upon these points, without their other abfurdities were brought forth, from the Eaftern philofophy, by a perfon of high ftation, and of orthodox faith, and put into a fyftematic form, for the refutation of an acknowledged and dangerous error. Yet ftill there was not a general adoption of the novel doctrine of Ab. folute Decrees. Almoft the whole body of Chriftians adhered to the opinions concerning predeftination and grace, which had prevailed, without interruption, for more than four centuries; and the fubject was scarcely difcuffed in the next four hundred years*. About the middle of the ninth century, Gotefchalc + brought Auguftine again into notice, but gave fo much offence, that he was degraded from the priesthood, publicly whipped in the prefence of Charles the Bald, king of France, and committed to prifon for the reft of his life. His doctrines were condemned in two councils, and though the proceedings against him were unjuftifiable, they declare the fentiments of the Church at this period. In the darker ages, which fucceeded, lived the Schoolmen. The earliest of them ftrongly inclined to the opinions of Auguftine; and the latter did not entirely agree with each other upon predestination, yet it does not appear, that any of them denied freedom of will, or were advocates for abfolute and irrefpective decrees. Nearer to the Reformation, we find the Dominicans and Auguftines contending for the irrefiftibility of divine grace and unconditional election, while the Franciscans and Jefuits maintained the oppofite opinions. At the period immediately preceding the Reformation, the church of Rome inculcated the doctrine of human merit; and, with this view, grace and election were reprefented as the reward of forefeen voluntary good works in each individual. This tenet was oppofed by Luther and Melancthon, who contended, that by the Gofpel covenant the grace of God is gratuitoufly beftowed upon all believers, and that the whole fyftem of congruous and condign merit, which had fo long difgraced the Chriftian church, ought to be abandoned as unfounded and mischievous. two eminent reformers, difcouraged all fpeculation concerning the counfels of God, beyond what is clearly revealed; and when their Creed was fully fettled, they unequivocally maintained the doctrines of univerfal grace, and the liberty of the human will

Thefe

author, antient or modern, in whofe works there are so many contradictions and inconfiftencies as in thofe of Auguftine."

In this interval lived Pope Gregory the Great, no advocate for abfolute decrees. Hincmar, page 35. The fame author also says, that Leo the Great fupported the doctrine of univerfal redemption." P. 274.

+"Gotefchalcus hujus iniqua fabulationis refufcitator. Hincmar, p. 101."

to accept or rejeft the offered means of Salvation. The doctrines of Auguftine were revived by Calvin: his acuteness, confidence, and zeal, foon made them the fource of mach disention in Germany, France, and Switzerland.

"Such were the origin and progrefs of what are now called Calvinistic opinions, from the days of the Apoftles to the zra of the reformation,-from Simon Magus to the reformer of Geneva. Let us now turn to our own Church.

"The difinétions of the different fects of Proteftantifm were little regarded in this kingdom at the time of the reformation. The ftruggle was, whether popery or proteftantifm fhould prevail; our reformers exerted their ftrength to abolish popish corruptions; but did not favour this or that leader of the reformation in other countries: Bucer and Martyr, who were fuppofed to have adopted the opinions of Calvin, were invited into England, and placed as profeffors of divinity, the former at Cambridge, the latter at Oxford. On the other hand, Cranmer declined the offered affiftance of Calvin, and confulted Melanéthon t, who certainly did not agree with Calvin; and our Articles more nearly coincide with the Augsbourg Confeffion, which is decidedly Anti-Calvinistic, than with any other public declaration of faith. The mischiefs arifing to the Proteftant caufe, from certain opinions, unconnected with Popery, were fresh before the eyes of our reformers; and operated powerfully on them; yet, without diffembling or fhrinking, they were content to exprefs doctrines, in oppofition to the peculiarities of Calvin, in mild and general terms, and frequently in the very language of Scripture. Thus all offence and difpute upon points of this nature were avoided, till Popery was confidered as no longer formidable. Soon after the reformation was accom, plifhed, fome of our Divines, who had taken refuge at Geneva during queen Mary's perfecution, began to avow and maintain the doctrines of Calvin, and to urge the neceffity of a change in our public formularies. Thefe difcuffions were carried on with fome warmth in Elizabeth's reign; but her fpirit prevented any ferious inconvenience. In the feeble reign of her succeffor, the opinions of Calvin made confiderable progrefs, and naturally weakened fubordination, to regal authority; and the injudicious conduct of Charles the Firft gave full fcope for the operation of thofe principles, which terminated in the tragical death of that unfortunate Monarch, and the temporary fubverfion, of our

