tion, by arguments in favour of preconceived opinions. The profeffed aim of Mr. O.'s book is to prove that those of the English clergy" who are fometimes called evangelical minifters, are the only true churchmen." Of these, he fays (Pref. p. xi.) " It is intended to appear that the characters in question are true churchmen of a true church, and therefore worthy of the title in the higheft fenfe." The evangelical teachers, of the defcription here specified, certainly do pretend" to adhere ftrictly to the doctrines of the Church." (P. 17.) And he thus formally ftates the question to be determined be tween these teachers and the rest of the clergy: TRINES ARE REALLY THOSE OF OUR ARTICLES, HOMILIES AND LITURGY? WHO, IN REALITY, TEACH THE DOCTRINES CON- TAINED IN THESE FORMULARIES, AS THEY WERE FIRST DELI- VERED BY OUR REFORMERS?" (Ibid.) And, in his Recapitulation, he thus unequivocally expreffes himself: "Nay, let it be faid whe- ther the conclufion is not established on grounds equal to demonftra- tion, that WE DO, and that THEY DO NOT teach according to the plain, primitive, genuine doctrines of our Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies:" to which he immediately fubjoins "We then are the TRUE CHURCH- MEN; and, whatever aftonishment certain critics may exprefs at the affirmation, in a very fundamental and important fenfe of the word, Mr. Daubeny and his affociates," whofe notions he all along ftre- nuously combats, "are DISSENTERS from the Church of England." The evangelical teachers to whom Mr. O. would exclufively ap- propriate the honourable appellation of true Churchmen, are frequently known by the lefs dignified name of Calviniftic methodists. He does not, however, undertake the vindication of all who have obtained that defignation: for his apology, as his title-page bears, refpects only fuch of them as are regular clergy of the establishment. He is, therefore, the oftenfible advocate only of Calviniftic methodists with- in, and not of those without, the church; of fuch minifters as "equal- ly respect, in their theory and their practice, the doctrines and the conftitution of the established church; lament, moft cordially, every occafion, and every degree of deviation from her; and wifh for no- thing fo much as her prefervation in her genuine purity. For thefe, and thefe EXCLUSIVELY, under whatever title they are found, it is "Let the object of this work to apologize." (Pref. p. iv.) Again; it be invariably inculcated," he fays, "that, to constitute a genuine churchman, an obedience to her," the Church's, "authority is equally effential with an adherence to her doctrines." (P. 399.) He affures us that they are "the fartheft poffible from the fact, who represent the views and conduct of Dr. Haweis as a fair fpecimen of the general opinions of the clergy of the Church of England who are called evangelical :" and that "the general body of thefe divines as fincerely lament the fchifm of Dr. Haweis, as the heterodoxy of fome other doctors." (Ibid.) We fhall certainly not be fufpected, by our readers, of contemning church authority and difcipline. Our opinions on that fubject are fufficiently known; and we earneftly with that fentiments fimilar to our own, refpecting ecclefiaftical unity and the fin of fchifm, were univerfally entertained by Chriftians. The regard which the perfons here defended difcover for regularity and order, is highly com-. mendable, and fhall not, by us, be defrauded of its due portion of praife. But our ingenious apologift was well aware that minifters may be found within the pale of the church, who are yet falfe churchmen. A clergyman, to be a true fon of the church, must teach her doctrines, as well as conform to her difcipline. In order, therefore, to fubftantiate the claim which he advances in favour of himself and of his friends, it was abfolutely incumbent upon him to fhew that they alone have adopted, and propagate, her real tenets. To fhew this, indeed, is the principal aim which he has in view: and, according to him, thefe tenets are strictly and accurately in unifon with thofe of Calvin. The proof of this pofition in general, he ftrenuously urges in his fecond chapter, intituled "The Real Sense of the Articles and Doctrines of our Reformers inveftigated," &c. in which he argues from "our different forms as they explain and ilJuftrate each other; the title and preamble annexed [prefixed] to the articles; the circumftances and object of our reformers; their other public and approved writings; the authorities they refpected; and their known private fentiments." (Pp. 44 and 69.) From all these fources of information he thinks himself warranted to conclude that the genuine doctrine of our church is Calvinifm. "Thefe fentiments,' he fays, meaning the private fentiments of the reformers, "we mean to fhew were thofe which are now ufually termed Calviniftic." (P. 69.) "The doctrines now often termed moderate Calvinifm, fhe," the church, unequivocally inculcates." (P. 95.) And, towards the end of the chapter, he thus fums up the refult of his inquiries: "Here then we might well reft our whole queftion. The Church of England, we have feen ftrong reafon for concluding, is moderately Calvinistic. The chief fubjects of our apology are profeffedly fo.