VERSITIES OF OPINIONS, and the establishing of CONSENT touching true religion;" and from the royal declaration prefixed to the Articles, which speaks of the literal meaning of the said Articles, as "the true and usual" meaning, and prohibits us from "varying or departing from them in the least degree," and from "affixing any NEW SENSE to any Article." He argues, that this declaration having been published more than half a century after the Articles were drawn up, proves them to have been the deliberate judgment of the Church; and that the circumstances under which this declaration was published add force to this conclusion, since "of the two parties into which the Church was divided," "Laud and his opponents, "that which was the most moderate professed to reach this standard, while the other, which consisted of a great majority, was supposed to exceed it." (p. 48.)

"2. All this then appears upon the very face of the Prayer-book; and only additional support of our doctrine will be discovered, from a more extensive view of the OBJECT and SITUATION of the authors of our established forms. The circumstance usually alleged in support of a contrary opinion, is,That the errors of the Church of Rome being founded on the side of human powers and merit, our Reformers, to correct these errors, expressed themselves too strongly on the opposite side of the question; or, to borrow Dr. Croft's simile, That to make the crooked straight, they bent it the other way. (Bamp. Lect. p. 110; Gray's Bamp. Lect. p. 265; Hey's Nor. Lect. vol. iii. p. 497.) This circumstance the Doctor assigns as the reason why "the articles concerning grace, faith, and good-works, lean towards the side of enthusiasm," and why such a leaning "is neither to be condemned nor won

dered at. (Bamp. Lect. p. 110.)" (p. 48, 49.)

But the writer argues, that the temper and circumstances of our Reformers, would incline them to every possible concession towards those from whom they separated, and did actually so far influence them herein as to excite the clamours of many, which continue to this day, for a farther refor

mation; and he quotes the authority of Bishops Burnet, Conybeare, and Pretyman, of Doctors Heylin, Ridley, Tucker, Hey, and Croft, and of Mr. Hume, to shew, that while the Church sought on the one hand, to avoid the errors of the Church of Rome, she aimed, on the other, to escape the extravagances of the Sectaries; and thus have these gentlemen, according to Mr. O. proved that the objection, notwithstanding its plausibility, has no foundation whatever.

These extravagances, not less than the corruptions of the Church of Rome, Mr. O. asserts, on the authority of Mr. Strype, to have consisted, at the time the Articles were first drawn up, in a depreciation of the doctrines of grace, as the Puritans did not yet exist, and the errors of the other sectaries were of the Pelagian kind: and he concludes with remarking, that every one of the statements which had been advanced upon the subject by the persons whom he opposes, militates directly against the frequent insinuation, that expressions were adopted beyond what were the real sentiments of our Reformers, in order to accommodate and to comprehend the Calvinists.

"3. Another method by which we may approach the precise doctrines intended to be established in the written confessions of our Church, is, The examination of the OTHER WRITINGS AND DECLARATIONS of her Reformers, on the same subjects; especially those which were of great publicity, or had the sanction of authority." (p. 55.)

The author asserts, that, "from the accession of Edward, when the Articles of our faith first came under regular discussion, to the period when they assumed their present form, and were finally imposed under Elizabeth, there is no other production, either of any collective body of the chief agents in the business, or even of any principal individual among them, that, in the smallest degree, restricts the most full and doctrinal interpretation of these Articles, upon the points in question." (p. 55.) He contends that the writings of Henry the Eighth's time are not legitimate authority, being tainted with Popish doctrines, as Bishop Pretyman and Dr. Hey assert

respecting some of them, and particularly respecting the work called, "The Necessary Doctrine, &c." printed in 1543; and yet, he adds,

With this confessedly POPISH "Necessary Doctrine," &c. Dr. Hey, (Nor. Lect. vol. iii. p. 206, 263, 344, 358, 375, 437, 446, 457, 463, 501, &c.) Dr Ridley, (Lett. 2. p. 162.) Mr. Gray, (Bampt. Lect. p. 246.) Mr. Daubeney, (Appendix, p. 169, 182, 329, &c.) the Author of the Oxford Dissertation, (on the 17th Art. p. 32.) and the whole body of these Divines, constantly attempt to fix and illustrate the precise doctrines of our church! To these Popish and heterogeneous works of the reign of Henry the Eighth, the whole tribe of our op ponents appeal, as to authorities that are indisputable, while the writings under Elizabeth, of the very period when our Articles assumed their present form and authority, and of the very persons who gave them this form and authority, are scarcely once glanced at! And what is very material to be remarked, this appeal is chiefly made on the very subject which constituted the fundamental ground of difference between the two churches, that which respects human merit, and the proper province of Grace and Works! (See as above, &c.) This circumstance discovers no little of the true nature of their cause. (p. 57.)

