صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

this periphrasis means neither more nor less than that this reconstructing grace is received by every one who comes to baptism free from unbelief and impenitence? So easy is it to envelope a subject in a cloud of words of which it is scarcely possible to ascertain the meaning!

It may readily be imagined, after this, that the work of the Archdeacon gives small promise of throwing any clear light over the dark region of controversy.

His second chapter professes to adduce "the Testimony of Scripture as to the time and manner in which regeneration is bestowed:" on which subject he says nothing which has not been repeatedly confuted.-He next advances to the" authorized Formularies of the Church of England." And here he confines himself, strangely enough, to the Offices and Catechism; as if the Articles which he has himself subscribed, and which treat with precision on the topic in dispute, were of no force. Now, seeing that the point in controversy was, "What is the meaning of the language of the Offices?" it seems remarkable, not to say ominous for the Archdeacon's course, that he does not bring the declarative judgment of the Church in her Articles, to bear upon the meaning of the disputed passages in the Services. Nor has he noticed, even in passing, the fact that the Baptismal Service is necessarily based upon hypotheses, in points which none can question. The putting sponsors in the place of children, is an hypothesis assumed at the very commencement; and this itself would lead to the suspicion at least, that the hypothetical principle may extend still further. Yet all this, and more, is pretermitted as if deserving of no attention.

The argument however of Mr. Goode's work is more systematically assailed in the fifth chapter, which professes to answer the question "How far belief in Baptismal Regeneration is consistent with adherence to Calvinism." It is not easy to ascertain what the Archdeacon means by Calvinism. He speaks of the doctrine of Divine Decrees, of Election, and of Perseverance, in a manner too loose to be brought to any very definite test. He must speak of them because the Church does so. But he mystifies what is plain, and no wonder that he renders what is dark, darker still. On the subject of Divine Decrees, he deals much in generals, without descending to particulars; so also on the subject of Election, where, as it appears to me, he discountenances the notion of its being personal, (in the face of by far the greater portion of the Reformers). But such modes of escape are not open to him respecting the doctrine of Final Perseverance, which appears prominently in the " Institution of a Christian Man," published in the year 1537; and he therefore leaves that as he finds it, and makes no answer to the statements adduced by Mr. Goode from that work. If he does not reprobate the doctrine, he would allow it to perish by an act of preterition.

Now it is as plain as anything can be, that the doctrine of Final Perseverance is incompatible with that of the universal

spiritual regeneration of all infants in Baptism; unless a difference be maintained between their regeneration and that which is necessary for adults. On this point Dr. Laurence was right. He saw the difficulty, but took the wrong way to solve it. Archdeacon Wilberforce also feels that it is a thorn in his side; but he moves on as well as he can, noticing it as little as possible. Now, it is impossible to conceive anything more decisive than the language of our early Divines on this subject; and the inference cannot be evaded,-by any process of dealing with evidence, that these divines did not, and could not, hold the doctrine for which the Archdeacon contends.

Without following the Archdeacon through his remaining chapters, it may be right to make a remark on his extraordinary omission of all reference to the opinions of Archbishop Whitgift, from whom emanated the famous Lambeth Articles, containing an explicit avowal of the most offensive of Calvin's doctrines. Many who differ entirely from Archdeacon Wilberforce in sentiment, rejoice as much as he can do, that these Articles never became the standards of theology in the Church. But it is certain that he who believed that "God from eternity has predestinated some persons to life, and reprobated others to death," and that "the number of the predestinate is fixed, and cannot be lessened or increased," could never hold the present High Church views, unless he had believed that every baptized infant was thus predestinated to eternal life! The statement itself is its own confutation. Yet this very Archbishop first promulgated and enforced the canon enjoining subscription to the Book of Common Prayer, and thus insisted on the acceptance and belief of a service which, according to the interpretation put upon it by the Archdeacon, it was utterly impossible for the Archbishop himself to believe! To such absurdities are even learned men driven, when they undertake to uphold an indefensible sys


There are various other topics to which I intended to refer; but the length to which I have already trespassed on your patience and that of your readers, compels me to desist. I do this the rather, because I learn from the second edition of Mr. Goode's valuable work, that a full reply to all the arguments of the Archdeacon may be expected in due time.

I would not, however, conclude without earnestly entreating your readers to make the present position of our Church the subject of earnest prayer to Him Who is her Lord and Head; Who walketh amid the golden candlesticks; and Who is perhaps saying to us, as he did to the Church at Laodicea, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent." "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."-Yours very truly,




THE earth is new; the heavens are new;
In warmth and stillness, light and hue:
And, radiant from her wintry tomb,
Nature unveils her bloom.

The siege is raised; beneath the ground
One hand has many captives found;
And melting down their prison doors,
Set free the struggling flowers.

O ye sweet seasons! ye declare,
Of Nature's peace and Nature's war
The pre-established harmony

May change, but never die.

And were our hearts as true to Grace-
Which calls and woos to life our race-
Each mourner's winter then would bring
pure, perennial Spring.


And, what can bless without it? Say,
Ye beams, and showers, and airs of May,
Can ye the past, and lost restore,

Or curb the Tempter's power?

Silent? Then come, thou brooding Dove-
Full influence of Almighty love-
With gifts imperishable, come

And re-create thy home.

Descend, descend; yon cedar swings
Its fragrant boughs like eagle's wings;
All things aspire; come down to me,
That I may soar with Thee.


The Works of the Rev. Sydney Smith. 1850.

