sion, &c." preached before the university of Cambridge, December 1, 1805, has in a great measure anticipated an intention which I entertained, of making a few remarks upon it. I need now do little more than express my approbation of that account, which I hope will prove sufficient, as in all reason it ought, to prevent any ill effects on the minds of the Cambridge youth, which that injudicious publication might otherwise produce.

Had Mr. Simeon employed himself in comparing the conduct of christians in general with the terms of the confession, as it stands in our liturgy, with the view of convincing men how far they fall short of their duty, and for the purpose of exhorting them to a greater degree of diligence in performing it for the future; this specimen of his labours would have been as creditable to his judg ment, as it unquestionably is to his eloquence and piety. There are many passages in his sermon, which, if considered in this view, and made use of to this purpose, would be well deserving the attention of every reader. But, as this comparison is instituted and pursued with the evident design of supporting the unfounded notions, entertained by evangelical or Calvinistic divines, of the total corruption of human nature, and of justification and salvation by faith only as opposed to obedience, with which notions the confession has just as much to do as it has with the doctrine of transubstantiation, or purgatory, or any other creature of the human fancy, I cannot conceive, that it is calculated to answer any pur pose, either of truth or utility: unless indeed it be to expose the weakness of the cause, which is attempted to be so defended*,

In

* A like attempt with respect to the liturgy in general was made, and made with like success, by the late Mr. Augustus Toplady. It is contained in a posthumous work of his, entitled, "The Liturgy of the Church of England explained and vindicated, &c.," published in 1800. It must be acknowledged, however, that Mr. Simeon has much the advantage of Mr. Toplady in the elegance of his language, as well as in the moderation of his pretensions. The mind of Mr. Toplady, indeed, was so clouded with prejudices, that he was incapable of understanding the plainest passages, which at all interfered with them, and he seems to have had no clear idea of what was meant either by his opponent or by himself. A short extract will give sufficient evidence of this. Speaking of the passage in the litany, in which we pray, that" it may please God to have mercy upon all men," he says, "The latter part of this clause is elsewhere explained by the church herself, namely, in the

prayer

In the confession I find an acknowledgment of the actual sins of those who join in it, and of their consequent unworthiness in the sight of God; but no reference to original sin as the cause of those sins, much less any reference to that total corruption of human nature, on which Mr. Simeon so much insists as the almost necessary cause of all those sins. I also find in it a supplication for mercy and forgiveness for the sake of Jesus Christ, but no reference to that particular mode of salvation by faith only, of which Mr. Simeon thinks it, so necessary for every one, who will be saved, to have a right idea, that is, an idea precisely the same with his own. But as there are none so blind as those who will not see; so there are none so quick sighted as those who are beforehand determined to find the thing for which they are looking,

The depravity of human nature by the fall is a doctrine, which, I suppose, no minister of the church of England will deny; but, respecting that "entire depravity," on which such writers as Mr. Simeon insist, by which man is stripped both of power and inclination to do any one good action," hear the opinions of two able and sober-minded members of the church of England, whose authority, if the matter is to be decided by authority, ought to have much more weight than that of Mr. Simeon. "This total corruption of man is, in Lord Bacon's language, idolum cerebri, a mere fiction; and all that we can collect from the scriptures concerning our depravity is this, that, after our first parents had fallen from a state of innocence, the temptations to sin were

prayer for all conditions of men, where we thus present our interpellatory petitions, we humbly beseech thee for all SORTS and conditions of men, or for men of all sorts and conditions; which expression in the liturgy seems to have been adopted from that well-known distinction of the schools, non pro singulis generum, sed pro generibus singulorum; i. e. not for every individuul of every kind, but for all kinds of individuals, Herein the practice and phraseology of our church most perfectly accord with the usage of scripture. Let that passage of the apostle stand for all; I exhort, therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for ALL MEN; for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty." What a perversion of scripture, and of language! When I heard of Mr. Toplady's work, assured of the groundless nature of its pretensions, I conceived some thoughts of refuting it; but, now I have seen it, I should no more think of attempting this, than of refuting the "history of Jack the giant-killer."

increased,

increased, but the natural powers to resist those temptations were not destroyed, and the favourable assist(ances of the divine spirit were not withdrawn." Jortin, Dissert. iii. "God made man in his own image, and inpressed upon him some characters of the divine original, the principal of which is goodness, though it be not the best preserved; for it is of a tender complexion, and delicate nature; and yet the lovely traces of it are still extant, and still shine, though oft-times faintly and with a faded lustre." Barrow, as quoted by Jortin*. I have, on a former occasion, referred to similar sentiments on the same subject, as expressed by Bishop Butler in his "Sermon on Resentment," and by Dr. Hey in his "Discourses on the malevolent sentiments." These great divines are countenanced in their opinions by the language of scripture, which speaks of man, and of man in his fallen state, as being made in the image, and after the similitude of GOD. See Gen. ix. 6. James iii. 9.

