have been the cafe, Mr. O. may have been unintentionally led into errors by a too implicit confidence in the honefty of his affiftants. Such a plea for the numberless garbled quotations to be met with in his publication, a regard for Mr. O.'s reputation as a clergyman difposes me moft readily to admit." P. 282.

The feventh Chapter of this work, in which, as in Mr. Overton's seventh Chapter," the queftion of adherence is purfued, in refpect to the doctrine of good works; with a vindication of our tenets on this head", is in a high degree honourable to the author, and must prove inftructive to him who fhall perufe it with attention and without prejudice. It is hardly fufceptible, however, of abridgment; and, as our limits admit not of inferting it entire, we must content ourselves with transcribing the following extracts.

"Mr. O. fays, "The church concludes, that in the nature of things it is impoffible it should be otherwife (than that believers derive from Chrift whatever is requifite for the fupport of the fpiritual life); that the principles of the gofpel really embraced must be operative". P. 276. "I know not where the church has thus concluded. I know not where the points out the work of nature, as an exemplar, by which the Chriftian is to form an accurate idea relative to the work of grace. The two works admit of a comparifon only to a certain extent; beyond that, the language employed on the occafion becomes incorrect, and leads to error." P. 377.

"To defcribe good works as the natural fruit and necessary effect of that faith which justifieth, is to lead to the conclufion, that the difpenfations of grace and of nature have been equally settled, according to a previous eftablished fyftem, fo as to render the progrefs of caufe and effect in both equally uniform and invariable. But however this literal application of a figurative allufion* to the neceffary connection between faith and works may correfpond with the Calvinistic notion of finished falvation, in the cafe of individuals, according to which both the end and the means have been definitively provided, in conformity with the abfolute predetermined will of the DEITY; ftill it does not at all accord with the condition of fallen man, under the covenant of grace, as a moral and accountable agent. We cannot therefore be furprised, that the language of icripture, together with the too frequently interrupted progreis of man's falvation, fhould bear the most decided teftimony against it.

"What, it may be afked, became of the natural and necessary connection between faith and good works in the cafe of St. PETER? who, though undoubtedly poffeffed of justifying faith, when he was pronounced bleffed by our Saviour, on the declaration of his creed, yet afterwards bafely forfook and denied his Master. Nor could St. Paul

* The allufion particularly referred to is that of our Saviour. St. John, xv. 1-5.

entertain

entertain any idea of this natural and neceffary connection between faith and works, when, in his own cafe, he expreffed a fear left, chofen veffel as he was, after all his preaching to others," he himself should be a caft-away"; or when he directed thofe who thought they ftood firm in the faith to take heed left they fall; or when he intimated the poffibility of their falling away, who had actually" been enlightened, had tafted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Ghoft". In conformity with the general tenor of fcripture on this fubject was the fentiment of our reformers, who declared, in the cafe of the penitent thief, that the juftification obtained by his confeffion on the crofs would have been again loft" had he lived, and not regarded faith and the works thereof."

"Such appears to have been the doctrine inculcated by St. PETER on this fubject, when he directs "the elect according to the foreknowledge of God"; and who, he fays, had "obtained like precious promifes with himself," 2 Peter, i. 1, to "give diligence to make their calling and election fure," by adding to their faith all Chriftian graces and virtues; inftructing them, that if these things were in them, and abounding, they should neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord JESUS CHRIST; and that, if they did thefe things, they fhould never fall." F. 378.

The reafoning of thefe extracts, and the grounds on which that reafoning is built, are decifive, not only against that phyfical conjunction of faith and works, for which fome modern Calvinifts feem to plead, but alfo against the doctrines of individual election, the affurance of faith, and the neceffary perfeverance of the faints. Well, therefore, might the author fay,

"Mr. O.'s publication and my writings are before the world; every intelligent reader, if difpofed, has it in his power to appreciate them; and the more the reader is left to himself for that purpose, fufficient documents being laid before him, the more correct, probably, will his judgment be. It not being my wish to preclude that judg ment, I content myfelf, on this cccafion, with furaifhing the means neceffary to qualify it for its important office."

