therefore, the fact of the imputation of this name, in such a meaning, can have to do in the present controversy, respecting those matters which did not, till several years afterwards, obtain the name of the Calvinistic paints, we are unable to perceive. For any such purpose, there is not any name in the whole vocabulary, whether of Romish or Protestant appellations of reproach, which it would not as well have suited the argument of the Examiner to have shewn applied to Jewell and his contemporaries. The author, therefore, has done here not merely nothing, but what is worse than nothing; for he has done that which is very well calculated to mislead and to deceive.

We have a quarrel also, not very unlike the above, against his use of the names Arminius and Arminian in pages 68 and 69, as gathered from a passage in bishop Hall, and another in Isaac Walton. But we must forbear; lest our • candid examination' should grow to be almost as large as the Examiner's, and it should become necessary for us to obtain leave to lay it before the public in another form.'

Instead of our argument, we shall however tell a short story, which will point the minds of our readers to the same moral to which it would have been the object of our argument to have drawn them.

The brazen mouths' of their adversaries so far prevailed, that the name of Arminian stood, for many years, for nothing better than a strange compound of popery and Socinianism. Mr. Bull (afterwards the far-famed bishop of St. David's) informs us, that his family suffered temporal losses, and, what grieved him a great deal more, the efficacy of his ministerial labours was very much impaired, by the charges of Socinianism which were reiterated against him by his Calvinistical opponents. (Apolog. pro Harmon. P. 10.) Yet this was the man who had then composed (Ibid. p. 8), and did soon after publish, that illustrious Defence of the Nicene Creed, which has ever since been regarded as the best vindication of the Catholic faith which modern times have produced.

To go on from terms and single phrases; the next fault with which we have to tax the Examiner is, that he does not always rightly understand and interpret the passages of our ancient writers, upon which he erects his arguments. There are several reasons which give birth to frequent repetitions of this blemish among the writers in this controversy. A very copious source of them exists in the want of familiarity with our ancient idioms, and in an ignorance or inconsideration of the changes which have taken place in the English phraseology. We have seen, for instance, in two recent Calvin

istical writers, with every appearance too of its having been borrowed from a third, an argument urged with great gravity, to fix upon a work the doctrine of idolatrous worship, which would equally as well prove that every man who is married in one of our churches is guilty of that sin, and which would run us into hazard of the same imputation when we speak, after the fashion of one of our universities, of the rightworshipful the vice-chancellor, or the worshipful the mayor.' Hooker says, "All receive not the grace of God which receive the sacrament of his grace." (Book v. c. 57.) No author is more express as to the efficacy of the sacraments, and the necessity of our using them, than he is; but, by comparing different parts of his works together, it will appear, that he did not extend their virtue in that unlimited and indiscriminate manner which Mr. Daubeny appears to do in this chapter. Speaking, as he generally does, in the name of real believers, he says, "Baptism both declareth and maketh us Christians. In which respect we justly hold it to be the door of our actual entrance into God's house, the first apparent beginning of life; a seal, perhaps, to the grace of elec tion before received; but to our sanctification here, a step that hath not any before it." And, in the margin, quotes, in confirmation of the foregoing phrase in italics," He which is not a Christian before he come to receive baptism, cannot be made a christian by baptism; which is only the seal of the grace of God before received." Hooker here evidently speaks in a more Calvinistic strain than many will approve of; but be that as it may, the word perhaps in the text, and the passage quoted in the margin, evidently shew that he did not consider grace as necessarily annexed to the reception of baptism. We are as fully sensible as Mr. Daubeny can be of the holy efficacy of the baptismal sacrament, and of its important connexion with the scheme of redemp tion; much more so, in leed, than our present limits will allow us to explain; but we object to some of Mr. Daubeny's expressions, because we are convinced that he carries, the authorities from which he quotes into more general conclusions than their known principles will warrant.' P. 78.

It is remarkable that the Candid Examiner should find words to tell us that Hooker here evidently speaks in a more Calvinistic strain than many will approve of,' in reference to certain expressions taken from a passage which is perhaps the one which very many inquirers would pitch upon as the most anti-calvinistical in the whole Eclesiastical Polity. Let us lay the passage more at large before our readers; and then let them judge whether the context, and train of argument, might not have led this writer to suspect some mistake in his interpretation. It constitutes (for in the Candid Examination the reference is forgotten to be inserted) a part of the 60th section of the fifth book.

CRIT. REV. Vol. 5. June, 1805.

M

There are that elevate too much the ordinary and immediate means of life, relying wholly on the bare conceit of that eternal election, which notwithstanding includeth a subordination of means, without which we are not actually brought to enjoy what God secretly did intend; and therefore to build upon God's election, if we keep not ourselves to the ways which he hath appointed for men to walk in, is but a self-deceiving vanity. When the apostle saw men called to the participation of Jesus Christ, after the gospel of God embraced and the sacrament of life received, he feareth not then to put them in the number of elect saints; he then accounteth them delivered from death, and clean purged from all sin. Till then, notwithstanding their preordina tion unto life, which none could know of saving God, what were they, in the apostle's own account, but children of wrath, as well as others, plain aliens, altogether without hope; strangers, utterly without God in this present world? So that by sacraments, and other sensible tokens of grace, we may boldly gather, that he whose mercy vouchsafeth now to bestow the means, hath also long sithence intended us that whereunto they lead. But let us never think it safe to presume of our own last end by bare conjectural collections of his first intent and purpose, the means failing that should come between. Predestination bringeth not to life without the grace of external vocation, wherein our baptism is implied. For as we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we christian men in the eye of the church of God but by new birth; nor according to the manifest ordinary course of divine dispensation new-born, but by that baptism which both. declareth and maketh us christians. In which respect, we justly 'hold it to be the door of our actual entrance into God's house, the first apparent beginning of life, a seal perhaps to the gracef of election before received; but to our sanctification here, a step that hath not any before it. There were of the old Valentinian heretics which had knowledge in such admiration, that to it they as cribed all, and so despised the sacraments of Christ, pretending that as ignorance had made us subject to all misery, so the full redemption of the inward man, and the work of our restoration, must needs belong unto knowledge only. They draw very near unto this error, who, fixing wholly their minds on the known necessity of faith, imagine that nothing but faith is necessary for the attainment of all grace. Yet is it a branch of belief, that sacraments are in their place no less required than belief itself.' (Vol. II. P. 247-9. 8vo edit.)

