were. On the teftimony of perfons profeffedly hoftile to our religious eftablishment, it is evident that little ftrefs can be laid: and though Mr. Overton has frequently appealed to thofe who were undoubted friends to the establishment, he has generally misquoted, or mifreprefented them. This our author fhews to be eminently the cafe with regard to Hooker, whom, on the doctrine of juftification by faith, Mr. Overton very cooly holds up as a decided Calvinist. Yet Hooker's fentiments on that fubject are evidently the fame with thofe which Mr. Pearfon and we maintain. Thus, in his Difcourse on Juftification,' we find the following paffages, which it is impoffiblè to misunderstand: "To fay ye cannot be faved by Chrift without works, is to add things not only not excluded but commanded, as being in their place and in their kind neceffary, and therefore fubordinated unto Chrift, by Chrift himself, by whom the web of falvation is fpun." Again, "We ourfelves do not teach Chrift alone, excluding our own faith unto juftification; Chrift alone, excluding our own works unto fanctification; Chrift alone, excluding the one or the other, as unneceffary unto falvation." The fame judicious and found divine, when speaking more particularly of the conditions of the first justifi-. cation, fays: Although in ourfelves we be altogether finful and unrighteous, yet even the man which is impious in himself, full of iniquity, full of fin, him being found in Chrift through faith, and having his fin remitted through repentance; him God upholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his fin by not imputing it, &c." It was a bold attempt of Mr. Overton to reprefent the Arminian Hooker as holding the opinions of his profeffed antagonist, the Calvinistic TraBut by what means does he accomplish this? By mutilating, with his accustomed good faith, the language of Hooker, and omitting the very effential words, "and having his fins remitted through repentance:", which, efpecially when taken in connection with the other paffages here quoted, are fufficiently decifive of Hooker's fentiments. For he evidently held that of the firft juflification, the conditions are repentance and faith; of the final juftification, or falvation, faith and good works.

vers.

Mr. Overton, however, with a view, as it fhould feem, to difcredit this diftinction between a first and a final juftification, has, in a note p. 181, introduced a paffage from Hooker, as if it applied to this diftinction, while it really applies to the Romish dochine of juftification by inherent grace, and to the practice of feeking to be juftified by "Ave Marias, croffings, Papal falutations, maffes, pilgrimages, fafts, &c." But Hocker has virtually acknowledged the diftinction of justification into firft and final. For fpeaking of the poffibility of falvation to thefe who had lived in Popish errors, he fays, "Did they hold that without works we are not juftified? Take juftification fo as it may alfo imply fanctification, and St. James doth fay as much. For, except there be an ambiguity in the fame term (juftification) St. Paul and St. James do contradict each the other, which cannot be. Finding, therefore, that juftification is spoken of by St. Paul, without implying

implying fanctification, when he proveth that a man is juftified by faith without works; finding, likewife, that juftification doth fometimes imply fanctification alfo with it, I fuppofe nothing to be more found than to interpret St. James fpeaking, not in that fenfe, but in this." This is really faying that St. Paul is fpeaking of the first juftification, or of entering into a state of falvation; and that St. James is fpeaking of the last juftification, or of continuing in a ftate of falvation, and being finally faved. Yet Mr. Overton's coadjutors, the editors of the Chriftian Obferver, who tell the public, "We have compared his (Mr. Overton's) authorities with the originals, and examined them with a view to estimate the doctrines inculcated in the context," can deliberately affert, with regard to the fubject of the above mentioned note, "Mr. Overton fupports his fentiments by a decifive extract from Hooker." "With the licence," fays our author," which Mr. O. has used on this occafion, I would undertake to make Hooker, or any other author, fupport any fentiment whatever." (Pp. 21-30.)

