garb, his pacific inclination was the result of weakness of nerve. His Basilicon Doron, like many more of his royal gifts, is a bequest of what was alieni juris, and his "Blast against Tobacco," like the weed it vituperates, ends in smoke. His contemporary, Henry IV. of France, was wont to say, that England had been governed by King Elizabeth, but was then ruled by Queen James. He became despicable to the sovereigns of Europe by his inertness in the cause of his son-in-law, whom he suffered to be deprived of his dominions: he became an object of pity to his people as a tool in the hands of those whom he had raised from obscurity. An ingenious wag once translated "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori," (the motto of Lord Lovatt, who was executed in 1745,) " It is good for his country that he is dead." The motto on James's coronation medal, "Ecce phaos, populique salus," might on the same principle be rendered, To shun this beacon is the safety of the people." In short, to rise at once to the climax of his infamy, to him we owe the decisions of the Hampton-Court Conference, the death of Raleigh, and the occasion of the civil war. As James valued himself much on the clearness of his theological sentiments, it is not to be supposed that this work escaped his notice. Peirce says, quoting Calderwood's Church History of Scotland, that James " being after the reading of it somewhat pensive, and being asked the reason by an English prelate standing by and observing it, he told him he had seen and read such a book whereupon the prelate, willing his majesty not to let that trouble him, for they would answer it, he replied, not without some passion, What will you answer, man? There is nothing here than scripture, reason, and fathers.""

His majesty, however, was not influenced by these sentiments to

any very Christian-like conduct towards the excellent author, as we learn from another work by Mr. Calderwood himself, wherein it is stated, that "Patrick Scot, a landed gentleman about Falkland, having wasted his patrimony, had no other means to recover his estate but by some unlawful shift at court. He set forth a recantation under the name of a banished minister, Mr. David Calderwood, who, because of his long sickness before was supposed by many to have been dead. The king, as he alleged himself to some of his friends, furnished him with the matter, and he set the matter down in form. This course failing, he went over to Holland, and sought the same Mr. David in sundry towns, especially in Amsterdam, in the month of November. It appeareth, his purpose was to dispatch the said Mr. David. After he had staid at Amsterdam twenty days, and made diligent inquiry, was informed, the said Mr. David was returned home privately to his own country." Little, we believe, is known of the private history of Calderwood. The banishment, to which a reference is made in the last extract, was the reward of his faithfulness to the cause of Christ, and to that form of church government then established in his native country. This fate he endured in company with some of the worthiest of his countrymen, and of many of the earlier English puritans, among whom were Ainsworth, Ames, Cartwright, &c. The Altare Damascenum has ever maintained a very respectable character among its polemical brethren, and indeed it was produced in an age when that species of writing was more cultivated than at any preceding or any succeeding period. Hooker, Bilson, Whitgift, and Montague, on the one side, and Ames, Cartwright, Parker, Sandford, Gillespie and Calderwood on the other, were perhaps as acute

age

and powerful writers as were ever opposed to each other in this conflict of opinions. They lived in an when the subtlety of the schoolmen was not entirely forgotten; when each point of revelation was compressed within the major and minor of a syllogism, and no doctrine considered sufficiently clear till it had passed through the alembic of Ocham, Lombard, and Aquinas. However well this method may have been calculated to ensure victory to the polemic, it certainly retarded the speed of his march; and like the catapulte and ballista of the Roman war, was often as cumbersome to the assailant as destructive to the enemy. Nor is the syllogistic method of argument free from defects. For words being but the representatives of ideas, and ideas being far more subtle than words, it may often happen, through the indistinctness of our expressions, that truth may slip through the grasp of the closest and most compact syllogism. We have not adverted to the difficulties presented by this method of discussion to the reader, though perhaps this is the greatest objection against its use in our time. The perusal of Parker" De Cruce," Sandford "De descensu Christi ad inferos," or Calderwoodi "Altare Damascenum," is a task very little inferior to the working of the problems of Euclid. However good-natured and easy of belief the reader may feel himself, and however well-disposed to repose an entire credence in the successive postulates, these veterans, like Alexander, scorn to win a victory so cheaply; they rigidly bring every successive assertion to its peculiar trial, and ex abundanti cumber the weary traveller. Happy is it for the present generation that this tedious plan of tuition has long been discontinued: if rigid proof were insisted on for each assertion so unhesitatingly protruded on our credence in this

politer age, where is the production of the modern press that would endure the ordeal? If some whimsical author were to harness himself with this unwieldy armour, and challenge our modern wits to run a course, his glove would remain untouched.

