(pages 66, 67, 301, 302, & seq. ed. 1611); to Cranmer's Treatise on Faith and Justification, at the end of his life, by Strype; to Hooker's Discourse on Justification (sections 3, 6, 7, 20, 21, and 26). And after he has compared those decisive passages with each other, and with the holy scriptures, we would confidently ask him whether these writings ever speak of any quality, under the denomination of faith, as conducive to the justification of a sinner, except that which so effectually unites him to Christ as both to entitle him to the inheritance of the saints in light, and to render him meet for its enjoyment: or whether they ever fail to represent " good works as the natural fruit and necessary effect of that faith which justi fieth*."

A leading error in Mr. Daubeny's manner of treating this subject arises, as we have already remarked, from a

* Our limits will not allow of extensive extracts; let a very few suffice to shew the tenour of the passages to which we have referred our readers.

"As soon as a man bath faith, anon be shall flourish in good works; for faith of itself is full of good work, and nothing is good without faith."-" Faith may not be naked without good works, for then it is no true faith." Hom. p. 40. The first coming unto God is through faith, whereby we be justified before God."-Ib. p. 27. "The which faith bath charity always joined to it, and is fruitful and bringeth forth all good works." Ib. p. 30.

"Further ye say," observes Bishop Jewell in reply to Harding, "a true faith may be idle and utterly without works, and therefore ye think it not true that we say, a true faith is lively and can in no wise be idle." Defence of Apol. p. 302. Again,

"You say, faith without works is neverthe less a true and real faith. Verily, Mr. Harding, if the wicked, without works, have a true and real faith, then may you also say that the devil likewise hath a true and real faith. This faith is no faith, Mr. Harding. It is only an imaginary and a mathematical phantasy. It is not that faith whereby men are made the children of God." Ib. p. 304.

"Devils know the same things which we believe, and the minds of the most ungodly may be fully persuaded of the truth: which knowledge in the one and in the other is sometimes termed faith, but equivocally, being, indeed, no such faith as that whereby a christian man is justified." Hooker on Justification, § 26.

Quotations to the same effect might be almost indefinitely multiplied.

misapprehension of the real nature of faith itself. In direct opposition to the definition of true and false faith given in the homilies, and in the writings of the martyrs and reformers, Mr. Daubeny is unwilling to admit that there is any radical difference between the mere faith of assent, which is commonly called a dead faith, and that true lively faith which worketh by love, and saves the soul. He treats the former as capable of being raised into action, and improved into the latter by a change of circumstance without any change of essence, (see also p. 380); and opposes the well known distinction between that faith which is dead and false, and therefore of no avail towards our justification; and that which is lively and true, in other words, justifying faith.

In examining the many pages which Mr. Daubeny has dedicated to this discussion, we observed with some surprise a remarkable coincidence, (an instance of which will be found in the last note,) between his language and that employed by the jesuit Harding on the same subject, in his attack on the Apology of the Church of England: whilst the learned Jewel gives which Mr. Daubeny controverts, a statement precisely similar to that (Jewel's Works, page 301 to 306.) The bishop justly observes, that faith without good works "is no faith;" and is as improperly styled faith asa body without a soul can be termed a real man;"" it hath neither life, nor sense, but indeed, and verily, is a dead faith, and therefore no faith at all." p. 304.

In order to confirm and illustrate his own views of the subject, Mr. Daubeny introduces (p. 360) a quotation from the homilies, on which he dwells at considerable length, and certainly with great appearance of support from one expression contained in the extract. On arriving at this part of Mr. Daubeny's work we were at first not a little staggered by the countenance which the author's statement seemed to derive from that expression. We soon, indeed, began to suspect, from a general recollection that in that very homily the church explained the nature of faith, as we apprehended, on a principle essentially different from that adopted by Mr. Daubeny in the present chapter; that he had been guilty of some inaccuracy. Still, however, observ.

ing the close and immediate connection of our author's arguments with the words of the homily; and thinking it hardly possible, notwithstanding the proofs which had been already furnished of his great incorrectness, that in a discussion occupying so many pages, and which turned entirely on the accuracy with which the words were quoted, any material error should have been admitted; we continued to follow him in his reasoning for some time before we referred to the homily. It was plain, as the quotation stood in Mr. Daubeny's book, that the church seemed to favour his views of the nature of faith and justification: and the use which Mr. Daubeny makes of it clearly shews the importance which he attached to it. But it was equally evident, that the force of Mr. Daubeny's reasoning in general, his defence of himself, and his warm attack of Mr. Overton, all founded on that very quotation, must fall to the ground, if it should prove inaccurate. Mr. Overton had said in his book, p. 279, that our church speaks of a dead faith "as not properly called faith, and that it is not faith."—"It does not occur to me," observes Mr. Daubeny, "where our church speaks thus: but I certainly, know where our reformers speak the very opposite language. The homily on faith sets out with informing the reader, that there are two kinds of faith spoken of in scripture; one of which is called dead faith on account of its being barren and unfruitful. But this faith consisting in a persuasion and belief in man's heart whereby he knoweth that there is a God, and agreeth unto all the truth of God's most holy word contained in scripture (the reformers say) is properly called faith." p. 360. On turning to the book of homilies (edit. 1802) p. 27, we discovered the passage in question, and found this remarkable difference in the concluding words of the above quotation, viz." And this is NOT properly called faith." We then referred to the edit. 1683, p. 19, and again found precisely the same words. Our surprise on the detection of an error so materially affecting the question at issue was greatly increas ed, by finding it twice repeated after wards, (p. 363 and 371), and both times with a tone of evident triumph. We do not recollect to have ever met with an instance of so complete a reCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 34.