We are inclined, with Mr. Pearfon, to believe that, had the Calviniftic minifters of the establishment been content to enjoy their opinions in quiet, without ftigmatizing those of their opponents as contrary both to the doctrines of the church, and to the truth of the gofpel, they had never experienced any moleftation. But "the followers of Calvin," as he justly obferves, like their leader, have always had a ftrong difpofition to intolerance, and they ftill retain it. In the true fpirit of Procruftes, they would exclude every one from communion with them, whofe opinions no not exactly coincide with their own." Nothing lefs will fatisfy them, than a full acknowledgement that they alone are the genuine foas of the Church of England. We, then," exclaims Mr. Overton," are the TRUE CHURCHMEN; and Mr. Daubeny and his affociates are DISSENTERS from the Church of England." How fuch a claim is to be reconciled with the fecond title of Mr. Overton's book, "An Apology" or defence, Mr. Pearfon fays that he does not perceive. He thinks that, even in a prudential view, fuch a claim was injudicious; and, un oubtedly it is calculated to provoke a strict and minute inquiry into the grounds on which it refts. The Calviniftic interpretation of the articles, he maintains, has never received the fanction of authority, declared or implied. Mr. O. has faid much about the royal declaration prefixed to the articles; but not one word about its real object, which was to make peace between the Calvinifts and Arminians at the time of its publication. He has drawn from it, however, a conclufion, which, as our author and Mr. Daubeny obferve, is directly contrary to what he ought to have drawn. "If," fays Mr. Pearfon," as you fay, and as is undoubtedly true, this declaration was obtained by the influence of Bishop Laud and his affociates, as expreffive of the doctrines then taught in the Church,' nothing is more certain than it is expreffive of Arminianism, and that Arminianism was then taught

A a 4

in

in the Church for nothing is more certain than that Bishop Laud and his affociates were Arminians.” (p. 37.)

Mr. Pearson adverts to the teftimony of Mofheim, who fays that "Laud rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of predeftination publicly in the year 1625, and, notwithstanding the oppofition and remonftrances of Abbot, fubftituted the Arminian fyftem in its place." The hiftorian, he obferves, feems here to fpeak of the prevalence of Arminianifm as new. Yet nothing is more certain than that, long before this time, the great body of the English clergy were Arminians. Accordingly Mofheim himfelf has told us that the British divines were scarcely returned from the Synod of Dort, when the king and clergy difcovered, in the ftrongeft terms, their dislike of its proceedings. This was about the year 1618, only 56 years after the 39 Articles were finally fettled. Even fo early as 1603, the tendency of the English clergy to Arminianifm was clearly difcovered at the Hampton Court conference.

"How thefe facts," fays our author," are to be brought to an agreement with your affertion, page 83, that there were but four or five maintainers of the Anti-Calvinific doctrines, during half a century after the articles were fettled, in the two Univerfities, and the whole aggregate of divines in the nation,' I do not clearly fee. But leaving this, is it at all credible that Laud, an Arminian, and when the greatest part of the Epifcopal clergy were Arminians alfo, fhould be induftrious to obtain a declaration, by which a Calviniftic interpretation of the articles was to be fanctioned by authority." (Pp. 39, 40.)

The fact is that, as Collier informs us, "The Calvinian party complained loudly of this declaration. They gave out," fays he, "that the defign of it was chiefly for the fuppreffing orthodox books, for the difcouraging godly minifters from preaching the comfortable doctrines of man's election to eternal happiness, and for promoting the growth of Arminianifm." If, therefore, of the two, Arminianifm and Calvinifm, the declaration was intended to countenance the one more than the other, that one was clearly understood at the time to be Arminianifm.

It is known that, about the end of Elizabeth's reign, and the beginning of the reign of James 1. the puritans, who always agreed with Epifcopal Calvinists in doctrine, however they might differ from them in dijcipline, were not fatisfied with the articles themfelves. This appears from the hiftory of the Lambeth Articles, and of the conference of Hampton Court. At that conference it was propofed by the puritans that, in the XVIth Article, to the words "we may depart from grace given" fhould be added "yet neither totally nor finally.' This attempt was meant to effablish the doctrine of the perfeverance of the faints; a doctrine of which the tendency may be learned from the following anecdote, given us by Dr Hey from Neil. "When Oliver Cromwell was on his death-bed, he asked Dr. Goodwin whether a man could fall from grace? to which the doctor answering in the negative, the protector replied, Then I am

Lafe

fafe; for I am fure I was once in a state of orace." (Hey's Lectures, Vol. III. p. 447.) Another propofal of the puritans was that the Lambeth Articles fhould be confidered as part of the Articles of the Church of England; and, in the conference at the Savoy, on the refloration, there was an evident defire on the part of the Calvinists of obtaining a change, if not in the Articles, at least in the liturgy and Jervice of the Church. Whether Calvinifts of the prefent day, who are profelfed members of the Church of England, would, if they had the power, effect an alteration of the Articles themselves, Mr. Pearfon will not venture pofitively to affirm. We are clearly of opinion that they would. But we agree with him that, without infulting the royal declaration, the validity and obligation of which they fo ftrenuously urge, they cannot affirm that the Articles are exclufively Calvinific.

