parted from the doctrine of the Greek church, as taught by Origen, Chryfoftom, &c. and formed a new fyftem. But it is also true that Calvin, who had neither the modesty nor the worth of Auguftine, carried all the novel notions of that Father to the most horrible extremes. It is farther true that the writings of Auguftine were hig ly deemed by Luther and Calvin; though the fact, of little importance in any view, has no connection with the prefent queftion. But that, next to the Scriptures, thefe writings were held in the higheft eftimation by the founders of our Church, is an affertion which we confider altogether falle. There exifts no evidence of fuch a partiality on the part of our Reformers. Our Reformers held, and Auguftine denied UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION, and SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE IMPARTED TO ALL MANKIND. We defy Academicus to prove the fact to be otherwife. And this is alone demonftrative evidence that our Reformers did not pay, to the fentiments of Auguftine, that reverential deference which, by Academicus and his friends, they are faid to have done. See Daub. Vindiciæ, Pp. 114, 158-161, 401-404.

Dr. Kipling had cenfured the Calvinistic writers for declining to compare our public ftandards with the doctrines of Calvin, while from authors of every description they attempt to fhew that our Reformers were Calvinists, and thence conclude that our ftandards are, consequently, Calvinistic. "But, furely," fays our author, "he does not need to be informed that Mr. Overton, in feveral parts of his True Churchmen,' afcertains the doctrines of the Church of England from her public declarations, according to their natural, obvious, and full fignification, and that the Prefbyter has employed the greater part of his pamphlet in proving that thefe doctrines are Calviniftic, from her articles, liturgy, and homilies." (p. 3.) The Prefbyter's comparison our readers will find very justly appreciated in our account of his pamphlet. (vol. xvi. p. 52.) It, in fact, proves nothing but what, we muft own, is fufficiently proved by the whole publication, the incalculable diftance to which its author's religious fentiments are, at once, removed from the doctrines of the Gospel, the principles of the Church of England, and the maxims of common fenfe. Mr. Overton, with much greater wifdom we think, has declined altogether to enter n this tafk. And, with regard to the public declarations of the Church, Academicus, we conjecture, has chiefly in view the royal declaration prefixed to the articles. Of this declaration Mr. Overton has, indeed, made a fingular use. From its commanding the articles to be taken "in the literal and grammatical fenfe," Mr. Overton concludes that the fenfe intended is the Calviniftic fenfe; while, in order to afford this notable argument fome fhadow of fupport, he gives the lie direc to the uniform current of our ecclefiaftical hiftory, and even converts into a moderate Calvinift, the avowed Arminian, Archbishop Laud. (Anti-Jac. Rev. xvii. 345-347. Daub. Vind. 53 70.)

Academicus next accufes Arminian writers of the very fame condu& which they blame in their opponents." How frequent, for instance, are their appeals to a treatise called, the Neceffary Doctrine,' which was

B 3

printed

printed in the reign of Henry VIII. and which Cranmer is said to have had a great hand in drawing up." (p. 3.) This treatife, he fays, contains paffages which feem repugnant to Calvinifm, and hence it has been inferred that Cranmer's fentiments, and, confequently, our articles, are Anti-Calvinistic. He informs us, however, that this treatise was published in 1543, more than twenty years before our articles were finally fettled ;" and he adds that, to make the inference good it ought to be fhewn "that the doctrine of the English Church continued, during that period, invariable, that is, in the very period in which the was emerging from Popery." (p. 4.) This reafoning is a confpicuous inftance of thofe pious frauds, by which these evangelical "True Churchmen" think it lawful to prop their tottering cause. It is hollow and fophiftical in all its parts. Academicus knows that the neceffary doctrine" not only feems, but really is, as repugnant to Calvinifm as light is to darkness. He knows too, that this book was published not more than twenty years, but less than ten, before our articles, in as far, at least, as they could ever be construed to lean towards Calvinifm, were finally fettled. He farther knows that, to make the foregoing inference valid, it is NOT neceffary to fhew that from 1543 to 1562, the doctrine of our church continued invariable, but only that it did not grow more Calvinistic. That it did, Academicus, we prefume, will hardly undertake to prove. For, as Dr. Binks, Dean of Lichfield, unanfwerably argues,

"That which fets afide all furmises of this kind, as to what the compilers of the articles were in their own private judgment, it is plain that, whatever alterations happened to be made in the articles, anno 1562, those that may seem to touch upon God's decrees, and the efficacy of grace, are either the fame that were agreed upon in King Edward's reign, anno 1552, or what is altered in them is rather to fence against the Predeftinarian doctrine (according to the modern acceptation of the word) than any way defigned in favour of it: witness the additional clause in the 17th article, the better to provide against the prefumption of fuch as might build too much on their being predeftinated or called." (See Daub. Vind. p. 100.)