futation of a laboured argument from a similar cause. The restoration of the significant particle NOT to its proper situation in the sentence, necessarily subverts the system which Mr. Daubeny has built upon its supposed absence; and to the discerning reader will afford an unanswerable testimony both of the erroneousness of his views on this important point; and of that careless haste in reading books, and that inaccuracy in referring to them, with which we have already had occasion to charge him in the course of this review. What explanation Mr. Daubeny may chuse to give of this unfortunate oversight, we know not. But we know that the frank acknowledgment of his error would be far more creditable to his candour; than any reasonings, similar to those by which he labours to prove, that by the words true faith and firm belief he did not mean a true und lively faith, (p. 339 & seq.), can be to his ingenuity. It were well if the discovery of such mistakes tended to diminish that presumption, pride, and self-confidence, in which con troversialists are too apt to indulge themselves; and to shew the superior advantages which must ever result from humility, calmness, patience, and impartiality in the investigation of truth.

The question asked by Mr. D. respecting the fall of St. Peter (at p. 379), is well answered by Bishop Jewell in the 302nd page of his Defence of the Apology, where he attributes to Harding, the jesuit, the same views of the subject which seem to be entertained by Mr. Daubeny. Mr. Daubeny argues as if Peter were undoubtedly possessed of justifying faith at the time of his fall. "Another of your near followers," observes the bishop in his reply to Harding, "saith, Peter denied not the faith of Christ, but he denied Christ, his faith never theless being safe. If ye call this true faith, Mr. Harding, that may be found in heathens and infidels, and may well and safely stand with the abjuring of Christ, then without question your true faith may be without good works:" and he then goes on to shew that "faith without works is dead, and indeed and verily is no faith."

At p. 383. Mr. Daubeny says, "In what manner, and to what degree, divine grace and human endeavour cooperate in the great work of salvation; ." 4 M

ance. May Mr. Daubeny, and every one who wields the weapons of controversy, be enabled conscientiously to declare in the words of the same lady, "For fair criticism I have ever been truly thankful. For candid correction, from whatever quarter it came, I have always exhibited the most unquestionable proof of my regard, by adopting it. Nor can I call to mind any instance of improvement which has been suggested to me by which I have neglected to profit."

Mr. Daubeny, like Mr. Overton, finishes his volume with a recapitulatory conclusion, designed to prove his favourite hypothesis, that our articles will not admit of a calvinistic interpretation; and that every tenet peculiarly calvinistic was, not only not established, but designedly excluded, by our reformers. Had Mr. Daubeny been disposed, after the example of the excellent Bishop Hall, whom he professes so much to admire, instead of Occupying ground so very untenable, to adopt a via media between the extremes of party, he would have been much more likely to promote "so fair an accommodation of the different opinions as might content both parts and procure happy accord." We observe in this, as well as in Mr. Daubeny's second chapter, (to our review of which, in the number of the Christian Observer for July last, we would refer our readers) that many historical facts are very erroneously stated, and that from some which are correctly given many very inaccurate inferences are drawn. That this will appear to be the case in its full extent to those who possess a familiar acquaintance with the writings of the old English divines and historians we are perfectly confident: and such only are qualified to act either as judges or as moderators in this controversy. We freely admit indeed the justice of some parts of Mr. D.'s defence, but we should deviate very far from the character of impartial criticism were we to overlook the "false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations," which abound in his present publication.

Mr. Daubeny (p. 397) is much dissatisfied with Mr. Overton for considering Mosheim, as an historian intitled to credit, in his assertions respecting the theological opinions of the English reformers. It is observable, however, that Mr. Daubeny endea

vours to obviate the impression to which the assertions of 'Mosheim* respecting the prevalence of Calvinism in the reign of Edward VI, naturally lead, chiefly by an appeal to Collier and Heylin, two historians who are so notoriously the advocates of a party, that no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from their writ ings. (See the Christian Observer for July last, p. 428 and 429.)