Elementary Sketches of Moral Philosophy. By the late Rev. SYDNEY SMITH. 1850.

THE appearance of Sydney Smith's works, in a collected shape, is a fitting occasion for some remarks, both on the writings themselves, and on the medium through which they were originally communicated to the public. The anonymous author, whose name was most frequently heard in connection with his supposed writings, has now dropped his disguise, and appears, like any other author, at the tribunal of criticism.

His chief reputation was made as a contributor of the Edinburgh Review. It would seem indeed that he originated it. He contributed to its pages, more or less frequently, till 1827; when, on becoming a dignitary of the Church of England, he ceased to write anonymously, though his subsequent acknowledged productions are not less striking, nor less marked with his peculiar characteristics, than those which had previously appeared without his name, or under an assumed one.

The following is his account of the origin of the Edinburgh Review:


"When first I went into the church, I had a curacy in the middle of Salisbury Plain. The Squire of the parish took a fancy to me, and requested me to go with his son to reside at the University of Weimar; before we could get there, Germany became the seat of war, and in stress of politics we put into Edinburgh, where I remained five years. The principles of the French Revolution were then fully afloat, and it is impossible to conceive a more violent and agitated state of society. Among the first persons with whom I became acquainted were, Lord Jeffrey, Lord Murray (late Lord Advocate for Scotland), and Lord Brougham: all of them maintaining opinions upon political subjects a little too liberal for the dynasty of Dundas, then exercising supreme power over the northern division of the island.

"One day we happened to meet, in the eighth or ninth story or flat in Buccleugh Place, the elevated residence of the then Mr. Jeffrey. I proposed that we should set up a Review; this was acceded to with acclamation. I was appointed Editor, and remained long enough in Edinburgh to edit the first number of the Edinburgh Review. The motto I proposed for the Review was, 'Tenui musam meditamur avena.'-' We cultivate literature upon a little oatmeal.' But this was too near the truth to be admitted, and so we took our present grave motto from Publius Syrus, of whom none of us had, I am sure, ever read a single line; and so began what has since turned out to be a very important and able journal. When I left Edinburgh, it fell into the stronger hands of Lord Jeffrey and Lord Brougham, and reached the highest point of popularity and success. I contributed from England many articles, which I have been foolish enough to collect, and publish with some other tracts written by me."

The Review, when it thus passed into the hands of Mr. Jeffrey, gradually changed its form. At first, it followed the example of its contemporaries, in being strictly an account of the new works on which it gave judgment; with scarcely any difference but that of talent and audacity far in advance of its rivals. Subsequently it became a collection of disquisitions on the most prominent topics of the day; the organ of a party in Politics, of a party in Literature, and we are afraid we must add, it expressed also the opinions of a party in Religion. It is long, indeed, since the two last of these features have become materially modified for the better; articles on both literature and religion, from time to time, having appeared, contradictory to the tone and spirit of its earlier numbers. This change, though in one respect a decided improvement, has yet been acquired at the expense, to a certain extent, of that unity and coherence which gave additional strength to its commencement. It is now little more than a congeries of pamphlets. As the original writers died, or ceased to contribute, the custom arose of selecting their articles, and publishing them in a separate form. A beginning

once made, the practice extended: they came to be treated like the plants, which the gardener first sows in the hotbed, and afterwards transfers to the conservatory, and this, in more instances than one, has been done so speedily, that, to vary the figure, the writer, in appropriating his productions, resembles more the jeweller who lends his diamonds for some midnight festivity, and recalls them next morning. The practice, however, though convenient to the author and his circle of admirers, has, it is obvious, an injurious effect on the periodical itself, considered as an influential organ of public opinion.

From the quotations we have already given from Mr. Smith's preface, the outline of the literary career of the Edinburgh Review is adequately supplied, and there may be a more suitable time for tracing its further progress should any memorials of Lord Jeffrey, the most distinguished of its Editors, hereafter appear. The first inroad on the supremacy it had hitherto enjoyed was the establishment of its rival, the Quarterly Review. The points of difference and resemblance between these conflicting powers are many. Still, on looking at their entire course, both seem to have been subjected to the same law of change. Both have been lessened in regard of their former influence, and that from similar causes-remaining rather as the indicators of public opinion, than the formers of it.

But perhaps the greatest blow to the infallibility of the hitherto triumphant Journal, was occasioned by the controversy it provoked, respecting the studies of Oxford, with Dr. Copleston, the late Bishop of Llandaff. Single-handed he met the united attack of the chief writers in the Review; and it was allowed by those who had followed the discussion, that the victory rested with the till then undistinguished Fellow of Oriel. His three tracts in defence of Oxford will always be read with undiminished interest. Their purpose was temporary, and their topics were local; but they embody the mature opinions of that eminent person on some most important subjects-on Education in general, on the comparative value of the various objects of intellectual pursuit, together with occasionally profound remarks on the philosophy of language. While he could refute their arguments and disprove their assertions, he however felt, with Paley, that it was impossible to refute a sneer. He accordingly wound up by attacking them with their own weapons; and, in his "Hints to a young Reviewer," directed his ridicule against the peculiar artifices by which the writers maintained the ascendancy of their Journal.

Among these writers we do not hesitate to rank Sydney Smith as the most influential. To compare great things with small,-though the extremes here are perhaps not so far asunder -he may be said, in relation to his associates and contemporaries, to have occupied much the same place which Swift did with his. The two, in many points, were not unlike. A painful, though just, parallel might be drawn between them. We will

« السابقةمتابعة »