The concluding Chapter of this work opens with a complaint, mildly flated, of the unfair treatment which the author has received from Mr. Overton.

"From the analyfis of Mr. O.'s reafoning and evidence, laid be fore him in the preceding Chapters, the reader must have seen, that my fentiments undergo, for the most part, fuch a metamorphofe (me tamorphofis) in Mr. O.'s edition of them, as no longer to be cognizable for my own. What by the means of mifapplication and mutila. tion; by the expedient of words put in and words left out; by the help of fentences divorced from their legitimate context, aided by indirect infinuations, and in fome inftances unequivocal affertions, relative to the principles of his fuppofed opponents; Mr. O. has contrived to make me fpeak juft what the proof which he had to establish

required

required that I should speak. Notorious fpecimens to justify the above (this) charge are to be found in pages 115, 199, 211, 215, 265, 279 of Mr. O.'s publication; and I know not that I fhould err widely from truth were I to adopt Mr. O.'s frequent method of concluding his references, by adding the comprehenfive word paffim on this occafion. Indeed fo grofs have been the mifreprefentations of my text, fo notorious the iniquity of quotation practifed, in fome inftances, by Mr. O. that I have been contrained, from a respect for the profeffion, to conclude, that Mr. O. has written, on this occafion (as it has been reported), from documents furnished from various quarters, haftily collected with more zeal than judgment, and adopted without proper examination." P. 389.

That this conclufion is fairly drawn we are convinced, by a circumstance which Mr. Daubeny could not know when he wrote the paragraph we have juft quoted. In the Letter which we had the honour to receive from Mr. Overton, and to which we have already alluded, he perfifts in claiming the merit of having made his quotations with peculiar correctnefs. Nay, he even goes fo far as to promife, that if, with the aid of Mr. Daubeny's volume now before us, which we must fuppofe he had not then read, "we can point out any palpable mifquotations and mifreprefentations from his 400 pages, they fhall be publicly acknowledged to be fuch, and our fervices rewarded with his beft thanks". This is the language of a man confident that he was ftanding on the firmelt ground; but the mifquotations and mifreprefentations, with which Mr. Overton's Apology abounds, are here proved to be fo numerous and fo palpable, that we are perfuaded he could have felt nothing of this confidence, had he not placed implicit trust in the fidelity of the friends by whom the quotations were furnifhed. Had he himself confulted the various works which are quoted, though, in the ardour of controverfy, his judgment might have been fo far perverted, as to underftand in a Calviniftic fenfe whatever can be fqueezed into that fyftem, he could not furely have perfevered in attributing to Mr. Daubeny phrafes and fentiments which, in his cooler moments, he muft have perceived to be very different from those which that author had advanced. We beg leave, however, to call his promife to his remembrance, and to fubmit to his judg ment, whether it may not become him, as a clergyman, to expofe to public indignation the arts of thofe by whom he has been fo egregiously mifled, and made the inflrument of calumniating a brother who deferves fo well of the Church of Eng.

* The Letter is there dated York, June 20, 1803.

C

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXIV. JULY, 1804.

land.

land. From an acknowledgment of having been deceived no difgrace can enfue; we need not fay what muft enfue from perfevering in calumny.