The works which the author enumerates as of legitimate authority, are, The ARTICLES OF KING EDWARD, The CATECHISM OF NOWELL, and The PUBLIC CONFESSIONS and DECLARATIONS of the Heads of the English Protestant Church, during their imprisonment in Queen Mary's days of Ferrar, Hooper, Coverdale, Philpot, Taylor, Bradford, and Rogers-of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Careless, and Clement, whose confession, Mr. Strype says, may be looked upon as an Account of the Belief of the Professors in those days." Mr. O. then adds:

66

These early productions deserve the more attention, because it is so common to insinuate, that the interpretation of the Articles now termed Methodistic or Calvinistic, was only introduced by the return of the exiles, on the accession of Elizabeth, and was not in the primary intention of our Church. (See Heylin's Quinq. Hist. Tracts, p. 609; Dr. Hey's Nor. Lect. vol. ii. p. 209; Daub. Appen. p. 230; &c.) According to this suggestion, the above 'illustrations of them, which were written before that period, must exhibit the most moderate view of their doctrines. Dr. Heylin appears to labour to prove, that the doctrines afterwards established, were not designed to be, what are sometimes called, more rigid. (Quinq. Hist. Tracts, p. 597.) It is sufficient

to our purpose if they were not intended to be less so, which will scarcely be much contested beth are those which are binding upon Miwith us. But, as the decisions under Elizanisters now, to a few of the most authentic and important theological publications under her reign, we will particularly appeal. (p. 59, 60.)

Of these works, Mr. O. notices the DECLARATION of the Protestant's doctrine, drawn up and subscribed by Sandys, and the other eminent Divines, met in conference at Westminster, for the purpose of preparing the Book of Common Prayer, in the year 1559;The CONFESSION, to which the subscription of the Clergy was required in the following year;—NowELL's CATECHISM, above-mentioned;-THE FAMOUS APOLOGY FOR THE ENGLISH CHURCH, BY BISHOP JEWELL;—and THE ANALYSIS OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES BY THE REV. THOMAS ROGERS; and adds:

If all these other approved and public theological works of our most distinguished Reformers and early Divines thus individually, collectively, and unequivocally, breathe one spirit, teach one doctrine, and favour our sense of the established Confession, there can doctrines of the Reformation were, or who remain little doubt either what the genuine they are that adhere to these doctrines. (p. 64.)

4. In speaking of The AUTHORITIES to which our Reformers had re

gard, Mr. Overton, after allowing that which tended to promote the main obthey sometimes encouraged works ject of a separation from the Church of Rome, though they did not approve

of every sentiment contained in such neral doctrines of the Reformation works, yet maintains, that "the gemust reflect some light upon the precise views of the Founders of our Church; and, that those Works and Authors, which they continually quote, and refer to, for the illustration of their sentiments, must afford very important evidence on the subject," (p. 66.) and then appeals, upon the points in question, to the WRITINGS OF LU

THER, to the WHOLE BODY OF THE CONFESSIONS OF ALL THE REFORMED

CHURCHES to the authorities, which, next to the Sacred Scriptures, our Reformers especially professed to respect, THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, and THE WORKS OF ST. AUSTIN; and contrasts

the reign of King Charles, more than sixty years after the final settling of the Articles, and during the whole intermediate period, he 66 says, the maintainers of the Anti-Calvinian doctrines, are but few in number, and make but a very thin appearance," that "apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto,' (Quinq. Hist. p. 627.) p. 82. And though modern Arminians are far more sparing in their concessions, yet Mr. O. shews that such concessions are sometimes made, and in proof of it, quotes Mr. Gray, and Bishop Cleaver. But the prevalence of these sentiments may, it seems, be easily accounted for; and the whole body of Arminian Writers engage in assigning the reasons of it. (See Heylin, Quinq. Hist. p. 594, 609; Ridley's 3d Lett. P.

35; Gray's Lect. p. 265, 266; Hey's Nor. Lect. vol. ii. p. 209; Daubeny's Appendix. p. 230.) But does this overthrow, or establish, the fact? Admit that these sentiments are of foreign extraction: so it may be shewn are the general sentiments of the Reformation here. Admit that some of the great characters employed in resettling the Church on the Accession of Elizabeth, had acquired a greater relish for them than they had before: still these characters must be classed among our principal Reformers; still this was the period when the doctrines were legally established which are binding upon us. The more clearly therefore this circumstance is accounted for by the gentlemen in question, the more clearly do they establish the fact they wish to refute. They would insinuate indeed, that at some previous period of the Reformation, other (their own) sentiments obtained Now admitting this also, it does not much concern us. They produce however no proper evidence that this was the case after any thing was regularly and legally done. (p. 84, 85.)

The Author asserts, that the attempt to prove, that it was only at some later period when these Calvinistic sentiments so prevalently obtained, would be, if possible, still more hopeless, as, according to the testimony of Heylin, Hume, Mosheim, and Bishop Burnet, they were coeval with our legal establishment; and that nearly the whole of what is produced in opposition to his argument from the Works of these times, was intended merely to guard against the abuse of the doctrines of grace, and, in that view, meets with the cordial approbation of every sensible modern Calvinist. He refers, in proof of this assertion, to a famous passage in Bishop Hooper's Introduc

tion to his Exposition of the Decalogue, which has been mentioned by Mr. Gray, and many other writers who agree with him, as favouring their sentiments; and quotes to this purport the writings of Bishops Hall, Carleton, and Bancroft: and he contends that the same might be affirmed of all that has been so generally quoted, by the persons whom he opposes, from the works of Melancthon, Latimer, Hall, the Reformatio Legum, and the last clause of the xvi1th Article; these passages "containing nothing more than salutary cautions against the abuses or misrepresentations of the Calvinistic doctrines, of which cautions every prudent Calvinist fully admits the propriety." (p. 90, 91.)

