who are his superiors in human learning but of the Supreme Being. If he lightly take in hand to explain the sacred text of the word of God, to exhort his brethren, to lay down the principles of sound doctrine and good conduct, without having thoroughly informed himself of all that is necessary, he is not only blameable, but he incurs no small risk of being accounted sinfully presumptuous in venturing to touch high and holy things without becoming preparation, in daring to sully their purity with unconsecrated hands, But more than this, he makes himself an swerable for an injury to the present and eternal peace of his fellow-creatures, which through want of information that he ought to have acquired, and of caution that he ought to have exercised, he may be instru mental in producing.

"Under the influence of feelings arising naturally out of such reflections, deeply and solemnly impressed with the responsi bility which he incurs, and painfully sensible of his own many deficiencies, the author is aware that the work in which he is engaged is of no small importance, for

it embraces the entire scheme of human redemption, and the whole circle of religious obligations; and of no inconsider able difficulty for its province is categorically to affirm the truth with respect to questions, in which the wisest and the best of men have differed in opinion."

Dr. B. is so full of his subject, as sometimes to press into his service passages which have but a remote and slight bearing on the main point: but his anxiety to leave nothing untouched which might contribute to his purpose, may plead a very sufficient apology. He has discharged his task with conscientious fidelity, and brought together documents extremely interesting to those who are studious of our ecclesiastical history.

Six Discourses, preached before the University of Oxford. By Thomas Linwood Strong, B.D. of Oriel College, Oxford, Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Llandaff 158 pp. Rivingtons. 1821. THE unity and integrity of the Christian faith, the doctrines of the

Atonement, and of Grace, and of Predestination, and the present state of the sacred text, are points upon which much doubt and misapprehension are wont to prevail, and which should at all times be clearly and rightly understood. They are points which originally belong to the investigation of the learned, by means of whose easy and familiar expositions, they may be accommodated to the capacities of unlearned men, and may be generally improved to the removal of objec tions to a public conformity with the established Church, and to the advancement of peace and consolation in the moments of private reflection.

These points are discussed by Mr.Strong in Six Discourses, preached before the University of Oxford, and now offered to the notice of well-educated men, to whose con. firmation in a Scriptural faith they are well adapted, and by whom they will not be less appreciated or approved, because Mr. Strong modestly disclaims all pretensions to ingenuity, eloquence, or research. They are principally intended

"To invite the attention of the younger clergy, and more particularly of those who are candidates for ordination, to some matters of great consequence, which are often seriously misunderstood; and to warn them against certain errors, which have sometimes proved disgraceful to the clerical profession, and injurious to the Christian cause."

The importance of the topics, the vehemence with which they are brought into the discussion of every day, and the ease and perspicuity with which they are treated by Mr. Strong, will render the present volume an acceptable summary to all who are entering upon the study of theology, and are desirous of acquiring a competent knowledge of Christian truth, and have not the means of collecting, or the leisure for consulting, more voluminous and

elaborate discourses.

The purpose of the first Discourse is to shew, that no countenance is given in the Apostolical writ

ings to the propagation of discordant articles of faith. The mind of man has ever been too prone to form private conceptions of religious truth, and if none has been found to defend the innocence of positive error, many have maintain ed, that there is no offence in the varieties of religious belief. The Scriptures are quoted without hesitation in vindication of this latitude of religious opinion, and the example and authority of St. Paul are alleged in proof, that the peculiar doctrines which are taught are matter of little concern, if they are but collected from the word of God, The appeal is made to the difficult text of the Apostle to the Philip pians, (i. 15-18.) and Mr. Strong has rendered good service to the Church in proving the irrelevancy of the appeal, by au exact inter pretation of the passage, in its connexion with the general spirit and occasion of the Epistle. The substance of the exposition is thus reca→ pitulated :