— This circumftance, therefore, might at once decide who have adhered to, and who have departed from, the original and genuine, doctrines of the Articles, as none but thofe accufed of methodifm even profefs to hold any tenet that is Calvinistic."* (P. 97.) But the prudence and caution of this apologift are equal, at leaff, to his learning and ingenuity. He was fenfible that the tenets of Calvin, when exhibited in their true and legitimate colours, difplay fuch a difgufting mafs of impiety, blafphemy, contradiction, and cruelty, as cannot fail to infpire with horror or contempt, every mind which retains any fentiments of refpect for the Supreme Being, any fpark of benevolence for its fellow-creatures, or even any glimmerings of reafon and common fenfe. He is anxious, of courfe, to exonerate the Church, and, by confquence, his favourite evangelical divines, from the accufation of maintaining these tenets in their full extent. He, in various places, pleads, as we have feen, for moderate Calvinifm only. But, as to get rid of the charge of holding the moft fhocking parts of the Calviniftic fyftem was a point of great importance to his caufe, he is not satisfied with incidentally difclaiming them. On the contrary, he is at great pains to difown them explicitly, and at large. After long contending for, the Calvinifm of the ftandards of the Church, he, at p. 93, thus proceeds: Nothing, however, is further from our purpose, than to infer, from what has been advanced in this fection, that the precife theological fyftem of John Calvin in all its parts, and to its full extent, was intended to be established in the 39 Articles, to the exclufion of every milder fentiment. We think they have equally failed who have attempted to thow this, whether the exaltation or degradation of the national confeffion has been their object. To fay the leaft, our eftablished forms do not teach directly † several doctrines which are contained in Calvin's Inftitutions. They do not, with this work, affirm that the fall of Adam was the effect of a divine decree: they do not use the language it does, refpecting the extent of Christ's redemption: they are filent concerning absolute reprobation, which is here taught exprefsly. The authors of thefe 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 fome had proceeded on these subjects, and of the liability of the doctrines of grace to abufe, and wished therefore to exprefs themselves with moderation and caution. They were aware of the inability of the human understanding to comprehend the whole of the divine procedure towards his creatures; and, of course, of the difficulties attending the fubject, when purfued beyond a certain limit. They wished, therefore, in framing a ftanding public confeffion, to decide no further upon thefe deep points than they believed the decifion of importance, and for which they had the moft exprefs and certain warrant of fcripture. They wifhed unequivocally to teach that man's salvation is wholly of grace, but that his perdition is * The author muft here mean any tenet that is peculiarly Calvinifticany tenet that diftinguishes the School of Calvin from other fchools in theology. Is not this a very fignificant infinuation that the three doctrines of Calvin, afterward mentioned, are taught by our Church, at leaft indirectly? of 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 refolved on the principle of human ignorance. " "It is faid," adds our author (p. 95), "that, in reality, there is no difference between this fyftem and the higher fpecies of Calvinifm. It may be answered, however that be, the Church is only refpontible for the doctrines the teaches expressly, and not for the inferences and consequences which may be deduced from these doctrines by thofe who perhaps do not understand them, and which the probably may difavow." When, therefore," continues our wary apologift, (p. 96), "certain writers have formed a frightful system of nothing but abfolute decrees, abfolute reprobation, and other extravagancies, which we ditavow, they may attack it as vehemently as they pleafe; but it deferves their confideration that it is a creature of their own, and that in refpect to us, at least, the moft pointed of their weapons falls "Telum imbelle fine ictu." We have inferted this long quotation, that our readers may fee with what anxious concern Mr. O. repels from his party, and, by confequence, from the church, the credit of which muft, in his opinion, ftand or fall with himself and his friends, the imputation of adopting what he calls the higher fpecies of