certain numbers of the Christian Observer for the year 1804; and which the writer of the advertisement has obtained leave to lay before the public in its present form.'

By the nature of this republication, the Candid Examiner, it is evident, renounces all claim to the courtesies which are due from us to our brethren of the same profession. His performance is tendered to our examination in the same manner as the work of any other writer; and it challenges our notice by this additional pretension, that having discharged its original and ordinary office, it is thought of importance enough to exert its operations beyond the sphere of the readers of that miscellany in which it first appeared, and to impart the benefits of instructive criticism to the public at large.

We do not ourselves make any professions of infallibility in our critical decisions: and the same, no doubt, is true of the principles of all our competitors. We do not therefore think that we are to be withholden from delivering our unbiassed judgment respecting the present performance, by any considerations of the quarter from which it proceeds. It may indeed be said, 'Who shall decide when doctors disagree?' But in those parts of his work in which our sentiments accord with those of the reviewer of Mr. Daubeny, our additional suffrage may perhaps have some weight with that learned gentleman and with the public; and in those where we differ it cannot be amiss that, if the 'bane' proceeds from one critical journal, the antidote' should issue from another.

Besides, did we leave this work unnoticed, we are persuaded that we should not give satisfaction to its author, and might run the hazard also of incurring from him the imputation which is contained in his first paragraph: We cannot view these theological conflicts with the cold apathy of some of our critical competitors.' We shall proceed therefore to give an account of the Candid Examination:' and we trust that from this account there will not be any just reason to apply to us the censure which the writer has delivered in the remainder of the above sentence: Still less do we find ourselves disposed, after the example of others, furiously to rush into the combat as the bigoted upholders of a party.'

From a comparison of the judgment which is given in this publication respecting the writings of Mr. Overton and Mr. Daubeny, we feel no hesitation (if the authors in this controversy may be arranged in two antagonist divisions) in placing the Candid Examiner among the ranks of the Overtonians. As such therefore we have no difficulty in stating that he is the most respectable of the writers on that side of the controversy which have yet come before us. In delivering this opinion. we are influenced by a regard conjointly to his experience

and learning on the matters in dispute, to the soundness of his principles, to his talents as a reasoner, and to the moderation and good temper with which he expresses himself. If in some one or more of these particulars he be inferior to any other writer on that side, yet, in a collective view, we prefer him to them all; and especially, in all the qualifications which we have mentioned, we prefer him very far to the self-appointed head and leader of the band, Mr. Overton. This latter gentleman, with a great parade of quotations, did yet scarcely at all penetrate beneath the surface. His materials were all, as far as they respected the primitive writers of the church of England, exceedingly common-place and obvious, and such as had been repeatedly before the public, in the compilations of Messrs. Toplady, Bowman, &c. &c. The Candid Examiner, however, though, as we shall soon see, he travels too much in the beaten course, and has preserved more than a sufficient share of the old traditional mistakes and errors of his associates, has yet manifested a considerable acquaintance with the writings of the reformers, and the history of the religious opinions of their days. Hence it is that he has successfully exposed some errors of Mr. Daubeny, and has thrown out several remarks which may well deserve the attention of that gentleman.

The writer has shewn a commendable spirit of moderation, where he declares his persuasion that it was not in the design of the governors of our church to exclude either Calvinists or anti-Calvinists from her communion, or even from ministering at her altars; and we are well convinced that the documents of those times will bear him out in his position. If therefore this writer be correct (we insert this proviso, not that we have any other reason for it, but merely because we have not Mr. Daubeny's work at hand to satisfy ourselves of the fact) in stating the extent to which he affirms that Mr. Daubeny maintains the contrary opinion of the resigned exclusion of the Calvinist, he has our suffrage along with him, and, with whatever reluctance, we must declare our dissent from the learned and zealous archdeacon. We approve further of the feelings which impel him to wish that the names both of Calvinist and Arminian were mutually disclaimed by all ministers of the church of England, and the use of them mutually for borne. The distinction which he has laid down in another place between the Calvinist and puritan, is well founded. His remark respecting the use of the term 'second justification' when applied to our final acceptance with God, that 'in the age of the Reformation no one instance occurs of any protestant writer, who either directly asserts, or can fairly be interpreted to imply, such an use' (P. 88), is, though not strictly true, yet.

very nearly so: and the remarks adduced in support of the alleged necessary connexion between true justifying lively faith, according to the mind of our church, and the works of the Spirit, are, upon the whole, worthy of the consideration of Mr. Daubeny. In these points, we think, the labours of this writer are commendable. And, though we are of opinion that he has a very inadequate sense of the manifold literary enormities and vices of Mr. Overton, yet we account it something gained that he does not see in that author, like many of his adherents, all beauty and perfection; but has, though with a very soothing and gentle hand, intermixed and tempered the sound of the scourges directed to the shoulders of Mr. Daubeny, with a few friendly strictures upon the True Churchman ascertained.'

