argument. It is a maxim in the conduct of legitimate controversy, that the avowed partizans of any cause ought not to be referred to as authorities, either for facts or inferences, farther than they bring forward unquestionable documents for what they advance. Every reader, who is conversant with the present subject of debate, knows how forcibly this remark applies to the writings of Collier and Heylin. We speak from a careful comparison of what they have written with the sources from which they drew or might have drawn their materials, when we affirm, that in all matters, immediately bearing upon the Calvinistic controversy, they are most unsafe guides. Of Dr. Heylin, in particular, we have no hesitation in saying, that we do not know of any author, ancient or modern, in whose pages is to be found a larger portion of "false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations." We are sorry to observe, that Mr. D. nevertheless attaches considerable weight to this author, and has interwoven many of his false details of facts, and still more false inferences from them, into the body of his work*. We have thought it the more requisite to make the above remark, as we have traced a very considerable portion of Mr. Daubeny's historical errors and partial representations, as well as those of many modern controversialists, on the subject of Calvinism, to this source. But before we proceed to point out any instances of error and partiality, we wish it to be understood, that in opposing some of Mr. Daubeny's statements of fact, it is not the cause of party but of equity which we espouse. Mr. Daubeny maintains,

*It was justly observed by Bishop Burnet, (Hist. Ref. p. i. Pref.) that "either Heylin was very ill-informed or very much led by his passions; in one thing he is not to be excused that he never vouched any authority for what be writ, which is not to be forgiven any who write of transactions beyond their own time, and deliver new things not known before. So that up on what grounds he wrote a great deal of his book we can only conjecture, and many in their guesses are not apt to be very favourable to him." Bishop Barlow (of Lincoln) calls his works, "Peter Heylin's angry and (to our Church and truth) scandalous writings." Genuine Remains,

p. 181.

CHRIST. OBSERV, No. 31.

that Calvinism, and of course Calvinists, were designedly excluded by our reformers from the pale of the Eng lish Church; and he lays a variety of facts before his readers to corroborate that position. We are, on the other hand, of opinion, that Calvinists were no more intended to be excluded than Anti-calvinists.

A leading error adopted by Mr.. Daubeny, and which Dr. Heylin's writings have not a little contributed to propagate, is the confounding of Puritanism with Calvinism: an error of such a magnitude, and so easily confited by any one who impartially examines the records of those times, that we can hardly account for its prevalence. It is most true, that the Puritans were Calvinists in doc-> trine. It is equally true, that from the commencement of the reformation till the end of Charles Ist's reign, a very large body of the episcopal clergy were doctrinal Calvinists also; and yet determined opposers of Puritanism properly so called. Until it is proved that Hooker, Whitgift, Hall, Carleton, Usher, and Sanderson, either were not Anti-puritanical or not Calvinistic, it will be in vain to charge the one class with the enormities of the other. Faction on the one hand united the names of Calvinism and Puritanism, and on the other those of Arminianism-and Popery. In some instances both accusaions were true: in many others false. It would not be difficult to prove, that Popery and Puritanism jointly contributed to the miseries of those unhappy times: and yet Calvinism has no more to do with the principles of Puritanism than Arminianisnt with those of Popery. We could also easily prove that it would be as false to call the doctrine of the trinity a tenet peculiar to Popery, as with Mr. Daubeny to call the five controverted points doctrines "peculiar to Puritanism." Whoever wishes to form a just judgment of the real state and merits of the three parties, viz. the and the Arminians, must not view Puritans, the Episcopalian Calvinists, them through the distorting medium of such writers as Prynne and Bastwick, or Heylin and Collier; but must for himself extract truth from a variety of documents untainted with the violence of faction and the partiality of prejudice.

At p. 74 Mr. Daubeny maintains, 3 K

that the reformers must have been Anti-calvinistic, because they held the doctrine of universal redemption; and at p. 107, that Davenant, Hall, Carle ton, and Ward, were not Calvinists for the very same reason. It is a well known fact, however, that many writers have equally defended the Calvinistic tenet of Election, and the doctrine of universal redemption*: witness Davenant, Hopkins, Usher, Amyrald, &c. Indeed Mr. D.'s definition of Calvinist is such as would exclude nearly all the Sublapsarians from the title, and especially that large body of them who hold universal redemption. How will Mr. Daubeny reconcile the public subscription of our divines at Dort with his supposition of their not being Calvinists? It is remarkable that these very divines appeal to the writings of St. Augustine, Melancthon, Calvin, Bullinger, and even Paraus, together with the Church of England, as holding similar tenets with their own. (See Hale's Golden Remains, third edition, p. 591.)

At p. 77 and 78, we find an observation respecting the Erudition of a Christian Man, published in Henry VIII.'s time, to which we can by no means assent, viz. that that book was designed to point out the difference between the Churches of England and Rome, on the nature of human merit and the proper province of faith and works. If such were the design it was most imperfectly fulfilled. That work exhibits the same unsettled and mingled doctrines which distinguish all the publicly authorized books of that

reign. It speaks, in fact, neither the language of Popery nor of Protestantism on the subject of faith and works; but it leans considerably more to the former than to the latter. On this ground we find from Strypet, that, in the succeeding reign, Gardiner accused Cranmer of opposing the doctrine of justification as laid down in the King's book, by what was afterwards advanced in the newly published homilies of Ed. VI. And, doubtless, the difference between the two books, on that subject, is very manifest. It ought to be known, that so highly did Bishop Bonner value the Erudition of a Christian Mun, and so accordant did he consider it to his own sentiments, that he incorporated the most considerable part of it into a work § which he himself published in Queen Mary's reign, in order to promote the re-establishment of Popery in his diocese. Of so very dubious a description is this work, so frequently appealed to. Of this, and all the other publicly authorized works of Henry's reign, we conclude in the words of King Charles I. in one of his learned replies to Mr. Alexander Henderson, "No man who truly understands the English reformation will derive it from Henry VIII.; for he only gave the occasion: it was his son who began, and Queen Elizabeth that perfected it." (K. Charles's works, 164.)