Calvinifm." In which of their writings," the writings of the divines whom he is vindicating, "can our opponents," fays he, "find a fingle paragraph that goes beyond the Sublapfarian fcheme? But much may be found that comes below it. Mr. Daubeny," he adds, "may deduce his confequences, affume the prerogative of knowing men's hearts, and infift upon it, in fpite of themselves, that they hold doctrines which they fay, and believe, they do not; but it deferves his confideration, that such a procedure is abfurd in itself, that it is contrary to the established laws of controverfy, and that it is just as fair, and juft as fignificant, as it would be to infer, from his ftronger expreffions respecting human agency, that at the bottom he must be a focinian." (P. 96.) We are unwilling to fuppofe that all this oftentatious parade about the moderation of his Calvinism is intended, by Mr. O., only to throw duft in the eyes of his readers, though we are forry to observe that the whole of it has too much this appearance. We should not, however, do juftice to our readers, or to the caufe which we have in hand, if we did not explicitly inform them that the whole of his defence, on this part of the fubject, is labour completely loft. No man, we affirm, and we affirm it confidently, can be a Calvinist by halves. No man who embraces any one of the tenets peculiar to this fyftem can poffibly reject the reft. Mr. O., indeed, makes ufe of Janguage directly calculated to mislead and deceive. He talks of abfolute decrees, abjolute reprobation, and other extravagancies, as creatures We fuppofe that this must be an error of the printer; though we know not what the author intended precifely to fay. We confulted Daubeny, as referred to in the margin; but no exprettion fimilar to this is there to be found. of his opponents, which he and his party difavow. Now he tells us that they are Sublaffarian Calvinifts; and do fuch, in truth, hold no kind of abfolute decrees? Yes; they contend that the decree of Election, at least, is abfolute: and his mafter will tell Mr. O. that, if this be admitted, the decree of reprobation is abfolute alio. "Multi quidem," fays Calvin, ac fi invidiam a Deo repellere vellent, electionem ita fatentur ut negent quenquam reprobari; fed infulfe nimis et pueriliter: quando ipfa electio nifi reprobationi oppofita non ftaret. Dicitur Deus fegregare quos adoptet in falutem: fortuitò alios adipifci, vel tuâ induftriâ acquirere, quod fola electio paucis confert, plufquam infulfe dicetur. Quos ergo Deus præterit, reprobat; neque aliâ de causâ, nifi quòd ab hæreditate quam filiis fuis prædeftinat, illos vult excludere." Inft. Lib. 3. Cap. 23. Sec. 1. This reafoning of Calvin we deem irrefragable. SOLA ELECTIO is unconditional, abfolute election: it can mean nothing elfe; and for this our evangelical divines are ftrenuous advocates. When they teach us that God only paffes by a great part of mankind, and leaves them in their defperate condition to perifh, they amufe us with words, and attempt to establish a diftinction without a difference: for Quos Deus præterit, reprobat." A decree of preterition is, to all intents and purpofes, a decree of damnation, fince every person who is abfolutely excluded from the decree of election must infallibly be damned.* It is, indeed, highly deferving of attention that, whatever opinion different men may form of the value of the Calvinistic fyftem of theology, its admirable confiftency with itself must be univerfally admitted. Its characteristic doctrines hang fo clofely together, and depend fo effentially upon one another, that, if you remove a single dogma, you demolish the whole. Thus if you deny election, you muft deny reprobation, and vice versâ. If you reject unconditional decrees, both election and reprobation fall to the ground. He who does not allow of invincible grace, must abandon the final perfeverance of the faints. The refult is the fame, wherever you begin. *The Calviniftic notion of reprobation feems not only to derive no fupport from the word which, in the New Teftament, is rendered Reprobate, but even to be totally inconfiftent with its real import. A'doxos is useless, of no value; therefore good for nothing but to be thrown away. Its proper and original application is to the drofs or fcoriæ of metals. According to the fcheme of those who think that the everlasting deftiny of men is, in fome way, dependent on their characters, it conveys a moft fignificant, and most inftructive intimation. The wicked have abufed all the means of grace: they have fhewn themfelves incapable of improvement: they are only a nuifance in the creation of God: they are, therefore, fit fubjects for being reprobated, that is, rejected, treated as vile, and caft away. "Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground." On the principle of unconditional decrees, all this important and highly interesting inftruction is loft. |