are apt to assign so much importance; we think that the grand fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, original sin, justification by faith, the freedom of Divine grace, the universal necessity of conversion and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, should have occupied a more important place in all his sermons, and should have been more exclusively the subject of some. The Bishop was, we believe, sound upon these points; but the precedent of Scripture, the state of society, the disinclination of fallen man to these topics, their temporary banishment from the pulpit, or rather their submersion in the systems of popular divinity, demanded the bold, solemn, and unequivocal assertion of them by this exalted and popular advocate of Christianity. May not almost all his sermons be read, and no very distinct conception of some of these doctrines be gained? A second defect in the ministry of the Bishop is, that, however rigid he might be in the application of these doctrines to his own case, he does not in general so urge them as to establish their universal and paramount importance to his hear ers. He plainly thought it necessary, that he himself should be the mortified, subdued, devout, evangelized disciple of Christ; but he does not press, at least with sufficient force, upon his hearers, that the same habits of mind are essential to them, and to all who would be saved. He was more disposed to dwell on the happiness of religion, than the perils of sin. He descanted on the wisdom, the duty, the satisfaction of faith and holiness, when the Bible would have said he that believeth not shall be damned"-" without holiness no man shall see the Lord." He supposed too much in his hearers, the existence of the qualities which the Bible labours to beget. Instead of taking it for granted that the churchmanship of many was a mere name; instead of regarding the mass of his congregation as men unrenewed in heart, as "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God," as men scaling the heights of ambition, slumbering in the lap of indolence, whirling in the vortex of fashion and dissipation, or sunk in vice and profligacy; he addressed them too much as if they possessed the characters which true membership of the church implies. He did not very much apply his sermons. He spoke, commonly, in generd terms; dealt much in the impersonal verb, much in the third person; and adverted continually to the superority of our national institutions and character. Now we know that many of these habits, as a writer and preacher, are sanctioned by high authority. The practice, for instance, of treating the nominal church as a real church, has a no less sanction than the Epistles of the New Testament, and the liturgy of the Church of England. But, then, in the first case, under the peculiar circumstances of the early Christians, the nominal church was, in fact, the real church. And as to the liturgy, it is evident that, in a general service, no discrimination of character in the worshippers could be attempted; and it was the judgment of charity to suppose and treat all who used the form, as possessing the spirit, of the church. But it is evident that precedents such as these by no means authorize that species of charity which in the smallest degree closes our eyes upon the mixed character of a congregation, which confounds the real with the nominal worshipper, and which deems a man a true Christian because he is willing to bear the name of Christ. In like manner, we know that the man of mild temper will naturally, in addressing an audience, take refuge in the use of general terms, abstract truths, impersonal verbs, third persons, and the mixture of general applause to the mass, with the measured condemnation of individuals. Nevertheless, such mildness as this has no prototype in Scripture; nor is it consonant to the dictates of an enlightened humanity. " We do not warn the man whose, house is on fire, by the abstract assurance that "fire is dangerous;" by introducing a third person to say, "he is in danger;" by continually adverting to those noble public institutions, the general fire insurance companies. Nor must the delegated apostle of Christianity fail to discriminate, to individualise, to strike home, to draw the line between the form and spirit of religion; to shew that the best church cannot of itself sanctify those who enter it; "to speak," as old Baxter says, "like a dying man, to dy ing men; to "warn, rebuke, exhort," like one who expects to meet his congregation next at the bar of God. Instead of the audience rising, as it is to be much feared very many did, from the pleasing, manly, serious, and very popular lectures of the Bishop, unaffected by a sense of their guilt and danger; we should have coveted for him the eulogy bestowed by Louis XIV. upon Massillon-" My Lord, when I hear other fine preachers, I admire them; when I hear you, I hate myself." It is necessary to add, that the private writings of the Bishop, partake a little of the defect to which we have alluded. Having, though with the deepest regret, felt ourselves constrained to offer these observations, we have only earnestly to entreat of our readers that they may not be misinterpreted. When we consider the courage, the fidelity, the spirituality, the sweetness, which often characterize the works of the Bishop, we cannot for a moment question his piety, his zeal, his devotion. We impute his defects as a writer, partly to a fear of innovating upon the accredited phraseology of the most celebrated English divines; partly to his constitutional humility; partly to that refinement which shrinks from personalities; and partly to that charity which takes all for good which it does not know to be evil. It is much to be said of any man, that he possesses all these qualities; it is too much almost to hope to say of any, that having these, they have also all the controuling principles by which alone their operation can be limited and corrected. Having dedicated