This fimple fact, in truth, outweighs ten thoufand furmifes. The clause alluded to is demonstrative evidence, as we have elsewhere fhewn (Anti-Jac. xv. 17, 18.) that those who, in 1562, finally fettled the articles of our church did not believe in Calvin's doctrine of predeftination.

The laft of our author's preliminary observations relates to the charge advanced, by Dr. Kipling, against our late Calvinistic writers, of never appealing, in this controverfy, to Calvin himfelt, from a confcioufefs that the tenets of Calvin are diametrically oppofite to the doctrines of the Church of England. Of this allegation Academicus complains (with what degree of juftice our readers will judge) as afcribing to these writers the most wilful and deliberate falfehood." His defence of them is that they "never profeffed to reconcile our liturgy and articles with every expreffion in Calvin's voluminous wri

tings, nor even with all his tenets. In general," he fays, "they thought that election was maintained by our 17th article, in a manner confiftent with Calvin's fyftem; but that the doctrine of reprobation was defignedly omitted: either as being unfcriptural or liable to abule." (p. 5.) If this was indeed the opinion of thefe writers, we fhall, by and bye, fee that Academicus, at least, does not agree with' them. At prefent, we proceed to his fecond chapter. It opens with a remark of which the evident object is to prejudice the reader against the Dean of Peterborough, whom it reprefents as condemning the doctrines of Scripture. Among the extracts from Calvin, produced by the Dean, as fpecimens of that Reformer's peculiar doctrines, are the following: "Seorfum a Chrifto nulla eft in nobis bene agendi facultas." "Pauci electi funt ex magno vocatorum numero." "Deus operatur in nobis velle." But thefe expreffions, Academicus fays, agree perfectly in Jenfe, and almoft exactly in words, with the following texts: "Without me ye can do nothing." "Many are called, but few chosen." "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do." The conclufion drawn by Academicus is this: These doctrines are fo offenfive to the Dean, that he ranks them among the peculiarities of Calvin, thus undefignedly confeffing that the words of Chrift and his apoftles, which fo aptly exprefs the doctrine of Calvin, are irreconcileable with his own." (p. 6.) Here, however, at the rifk of our Remarker's displeasure, we are compelled to accufe him of grofs difhonefty; for we cannot fuppofe a Cambridge tutor fo miferably ignorant as to fall, without knowing it, into the wretched fophifm called "begging the queftion." Yet this is as glaring a petitio principii as was ever attempted; for these texts, unquestionably, do not exprefs the doctrines of Calvin. It is true that without Chrift we can do nothing;" but Calvin maintains that we can do nothing with him. "It is God," fays St. Paul," that worketh in us both to will and to do;" but Academicus recollects that, for this very reason, the fame apoftle exhorts us to "WORK OUT OUR OWN SALVATION," which as Calvin uniformly teaches, is utterly impoffible. Academicus ought likewife to have proved that, when our Lord declared that many are called, but few chofen," he meant to speak of Calvinistic election which, we venture to pronounce, he will never prove.

In Calvin's account of original fin, he thus defcribes its nature and effects: "Omnibus naturæ partibus vitiati perverfique, jam_ob talem duntaxat corruptionem damnati merito convictique coram Deo tenemur." (Inft. Lib. ii. cap. i. fec. 18.) From this paffage and many others it appears that, according to Calvin, we are, folely on account of the corruption of our nature, under actual fentence of condemnation. But our ninth article affirms only that this corruption deferves condemnation. Hence the Dean of Peterborough drew the conclufion that our ninth article is not Calviniftic. Academicus, however, fees a perfect correfpondence between Calvin and the article. On this

B.4

fubject

fubject the obfervations of Dr. Kipling's friend are so pointed and just that we shall fimply transcribe them.

"To refute the Dean's arguments, you firft affirm that this paffage from Calvin is easily reconciled with the article, by obferving that Calvin fpeaks of the fentence of condemnation, according to St. Paul (Rom. v. 18.) By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.' But on what authority, Sir, do you affert that Calvin is here fpeaking according to St. Paul? For fure I am that he has not quoted Rom. v. 18., either in this fection, or any other near it; and moreover, that neither in the paffage itfelf, nor in the context, is there the leaft ground for this affertion: on the contrary, both the paffage and the context make directly against you. St. Paul fpeaks of a judgment which came upon all men to condemnation for the offence of Adam. Calvin is fpeaking, in this paffage, of a judgment which came upon all men to condemnation for an hereditary corruption of nature only- ob talem duntaxat corruptionem damnati.' And that the word duntaxat might not be overlooked, he both immediately fubjoins, neque ifta eft alieni delicti obligatio' (nor is this a condemnation for another's fault); and allo, a few lines afterwards, adds, atque ideo infantes quoque ipfi, dum fuam fecum damnationem a matris utero afferunt, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio funt obftrici.' Calvin, therefore, fays repeatedly, that the judgment, of which he is fpeaking, is one which came upon all men to condemnation, not on account of another's offence, but for their own hereditary corruption of nature. I affirm, therefore, on the authority of Calvin him felf, that Calvin, in this paffage, is not speaking according to St. Paul.'