"4. On all hands therefore does it thus unquestionably appear, how generally those sentiments were entertained, by the FOUNDERS OF OUR CHURCH, which are now represented as "a curious conceit," "a system of nonsense," 66 an artifice of the devil;" "a doctrine, which carries its own condemnation upon the face of it," is synonymous with "fanaticism," "makes God a tyrant," "lays the ax at once to the root of all religion," "is full of barbarity and blasphemy :" and, strange to say, thus represented too, by those who fill high stations in this Church, by those who PROFESS ΤΟ ADHERE TO THE GENUINE DOCTRINES OF HER REFORMERS!" (p. 91.)

5. We intirely accord with the candid sentiments expressed in the following passage:—

Nothing, however, is further from our purpose, than to infer, from what has been advanced in this Section, that the precise theological system of John Calvin, in all its parts, and to its full extent, was intended to be established in

To

the 39 Articles, to the exclusion of every milder sentiment. We think they have equally failed who have attempted to shew this, whether the exaltation, or degradation, of the national confession, has been their object. say the least, our established forms do not tained in Calvin's Institutions. They do not, teach directly several doctrines which are conwith this work, affirm that the Fall of Adam was the effect of a Divine Decree: (Inst. lib. 3. cap. 23. §8. p. 335.) They do not use the language it does, respecting the extent of Christ's planation of the Creed in the Catechism; the Redemption (Compare particularly the ExConsecration Prayer in the Communion Ser

vice; and the writings of Cranmer, Latimer, and Hooper, every where; with Instit. lib. 3.) They are silent concerning absolute reprobation. (See 17th Art.; Clement's Confession; and the Articles subscribed in the 1st year of Elizabeth,) which is here taught expressly, Instit. lib. 3. cap. 23. § 8; Ibid. §1; and Cal. vin. in Rom. ix. 18.) The Authors of these forms unquestionably built upon the same foundation, with this celebrated Reformer, but they have not carried the superstructure to the same height. They were aware of the extremes to which some had proceeded on these subjects, and of the liability of the doctrines of grace to abuse; and wished therefore to express them selves with moderation and caution. They were aware of the inability of the human understanding to comprehend the whole of the Divine plan of procedure towards his creatures; and of course, of the difficulties attending the subject, when pursued beyond a certain limit. They wished, therefore, in framing a standing public Confession, to decide no fur. ther upon these deep points than they believed the decision of importance, and for which they had the most express and certain warrant of Scripture. They knew that on this subject especially

“Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines, "Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum." Or, to adopt the more lofty language of inspiration; they knew in respect to the Divine procedure in these instances, "That clouds and darkness are round about him, but that righteousness and judgment are the babitation of his throne.” They wished unequivocally to teach, that man's salvation is wholly of grace, but that his perdition is of himself; and neither to make God the author of sin, nor man a mere machine, and unfit to be treated as a moral agent. All beyond this, they have left to be resolved on the principle of human ignorance. And, whatever may be said to the contrary, this is not in the smallest degree belying the principles we have ascribed to them, and mutilating the subject, but discovering at once the greatest piety and the greatest wisdom upon it. (p. 93-95.)

1. HERE Mr. Overton observes, such was the USE made of the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel by our Reformers, that every view of the "Redeemer's character is presented; every part of his astonishing work is enumerated, in our Creeds; while to his Cross and Sufferings there is a constant reference throughout the public service. Every rite points to Him for its efficacy; every petition is presented in His name; every expectation is founded upon His merits; every endeavour is directed to His glory; every acceptable work is ascribed to the power of His grace." (p. 101.) Under the influence of these views they encountered difficulties, sustained persecution, and triumphed even in death; thus exhibiting the genuine PRACTICAL efficacy of their principles. He then shews, at some length, that the Church of England inculcates the necessity of something more than a mere form of religion, even a personal, practical, and experimental acquaintance with the doctrines of the Gospel :

Either the Church of England, (says he), considers all persons real Christians who are comprehended within her external pale, or she considers only some of her visible members entitled to this character, and the rest mere nominal and professed Christians.In a general form she uses general expressions. She assumes not the prerogative of knowing either men's hearts, or God's unrevealed ap

than in the judgment of charity, on some occasions, she addresses all as true Christians who profess to be such. Every child that she has baptized, she speaks of, as "regenerate,' as a partaker of the privileges of the gospel, and as, in some sense, called to "a state of salvainto the mouths of all her worshippers: She tion:" She puts the language of real Christians expresses a favourable hope of every person whom she inters.-Are we then hence to conclude that our Church knows of no distinction but that between professed Christians and proly considers all who are her nominal members, fessed Heathens, Jews, &c.; and that she realin such a sense in a state of salvation, as that