"Bucer died in 1551, the year before our 42 Articles were drawn up, which were the bafis of our prefent 39 Articles." + Melancthon alfo was invited into England before March 1534, and repeatedly afterwards, but he did not come. "Heylin's Quinq. Hift. [III. 19. p. 609.]”

Civil and Ecclefiaftical Conftitution. Upon the return of Charles the Second, the ufe of the Liturgy, which had been many years laid afide, was reftored with improvements of no Calvinistic tendency; and it has remained in that ftate to the present time. The Calvinifts had attempted clandeftinely to procure fome apparent authority to their opinions, by means of the Lambeth Articles* towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, and more publickly in the Hampton Court Conference t, in the beginning of the reign of James the Firft; and again at the Savoy Conference, foon after the restoration of Charles the Second. Thefe repeated attempts to introduce the principles. of Calvin, into our public Formularies, inconteftably prove, that they were not framed according to the fyftem of that reformer; and what paffed upon thofe occafions plainly fhews, that the body of the clergy and nation, was, at all thofe different periods, decidedly Anti-Calviniftic. The early Calvinifts of this country thus failed in their endeavours to obtain a change in our Public Formularies. Hence their more modern fucceffors, defpairing of alteration, adopt a different mode of proceeding, and boldly contend, that the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies, are already Calviniftic, and admit of no other interpretation ‡."

We fhall now proceed, according to the propofed plan, with a view of the doctrines examined in the first chapter of the REFUTATION.

I. ORIGINAL SIN, FREE WILL, AND THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,

A LIST of the paffages quoted from the works of CALVIN on these points, by the Bishop of Lincoln §.

INSTITUTES. I. 15.8. [Refut. of Calv. p. 527.] III. 23. 4. [540.] In Rom. VI. 6. and VII. 14. [540.] DE OCC. DEI PROVID. p. 736. and 738, [558.]

INSTITUT. I. 15. 8. [p. 527. II. 2. 1. [528] II. 3. 9. 10. [529.] II. 4. 1. 8. [51] In Rom. VII. 14. [546.] VIII. 7. [547.]

INSTITUT. I. 18. 2. [528.] II. 3. 10. [530.] In Rom. VIII.6. [546.] XI. 32. [553.]

"On the other hand, our Articles are fometimes called Arminian; which is manifeftly abfurd, as they were drawn up in their prefent form in 1562, and Arminius was born in 1560. The fame obfervation will apply to our Liturgy and Homilies."

Many of thefe citations, like thofe from the Fathers, relate to more than one of Calvin's tenets. They are, however, generally placed only under the more prominent head.

A LIST of the quotations from the ancient Fathers of the Chriftian Church, for the purpose of proving, that the earliest HERETICS entertained opinions greatly resembling the peculiar tenets of CALVINISM is omitted.

Thefe citations principally relate to faith and good works ; or to election and reprobation. The authors are, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerufalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzum,-Jerome and Theodoret. We fhall mention them here, once for all, and muft refer thofe readers, who are defirous of examining the resemblances between the ancient herefies of Saturninus, Bafilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, and the peculiar tenets of Calvin, to the original REFUTATION. Their labour

will be pleafingly rewarded, and they may feel encouraged to hope, that in these degenerate days of herefy and schism, the true Church of Chrift will be able to meet the attacks of its enemies, with as much temper, energy, and fuccefs, as the churchmen of old repelled the efforts of the Heretics and Schifmatics, who were their contemporaries..