"The Apostle is speaking exclusively of the state of the Christian Church at

Rome at a particular time, and the sentiments he expresses are, in all respects, worthy of himself and of that holy religion which he so firmly believed and practised. He describes the different motives by which different preachers were actuated, but does not intimate that any diversity of doctrine prevailed among them. The observation of Erasmus upon this passage appears both just and luminous: Non Paulus de his loquitur, qui docebant hæretice, sed qui recte licet animo parum sincero. Nec hos probat tamen: sed negat sibi discutiendum, quo animo id faciant, modo prosint.' The whole scope of the Apostle's discourse is confined to the character of the man. A contrast is drawn between two classes of precahers, who were then engaged in propagating the Gospel at Rome. One class was actuated by envy and strife,' the other by good will.' The one laboured in pretence,' the other in truth.' But as the pretensions of both were equally fair, the general congregation of Christians, to whom their instructions were addressed, did not perceive the bypocritical character of the former class; and, consequently, their preaching was productive of as much public benefit as if they had been truly

·

influenced by the noblest zeal for religion, and as if they had been exempt from those base and malevolent passions which were, The words ' in pretence' and 'in truth,' on in fact, the main spring of their exertious. which the misinterpretation of the passage seems chiefly to rest, have no allusion to the nature of the doctrines preached, but relate solely to the private motive of the preacher. They who preached in pretence, as we have already seen, were the Apostle's others the unadulterated doctrines of the personal enemies. They preached to Gospel; but, at the same time, under pretence of a zea for religion, they gratified those passions which religion especially forbids. The same persons are said, in the fifteenth verse, to preach Christ,' a phrase which is never applied, in Scripture, without some qualification, to any but the preachers of true religion. So, again, the words in truth' do not here mean sound doctrine, in opposition to false, but a pure and honest motive, in opposition to a corrupt one. If they are understood to signify purity of doctrine, the whole passage is thrown into confusion; whereas, the Apos tle's discourse, according to the other in

terpretation, is perfectly clear and natural in all its parts." P. 11.

This interpretation is confirmed by the general analogy of the Scriptures, and especially of the writings of St. Paul, who was distinguished by his zeal in contending for sound doctrine and the unity of a settled faith, and in opposing in conjunction with the other Apostles, the progress of error and heresy. The same analogy of the Scriptures will confute another popular misappre hension of the text, in which it is arbitrarily brought in defence of the ministrations of private and unauthorized teachers, as if ordination to the ministry were a matter of indifference, or as if St. Paul had ne he beheld the order of the Colosver recorded the pleasure with which sians, or had never warned the Romans to mark such as caused divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. The conclusion of Mr. Strong is as applicable to schism as it is to dis

sent:

« If St. Paul had intended, in the lan guage of my text, to represent uniformity of faith as a matter of indifference, he

would have contradicted himself and other inspired teachers of the Apostolical Church. But if the words be applied to the motives of the preachers, without reference to their doctrine, they will be found in perfect harmony with the general declarations of Holy Writ." P. 17.

It has been sometimes supposed, that the severe judgment pronounced upon unbelief, especially in the last commission of our Lord recorded by St. Mark, is irreconcilable with the mercies revealed in the Gospel, but it is shewn by Mr. Strong in the second Discourse, to be no valid objection to a revelation otherwise authenticated, and proved of Divine origin. The sentence in its just interpretation, is applicable to none but those who possess and neglect the opportunities of Christian knowledge; and, as in the preceding clause, obedience is implied in the promise made to such as believe and are baptized, so the condemnation of those who believe not, is founded on their deliberate and voluntary rejection of the truth. While Christianity thus considers the relative opportunities of its disciples, we, who have the opportunity of believ. ing, are inexcusable in infidelity, and it becomes a question of the deepest interest and importance, what is the doctrine professed in baptism, of which the rejection incurs the judgment pronounced on unbelief? The obvious and only answer is, that it is the doctrine of the Trinity, which, as well as all other doctrines of the Gospel, it is neces sary to preserve whole and undefiled. The Preacher is thus led 10 animadvert on the composition and spirit of the Nicene or Constantinopolitan and the Athanasian Creeds, to the former of which an anathema founded on the text (Mark xvi. 16.) was originally annexed, but formed no part of the Creed: the damnatory clauses, as they are called, of the latter, although equally authorized and sanctioned, have been the frequent occasion of cavilling and dispute:

"When our Saviour said, 'He that: believeth, not shall be damned,' he doubtless intended to denounce punishment on all who, with sufficient means of informa. tion, might reject, or wilfully corrupt the doctrines of his religion; but not on those who might be ignorant of the Gospel, or ledge of its doctrines and conditions. It incapable of attaining a competent knowis clearly the perverse disposition of indivi duals, not the deficiency of their knowledge, against which his anger is denounced. So the language of the Athanasian Creed is intended to condemn all wilful depravation this sense it has always been understood of the truth, and obstinate infidelity. In by the most temperate and judicious writers of the Church of England; and it is, perhaps, worthy of remark, that the commissioners who were appointed to revise the Liturgy, in the first year of King William the Third, had resolved to prepare a rubric to this effect: the condemning

clauses are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian faith. It is well known that the main object of this commission was at last abandoned; but the fact that such a rubric was prepared by the commissioners is a proof of the construction which they put upon the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed. In attaching this sense to the clauses in question they acted in confor mity both to Scripture and reason, and bequeathed a lesson of wisdom and moderation to the clergy of future times, Although the rubric which they proposed tend to confirm our judgment and to prowas not inserted in the Liturgy, it may duce much private satisfaction in a point of acknowledged difficulty. As our Saviour did not think it necessary to guard the strong language of my text, but has left us to understand it with such exceptions as of his religion might suggest, so we may common sense and the general principles

understand these clauses of the Creed as a

broad and general statement of an important truth, which applies, in different degrees, to different persons, and must, therefore, always be received in a qualified sense." P. 36.

The doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, is true, and is founded in the Scriptures, and was designed to counteract many pernicious heresies, with which we are not at liberty to compromise the faith of the Gospel, and which may at all

times be disclaimed without incurring a charge of intolerance:

"It appears, then, that the language of the Athanasian Creed is not more severe than the language of our Saviour and his Apostles; and, moreover, that similar expressions were used by the Church in primitive times, not with a presumptuous intention of anticipating the decisions of almighty wisdom, but simply with a view of protecting the everlasting Gospel' from the errors of the weak and the designs of the wicked. On the same ground we are required to use the Athanasian Creed. It becomes us to recite that ancient formulary, not in a spirit of intolerance and pride, but with humility, charity, and faith; in the earnest hope that it may please God to have mercy on all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics; to take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of his word, and so fetch them home to his flock; that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord.""P. 40.

The doctrine of Universal Atonement, and the doctrine of Universal Grace, are argued in the third and fourth Discourses, with reference to the objections of the Socinians, whose confidence in maintaining their peculiar opinions, whose subtlety in the perversion of Scriptural truth, and whose endeavours to abate the sovereign authority of the Scriptures, render it necessary at all times to warn the young and inexperienced of their delusive arguments. The general doctrine of St. Paul concerning the Atonement, in Romans v. 7, 8. is too plain to be misunderstood, notwithstanding the variety and the difficulty of interpreting the particular expressions of a "just" and a "good" man, which are not unfrequently opposed in the Scriptures, and of which the first may be thought to respect the rigour of the Law, and the last the benevolence of the Gospel. Mr. Strong interprets the latter expression, of a benefactor:

"It is well known that the word ayabos, which occurs here, is used, not only in

Scripture, but in the purest writings of antiquity, to signify a benefactor, a sense which appears to harmonize exactly with the general spirit of the text before us. According to this interpretation St. Paul's language may be thus paraphrased :'Scarcely would a man die for the sake of a fellow-creature, in whose character the noblest qualities were combined. I will not absolutely maintain, however, that such a thing is impossible where especial ties of gratitude and love are added to that high veneration which a virtuous character naturally excites; but this is the utmost extent to which human benevolence and affection can be carried. Mark, then, how far the love of God towards men exceeds the most devoted attachment of man to his fellow-creatures. God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends. But the Son of God died for his enemies, for those who were in open allegiance to the prince of darkness, sunk in the abomninations of idolatry, and utterly estranged in heart and mind from the knowledge and service of the true God." P. 52.