from within and without, she has stood many an assault, and been greatly impaired at times, both in strength and beauty; but, blessed be God, she survives, and is, according to my firm and conscientious belief, the truest model of an apostolical church now existing, ar near to perfection, in her theory at least, as, perhaps, any church made up of fallible men can hope to be, while we continue in this world.

I have now, I trust, shewn with sufficient clearness, though briefly, that the claims of the popes have no foundation, either in Scripture or in the practice of antiquity. I have shewn also, upon how different a footing stands the question between us and the papists from what it does between us and the protestant dissenters. For, according to what I have thus laid before you, as well from the practice of all antiquity, as from Scripture, and I may add, (for, indeed, all the works of God harmonize together,) from the nature of the thing, that we, as forming no part of the national church of Rome, could not be bound to pay any obedience to that see, nor to govern ourselves by her decrees. We could only be connected with her in that common bond of charity and fellowship which should join together all the churches of Christ; and which will always subsist, where it is not broken by any fundamental errors in doctrine, or by extravagant and inadmissible claims of superiority or of independ ence on the one part or on the other.

But, as to the body of English dissenters, they, as born within her bosom, are or should be, according to the same usage of antiquity, language of Scripture, and nature of the thing, members of our church; and as such, are bound to conform to her discipline. This, indeed, neither they nor any other individuals are bound to do to every extent; for, as I have before admitted, they may shew, if such were the case, that the terms of communion which she requires are contrary to God's word, and that they cannot continue in conformity to her without endan gering their eternal salvation. Certainly, a case of that kind, pro perly made out, would be a sufficient excuse and ground of separation, But, this is what has never been made out; no, nor ever pretended by the greater part of the dissenters,'

He farther adds, in the VIIIth sermon:

• You will remember that the great points which I have laboured to inculcate, have been, that schism is a sin; and that the sin consists in separating without cause from the church to which a man belongs: that is, from the rule of discipline established and observed in the place where a man is born, or where he is permanently resident. That with that church so established a man is bound to abide in communion, unless he can shew clearly and satisfactorily that the conditions of communion which she requires, are such as he cannot subscribe without serious hazard to his salvation.'

It is little short of argumentative felo de se for an author to assert that an individual is bound to conform, and then to grant that a sufficient excuse and ground for separation may occur. Apparently, however, to save himself from so palpable a contradiction, the author adds that the case which he

supposes has never been made out: but unfortunately in the prosecution of the lectures he makes out the case himself, and establishes it in favour of the Unitarians; who, he acknowleges, do right in abstaining from the communion of the established church.' It is better (he says) that they who differ so widely should be kept asunder; that they only who agree in the same doctrine should worship God in the same place.' Now if they do right in abstaining from communion, they cannot be guilty of the sin of schism. They cannot in this point be at once guilty and not guilty; and if they are justified in their dissent by so striking a dissonance of religious doctrine, it is not correct to say, as is here incidentally remarked, that 'perhaps the aim of every sectary has been the acquisition of wealth and of power.' Mr. Le Mesurier has stated the case of the Unitarians very fairly, and given it as much weight as they could have imparted to it by a representation of their

own:

You will recollect that one of our objections to the church of Rome is founded upon her invocation of the saints, which we justly regard as a direct breach of the first commandment, as giving to men that honour which belongs only to God, which indeed he has in express words reserved to himself. But this is in fact what is imputed to us by those members of this sect who go the full length of the docurine, who speak, as most boldly, so most consistently. By them the worship which we pay to Christ is expressly called idolatrous and blas phemous. And, if their tenets be well founded, if they rightly affirm that our Saviour is not God, that there is no warrant in Scripture for the doctrine of the trinity, we must admit that it is not without reason-that all this is said, nay, that we are really guilty of the charge which they bring against us.'

The preacher, however, would have it supposed that the majority of modern nonconformists are not Unitarians, and consequently not in a predicament which justifies separation from the Established Church: but as to this matter they will judge for themselves. With some, a particular article of faith, and with others the form of church government and worship, constitutes the objection.

With the Methodists and Evangelical Preachers, Mr. Le Mesurier is much dissatisfied, especially as they in a great degree erect their plea for separation on the alleged insufficiency of the established ministers. In some respects, he condescends to argue the point: but we cannot suppose that he will conciliate either the Methodistic people or their teachers, by telling the latter that they are the blind leading the blind."

After we had perused eight very long discourses, in which the zeal of the lecturer was displayed, as we thought, for the conversion of Schismatics, his conclusion appeared rather flat when he expressed his fears that they would not listen to him, and summed up the whole with the stale exhortation, 'Let every man reform himself.' Certainly, he has convinced us that, in his mode of warfare against sectaries, he is not likely to gather, laurels; and that it would have been better for him to have adopted Gamaliel's advice,-Let them alone.

ART. V. An Attempt to prove the Truth of Christianity from the Wisdom displayed in its original Establishment, and from the History of false and corrupted Systems of Religion: in a Series of Discourses preached before the University of Oxford in the Year 1808, at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. &c. By John Penrose, M.A. of Corpus Christi College. 8vo. pp. 375. 9s. Boards. Murray. 1808.