The following is the order maintained by Mr. Calderwood in the subject of the present article.Chap. I. On the Royal Supremacy, and the jurisdiction of Royal Companies in Ecclesiastical Causes.-II. On the precedency of Bishops.-III. On the dignity and power of the English Archbishops.-IV. On the parity of rank between the Bishop and the Presbyter.-V. On the dignity and power of Bishops in the English Church.-VI. On Vicargenerals, Officials, and Archdeacons.-VII. On Suffragans and Rural Deans.-VIII. On Churches and Cathedral Deans. -IX. On indifferent things and ceremonies.-X. On the calling and office of Presbyters in the English Church.-XI. On the calling and office of Deacons.XII. On Laic Administrations in the English Church.-XIII. On Possessions.-XIV. On Constitutions.-XV. On the Calumnies of Tilenus.

It appears from this Synopsis, that few subjects of controversy between the Episcopalian and Presbyterian brethren are omitted. As far as regards the state of the controversy between the Conformists and early Puritans, the Altare Damascenum embraces perhaps all that is necessary to be known. The principles of Independency are, however, so much more simple and regular, that this treatise will be found unsatisfactory to those who are accustomed to the modern state of the question.

A scholastic treatise of this nature will not admit of an analysis sufficiently concise for our pages; and any extract, however copious,

would be like the mutilation of a finger from the colossus of Rhodes, which would impair the beauty of the original, but convey no just idea of that gigantic stride to which alone it owes its celebrity. Let our readers judge for themselves by the following extract from the first chapter.

" In πολιτέιᾳ Ecclesiastica Anglia, &c. In the English ecclesiastical polity, there are to be considered, 1. The persons, and their circumstances: II. Possessions : III. The constitutions respecting both. Persons either having administration, or not having administration. Persons having an administration, either supreme aud more absolute, or as it is called the Regal Supremacy, or less ample. The Regal Supremacy is to be considered in the first place, generally and particularly. Generally, by which the prince, as supreme governor under God, can with authority command, even in the ecclesiastical concerns of his kingdom, whatever may not oppose the divine word."

We cannot think that our readers would be much interested by any very copious extract of such scholastic definitions. The following extract, respecting a subject which has been vigorously debated in our own time, may, perhaps, afford more instruction. spects the opinions of the ancient Waldenses on church offices.

It re

"Respecting the Waldenscs, and Albigenses, and their progenitors, the Poor Men of Lyons, Rainerius Pisanus, who lived about 1250, writes in the following manner. Amongst all those sects which now exist or ever have existed, there is none so pernicious as that of the Poor Men of Lyons, for three reasons. Firstly, because it is the most ancient; some say it has existed since the days of Sylvester; others say from the apostolical age. Secondly, because it is more general; for there is scarcely a country into which this sect has not crept. Thirdly, because all others are hated on account of their awful blasphemies against God, but this has the appearance of great piety, so much so that these sectaries live righteously before men, are sound in their faith towards God, and in all things contained in the creed, only they contemn and hate the Roman church. James de Riberia, in his "Collections" respecting Thoulouse, affirms, that they were eminent for doctrine and learning, and that even priests were not equal in acuteness to the Waldenses. Rainerius saw and heard a certain uncultivated rustic, who recited Job word for word; and saw many others who rememNEW SERIES, No. 5.

bered the New Tesstament perfectly. These Waldenses and their offspring taught the same, as we have heard before from that a presbyter and a bishop were one and Thomas Waldensis; they believed also that a disparity amongst ministers was that mark of the beast described in the Apocalypse, as Usher affirms: nevertheless, Rainerius says, that this sect, (for so he calls it,) has existed, according to the opinion of some, even from the times of the Apostles, and that in almost every country. Michael Cesennas, general of the Minorites, who lived 230 years ago, and was condemned by John, John xxii., and excommunicated by a special bull, asserts that all priests of whatever rank they may be, are of equal authority, power, and jurisdiction, according to the institution of Christ," as Antoninus Florentinus relates in his "Sums," fourth part. Peter de Corbaria, defended the same opinion. John de Wessalia, of Wormes, said that all bishops and presbyters were equal. We may see darkness, and under the arm of Antichrist therefore, that even in this Cimmerian himself, this light was apparent to some. Why should I relate the testimonies of moabundantly to all? derns, when they present themselves so Cassander says,

"It

is agreed amongst all, that in the time of the apostles, there was no difference between bishops and presbyters.”

