Charles Buck
Charles Buck (1771-1815) was an English Independent minister, best known for the publication of his “Theological Dictionary”. According to the “Dictionary of National Biography”, a Particular Baptist minister named John C. Ryland (1723-1792) assisted Buck by writing many of the articles for the aforementioned publication. One may conclude, based not only Buck’s admiration for his friend Ryland, but also on the entries in his Theological Dictionary, that he stood head and shoulders with the High-Calvinists of his day.
Charles Buck on the Biblical Covenants (Complete)
Charles Buck's Theological Dictionary
-
119 Equivocation
EQUIVOCATION The using a term or expression that has a double meaning. Equivocations are said to be expedients to save telling the truth, and yet without telling a falsity; but if an intention to deceive constitute the essence of a lie, which in general it does, I cannot conceive how it can be done without incurring guilt, as it is certainly an intention to deceive.
-
118 Presumption
PRESUMPTION As it relates to the mind, is a supposition formed before examination. As it relates to the conduct or moral action, it implies arrogance and irreverence. As it relates to religion in general, it is a bold and daring confidence in the goodness of God, without obedience to his will. Presumptious sins must be distinguished from sins of infirmity, or those failings peculiar to human nature, Ecc. 6:20. 1 John 1:8,9; from sins done through ignorance, Luke 12:48; and from sins into which men are hurried by sudden and violent temptation, Gal. 6:1. The ingredients which render sin presumptuous are, knowledge, John, 15:22; deliberation and contrivance, Prov. 6:14. Psal. 36:4; obstinacy, Jer. 44:16. Deut. 1:13; inattention to the remonstrances of conscience, Acts 7:51; opposition…
-
117 Reproof
REPROOF Blame or reprehension spoken to a person's face. It is distinguished from a reprimand thus. He who reproves another, points out his fault, and blames him. He who reprimands, affects to punish, and mortifies the offended. In giving reproof, the following rules may be observed: 1. We should not be forward in reproving our elders or superiors, but rather to remonstrate and supplicate for redress. What the ministers of God do in this kind, they do by special commission, as those that must give an account, 1 Tim. 5:1. Heb. 13:17.--2. We must not reprove rashly; there should be proof before reproof.--3. We should not reprove for slight matters for such faults or defects as proceed from natural frailty, from inadvertency, or mistake in…
-
116 Reproach
REPROACH The act of finding fault in opprobrious terms, or attempting to expose to infamy and disgrace. In whatever cause we engage, however disinterested our motives, however laudable our designs, reproach is what we must expect. But it becomes us not to retaliate, but to bear it patiently; and so to live, that every charge brought against us be groundless. If we be reproached for righteousness' sake, we have no reason to be ashamed nor to be afraid. All good men have thus suffered, Jesus Christ himself especially. We have the greatest promises of support. Besides, it has a tendency to humble us, detach us from the world, and excite in us a desire for that state of blessedness where all reproach shall be done…
-
115 Censure
CENSURE The act of judging and blaming others for their faults. Faithfulness in reproving another differs from censoriousness: the former arises from love to truth, and respect for the person; the latter is a disposition that loves to find fault. However just censure may be where there is blame, yet a censorious spirit or rash judging must be avoided. It is usurping the authority and judgment of God. It is unjust, uncharitable, mischievous, productive of unhappiness to ourselves, and often the cause of disorder and confusion in society.
-
114 Disputation
DISPUTATION Religious, is the agitation of any religious question, in order to obtain clear and adequate ideas of it. The propriety of religious disputation or controversial divinity has been a matter of doubt with many. Some artfully decry it, in order to destroy free inquiry. Some hate it, because they do not like to be contradicted. Others declaim against it, to save themselves the disgrace of exposing their ignorance, or the labour of examining and defending their own theses. There are others who avoid it, not because they are convinced of the impropriety of the thing itself, but because of the evil temper with which it is generally conducted. The propriety of it, however, will appear, if we consider that every article of religion is…