It is a new thing, we presume, to hear of Hooker confirming

We are almost ashamed of making an observation so obvious, but it will exemplify a remark which we have just made, to note that this word is not here used as we now-a-days apply it, for to extol, but for its opposite, to detract from, to depreciate. REV.

+T. C. lib. 3. p. 194. He which is not a Christian before he come to re. ceive baptism, cannot be made a Christian by baptism; which is only the seal of the grace of God before received.'

his phrases or his sentiments by reference to the redoubted puritan, T. C. (Thomas Cartwright.) Before we come to consider the word 'perhaps', let us compare with Hooker one or two more particles of this short extract from Cartwright, for the sake of seeing in how beautiful a manner they accord with, and confirm each other.-T. C. He which is not a christian before, cannot be made a christian by baptism?' Hooker, we are not new born, but by that baptism which both declareth and maketh us christians.' Again: T. C. 'which is only the seal of the grace of God before received.' Hooker: the chiefest force and virtue of sacraments consisteth in that they are; first, as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof; and secondly, as means conditional which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth grace.' (Vol. II. P. 238.) Again: we take not baptism: nor the eucharist, for bare resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither for naked signs and testimonials assuring us of grace received before, but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual, whereby God, when we take the sacraments, delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify.' (Ibid. P. 240.) The brevity of the writer's expressions with regard to the word perhaps, is such, that even with the aid of his italics, and the reference to the margin, we are not enabled to state with precision how he misunderstands and misinterprets Hooker, but can only state that from them all together, and from his conclusion ('that he did not consider grace as necessarily annexed to the reception of baptism'), he does misunderstand him. For this is Hooker's argument: 'We hold baptism to be the door of our actual entrance into the house of God, we call it the first apparent and visible beginning of life; it may perhaps be called (as you denominate it) a seal to the grace of election before received; let it be granted that the grace of election cometh first, baptism is the seal to ratify and convey it to us: but however this may be, whatever were the previous intentions of God, they were secret to us and to all men; whatever was our pre-ordination unto life, none could know of it saving God, till the hour came in which we were baptized, an hour which, whatever may be said of its preceding or following after election, does evidently constitute the first step in the initiation into that which is equally necessary to salvation as our election is, namely our sanctification.' This is the meaning of Hooker, and in what way it can operate to separate grace and baptism we do not understand. If it had any such operation it would not be the doctrine of Hooker, who maintains (as we believe Mr.

Daubeny does) a necessary connection between them, not a physical, but a moral necessity: or, as he expresses it, 'where the signs and sacraments of God's grace are not either through contempt unreceived, or received with contempt, wè are not to doubt but that they really give what they promise, and are what they signify.' (B. 5. Sect. 57. P. 239-240.)

In an argument depending upon historical evidence so 'much as that does which is now at issue between those who 'maintain and those who deny the Calvinism of the principles of the early ornaments of our reformed church, it is of very great importance that the evidence which is brought forward should be as fair and legitimate as can possibly be found. It is certain that without this precaution we must be tossed about without end in a sea of controversy. We approve therefore of the zeal with which the Candid Examiner enjoins upón Mr. Daubeny the necessity of a scrupulous regard to the accuracy of his quotations. And yet we are not sure that the Examiner is himself always so careful in his own practice in this matter, as might have been wished for; nor that he is quite free from that fault which he imputes without much reserve to Mr. Daubeny. It is remarkable' (says he, in P. 34) that these very divines' (meaning the deputies of James at the synod of Dórt) appeal to the writings of St. Augustine, Melancthon, Calvin, Bullinger, and even Paræus, together with the church of England, as holding similar tenets with their own.' This, we do not deny, is all of it true; yet it is not the whole truth. After the name of Calvin, în "the original document (P. 190 of ours, which is the 'second edition), there follow the words in sundry places', thus of : Calvin in sundry places;' intimating, we doubt not, their knowledge, that there were other pieces of Calvin, as indeed there are, not only utterly irreconcileable with, but flatly contradictory to, the doctrine of universal redemption. It would therefore have pleased us better to have seen the words inserted in their proper order; more especially because Mr. Daubény has, in the very work which is the subject of this writer's animadversions, asserted that there is a glaring inconsistency in the works of the celebrated reformer, with regard to that tenet. (See Daub. Vindic. P. 456-7.) Again, in the same page:

but

In corrroboration of our opinion, that the assertion of universal redemption is not inconsistent with the holding of what are usually called the Calvinistic points, we would refer the reader to what is said of the celebrated Martinius, of the Lutheran church of Breme, who, though he held the doctrine of redemption in a sense nearly as extensive as that maintained by the remonstrants themselves, is nevertheless said by Dr. Balcanqual, in his letter