We must conclude with a short extract from Chapter II.

"Nulla est jure divino, &c.-There is no imparity, according to the divine law between the ministers of the church. The difference introduced into the church between bishops and presbyters, was that deviation from original purity, by which the monarchy of the Pope eventually crept in: and the imparity between bishops was the ladder by which the hateful Roman antichrist ascended to the height of his power and tyranny. Antichrist, says Wiclif, under the form of clerks, has twelve procurators plotting against the church of Christ; of which kind are popes, cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, officials, deans, monks, and cloven-footed canons, pretended brethren lately introduced, and questors. All these twelve, and especially the Cæsarean prelates, and the brethren so unceasingly increased, are manifestly disciples of Antichrist; because they take away Christian liberty, and burthen the holy church, and hinder the law of truth from proceeding freely as heretofore.' Again he asserts, Cæsarean pride invented these ranks and orders. Again I assert, that in the time of Paul, a presbyter and a bishop were the same; as appears from 1 Tim. iii., and Titus i, and that profound theologian, Jerom, asserts the same. Originally, the distinction between pope and cardinals was not invented, nor that of patriarchs and archbishops, bishops and archdeacons, officials and deans, with 2 M

other offices and private orde ́s, without numbe and rule.' He does not number presbyters, as he does bishops, among the disciples of Antichrist, and the orders introduced into the church by pride, although they had departed from their original purity."

We learn, from the address to the reader, that this learned work was originally printed in 1623, under the feigned name of Edward Didoclavius. It pleased the author, under this transposition of letters, to keep himself secret, on account of some reasons which may easily be understood. His first charge was at some place in the neighbourhood of Jedburgh,

not far from the English limits. He returned from that temporary banishment to which we have already alluded, in 1537; and undertook the pastoral charge of Pencaithland, near Edinburgh. He was the author of many theological treatises, but his Altare Damascenum has attained the greatest colebrity. Archbishop Spotswood, in his "History of Scotland," mentions Mr. Calderwood as a man of learning, and of more moderation than many of his brethren, on account of which he was neglected by some of the more rigid.

REVIEW.

A Sermon on the Atonement, preached at the Annual Convention of the Congregational and Presbyterian Ministers of the State of New Hampshire, Concord, June 2, 1824. By Daniel Dana, Minister of the Gospel in Londonderry.

6;

THE subject of this discourse is the most important that can occupy the attention of a christian minister, or a christian audience. The text on which Dr. Dana founds his observations, is Isaiah liii. 4, 5, from which he first endeavours to give a fair view of the doctrine of the atonement, and then proceeds to shew that this doctrine belongs to the Bible, and is the only one which can explain the nature of the sufferings of Jesus. We have seen many abler sermons on the subject, and our next article will embrace a very superior discourse; but the piety of Dr. Dana will edify his readers. The following is one of the best passages.

"As to his sufferings, we contend not that the Redeemer endured precisely the same misery, in kind and degree, to which the sinner was exposed, and which he must otherwise have endured, This was

neither necessary, nor possible. Infinite purity could not know the tortures of remorse. Infinite excellence could not feel the anguish of malignant passions. Nor was it needful that the Saviour, in making atonement for human guilt, should sustain mitted, must have been the punishment sufferings without end. Such, it is ad

of a sinner, had he borne it in his own

person. But this necessity results, not directly from the penal sanction of the law, but from the impossibility that a finite transgressor should, within any limited period, render satisfaction for his sins. But the infinite dignity of the Saviour imparted an infinite value and efficacy to his temporary sufferings. Indeed, it cannot be doubted that he endured as much of that same misery to which the sinner stands exposed, as consisted with the perfect innocence, dignity, and glory of his character. He suffered not only the united assaults of human cruelty and infernal rage, but the far more torturing

pains of divine dereliction. And inasmuch as the Scripture expressly declares that, in redeeming us from the law, he was made a curse for us, we are constrained to conclude that his sufferings were a substantial execution of the threatening of the law; a real endurance of its penalty, so far as the nature of the case admitted, or

required. Nor will it surely be denied that such unexampled sufferings inflicted on a person so spotless, so exalted, and so dear to God, gave as much honour to his holy law, as could have been given by the everlasting sufferings of the whole human race. If the lightnings of Sinai, and the fiercer flames of hell, reveal the divine indignation at sin, this indignation shines