so much space to the Bishop, we have left ourselves little for his respectable biographer. It is enough, perhaps, to say of him, that he bears rather more resemblance, both in style and sentiment, to his venerable uncle, than his degree of relationship promised; and neither he nor the public have cause to lament, that, as to very many points, the affinity should not be that alone of blood. The simplicity of manner in the work, to us critics especially, who are delighted to come at the thoughts of men by the shortest possible cut, is very gratifying. The book has higher qualifications than its style: it is manly and serious in the whole train of its sentiments. The commendations of Mrs. H. More and the Bible Society, bespeak the enlightened and independent man. The worst sentence in the whole, is the last paragraph of note p. 266: it is quoted, we believe, from Jortin, and supplies a pretended portrait of Calvinism, which can scarcely claim even the name of a caricature. Burnet was a professed Arminian, and Horsley was not a Calvinist; but they did not so speak of Calvinism. They knew the least invulnerable points of their own system, and the stronghold of their adversaries'; and did not conceive a self-called "refutation" sufficient to defend the one, or an epigrammatic sentence sufficient to beat down the other. Calvinism will certainly not be driven from the field, unless its adversaries wield the weapons of a more athletic and scientific warfare. But, as Mr. Hodgson is doubtless more anxious, in giving this work to the public, for his reputation as a biographer than a polemic, we are happy to crown him with the bays he desires the most. If, like the Roman emperor, who was not contented to be thought the best legis lator in the land, unless he was also applauded as the best fiddler, our author lowers himself to seek the additional reputation of a controversialist, we would, on the whole, recommend it to him, not to sharpen the weapons of his controversial warfare at the forge of the Bishop of Lincoln. The State of the Established Church, THIS pamphlet will be doubtless announced to the public under various appellations, according to the various feelings, or habits of thinking, previously adopted by its readers. Those who, through a long course of steady attachment to our venerable Establishment, have acquired a respect for her infirmities, and a tenderness, if they should exist, for her very errors, will pronounce these letters, under the garb of a friendly remonstrance, to contain a series of ill-timed invectives against her, and a wanton exposure, not to say exaggeration, of her frailties, to the eyes of the world. Many, on the other hand, who hail the sound of reformation from whatever quarter, and subscribe but coldly to the arguments a priori for the excellency or stability of our church, will welcome this production, as only a just detection of her faults, and a salutary warning to our rulers, ere it is too late to rescue her from ruin. We shall not at present allow ourselves to pass either sentence; much less to pronounce on the motives under which the anonymous writer proceeded;-only, we shall content ourselves with a wellknown motto on the very worst supposition: "Fas est et ab hoste doceri." And on every supposition we shall call on our author, even as an Eng lishman, to join with us in another equally appropriate : Pudet hæc opprobria sedia Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refell, Indeed, it must on all sides be aknowledged that he has handled these "opprobria” in a manner indicating little lightness of hand, or susceptibility of frame. He dee not "approach to the faults of a church, as to the wounds of a parest, with pious awe and trembling licitude;" nor, it is evident, dee he think a wrinkled brow and grey hairs add any thing to the claims d her more robust youth, on his filial respect or grateful commendation. It is also to be observed, in regar to this, as to most other hasty schemes (sketches, is their own mort appropriate word) proposed by formists, that it is much larger of the actual state, than the possible change, of the thing to be reformed; and describes at full length, and with safe vehemence, the mortal disease, but dismisses in a few pages of vague suggestion the far more important discussion of the remedy. Consequently, in enumerating the various heads of censure alleged against our Establishment in these letters, we shall have but to refer the reader to their own broad unqualified statements; but in discussing the topic of reformation, we fear the reader must often content himself with our humble remarks, in defect of any satisfaction from the pages of the writer. The heads of censure, then, are of nearly the following, and in the following order:1. The state of the universities; 2. Examination for orders (p. 24); 3. Disposal of patronage in the church (p. 28); 4. Unequal distribution of church property (p. 30); 5. Neglect ecclesiastical discipline (p. 36); 6. Non-residence (p. 41); 7. Churchwardens' oaths at visitations (p. 49); 8. Neglect, or carelessness, in the pastoral duties (pp. 59, &c. and 109 and 121.) 