As we have reason to believe that the Lambeth Articles, though frequently mentioned, are not generally known, we fhall gratify many, we fuppofe, of our readers, by inferting a copy of them. They may be found in Fuller's Church Hiftory, and in Collier. They were originally in Latin; but the following translation of them, which Mr. Pearson thinks accurate, is taken from "A Review of the Doctrines of the Reformers, by Thomas Bowman, M. A., Vicar of Marfham, Norfolk."

"1. God from ete nity 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. Thofe, who are not predeftinated to falvation, fhall be necessarily damned for their fins."

"5. A true, living, and juftifying faith, and the spirit of God juftifying, is not extinguithed, falleth not away, it vanisheth 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 of 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 communicated 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 thall draw him; and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son."

9. It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved.”

No circumftance, in Queen Elizabeth's conduct, has impreffed us with a more favourable opinion of the foundness of her understanding, than her ordering, with indignation, and under pain of her high difpleasure, thefe abominable Articles to be inftantly fuppreffed. Yet

thefe

thefe are the Articles fo highly valued by a certain "prefbyter of the Church of England," that nothing, he thinks, can reflect fuch difhonour on a bishop of that church as the fuppofition that, had his lordship been then at Lambeth, he must have marked them with abhorrence. Our author's obfervations are here fo excellent that we muft tranfcribe them.

"It appears to me that this expofition of what Calvinifm really is, must, in the mind of every one who is able either to read the scriptures, or to difcover any thing of the character of the Supreme Being from the contemplation of his works, be a fufficient refutation of it, and that no arguments need be employed for that purpofe. It is not, however, to be denied that, from. the force of early prejudice, or fome other caufe, many fenfible and wellinformed perfons have been Calvinifts to the full extent of thefe articles. Mr. Bowman, who feems to have been a perfon of this defcription, has given a copy of the five Arminian articles, as well as of thefe Calvinistic ones, and thus, whether prudently or not, has held out an invitation to a comparison of the two; nor has he, indeed, made any fcruple of declaring to which of them he gave the preference. Were I, Sir, to reprefent you and your friends as defirous, if not of having the Lambeth articles incorporated into the articles of the Church of England, yet of having them confidered as a fair comment on the prefent ones, I fhould not do fo on a mere conjecture. It is well known that, in the reign of James I., by the management of Archbishop Uther (then provoft of Dublin College,) who was a Calvinist, the Lambeth articles, which had been fuppreffed by the command of Queen Elizabeth, and rejected at the Hampton Court conference, were incorporated into the articles of the Church of Ireland. Now, in Mr. Bowman's work, of which, with respect to its objećt, and the general tenor of the arguments employed to enforce it, yours may not improperly be confidered as a re-publication, thefe Irith articles are recognized as fpeaking the fenfe of the Church of England, and, in particular, as well illuftrating and explaining our feventeenth article on p.edeftination.' In the course of the fame work, Mr. Bowman reminds us that an archbishop (Laud) was brought to the bar, condemned, and executed, among other things, for introducing Arminianifm.' This obfervation proves, if it prove any thing, that Calvinim prevailed among thofe who had the management of affairs at the period of that prelate's fail; of which, indeed, no one can entertain a doubt. This circumftance, however, will not be admitted as very favourable to the caufe of Calvinifm, when it is confidered that the fame perfons foon afterwards brought Charles I. to the block, among other things, for not agreeing to abolith Episcopacy and the ufe of a liturgy. (Collier, Vol. II. p. 858.) It is but juft to add, with refpect to Archbishop Uther, (what Mr. Overton takes care to conceal) that he afterwards renounced his Calviniftie opinions. Sometime before his death,' says Collier, (Vol. II. p. 868.) he changed his opinion touching the five points, came over to the other fide, and was reconciled to Bishop Overall's fentiment.' That this is matter of fact, appears from the figned teftimonies of Dr. Bryan Walton, Mr. Peter Gunning, and Mr. Herbert Thorndike.' It is proper to add

See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XVI. Pp. 40.

6

allo