With respect to justification by faith only, Mr. Simeon not only states the doctrine erroneously, but makes a belief in his erroneous mode of stating it necessary to salvation. He tells us, that, "if ever men be saved at all, it must be by a humble, simple reliance upon the Lord Jesus Christ."-"That men are justified by their repentance or obedience, or in any other way than by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we utterly deny and we declare, that, if men seek to be justified in any other way, Christ shall profit them nothing." What is this but to say, that to admit the doctrine of justification by faith only, as laid down by Mr. Simeon and his friends, to be true doctrine, is necessary to salvation? What a

* I have not been able to find these words in Barrow: but the following passage, which occurs in his 7th sermon, on the Creed, amounts to nearly the same thing." So fair characters are there of the divine nature engraven upon man's soul: but one chief property thereof we have not as yet touched; whereof, (alas!) the lineaments are more faint and less discernible; they being in themselves originally most tender and delicate, and thence apt by our unhappy degeneration to suffer the most, have thence accordingly been most defaced; goodness I mean, whereof yet, I shall not doubt to say, many goodly reliques are extant, and may be observed therein. There do remain dispersed in the soil of human nature, divers seeds of goodness, of benignity, of ingenuity, which being cherished, excited, and quickened by good culture, do, to common experience, thrust out flowers very lovely, yield fruits very pleasant of virtue and goodness."

In my letters to the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review. Sec Orth. Chu. Mag. for Jan. 1803.

Vol. X. Churckm. Mag. June 1806.

k

sad misapplication, and indeed profanation, is this of the words of St. Paul, in which he declares to the judaizing Christians, that if (as some of them, it seems, did) they had so little confidence in the Christian religion, and so much in the Jewish, as to submit to the rite of circumcision, "Christ would profit them nothing!" See Gal. v. 2. But, passing this, let us attend to Mr. Simeon's proof of his doctrine. One of the passages of scripture, by which he endeavours to prove, that men are saved by faith only, is thus given: He that believeth, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned." p. 18. Now, if we turn to the New Testament, we shall find, that the passage referred to stands thus" He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16. Thus, the condition of salvation laid down by Mr. Simeon is very different from that which is laid down by our Saviour. Mr. Simeon says, that "whosoever believeth, shall be saved;" whereas our Saviour says, that those only shall be saved, who, besides believing, shall, by being baptized, enter into an obligation to live according to their belief, which is nothing less than a promise of obedience; so that, if opportunity of obedience be afforded, obedience is as necessary to salvation as believing. To this agrees the office of baptism, which is prescribed by our church; for in that the person baptised, or his sponsors for him, expressly promises, that he will obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of his life." This unfairness in quoting a part of a passage which makes for their opinion, and suppressing the part which militates against it, seems to be practised without scruple by the whole tribe of Evange lical or Calvinistic writers. It is occasioned, I should hope, more by an overflow of zeal, than a want of honesty; yet in the minds of some it may excite a suspicion, whether well-founded or not, that these writers are not in their hearts so fully convinced of the truth of their positions, as their confident assertion, and pertinacious defence of them, would otherwise lead us to suppose. Be this, however, as it may, it is necessary, for the sake of the unwary, that the unfairness itself should not be súffered to pass either unnoticed or unreproved.

any

In a note, Mr. Simeon expresses his regret, that Mr. Herbert Marsh has not published the Sermons which

he

he lately preached before the University; and his wish that, if published at all, they should be published " precisely as they were delivered." Now, as these sermons were preached in opposition to the peculiar doctrines maintained by Mr. Simeon and his friends, I would ask from what principle this regret and this wish proceed? Is Mr. Simeon really sorry, that erroneous opinions, and erroneous opinions of so pernicious a nature, as he must deem those of Mr. H. Marsh to be, are not more divulged? Does Mr. Simeon wish the public mind to be poisoned, that he may have the honour of curing it? And why wish these sermons to be published precisely as they were delivered? Is this with a view of erposing his antagonist? Or, does Mr. Simeon seriously think, that Mr. H. Marsh delivered his sermons in so perfect a form, as that no after care can improve them? I leave these questions to be answered by those who really aim, as all Christians ought to do, at "such a degree of piety, as that God may be glorified in them, and that the transcendent excellence of Christianity may be visibly exhibited in their lives."

Rempstone, June 4, 1806.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.
E. PEARSON.

I

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHUCHMAN'S

GENTLEMEN,

MAGAZINE.

CANNOT take upon me to say that I have had "more opportunity to enter into the question of Mr. Granville Sharp's Rule," than Mr. Pearson; but this I can say with firmness, that I believe the words, "Apostles and Prophets," in the 2d and 3d Ephes. to be predicated of the same persons. Mr. Sharp's rule is this: "when two personal nouns of the same case are connected by the copu lative Kas, if the former has the definitive article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person." Now let us examine the sense of the two cited texts, and I am persuaded that we shall find the rule will hold good. The difficulty which distressesus in one text, is frequently

3H 2

solved