9. Inaccuracy of returns of the value of small livings (p. 92); 10. Il application of Queen Anne's bounty, &c. (p. 98); 11. Want of churches, (p. 131). In most of which, proposals of remedy are pretended in a few concluding pages. And the whole is interspersed with some general remarks on the conduct of the London clergy, the arguments for tithes, the excellence of the church, and the rise of "a certain new sect.' This very hasty arrangement of a "hasty sketch," obliges us, for our own and the reader's satisfaction, to adopt something of a new order, in our observations upon it; to which, indeed, we are helped by the very obvious remark, that letters of this kind to a legislator and Chancellor of the Exchequer (however he may be attached to the interests of the church) bear on their very face but a slender promise of ultimate benefit to that "kingdom" which is literally, as well as spiritually, "not of this world." În a system like that of Christianity, where so much is left to the private operations of conscience, we conceive there must be much to which no public provisions whatever, much less those of a political legislator, can possibly apply. Much those descriptions, and which admit, as we conceive, of no direct legislative remedy whatever. These, we may safely call the state of our universities, examinations for orders, the performance of the pastoral duties, and, we must add also, the distribution of church-patronage, whether public or private. On the state of our universities, our author makes the following appalling statements. "I believe, sir, you cannot be ignorant of the manner in which those systems are carried into effect, or rather are neglected. That the example of too many among the preceptors, and the looseness of conduct suffered among the students, prove how widely our colleges have departed from the intentions of the founders"—so that, instead of religion, they too often confer" habits and baneful to those whose eternal happiand opinions destructive to the individuals, ness is hereafter to be entrusted to persons so little qualified or accustomed to appreciate their own." p. 15. Much of this insubordination is then attributed to the "introduction of many persons to the higher with little reference to weight, taoffices-on principles of charity, lents, and respectability." p. 17. Young men of the highest attainments, if possessing liberal fortune and manners, the honours and emoluments of colare dismissed from leges, to make way for those whose only recommendation is their poverty." And then "poverty and pre"alscription" are described as small most the only passports to fellowThen comes an ships, &c." p. 18. equally strong notice, that more also, in a church constituted like our own, should we imagine to fall exclusively, under the canonical regulations of those venerable persons to whom God and their country have committed the government of the church; whilst a remainder alone of its affairs, such as are in immediate connection with the wheel of government (aud which, we do our author the justice to say, are well stated in his pamphlet) should, in our humble estimation, come under the official consideration of that high political character to whom these letters addressed. are Following, then, in our remarks, the order naturally suggested to us by this threefold variety in ecclesiastical affairs, we shall direct our first attention to that class of accusations which fall under the first of CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 119. there are more vice and profligacy of manners countenanced at our universi ties, where a direct and obvious check exists, than would be suffered to take place among its members afterwards, when they arrive at situations in life which present no positive restraints; and that the scenes of riot and debauchery which pass unnoticed (or at least are ineffectually noticed) by those who cannot be ignorant of them, would, in this metropolis, subject the perpetrators to the correction of the po lice." p. 20. Religion, he conceives to be 4 Z equally neglected. Christianity forms little or no part in the regular plan of instruction. Contrary to our experience in every other profession, candidates for our ministry are taught every branch of science, but that in which they are to practise; chapel is not attended till it is half over; many go there intoxicated, as to a kind of roll-call; and though the assumption of the Lord's Supper is peremptory upon the students, no care is taken to teach them its importance, &c. p. 22. Letter II. opens with similar statements, in respect to examination for orders. "Our future clergyman, having taken his degree (to which the principles of religion form at Cambridge no step whatever, and at Oxford a very trifling one), and. having, often by Euclid alone, attained that object, he announces himself a candidate for holy orders." Then" so very lax has become the examination for orders, that there is no man who has taken a degree at the university, who cannot reckon on ordination as a certainty, whatever his attain ments in learning, morals, or religion, &c." " Speaking generally, I believe the only qualifications are, to be able to construe a chapter in the Greek Testament, and answer a few questions out of Grotius." A specimen of these answers is then given, in the answer of a young man to the question, Who was the Mediator between God and man? Answer. "The Archbishop of Canterbury!" pp. 24-26. Speaking of the difficulties he would, on the contrary, oppose to the attainment of orders, he says, "I shall perhaps be answered,-How hard to throw a young man back upon the world!— that school learning is not of so much consequence as the moral character of a minister, &c." To which he replies, 1st, by hoping, that, if change in the mode of examination were once known, candidates would come as well prepared for the latter as now unprepared for the former; and that, 2dly, it is actually "the a want of attention to moral characte Now, without any comment the foregoing wishes, may we safely appeal to the reader for the truth of our observation, that thest letters are stating abuses, for which not even the author himself, much less a politician and chancellor the exchequer, is likely ever to propose any effectual, public, or le gislative remedy. We should be ashamed to quote the old adage, Quid leges sive moribus manner in Vanæ proficient? were it not forced upon us by the very trite and inadequate which the writer has treated this, by far the most important part of his subject, which was to point out a way of return for our church esta blishment to her original purity. Happy, doubtless, was that parent whose sons were all brave, and 'daughters all beautiful: or, in more appropriate allusion, heartily we could wish," Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spiri upon them." But has our author |