FR

ROM the all-pure, all-attractive, and all-excelling example of Christ, an argument in favour of the truth of his religion may be deduced which is at once satisfactory to believers and embarrassing to infidels. It avoids points of difficult discussion, such as prophecy and miracles, and appeals directly to a matter of fact which is indisputable in itself, and conclusive in behalf of the religion of which it is the prominent feature. The question simply is, what was Christ, and how does he appear when contrasted with all those who in any age or nation have undertaken to give a system of religious truth to the world, or have presided in sacred things? This point is easily determined, and on its decision the christian advocate is prepared to rest the controversy.

Mr. Penrose has taken this ground; and he maintains himself on it with a fairness which must, at least, conciliate the esteem even of an adversary. It appears, by the dedication, that he is not unwilling to have these Sermons regarded as a sort of supplement to those celebrated Bampton Lectures which were preached in 1784, containing a view of the contrast between Christianity and Mohammedanism; yet he endeavours to avoid the imputation of following on a beaten track, by adding, I have taken a line of argument which I do not recollect to have been pursued elsewhere.' He flatters himself with thinking that it has been usefully conducted,' and that he has done something for the question of which he has treated.' By such language, which we do

not

not impute to the score of vanity, but to a much nobler motive, we were induced to open this volume with a pleasing anticipation; and the clearness and fairness of the reasoning, aided by a rich display of illustrative learning, oblige us not merely to say that our expectations have been fulfilled, but that they have been surpassed.

Of late we have been rather diffuse in our notice of sermons; and though the present volume is in itself intitled to a review at some length, we find the calls on us so multifarious, that we must request Mr. Penrose to excuse us if we assign to him less space than he rightly deserves.

As a necessary preliminary to this important inquiry, the preacher makes the proper distinction between wisdom and cunning, between integrity and craft, and then proceeds with much ability to try the merits of Christianity by this criterion comparing the character of its author with that of all those with whom a religious system ever originated, and clearly demonstrating that in his conduct no traces either of enthusiasm or of fraud are to be discovered by the nicest scrutiny. Christ not only appears to vast advantage when contrasted with Zoroaster and Confucius, with the most illustrious personages. of Greece and Rome, with the false Messiahs of the Jews, and with Mohammed, but even when compared with Moses and the prophets, with the most eminent of his own disciples during his public ministry, and with all who in subsequent ages have endea voured to preach and proselyte in his name. At what a distance do all other characters stand from that which he displayed; which is of a nature so truly sublime and perfect, when weighed in the scale of wisdom and virtue, that it requires a stretch of faith, not very much in consonance with Infidelity, to suppose that such a character was the fiction of men whose views and conduct were so very unlike those of the Son of God. The lecturer takes an ample range in the illustration of this point; and though we cannot exhibit his argument at full length, we trust that we shall so far do it justice, that we shall induce the theological reader not to rest contented with the abstract which we can afford him. It is here observed that

There is, in truth, no charge either of vice or error that can be alleged against corrupted Christians, which does not appear doubly glaring, when contrasted with that unstained purity of Christ himself, which is, by the same contrast, the more conspicuously represented to our view. Christ uniformly commanded his disciples to be holy as their Father which is in heaven is holy. He never authorised them to compromise truth: never instructed them to palliate falsehood. He pretended not to a severity of demeanour. He came eating and drinking: he conversed freely with publicans and sinners.

The

The preservation of a conduct perfectly pure and unexceptionable must, to a man thus mixing in the detail of ordinary life, be far more difficult than perseverance even in the extreme of ascetic mortification. But the liberty of Jesus was without spot, as his piety was beyond comparison: his wisdom was unsullied by insincerity; and his zeal unmixed with violence. His character, though full of strength and meaning, is in nothing extravagant, in nothing disproportioned. He was pious, but not enthusiastic; temperate, but not austere ; meek, but not abject; and heroic, but not rash.'' His character is the exact union of the contemplative and active virtues.'

Now what a striking distinction appears between the real conduct of Jesus Christ in the preaching of his gospel, and that of the teacher of a false religion in the same circumstances? Indeed, as we have already hinted, it not only rises pre-eminent over that of the most celebrated founders of other religions, but over the conduct all those who have subsequently ruled in his church.

We are so much pleased with the comparison instituted between Christ and Moses, and with the judicious remarks on Christianity which it introduces, that we cannot restrain ourselves from copying the passage:

Eminent as is the character of the Jewish lawgiver, both for public virtue and personal disinterestedness, the character of Christ is too superior to require or admit comparison. The zeal of Moses was national; the benevolence of Christ is universal: Moses was the deliverer of Israel, but Christ the saviour of mankind. The presumptions likewise, by which the founders of both religions may be vindicated from any sinister imputation, are far more numerous and striking in the history of Christ, than in that of Moses The Jewish worship was completely united with the civil constitution of the Jews. Could Moses and Aaron be supposed impostors, their conduct, the one assuming the temporal, and the other the spiritual supremacy in the state, might seem naturally to proceed from the common principles of ambition. Christ, to speak with precision, is no legislator. Real Christianity may consist with any form of civil polity whatever. It interferes not, nor did it interfere at its first origin, either to weaken or confirm the authority of existing magistracies, unless by the indirect operation of its moral and religious doctrines. As soon as a certain establishment became necessary to its propagation, an establishment was formed for the sake of the religion: it is manifest that the religion was not devised with reference to the establishment.'

As a true protestant, and friend to the civil and religious liberties of mankind, Mr. Penrose attacks with energy the corruptions, artifices, and tyranny of the Papal system, and exposes the accommodating policy of the Jesuits in Japan, China, Hindostan, and Paraguay. He has perhaps pursued this matter to a greater length than was necessary at the present time; but