Yet, when we said that this author is preferred by us to all the other champions on that side in the debate, and that he has displayed qualifications for the controversy superior to those exhibited by the rest of them, it must not be supposed that any very high praise was intended, or that we look upon his accomplishments as at all, from their positive and internal excellence, requiring any extraordinary contribution of admiration or applause. He shines amid the twinkling of lesser fires. He may be accounted rich, because his brethren are poor. Perhaps no controversy can be named in which so much false reasoning, so many incorrect statements, palpable misrepresentations, ill-humoured and caustic insinuations and charges, have been poured out upon the public, as have appeared (we might say, we fear, on both sides; but as have appeared, we will say, more especially) on the Calvinistic side in this controversy, from its very beginning to the present day, upon the several occasions when the genius of Calvinism has revisited the earth, and in a more especial manner aroused his partizans to fresh warfare; which, if we make no error in our calculation, has beea, comet-like, after an interval of every. thirty years, or thereabout, since the era of the Reformation. Accordingly it will be found, that the Candid Examiner, notwithstanding the portion of praise which we have allowed him, has, where his remarks are new, too frequently only given birth to new errors; where they are old, he has, too much in the way of his brethren, handed them forward to the next comer with all or more than all the load of original imperfections on their heads. To his views and principles (especially those relating to the sacrament of baptism) we can by no means grant our unqualified approbation and with regard to that leading object of his work, the communicating to his readers an adequate judgment of the value of Mr. Daubeny's Vindicia Ecclesiæ Anglicana, we are compelled to say that in our opi

nion he has failed very materially; he has written, we fear, too much in the character of an adversary; the evil manners' of that author he has engraven on brass,' his 'virtues' are written, as it were, in 'water.'

We proceed to shew, in some particular instances, how this writer has exemplified in his practice several of the principal errors into which the Calvinistic disputants, especially as the controversy is now carrying on under the auspices of Mr. Overton, are so exceedingly prone to fall.

The first which we shall specify is in the misapplication and misuse of terms, and those such as respect the very essence and foundation of the controversy.

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 not once occur throughout the whole performance. But is Mr. Daubeny aware how very frequently the name of that reformer occurs in bishop Jewell's Defence of the Apology, and with what honour he is always mentioned?

His antagonist Harding is continually reviling the bishop as a disciple of Calvin (Jewell's Defence, P. 152, and elsewhere, edit. 1611) and the English protestants at large, under the title of Calvinists. (Ib. P. 25, and elsewhere.) The bishop never disavows the charge, and he sometimes defends Calvin in terms of high respect. "Touching Mr. Calvin, it is great wrong untruly to report so reverend father, and so worthy an ornament of the church of God, &c." P. 106.

The remark of Mr. Daubeny, which is referred to in this passage, is in truth of no great value, and we do not wish to say a word in its defence. But, in lieu of it, we can help that gentleman to one which he will know well how to estimate, which the Candid Examiner will not despise, and of which we wonder greatly that it should be now to be produced for the first time (which we believe to be the case) in this controversy. Every one knows the importance of bishop Jewell's Apology. In some respects its authority, about the times when it was issued, was higher than that of the thirty-nine articles. It was tendered to the christian world as a complete and authoritative. draught of the principles of the reformed church of England. In its own words,- Exposuimus universam rationem religi onis nostræ, quid de Deo Patre, quid de ejus unico filio Jesu Christo, quid de Spiritu Sancto, quid de ecclesia, quid de sacramentis, quid de ministerio, quid de sacris scripturis, quid de cæremoniis, quid de omni parte persuasionis christianæ, sentiamus.** (Enchirid. Theolog. Vol. I. p. 339.). Yet not

Wee have declared at large unto thee the very whole maner of our religion, what our faith is of God the father, of his only sonne Jesus Christ, of the

withstanding these large and comprehensive expressions, 'the very whole manner of our religion,'' every part of Christian' belief,' we shall seek in it in vain for any doctrine of predestination. There is not a word in the whole book respecting election, predestination, or reprobation, excepting that, in P. 265 (Enchir. Theol.), where he is talking of the corruptions of the Romish church, a reference is made to Matth. c. 24, v. 24, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the elect.'-But all this is by the way.

wery

To return then to the Candid Examiner. Harding is continually reviling the bishop as a disciple of Calvin, and the English protestants at large under the title of Calvinists, and the bishop never disavows the charge.' Let us hear the bishop himself, in one of the places refered to by the Examiner (P. 23): And here he (Harding) reckoneth up by rote a many of names of his owne making, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists.' (Jewell, P. 198.) This surely may be interpreted, without a stretch, to be something not very unlike a disavowal of the name. And we could bring a great deal more to shew that Jewell's feelings might have been more truly expressed,' as wee have no religion but onelie Christes, so desire we to be called after the names of none but his, and as we bee, so to be named Christians.' But to let this pass; has the writer told us here all that he knows of the term Calvinist, as it was objected to the English protestants by Harding and many other Romanists? Whether he has or has not, it will behove us to be a little more explicit. What then, if, by the same rule, Cranmer might be proved to be a Calvinist? But that is a very small matter. What if, by the same rule, the learned and excellent Dr. Hey, in spite of himself, and, in Dr. Hey's judgment, all the church of England, in spite of themselves, might be shewn to be Calvinists? The Romanists and Lutherans,' says that valuable writer, would not deny, either that eating Christ's body is a commemoration, or a partaking of the benefits of a sacrifice; nor should WE CALVINISTS; but still, every thing between the precept "take, eat," and the obedience to it (including the reward or benefit), is human.' (Lect. in Divinity, Vol. 4, P. 339.) In the sense in which Dr. Hey has here used the term Calvinist (with reference to the doctrine of the sacrament, and to nothing else), in this very sense and in no other, in reference to this very doctrine of the sacrament and nothing else, was that term applied by Harding and the other Romish writers, in the times of Jewell, to the English protestants. What,

Holy Ghost, of the church, of the sacraments, of the ministerie, of the scriptures, or ceremonies, and of every part of christian beleefe,” Jewell's Works, P.6 14.