"You next affirm, But our church (peaks of the final execution of that fentence.' Our church does not fpeak, Sir, in this ninth article, of the final execution of any fentence. Her words are, The fault or corruption of the nature of every man deferveth God's wrath and damnation.' So far from difcourfing on the exccution of a sentence, fhe does not even say that fentence has been pronounced. She afferts only that the corruption of our nature deserveth condemnation.

66

6

Laftly, you fay, Now there is no difagreement between these two propofitions-We are under a sentence of condemnation,' and, We deferve to have that fentence executed upon us.' True; but what is this to the purpofe? Your first propofition is indeed in Calvin's Institutes. But the fecond is neither in that work, nor in our ninth article. If you would infinuate, that the Dean of Peterborough has afferted and maintained that thofe two propofitions do difagree, you mean to delude your readers. And fhould you ftill, Sir, be incapable of perceiving that there is fome difference between being actually fentenced to death, and deferving only to have that fentence pronounced upon you, I must refer you to those confpirators who, not many years ago, were tried at the Old Bailey for High Treafon, and acquitted by the jury. They can affure you that there is a moft effential difference." (Reply, Pp. 30-34.)

Dr. Kipling maintains, that our tenth article, which afferts, that the grace of God works with us," is completely Anti-Calvinistic, becaufe Calvin uniformly teaches that, in the work of man's falvation, the grace of God does not Co-OPERATE, but is SOLE OPERATOR. To prove that this was Calvin's opinion, Dr. K. produced a great body of evidence, which is perfectly decifive. But Academicus

gives only a mangled part of one fingle quotation; and on this alone he would have his readers to fuppofe the Dean's inference founded. "According to Calvin, it is an error to fay, non folam gratiam in nobis operari, fed effe tantum nobis co-operatricem.' Hence the Dean infers that the tenth article is Anti-Calviniftic." (p. 8.) The Dean's friend has, therefore, with great propriety, repeated the chief paffages on which the inference is built. Our limits will not permit us to copy them; but our learned readers will find them Inft. Lib. ii. Cap. iii. Sec. 6, 8, 9, 11, 13. They all exclude the co-operation of man; agreeably to which, in another place, (Inft. iii. 24. 3.), Calvin writes thus: "Duo autem errores hic cavendi funt; quia non nulli CO-OPERARIUM DEO FACIUNT HOMINEM" ut fuffragio fuo ratam electionem faciat." "You have, therefore," fays Academicus, junior, fuppreffed evidence, and mifreprefented my friend." (Rep. p. 37-). But, fays Academicus, the Dean "does not feem to have obferved that, in this article, God's grace is faid to co-operate, not with our natural defires, but with those very defires which we receive from his preventing grace." (p. 8.) "What wonder?" afks Academicus junior: It is impoffible to obferve what does not exift. The article fays working with us,' not with our defires, Sir, either natural or acquired." (Rep. p. 38.) Whatever there may be in this, the Remarker immediately fubjoins an account of the doctrine of co-operating grace, which agrees neither with his own notion of the sense of the article, nor with the fentiments of Calvin. "God acts upon man," he fays, "by influencing his will, and inclining his heart; and then man freely and voluntarily performs that which God ordains." (p. 8.) He here divides, as Calvin had done, every good work into two parts; the inclination and the effect. The firft he afcribes to God, the second to man. Calvin calls the first "voluntas," the fecond "validus in exequendo conatus." But he pofitively denies that the latter is man's performance, or that man has any share whatever in it. "Sed erunt forte qui concedent voluntatem, a bono fuopte ingenio averfam, folâ Domini virtute converti; fic tamen ut præparata, fuas deinde in agendo partes habeat." (Inft. ii. 3. 7.) 3.7.) This opinion he employs the three following fections in endeavouring to refute; and the fum of his reafoning is thus expreffed: "Prior pars operis boni eft, voluntas; altera validus in exequendo conatus: UTRIUSQUE AUCTOR EST DEUS. Ergo Domino furripimus, si quid nobis arrogamus, aut in voluntate, aut in effectu." (Sect. 9.) "You, Sir," fays Academicus junior, "most unquestionably claim the honour of the effect, the validus in exequendo conatus,' to yourself; and therefore both Domino furripis,' and contradict Calvin. You are neither a Calvinift, nor a Church of England man." (Rep. p. 39.) Academicus, however, gives us an extract (Inft. ii. 3. 11.), from which, he fays, "it appears that Calvin does not object to the cooperation of man with God, if it be rightly explained." (p..9.) The paffage is much too long for infertion; but the whole fection fhould be carefully read; and he who perceives in it the admiffion of any