During the remainder of this Chapter, the author recapitulates, in a masterly manner, the evidence which he and Mr. Overton have produced for their respective opinions. He fhows, that of the hiftorians to whom the apologift appeals, STRYPE and BURNET alone appear to have paid any attention to the subject; that Mofheim must have been little acquainted with the doctrines of the Church of England during the reign of our fixth Edward; and that Collier's Hiftory, though the best that we have, is never appealed to in Mr. Overton's work. He proves likewise, in oppofition to Mr. O. that our reformers paid no particular deference to the opinions of St. AUSTIN, and that their respect for him was certainly not greater than their respect for St. CHRYSOSTOM. We think, indeed, that it cannot have been fo great; for they have incorporated a prayer of St. Chryfoftom's with the daily fervice of the church, and have nowhere rendered fuch honour to the Bishop of Hippo. He proves likewise (p. 404) that, in the opinion of Dr. WHITACRE, the most learned of all the Calvinifts in the reign of Elizabeth, the Calviniftic doctrines of election and reprobation were not concluded and defined by public authority, though that Doctor complained of BARRET for oppofing them; that the very propofal of the Lambeth Articles was a proof that the doctrine of the church was not, in that reign, deemed Calvinistical; a proof ftrongly corroborated by the rejection of thofe Articles*; and that Bifhop Jewell's Apology,

* As the Lambeth Articles are frequently referred to in this controverfy, we shall here fubjoin them, for the benefit of thofe to whom they are not known.

"1. God from eternity hath predeftinated certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or efficient caufe of predeftination unto life is not the forefight of faith, or of perfeverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the perfon predeftinated, but only the good will and pleasure of God. 3. There is predetermined a certain number of the predeftinate, which can neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predeftinated to falvation fhall be neceffarily damned for their fins. 5. A true, living, and juftifying faith, and the spirit of God juftifying, is not extinguifhed, falleth not away, it vanifheth not away in the elect, either finally or totally. 6. A man truly faithful, that is, fuch an one who is endued with a juftifying faith, is certain, with the full affurance of faith, of the remiffion of his fins, and of his everlafting falvation by Chrift. 7. Saving grace is not given, is not granted, is not commu

nicated

Apology, to which Mr. O. appeals, exprefsly maintains the doctrine of univerfal redemption. The fame doctrine is maintained (1562) in the Preface to the Homilies, which is certainly a public deed of authority; and in Archbishop Parker's Preface to the Bishop's Bible, which was published in 1572, only ten years after the promulgation of our prefent Articles. It is likewife fhown that, at the Synod of Dort (1618), the divines of the English Church bore public and decided teftimony to the Anti-Calviniftic doctrines of univerfal redemption and free agency; and that the King, with the greateft part of the epifcopal clergy, highly difapproved the proceedings of that Synod, preferring the fentiments of ARMINIUS to thofe of GOMARUS and CALVIN. The object of the Royal Declaration has been already pointed out; and though Mr. Overton chooses to call LAUD a moderate Calvinift, Mr. BowMAN, who appears to have been a Calviniit in the full fense of that title, knew better how to diftinguish between the friends and opponents of his fyflem.

"In his review of the doctrines of the reformers, printed in 1768, he has obferved, "that an Archbishop was brought to the bar, condemned, and executed, among other things, for introducing Arminianifm". Such was, in those days, the fpirit of Calvinifin. And when it is confidered, that the fame party which brought LAUD to the block, afterward overturned to the foundation the conflitution of their country, both in church and flate: fuch a confideration, it is prefumed, will not be very favourable to a caufe which, under the guife of a purer religion, led to fo irreligious, fo diabolical a conclufion." P. 430.

But though the author writes in this manner, he thinks as we do of thofe moderate Calvinifts who, while they themfelves admit the whole fyftem (for it cannot be admitted in part) as a collection of opinions which, to their private judgmenis, appear to have their foundation in truth, do not, however, contend for the peculiar dogmas of that fyftem, or for fo many effential Articles of Chriftian faith. Speaking of

nicated to all men, by which they may be faved if they will. 8. No man can come unto Chrift unless it fhall be given unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be faved.".

Thefe nine Articles were propofed by the Calvinifts, to fecure the church against the errors of BURNET and others, which were not, as Whitacre acknowledged, condemned by any public authority; but fach notorious divinity (to ufe a phrafe of Mr. Overton's) was rejected by the good fenfe of Elizabeth, and the piety of the English clergy.

C &

the