of the volume) he shews to whom the compilers were not and to whom they were indebted. The correspondence observable between the language of the articles, and that which occurs in the compositions of Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, and particularly that which is employed in the Augsburgh and Wirtemberg Confessions, is adduced at length, to demonstrate their Lutheran origin.

The lecturer undertakes, 1st, to shew that the general principles of the reformation, from its commencement to the period of the composition of the articles, were of a Lutheran tendency; 2dly, that the same tendency is manifest in the articles themselves, and is deducible from the history of their compilation; 3dly, he adverts to the doctrine of original sin, as maintained by the Scholastics, the Lutherans, and our own Reformers; 4thly, the tenet of the schools respecting merit de Congruo, and that of the Lutherans in opposition to it, are discussed; 5thly, the articles of Free Will," and " of works before justification," are explained in connection with the controversy which existed at the time of their formation; 6thly, the doctrine of justification, according to the Scholastics, the Lutherans, and our church, is explained; 7thly, an outline is given of the Predestinarian system of the schools, with the subsequent amendments by Luther and Melancthon; and 8thly, the 17th article is considered in conformity with the sentiments of the latter, and elucidated by the Baptismal service.

In the first lecture, the preacher loudly complains that, 'interpreting the articles according to the modern meaning of certain expressions, and disregarding the characteristical notions of the times in which they were first established, the Socinian and the Calvinist combine in giving them a sense which they were not originally intended to convey, and then accuse us (the Clergy) of departing from the creed of our ancestors, and of disbelieving that to which we have all subscribed.' To shew how unfounded this charge is with regard to our modern clergy, Dr. L. volunteers his services; and it must be confessed that he has spared no pains in order to render his defence complete. A large mass of evidence is produced in the notes, to prove the assertion in the text that our national faith was modelled after the Lutheran; and that, in the first compilation of the articles, many prominent passages were taken from the Augsburgh, and in the second from the Wirtemberg Confession *.

It

* The first of our Articles was taken almost verbatim from the first of the Augsbourgh Confession.

1st Ar

It is maintained that, in the article of "original sin," no allusion to imputation in the Calvinistic sense is to be discovered; and the preacher reminds us that no actual condemnation is passed on the corruption of nature, but that it is merely stated to be deserving of it If this distinction be rather too nice for all palates, the following account of the object of the compilers is rational, though it will not please Mr. Wilberforce and some others:

Avoiding one extreme, they meant not to rush into another; and whatsoever use ignorant or enthusiastical men may have since made of any strong expressions which they adopted, offensive only when misapplied, they never intended so to degrade our nature, as if it were lost to every sense of moral excellence; they were alone desirous of reducing its proud pretensions to the unadulterated standard of holy Scripture, to demonstrate that the Christian redemption is not use

1st Article.

"Unus est vivus et verus Deus, æternus, incorporeus. impartibilis, impassibilis, immense potentiæ sapientiæ, et bonitatis, creator et conservator omnium, tum visibilium, tum invisibilium. Et in unitate hujus divinæ naturæ tres sunt personæ, ejusdem essentiæ, potentiæ, ac æternitatis, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus."

"Videlicet, quod sit una essentia divina, quæ et appellatur et est Deus, æternus, incorporeus, impartibilis, immensâ potentià, sapientiâ, et bonitate, creator et conservator omnium rerum, visibilium et invi. sibilium. Et tamen tres sunt persone, ejusdem essentiæ et potentiæ, et coæternæ, Pater, Fillius, et Spiritus Sanctus.".

The Articles, either partly, or wholly, copied from the Wirtemberg Confession, are the 2d, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 20th; which, indeed, contain the principal additions and elucidations upon doctrinal points, (that of the Eucharist alone excepted,) adopted at that period.'

In addition to these proofs of the intercourse of our Reformers with the Lutherans, a note is subjoined to prove their little acquaint ance with Calvin:

So little known was the fame of Calvin in England about this period, that one of his works was translated and published in 1549, under the following title; "Of the Life and Conversation of a Christian Man; a right godly treatise, written in the Latin tongue, by Master John Calvin, a man of right excellent learning, and of no less conversation." Ames's Topographical Antiquities, p. 620. ed. W. H. Does not this encomium prove, that his name, in consequence, if not of its obscurity, at least of its little celebrity, stood in need of some commendation? How differently is Luther's announced in the following work, of rather an earlier period (viz. about the year 1547)! The Disclosing of the Canon of the Popish Mass. With a Sermon annexed of the famous Clerk of worthy memory, Dr. Martin Lu ther." See Strype's Eccles. Mem. vol. ii, p. 28.

less,

less nor grace promised us in vain. Neither were their efforts unavailing. In proportion as the sacred Writings, to which they con stantly referred, became more read and better understood, the credit of the theological dictators of preceding ages was gradually diminished, until at length the fairy visions and phantastical speculations, with which a credulous world had been long amused, vanished before the splendour of Gospel day. So puerile indeed were some of these eccentric writers in their glosses upon the fall of man, and the transmission of its effects, that the Church of Rome herself began to grow ashamed of such folly; and to slight in one respect at least the authority of those, who had been her instructors for centuries.'

The popular doctrine of original sin, contemplated through Dr. L.'s gloss, is certainly less objectionable than with the comment of modern Calvinists: but, if the splendor of gospel day' were thrown on it, no gloss would reconcile us to its present wording.

The language of the articles" of Free Will" and " of Works before Justification" is said to refer to the efficacy which the Church of Rome attributed to mere external performances, and to be opposed to the doctrine which this church held respecting congruous merit, and the value of the mere opus ope

ratum.

