The Evangelical party had another advocate in John Overton,' who wrote 'The True Churchman Ascertained.' Daubeny did not admit that Wilberforce, Hannah More, and those whom they represented, really belonged to the Church of England. They were nominally members, but dissenters, both as to doctrine and polity. George Croft, another clergyman, who was much opposed to the Evangelical party, described them as teaching more than was taught in the Articles. Thomas Ludlam had spoken of them as 'the whole tribe of those who called themselves the serious clergy.' The Anti-Jacobin Review openly denounced them as 'heretics and schismatics.' Overton insisted that the clergy who had not themselves been irregular should not be held responsible for the irregularities of others. His argument was limited to the defence of those who belonged to the Church of England, and the issue was narrowed to the question whether the doctrines of the Articles were taught by the Evangelical party or by those represented by Archdeacon Daubeny. The Articles were to be taken in the strictly literal and grammatical sense. This sense was to be determined not by any heterogeneous publications in the transition era of Henry VIII, but by the writings of the Reformers. The quotations were from Nowell's Catechism, Ferrar, Hooper, Coverdale, Jewel's Apology and Thomas Rogers who wrote the first commentary on the thirty-nine Articles. The conclusion was that the Articles of Religion are Calvinistic, though the Calvinism was not so strongly expressed as in some other Confessions.

Daubeny answered Sir Richard Hill in an 'Appendix to the Guide.' He said doctrine and polity were equally divine. They were joined together by God, and what God had joined together no man should put asunder. The doctrine was the light, and the Church the candlestick. The doctrine was the truth, and the Church was the pillar and the ground of the truth. The Church supports the truth with the authority it has received from Christ. The multitude of sects which sprang up in the time of Cromwell was evidence enough of the importance of episcopal government. The battle of episcopacy had been fought and won. No dissenter of

Society, the Lancastrian system of Education, and other modern inventions were helping the Methodists in the fulfilment of the predicted apostasy of the latter days.

Sir Richard Hill, a veteran Calvinist, answered the Archdeacon in a series of 'Letters' called 'An Apology for Brotherly Love.' He avowed himself a devoted churchman, but it had never been any part of his belief that there was no salvation for those who were separate from the Church of England, or that there could not be a Church without bishops. Doctrine was of more importance than ecclesiastical polity, just as the truth, which the Church was instituted to preserve is of more importance than the Church. The temple which 'sanctifies' the 'gold' is not greater than the gold. The clothing of the king's daughter may be excellent, but her praise is that she is all glorious within. Sir Richard Hill said he had no wish to change the present government of the Church of England, but he could not forget that our most learned theologians, after the labour of many years, had not yet decided whether in the primitive Church there were three orders or only two. Government of some kind indeed there must be, God's vineyard must have a wall, but it is not said of what material that wall must be built. Cranmer, following St Jerome, had argued for the identity of bishops and presbyters. Even some Popes had called themselves presbyters of the Roman Church. So little is said in the Scriptures of Church polity that every age or country may adopt what best suits its wants. The Church of England has never refused the right hand of fellowship to Non-Episcopal Churches.

Then followed the familiar historical evidence for the Calvinism of the English Church at the Reformation. Bucer and Peter Martyr were Calvinists, Baret and Baro were censured by the Heads of Houses in Cambridge for denying predestination. The Lambeth Articles had the sanction of the Archbishops of Canterbury, of York, and of the Bishop of London. Quotations from many of our most famous theologians in the time of Elizabeth and James proved that at that time the consentient or Catholic belief of the Church of England was Calvinistic.

The Evangelical party had another advocate in John Overton,' who wrote 'The True Churchman Ascertained.' Daubeny did not admit that Wilberforce, Hannah More, and those whom they represented, really belonged to the Church of England. They were nominally members, but dissenters, both as to doctrine and polity. George Croft, another clergyman, who was much opposed to the Evangelical party, described them as teaching more than was taught in the Articles. Thomas Ludlam had spoken of them as 'the whole tribe of those who called themselves the serious clergy.' The Anti-Jacobin Review openly denounced them as 'heretics and schismatics.' Overton insisted that the clergy who had not themselves been irregular should not be held responsible for the irregularities of others. His argument was limited to the defence of those who belonged to the Church of England, and the issue was narrowed to the question whether the doctrines of the Articles were taught by the Evangelical party or by those represented by Archdeacon Daubeny. The Articles were to be taken in the strictly literal and grammatical sense. This sense was to be determined not by any heterogeneous publications in the transition era of Henry VIII, but by the writings of the Reformers. The quotations were from Nowell's Catechism, Ferrar, Hooper, Coverdale, Jewel's Apology and Thomas Rogers who wrote the first commentary on the thirty-nine Articles. The conclusion was that the Articles of Religion are Calvinistic, though the Calvinism was not so strongly expressed as in some other Confessions.