The strong conclusion respecting the necessary Anti-calvinism of our church, which, at p. 85, and in many other parts of his work, Mr. D. has

temporaries, contained a truly Protestant system of doctrine. The same may be said of those remarks of Cranmer on the

King's book, part of which are given in the Appendix to Strype's Life of that Archbi

shop. The whole are in MS. in the library of C. C. C. Cambridge. From comparing these with the King's book, it appears clearly to us that Cranmer was not able to procure the insertion of all his own sentiments on the subject of faith, works, and justification, in that publication; and that the temper and opinions of his colleagues obliged hiin to rest contented with a much more imperfect system of publicly antho rized doctrine, than that which he more privately expressed. It will hence appear, that Mr. Daubeny's attack upon Mr. Overton, at p. 93, loses its force, when fairly estimated; though it is plausible at the first appearance.

Life of Cranmer, p. 150, and Appendix, p. 77.

Bonner's book was printed 1555.

drawn from the assertions in our articles and liturgy on the subject of universal redemption, will hardly be found consistent with the well-known fact, that many of the most learned and pious Calvinists have been amongst the most strenuous approvers and defenders of them: witness the names of Sanderson and Beveridge, the former of whom composed the preface to the liturgy as it now stands, containing an unqualified commendation of its contents. The latter has been no less explicit in a sermon on the liturgy.

We are sorry to observe that, in the course of this volume, many expresssions of a contemptuous and uncharitable nature occur, which, in conformity with Mr. Daubeny's professed principles of controversial writing, ought to have been omitted. Something, however, yet not too much, must be allowed to the irritation natu

* For a modern instance we refer the reader to that excellent work, intitled, "The History of the Church of Christ." The learned and pious author would unquestionably be called a Calvinist by Mr. Daubeny. But how does Mr. Milner express himself on the subject of particular redemption? "On occasion of the controversies, Augustine was objected to, as denying that Christ died for all. But Prosper, his admirer and follower, and as strict a Predestinarian as any writer in any age, maintains that Augustine held, that Christ gave himself a ransom for all.' Doubtless, the natural and obvious sense of scripture is the same*, and the notion of particular redem, tion was unknown to the ancients, and I wish it had remained equally unknown to the modernst." What language can be more decisive? And, we may add, that when Dr. Haweis expressed himself "shocked that the scriptures of truth should be treated thus slightly," alluding to the above statement, the present Dean of Carlisle defended his brother, by quoting the following passage-" of God our Saviour, who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the inan Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for ALL." The Dean adds, "one would think that any plain man might be allowed to infer froin this scripture of truth,' that Christ died for ALL, without shocking the nicest feelings."

*See particularly 1 Tim. ii.

+ Vol. II. p. 506.

Pref. to Second Edition of the First

Volume, p. xxiv.

rally produced by the severe expressions used by his antagonist. Mr. Daubeny's insinuations, for instance, at p. 72, 155, 156, 469, &c.; and the irony he has employed at p. 65, 80, 111, 113, and 335, &c. are greatly at variance with his just remark (p. 161), that "all personal references, which leave an impression on the reader's mind unfavourable to his opponents, should, according to the equity of argument, be scrupulously avoided, from the conviction, that if the cause taken in hand be according to truth it will stand by itself."

At p. 94, it is asserted, that the Augsburg confession contains passages professedly militating against Calvin's fundamental tenets. The same is repeated at p. 104 and 417, and Melancthon is called the decided opposer of the Calvinistic tenets. How is this to be reconciled with the well ascertained facts of Calvin's having willingly subscribed that confession, according to the very interpretation of Melancthon himself: and of both these reformers having, in their epistles †, acknowledged to each other that they knew they held coinciding opinions on the doctrine of election? Melancthon, indeed, thought it more safe to wave all public discussions on so mysterious a subject, and to avoid the popular introduction of that doctrine, which, though he did not deny it in theory, he thought very liable to abuse in practice. Many who may and still are, of the same opinion. justly be called Calvinists have been, Bishop Beveridge is a remarkable instance of this; as may be seen by comparing his works in general with his exposition of the seventeenth article. Heylin has led many writers, prior to Mr. Daubeny, into error respecting the principles of Melancthon, Cranmer, and Calvin, and the connection which subsisted between them.

Before the absolute Anti-calvinism of the English Church can be deduced from the circumstance of the paraphrases of Erasmus being set up in the churches, these paraphrases should be examined. We think it will then be

+ See Calv. Epist. p. 682. edit. 1576. "Nec vero August. confessionem repudio cui pridem volens ac lubens subscripsi, sicuti eam Auctor ipse interpretatus est." See some important passages in the Epis tles of Calvin and Melancthon as above. p. 105, 133, 250, and alibi.