A LIST of the Quotations from the ancient Fathers of the Chriftian Church, in chronological order, for the purpose of proving, that they maintained doctrines in direct oppo. fition to the peculiar tenets of Calvin.

"ORIGINAL SIN. Serms. p. 412. in the Refut. of Calv. Auguftine 443.

FREE WILL. IGNATIUS. p. 288. JUSTIN MARTYR 290, 291, 292, 294,. 295, 297, 299. TATIAN 300. IRENEUS 302, 304, 307, 309. CLEM. ALEX. 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318. TERTULL. 318, 319, 320. ORIG. 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 328, 329, 332, 334, 336, 338, 339. CYPRIAN 340, 341. EUSEBIUS 343. ATHANASIUS 344. CYRIL JER. 346, 347, 351, 353. HILARY 355, 358, 359, 360, 361, 363, 364. EPIPHANIUS 364, 365. BASIL 365, 366, 367, 368, 369. GREG. NAZ. 371, GRIG. NYSS. 375. ST. AMBROSE 376, 379, 381. JEROME 384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394,-400, 404, 408, 409, 410, 411. AUGUSTIN. 412, 415, 416, 417, 419, 422, 423, 430, 431, 433, 437, 444, 445, 446, 448. CHRYSOST. 450, 452, 455, 456, 457, 458, 462, 467, 470, 476, 477, 47, 481, 482, 487, 488, 497, 501. THEODORET 502, 503, 506, and 507.

OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. IRENEUS 303. HILARY 359. AMBROSE 380, 381, 382. JEROME 387, 388, 404, 405. AUGUST. 417, 420, 422, 430, 433, 448. CHRYSOST. 450, 452, 463, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 486, 488, 489,-494,. THEODOR. 507."

After thefe LISTS, which may convey fome notion

of

of the literary toils of this indefatigable defender of our Church's doctrines, it would have pleafed both the critics and their readers, if space could have been allowed in our limited work, for a portion of the quotations themfelves, with the addition of the original text. We cannot but hope to fee the Greek and Latin of these valuable and curious extracts, on pages oppofite to the tranflations, for the fervice of thofe, who may not be in poffeffion of a Bibliotheca Patrum, in a future edition of this REFUThe fecond is now before us; and we regret to find it lefs correctly printed than the former.

TATION.

We fhall now lay before our readers the contents of the Bishop's firft chapter, which explains the nature of original fin; of free-will, and of the operation of the Holy Spirit; according to the tenets of the Church of England. His Lordship begins with ftating, that

"It is evident from the account given by Mofes, that a confiderable change took place in the minds of our first parents immediately after they had tranfgreffed the prohibitory command of God; but the concifenefs of the facred hiftorian has led to a variety of opinions refpecting the effects of Adam's disobedi ence on himself and his pofterity. The heart, the paffions, the will, the understanding, and indeed all the faculties and powers of Adam, were greatly corrupted by this violation, and the fin of our first parent has caufed every individual defcended from him, to be born imperfect and depraved, their propenfity to wickedness as univerfal in extent as powerful in effect, yet all diftinction between right and wrong was not obliterated, nor was every good affection eradicated. The general approbation of virtue and deteftation of vice, prove, that the moral fense was not annihilated † ; and that man did not become by the fall a mass of pollution, incapable of amendment, or of discharging, by his natural powers, any part of his duty as a dependent rational being. The gofpel fcheme of redemption, indeed, far from rejecting all co-operation of man, requires human exertions as indifpenfably neceffary for obtaining the effectual affistance of the Holy Spirit.”

The Bishop then refers to the arguments in his Elements of Christian Theology, respecting the doctrine of the general corruption in human nature; and confirms them by a particular reference to the Old and New Teftament,

"The book of Genefis, ftates, that The Lord had refpect

*"Gen, c. 7. v, 27."

"Bishop Butler, Anal. of Human Nat, p, 81, and 135.”

unto