiments of any of the eminent reformers upon the continent, or with the creeds of any of the Protestant Churches which are there established. Our Church," says he, "is not Lutheran, it is not Calvinistic, it is not Arminian, it is scriptural. It is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (p. 23.) With these sentiments we do most cordially agree. The founders of our Church, in framing articles of doctrine, or articles of discipline, were not swayed by the reputation or authority of any reformer on the continent: they drew from the pure and original sources of Christian knowedge those tenets, the truth of which they attested with their blood. But in asserting the independency of our Church we do not contend for its singularity, nor do we pretend to reject all those opinions which have been maintained by different divisions of the reformed Churches. There are many doctrines contained in the confession of Augsburgh, in the institutions of Calvin, nay, in the catechism of the Council of Trent, which are to be found in the articles, homilies, and liturgy of the Church of England; we do not, therefore, dissent from all that Calvin taught, but only from such peculiarities or novelties as do not appear to be supported by the plain evidence of the sacred writings. We accordingly conceive, that when the Bishop of Lincoln denies our Church to be Calvinistic or Lutheran, his as sertion is designed to be qualified with some such limitations as we have now proposed. The learned prelate begins his charge by complaining that, "It is now not only maintained that the doctrines of Calvinism are founded in scripture, but it is also asserted, that they only who hold those doctrines have any claim to be considered as true members of the Church of England." (p. 1.) That these things have been said, and attempted to be proved, cannot be denied; but with what wisdom the cause of Calvinism has been identified with the cause of evangelical truth, as taught by our venerable reformers, we cannot discern; since all that would be incumbent upon any minister of the establishment to prove is this, that certain doctrines preached or published do or do not agree with the articles, homilies, and liturgy: whether they accord with the tenets of Mr. Calvin or not, is a question foreign to the purpose. But if it has been demonstrated, that the writings and sermons of many of the clergy are directly at variance with the "faith they professed at the time of their ordination," according to the plain, obvious, and literal meaning of the test of their faith, certainly these clergymen are bound, as men of integrity, either to reform their doctrine, to refute their antagonists, or to leave a Church, whose tenets they have abandoned*. We do not quite understand his Lordship's meaning when he says, "The regular clergy, who explain scripture in another sense, or who support a different interpretation of our liturgy and articles, are represented as not preaching the Gospel of Christ." According to this representation of things, "the regular clergy" have their peculiar mode of interpreting the scriptures, &c. and somebody, we are not informed who, follows another mode of interpretation. Does his Lordship mean, that no regular clergyman interprets the scriptures, &c. in the calvinistic sense? The Bishop of Lincoln is too well-informed of the state of religion in England not to know, that a considerable number of pious, zealous, and learned men among the regular clergy, do, at this day, actually interpret the scriptures, articles, and homilies in the sense so obnoxious to his Lordship; and that there exists no necessary connexion between calvinism and irregularity. His Lordship, indeed, admits (p. 24.) "that many Calvinists have been pious and excellent men," and "" that there are in these days many zealous Christians, both among the clergy and laity of that persuasion, who would be among the first to deplore any evil which might befal our constitution in Church or State." The learned prelate, declining a discussion of the whole calvinistic system, contents himself with "submitting a few observations upon the important doctrine of universal redemption; since, if it can be proved that God has enabled every individual born into the world, to attain salvation through the merits of Christ, it will be a complete refutation of all the peculiar tenets of Calvinism." (p. 2.) We are persuaded, that no man, acquainted with the Calvinistic controversy, can read this quotation with * In this sentiment we have the explicit sanction of his Lordship, as may be seen by referring to an extract from his Elements of Theology in our first volume, page 257. out feeling some surprise. The doctrine of universal or general redemption is unquestionably contained in the sacred scriptures, and is taught in the articles, homilies, and liturgy of our Church; but his Lordship must know that it has likewise been maintained by many of our greatest divines, of whose Calvinism he can entertain no doubt. The Irish articles of religion, compiled in the reign of James I. are most explicitly Calvinistic, having the Lambeth articles incorporated into them; now it is well known, that they were digested and reduced into form principally by the labours of the learned Usher; yet this eminent prelate maintained, most unequivocally, the doctrine of general redemption. The English divines who attended the Synod of Dort, and assented to the tenets of predestination and the divine decrees, as taught by Calvin, nevertheless contended for the doctrine in question. And not to multiply authorities on so plain a subject, many of the most learned among the Puritans, who agreed with Calvin in matters of discipline, as well as in the tenets of predestination, were, nevertheless, strenuous