Yet (continues the preacher) obvious as this appears to be, it has not unfrequently been overlooked or disregarded; and the word Justification been contemplated only in the sense, in which it is applied by the followers of Calvin. But our Reformers entertained no such idea of its application. They believed it not to be a blessing, which we may in vain sigh to behold above our reach, granted to certain individuals alone, and always granted irrespectively, by a divine decree, fixed and immutable; but one, whichi we all possess in infancy, and of which nothing but our own folly can afterwards deprive us. They never asserted the total inability of a Christian to perform a good action, or even think a good thought, until the arrival of some destined moment, when it shall please God, without his own endeavours, to illuminate his understanding, and renovate his affections. The gift of grace, not to be purchased by human merit, but always bestowed gratuitously, they confined not to a selected few, the predestinated favourites of Heaven, but extended to all, who neither by wilful perversity oppose its reception, nor, when received, by actual crime discard it. On the present occasion, indeed, they simply regarded Works before Justification as those, which were more usually denominated works of Congruity, adopting perhaps the former term in preference, because it was precisely that, which had been recently used in the same sense by the Council of Trent.'

The apology for the concluding words of the 13th article is more ingenious than satisfactory: viz. they (the compilers) never intended by the appellation "sinful" to erase a moral action from the catalogue of virtues, or to consider it as neiREV. MARCH, 1807.

T

ther

ther commendable nor good; but merely to oppose its exaltation above its appropriate character, and its investiture with the high oflice of conciliation between man and his offended Creator."

That the article" of Predestination and Election" is not strictly Calvinistic, from the circumstance of its silence on reprobation, has been often observed. Dr. L. does not merely wrest it from the grasp of Calvin, but gives it to the German reformer:

By explaining this Article in conformity with our baptismal service, we instantly perceive upon what principles divine election is supposed to proceed, and what is that general promise and will of God, of which it speaks, as expressly declared in the word of God; we perceive, that grace, according to the Lutheran doctrine, is directly taught to be both Universal and Defectible, circumstances which necessarily preclude every idea of an arbitrary selection of individuals. Our benevolent Creator, we are told, possesses no private partiality for certain preordained objects of his bounty, but is equally disposed to all, embraces all indiscriminately with the arms of his mercy, and receives all, when dedicated to him by baptism, into the number of his elect; and when, at any subsequent period of our existence, he withdraws from us the light of his heavenly countenance, the cause of that deplorable change is not imputable to him, but to us, who prove defective on our parts, forfeiting in maturer years our title to eternal happiness, and excluding ourselves from salvation.'

Dr. Lawrence offers a very high panegyric on the style of the Liturgy, as full without verbosity, fervid without enthusiasm, refined without the appearance of refinement, and solemn without the affectation of solemnity:' but, though we do not dispute its general excellence as a composition for public use, we must observe that, in the note illustrative of his remark, "tied and bound" as a translation of constringit is an unfortunate exemplification of fullness withou: verbosity; and if the psalter be considered as a part of the liturgy, we cannot apply to it the epithet of refined. How preferable in every respect is the Bible version of the psalms !-Dr. L. has taken care not to adopt the liturgy as a model of his own style.

ART. VIII. A Treatise on the Coins of the Realm; in a Letter to the King. By Charles, Earl of Liverpool. 4to. pp. 266. 11. is. Boards. Cadell and Davies.

THE HE subject of Coin is one of those on which the labours of speculative men have of late years been employed with great success, and with equal benefit to society. Problems which puzzled our more simple ancestors have in our

Own

own times received satisfactory solution; and mischiefs which they aggravated by their ignorance, in their very attempts to correct them, have effectually been prevented. These remarks were in a striking manner exemplified in the discussions occasioned by the late unfavourable state of the exchange in Ireland, and in the expedients which in consequence of them were adopted. In the volume before us, analogous principles of theoretical knowlege are applied to the consideration of a corresponding evil, which has been long a subject of complaint; we allude to the state of the silver coinage; the causes of which are here minutely investigated and learnedly stated, and an obvious course for their removal is clearly indicated. Of the science which directly refers to this nice subject, we perceive no deficiency in the noble author; though, in treating of a few matters collateral to it, we find his views to be less enlarged than we should have conceived them to be. -It will most probably surprize the greater number of our readers, to learn that from 1717 to 1760, the quantity of silver brought to the mint to be coined has been considerably under 600,ocol.

If theorists will bear in mind the object of the work, they will perceive that the author was not required to go more deeply into principles than he has done in the passages which we subjoin:

The Money or Coin of a country is the standard measure, by which the value of all things bought and sold, is regulated and ascertained; and it is itself, at the same time, the value, or equivalent, for which goods are exchanged, and in which contracts are generally made payable. In this last respect, Money, as a measure, differs from all others; and to the combination of the two qualities before defined, which constitute the essence of Money, the principal difficulties that attend it, in speculation and practice, both as a measure and an equivalent, are to be ascribed. These two qualities can never be brought perfectly to unite and agree; for if Money were a measure alone, and made like all other measures of a material of little or no value, it would not answer the purpose of an equivalent. And if it is made, in order to answer the purpose of an equivalent, of a material of value, subject to frequent variations, according to the price at which such material sells at the market, it fails on that account in the quality of a standard or measure, and will not continue to be perfectly uniform and at all times the same.

In all civilized nations, Money has been made either of Gold, or Silver, or Copper, frequently of all three, and sometimes of a metal composed of Silver and Copper, in certain proportions, commonly called Billon. It has been found by long experience, and by the concurrent opinion of civilized nations in all ages, that these metals, and particularly Gold and Silver, are the fittest materials of which Money can be made. Gold and Silver are perfectly homoge neous in themselves, for no physical difference can be found in any