PRETYMAN’S CHARGE TO 
and disproved the positions of Mr. O., 
both as they respect the confessions of 
the established church, and the doctrine 
advanced in “the Guide.” 
In perusing this work, such enquiries 
as the following repeatedly suggested 
themselves to our minds :—If the sense 
of these articles, framed for the express 
purpose of preserving uniformity of opi- 
nion, be so obscure as this controversy 
represents it: if they, who are teachers 
in Israel, are thus divided in their opi- 
nion upon the doctrines to which they 
have respectively subscribed their assent 
as the doctrines declared by the church 
to be those of scripture, what good 
purpose do these articles answer? If 
after subscribing them, every one is at 
liberty to decide for himself respecting 
Aut. LXV. A Charge delivered to the 
THE CLERGY OF LINCOLN. 215 
the sense they bear, will not diversity of 
sentiment be likely to prevail as much 
as it could do, were the scriptures them- 
selves proposed as the only formulary to 
which assent should be required? Are 
those articles of faith worth retaining, 
which demand such elaborate works of 
explanation, and now stand in need of 
some authoritative declaration to deter 
mine the sense in which they ought to 
be understood? Many of our readers 
also may have felt the same or similar 
difficulties upon this subject. If they 
wish for a satisfactory solution of them, 
we cannot recommend any other means 
more effectual than a diligent perusal of 
the Confessional, and the letters pub- 
lished upon the subject of subscription 
by the late Dr. Jebb. 
Clergy of the Diocese of Lincoln, at the 
Triennial Visitation of that Diocese in May and June 1803. By George PratyMany 
D.D. F.R.S. Lord Bishop of Lincoln. 
THE subject of this charge is similar 
to that of the preceding work. His 
Lordship first attempts to prove that 
Calvinism is not agreeable to scripture, 
and then that the church of England is 
not Calvinistic. We shall select what 
the right reverend author observes con- 
cerning the homilies: 
«« But the most extraordinary circumstance 
of a negative kind remains to be noticed 
with respect to the homilies; to which so 
confident an appeal has lately been made by 
certain writers, that I request your particular 
tention to the fact I am going to state. 
ot one of the peculiar doctrines of Cal- 
vinism is mentioned in either of the two 
books of homilies. The word predestination 
does not occur from the beginning to the end 
of the homilies. The word election occurs 
enly once, and then it is not used in the 
Calvinistic sense. ‘The word reprobation 
does not occur at all. Nothing is said of 
Absolute Decrees, Partial Redemption, Per- 
severance, or Irresistible Grace. You all 
know that the former of these books was 
published in the reign of Edward the Sixth, 
and the latter in the beginning of queen 
Elizabeth’s reign, and that both are pro- 
nounced by our thirty-fifth article to ‘‘ con- 
tain a godly and wholsome doctrine, and 
necessary for these times ;” that is, for the 
times in which they were published. If our 
reat reformers, the authors of these homi- 
ies, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Jewell, 
had themselves, as is sometimes pretended, 
held Calvinistic opinions, is it to be believed 
that they would have composed a set of ser- 
mons, to be used by the parochial clergy in 
their respective churches, for the avowed 
4to. pp. 26. 
urpose of establishing their congregations 
in a sound faith and a right practice, with- 
out even mentioning in them any one of 
these points? And let it be remembered, 
that the subjects of many of the homilies 
are immediately connected with the Cal- 
vinistic system, such as Original Sin, the 
Salvation of Mankind, Faith, Good Works, 
declining from God, the Nativity, the Pas- 
sion, the Resurrection, the Descent of the 
Holy Ghost, the Grace of God, and Re- 
pentance. 
«¢ But though the homilies contain nei- 
ther any discussion in support of the Cal- 
vinistic doctrines, nor any direct refutation 
of them, there is a great number of inci 
dental passages which plainly shew that the 
authors were not Calvinists. The little no- 
tice taken of these points proves, that when 
the homilies were written and published, 
Calvinistic opinions had made very little pro- 
gress in England. For, if they had been 
generally prevalent, or even if they had been 
embraced by any considerable number of 
pesionés the framers of the homilies would 
ave thought it ‘ necessary for the times’ 
to have entered more fully into these sub- 
jects, and to have offered a confutation of 
what they manifestly considered as erroneous 
doctrines: they wouid have exposed the 
new errors of Calvinism in the same manner 
as they have exposed the old errors of popery. 
The fact is, that the introduction of Cal- 
vinism, or rather, its prevalence in any con-~ 
siderable degree, was subsequent to the be- 
ginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign, when. 
all our public formularies, our articles, our 
liturgy, and our homilies, were settled as 
they now are, with the exception of a few 
alterations and additions to the liturgy, not 
in the ‘least affecting its general spirit and 
P4 