advocates for the doctrine of general redemption. Upon this point, we believe, his Lordship will meet with few opponents among those whom he may call Calvinistic clergymen; few among the more learned and respectable, who will deny that "Christ made a full satisfaction and complete atonement for the sins of the whole world†.' " Nay, Calvin himself in commenting on Rom. v. 18, admits that Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered indiscriminately to all men by the goodness of God. And we believe, that among our English divines of the present day, who incline to the views of that reformer, there are few who do not adopt the language of our Church upon this point. In a sermon now before us, written by the Rev. Thomas Scott, late chaplain of the Lock Hospital, in which he endeavours to prove, that the doctrines of election and final perseverance are scriptural, and that they consist with exhortatory and practical preaching, and conduce to holiness of life, we find the following passage. “But what is the general purport of this commission (viz. Christ's)? Let us hear the word of God: this is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners_* God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever belier — If then the fact be as we have stated it, and it cannot be easily refuted, it may be asked, against whom is the Bishop of Lincoln contending? His elaborate defence of universal redemption, which was to overturn the foundations of Calvinism, as held by the clergy of the established Church, is, as we have seen, by no means likely to produce that effect. The charge brought against a considerable proportion of the regular clergy, for not "preaching the Gospel of Christ," has no reference to their not inculcating the doctrines of absolute predestination and particular redemption: there is no necessary connexion in the mind, even of any sober Calvinist, between those tenets and the evangelical doctrines which are considered as essential to salvation. Does a minister insist on the doctrines of human depravity and salvation by grace? Does he point to Christ Jesus, and him crucified, as the only Saviour of sinners, and the only refuge from deserved wrath; and to the Holy Ghost as the only sanctifier of the eth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.' His blood is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." He then proceeds to observe, "For my part, I dare not use any arts of criticism to narrow the obvious sense of these and similar texts; and as I hope this day, previously to receiving and administering the Lord's Supper, to use the following terms in solemn prayer, Christ by his own oblation of himself once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;' I would no more contradict this solemn profession from the pulpit than I would preach against the seventeenth article respecting predestination. The compilers of our liturgy evidently thought both true, and consistent with each other; and I am happy to coincide in sentiment with these venerable characters." (Mr. Scott's Sermon, p. 7, 8. Third Edition.) Now let it be observed, that it is not our purpose to vindicate the consistency of Mr. Scott, in holding at the same time, the doctrine of election as held by Calvin and that of general redemption, or to decide whether he is right in attributing similar views to our reform ers; but merely to prove the fact, that many who agree with Calvin on the subject of predestination, do, nevertheless, contend for the doctrine of general redemption. people of God? Does he inculcate the necessity of repentance from dead works; of faith in the atoning blood of Christ; of a renewal of the heart to holiness after the image of God; and of a supreme love to God issuing in uniform, cheerful, and universal obedience to his commandments? Does he from these premises, clearly and unequivocally maintained, deduce the obligation of Christians to lead lives of faith in the Son of God; to cultivate all those holy, heavenly, and devout affections, and to perform all those civil, social, and relative duties which are required, either by the precepts or the spirit of the Gospel? Does he enforce the various obligations of christianity by their proper motives and sanctions, speaking as a dying man to dying men, earnestly and affectionately urging them to flee from the wrath to come, and to attend to the things which belong to their peace? Does he shew a real solici tude for the spiritual welfare of his flock, assiduously watching over them as one who must give account, and framing his conduct and conversation, as well as his public discourses, according to the Gospel? Then, whatever be the sentiments of such an one with respect to the Calvinistic controversy, he is an evangelical minister of the same school with the apostles of old; he is a true son of the Church of England, imbrued with the spirit of our first reformers; and by whatever name he may be called, or whatever success may attend his labours, "yet surely his judgment is with the Lord, and his reward with his God," On the other hand, whoever either partially, faintly, or superficially exhibits any of these grand and essential truths: whoever either loses sight of them entirely, or when he brings them into view, treats them as mere incidental appendages instead of necessary and indispensable parts of vital christianity-whatever be his name either assumed or imposed, whatever be his claims or professions, he is not a true minister of the Gospel, nor a true son of the Church of England: he can have no just title to be denominated evangelical. We have dwelt the longer upon this point, beCause the generality of people, under the influence of misrepresentation, have been taught to confound evangelical preaching with the inculcation |