Relying on these dubious authori ties, Mr. Daubeny asserts that Calvin's offer of assistance in carrying on the English reformation was "happily refused by Cranmer:" and yet it is remarkable, that the same Heyin admits, though very unwillingly, in another place, that "Cranmer, Ridley, and the rest of the English bishops, resolved that they would give Calvin no offence;" and that, in consequence of Calvin's interposition, the English liturgy underwent a review and some material alterations. "The first liturgy," he adds,

* Mosheim's words are, "that after the death of HENRY, the universities, the schools, and the churches, became the oracles of Calvinism; and that when it was proposed, in Edward the Sixth's reign, to give a fixed and stable turn to the doctrine and discipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the theological system there estadered the public rule of faith in England." blished by Calvin was adopted, and renThat the doctrines of the Church of England were deemed, by many of the reformers themselves, to be not at variance with Calvin's Institutes might easily be shewn. A remarkable testimony to this effect will be found in Fox's detail of the examination of the martyr Philpot, the first Protestant Archdeacon of Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. "Which of

you all," said he to his Popish judges, "is minister of Geneva?"-"I am sure you able to answer Calvin's Institutions, who is blaspheme that godly man and that godly church, where he is minister, as it is your churches condition, when you cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them with blasphemies and false reports: for in the matter of predestination he (Calvin) is in no other opinion than all the doctors of the church be, agreeing with the scriptures." On another examination he said,

I allow the Church of Geneva and the doctrine of the same; for it is Una, Cathotrine which the apostles did preach: and lica, et Apostolica, and doth follow the docthe doctrine taught and preached in King Edward's days was also according to the same." (Fox, Volume III. see Philpot's Examinations.)

was discontinued, and the second superinduced upon it, after this review, to give satisfaction unto Calvin's cavils." (Heylin's Hist. of the Presbit. p. 204, 207.) From Calvin's letters to the protector Somerset it appears, that his objections to the first liturgy arose from its retaining prayers for the dead, the use of the chrism, extreme unction, and other Popish superstitions; rather than to any points of doctrine connected with Mr. Daubeny's present investigation: and the event shews that attention was paid to Calvin's remarks. We know of no evidence to prove that the objections made by Calvin to our liturgy, after it was reviewed and altered, were levelled at any of the doctrines asserted or implied in it: whilst it appears that Calvin's two most intimate friends and followers, Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, who were brought to England by Cranmer for the furtherance of our reformation, approved the doctrines of the liturgy. When Calvin said of it that he saw there multas tolerabiles ineptias, he evidently referred, as appears from a careful perusal of his letters, to some unessential articles of a ceremonial nature with which he was not satisfied. Calvin's offer of assistance appears from one of his letters to Cranmer, to have been at the request and instigation of the archbishop, who constantly kept up a friendly communication with him on all points connected with the reformation. Our reformers, at the same time, were certainly not disposed to follow Calvin, or any other human authority, implicitly. They drew their doctrines from the scriptures. These things, however, sufficiently shew the estimation in which Calvin was held by them.

At p. 400, Mr. Daubeny strongly objects to the notion which Mr. O verton supports, by the authorities of Bishop Carleton and Dr. Ward, that

Calvin dispatched into England one Nicholas with letters to the Duke of Somerset, and likewise to the king: to whom he presented also, at the same time, his Book of Commentaries upon Esay and the Canonical Epistles, which he had dedicat ed to him. Both the king's council, and the king himself, were much pleased and satisfied with this message, and the archbishop told Nicholas, "that Calvin could do nothing more profitable to the church than to write often to the king," (Strype's Cranmer, p. 413.)

our reformers were attached to the works of St. Austin. That they did not designedly oppose or exclude the tenets of that father may be fairly presumed. There is no evidence whatever, either in the public or private. writings of the reformers, that any of them disavowed St. Austin's views of doctrine, although his writings were constantly appealed to, and much jealousy naturally prevailed with respect to any doctrinal innovation or error. Had our reformers designed to exclude his system, they must have thought it necessary, as they so frequently quoted his works, to mention them with cautions and qualifications. But nothing of this kind is to be found in their writings. Bishop Ridley seems to have expressed the general sentiments of his brethren and co-adjutors respecting St. Austin, when speaking of him he says, "of whose learning and estimation I need not to speak; for all the church of Christ both hath, and ever hath had him for a man of most singular learning, wit, and diligence, both in setting forth the true doctrine of Christ's religion, and also in the defence of the same against heretics." (Ridley against Transubstantiation.)

It is not a little extraordinary, that any one who wishes to maintain a character for impartiality, should be found hardy enough to affirm, after comparing King Edward's catechism with the articles of 1552, or that of Dr. Nowell with those of 1562, that the calvinistic system was not even tolerated by those public documents. Indeed, by the singular oversight which Mr. Daubeny has committed at p. 112, and which is repeated at p. 407, the arguments he has employed respecting Nowell's Catechism do all very undesignedly tend to prove the prevalence of calvinistic opinions, at those periods of time, and amongst those very reformers, whom he is naturally the most anxious to vindicate from such an imputation. His mistake, which we have already fully point. ed out, (Christ. Obs. for July, p. 432) necessarily invalidates most, if not all, of what he has said in order to prove the incompatibility of Calvinism with our public formularies.

At p. 408 Mr. Daubeny observes, that though the names of Luther and Zuingle are introduced into the Apology for the English church by Bishop Jewell, yet the name of Calvin does