214 
precise ideas to the words he uses, may 
be comprehended in a few sentences.” 
P. 233. For ourselves, we confess, that 
we have long been fully persuaded, that 
however the articles of the church may 
appear to lean towards that moderate 
Calvinism which is professed by some 
in the present day, it is contrary both 
to historic fact and the clearest evidence, 
to attribute to the compilers of them 
those sentiments which J. Calvin and 
his disciples taught. The slightest com- 
parison between these articles, the li- 
turgy, the homilies, the private works 
of our first reformers, Cranmer, Ridley, 
Latimer, and Hooper, and the institures 
of Calvin, is sufficient to demonstrate 
the truth of this opinion: of this Mr. 
Overton himself seems to be convinced, 
as our readers will learn from the fol- 
lowing passage, which at the same time 
will afford a specimen of the superiority 
which Mr. Daubeny has over his op- 
ponent : 
«« We are at length arrived at the conclu- 
sion of this chapter, professing to ascertain 
the true sense of our articles, and the genuine 
doctrines of our reformers; which Mr. O. 
winds up by telling his readers, that nothing 
is further from his purpose, ‘ than to infer, 
from what has been advanced in this section, 
that the precise theological system of J. 
Calvin in all its parts, and to its full extent, 
was intended to be established in the thirty- 
nine articles.’ P. 93. The general object of 
Mr. O.’s publication, if I understand it, is 
to prove the articles of our church to be 
Calvinistic. This must be understood to 
mean, that they were constructed in con- 
formity with the tenets of J. Calvin. In 
page 85 of this section, Mr. O. told his 
readers, ‘that the large portion of the great 
body of the clergy of our church, who fa- 
voured Calvinistic sentiments, included the 
very men who thus formed and imposed these 
articles.’ A few pages after (p. g1) Mr. O. 
writes thus: * On all hands, therefore, does 
it thus unquestionably appear, how generally 
those (Calvinistic) sentiments were enter- 
tained by the founders of our church, which 
are now represented ‘as a curious conceit,” 
“a system of nonsense, &c." The senti- 
ments which in my writings were thus dis- 
gracefully characterized, related to the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of absolute and uncondi- 
tional decrees ; which the learned Jortin de- 
scribed, as ‘a religious system consisting of 
human creatures without liberty, doctrines 
without sense, faith without reason, and a 
God without mercy ;’ and which Dr. Balguy 
somewhere calls ‘a system of nonsense,’ 
because it endeavours, in contradiction to 
- the most decided language, to reconcile the 
absolute decrees of the Deity with the ac- 
THEOLOGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS. 
countableness of a rational being. Such, 
then, according to Mr. O.’s own statement, 
were the ‘sentiments entertained by the 
founders of our church ;’ for to such senti- 
ments alone did the observations of Drs. 
Jortin and Balguy apply; and the persons, 
according to Mr. O., who entertained these 
sentiments relative to absolute and uncon- 
ditional decrees, were the ‘ very men who 
framed and composed ouz,articles.” 
« From whick premises Mr. O.'s readers 
may be led to conclude, on his authority, 
that the articles of our church were meant 
to be decidedly Calvinistic. But in the page 
now before us we are told by Mr. O. that 
‘ the precise theological system of J. Calvin 
was not meant to be established in our ar- 
ticles.’ This is such backward and forward 
writing, as renders the meaning of the writer 
to me incomprehensible. After having la- 
boured through a whole chapter for the 
express purpose of proving that our reformers 
were decided Calvinists, and the articles 
framed by them of course Calvinistic; Mr. 
O. turns short on his readers, and tells them, 
by way of conclusion to this same chapter, 
that * the precise system of J. Calvin was 
not intended to be established in the articles." 
It would, therefore, I believe, be satisfactory 
to Mr. O's readers, and would certainly cut 
short the argument in this case, if Mr. O. 
would tell heen in plain unequivocal Jan- 
guage, what system of doctrine was meant 
to be established in our articles; without 
perplexing them with describing that doc- 
trine under a title in itself unscriptural, and 
to which he himself does not annex any 
precise and determinate idea. Instead of 
saying then, as Mr. O. does, that, ‘ our 
established forms do not teach directly se- 
veral doctrines contained in Calvin’s institu- 
tions,’ p. 93; from which ambiguous mode 
of writing his readers may conclude, that our 
established forms teach those doctrines ins» 
directly, and thus come prepared to swallow 
Calvinism in disguise; it would, have been 
to better purpose to have said plainly, what 
doctrines our established forms directly do 
teach. His readers then might have known, 
under what doctrines of our church the 
tenets of Calvinism were supposed to be 
comprehended; and, if intelligent readers, 
have been qualified to judge of the strength 
of the ground, on which such a supposition 
stood.” 
Mr. Daubeny is engaged in the vo- 
lume before us, not in vindicating the ar- 
ticles of the church from the charge of 
Calvinism, but his own work, entitled, 
«A Guide to the Church,” from the 
rude attacks of Mr. Overton. To follow 
him through the long course of his ar- 
gument, would needlessly occupy our 
pages, and be a wearisome and unpro- 
fitable task to ourselves and our readers. 
He has, in general, gained his purpose, 
~~ ——— 