Daubeny answered Sir Richard Hill in an 'Appendix to the Guide.' He said doctrine and polity were equally divine. They were joined together by God, and what God had joined together no man should put asunder. The doctrine was the light, and the Church the candlestick. The doctrine was the truth, and the Church was the pillar and the ground of the truth. The Church supports the truth with the authority it has received from Christ. The multitude of sects which sprang up in the time of Cromwell was evidence enough of the importance of episcopal government. The battle of episcopacy had been fought and won. No dissenter of

learning or character now entered into combat with a Churchman. On the authority of Peter Heylin, it was shown that the Scotch minister, Henderson, was so worsted in argument by King Charles I, that he took a fit of melancholy, went home and died.

The Archdeacon declared his belief in salvation by works in the sense that something must be done by man in order to be saved. In Adam all died, but by baptism all are brought into a new state. Though men cannot do works pleasing and acceptable to God without the grace of the Spirit, yet they can with the help of baptismal grace. Eternal life is the gift of God, on condition of faith, repentance and obedience, works so performed have something to do with the sinner's acceptance before God.'1 The seventeenth article, as Bishop Tomline has shown, was written against the theology of Calvin. Peter Heylin had recorded that Cranmer refused the intervention of Calvin in the work of the Reformation in England, and as to the Lambeth Articles, though sanctioned by Archbishop Whitgift, Queen Elizabeth threatened him with a præmunire if he dared to publish them. Daubeny's position was summed up by a writer in the Christian Observer thus: 'There may be a true Church without religion, and religion without a true Church.' Another writer defined it, 'That there might be a true Church in which the word of God was not preached.'

The Archdeacon had committed all members of NonEpiscopal Churches to the uncovenanted mercies of God. But the sound of this was more terrible than the reality, as the uncovenanted mercies were almost as good or hardly inferior to those of the covenant, for the benefits of Christ's death were as extensive as Adam's fall, so that multitudes might be saved through Christ who had never heard His name.' 2

Overton defended the Evangelical clergy not only from the animadversions of High Churchmen, but from those of the more rational party. In this, the only point of interest was the question of subscription. The Evangelical as well as the High Church clergy professed to take the Articles in their literal and natural sense, as intended by those who

wrote them, though they differed as to what was the real sense. The rational Clergy admitted that they did not receive them in the sense of the compilers, but claimed a right for themselves and others to qualify their subscription.

Paley had said 'Those who contend that nothing less can justify subscription to the Articles than the actual belief of each and every separate proposition contained in them, must suppose that the legislature expected the consent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to one controverted proposition, but to many hundreds.'1 Dr Powell of Cambridge said that 'As new discoveries have sprung up, explanations have to be gradually framed and adopted.' Dr Hey said the forms might be left in words but altered in meaning, in which case it may be either said that they grow obsolete or that the law which enjoins them is tacitly repealed, and a tacit repeal is of equal value with an express one. The literal sense of every form can be the true sense only while it is new; it gets a new and acquired sense. He showed how the divines of the eighteenth century had gradually come into opposition to the doctrine of the Article on justification by faith. Bishop Shipley said there had been such 'improvements' as entirely reformed the doctrine of the Church. George Croft, a writer, quoted as an authority at that time, said that the Articles certainly favoured enthusiasm, and he did not wonder that they generated Evangelicals and Calvinists. Against all such, Overton said in the words of Strype, that the doctrines of the Articles were 'interwoven with industry into the forms of public worship.' Moreover, the very Convocation which framed the Articles declared their object to be the 'avoiding of diversities of opinion and the establishing of concord touching the true religion, and the Royal Declaration forbids varying or departing from them in the least degree or offering any new sense on any Article.

The question of the Calvinism of the Church of England. had been discussed by Dr Laurence in his Bampton Lectures It was revived in 1822 by the publication of Reformation Documents.2 The Anti-Calvinists rested mainly on the documents of the time of Henry which Cranmer sanctioned. Those who took the other side doubted if they expressed