to be drawn from which circumftance evidently is, that the private fentiments of the composers of that fyftem must be Calvinistic. Should Mr. O. write an History of England, he would tell the fame story. Should an Anti-Calvinist write one, this fubject would be differently stated. Such contradictory evidence to an uninformed reader muft prove juft nothing; it could be confidered by him in no other light, than as the ipfe dixit opinion of writers of different perfuafions; that it was, in fact, faying what they thought of our Reformers, not what thofe Reformers thought for themfelves, which was what Mr. O. proposed to lay before his readers. It does not feem neceffary, therefore, that we should here stop to enquire into the fentiments of these different historians, on the fubject under confideration; fince their teftimony, if admitted, (which is by no means the cafe) would not furnish the proof requifite on this occafion. The evidence brought from the writings of our Re. formers to prove their private sentiments, the only proper evidence by which thofe fentiments were to be ascertained, is very partial. On this ground the reader has obferved Mr. O. fcarce venturing to enter. From the writings of CRANMER, Ridley, and LATIMER, authentic documents which would have spoken decidedly for their respective authors, not a fingle extract has been made; and from HOOPER one only has been brought forward, and that not the most unequivocal that might have been found.

From this partial and imperfect manner of handling his fubject, then, according to which (fo far as I have been capable of judging, and I wish to judge fairly) the author fets out with profeffing to do what he never attempts, and proceeds to maintain what he never proves; Mr. O., in conformity with his ufual ftile of writing, draws his unquestionable conclufions.

With refpect to the first of these conclusions, which maintains that our Reformers meant to eftablish all they have expreffed, there can be no difpute. The fecond which follows upon it must be equally admitted, namely, "That all who in any degree extenuate or evade the plain, literal, and full meaning of the Articles, do not teach them as they were first delivered by our Reformers." But to the charge fubjoined in the following unequivocal language,"this, in a very notorious degree, it has appeared in a former Chapter, is undeniably the conduct of our opponents;"-I, as an individual, moft decidedly object; and my appeal is to the intelligent reader. On the fubject of the plain, literal, and grammatical fense of our Articles, there seems to be no difference of opinion between Mr. O. and myself. But though we meet in our premises, we feparate in our conclufion. Mr. O. maintains the full, literal, and grammatical fenfe of the Articles, and reprobates all evafion; because he confiders the Calvinistic interpretation to be thereby effectually fecured. I fubscribe to the full, literal, and grammatical sense, for

the very oppofite reafon; because, according to the intent of the Declaration prefixed, (as it has been already proved) the Calvinistic interpretation, Calvinifts themselves being judges, is thereby effectually excluded. Thus are we arrived at length at the end of this Chapter; to which, on account of its containing the ftrength of Mr. O.'s cause, particular attention has been paid; by analyzing, in a degree, the materials of which it is compofed. This done, and I trust fairly, I refrain from delivering a verdict on the cafe; it being my wifh, as far as may be, to leave the scale of judgment in the hand of my reader.

"Quod verum curo et rago."

CHAPTER III.

An Examination whose Teaching most resembles that of our Church and her Reformers, in respect to the Use made of the peculiar Doctrines of the Gospel, and the Necessity of practical Christianity.

"HE fubject which Mr. O. has brought before

THE

his readers, begins here to contract itself. From the general examination of the Calvinistic doctrines, confidered as the doctrines intended to be established by our religious fyftem, Mr. O. now proceeds to the comparative examination of the teaching of those individuals, who are fupposed to differ in opinion from the Minifters, whose cause he advocates. Here then, at least, the subject before us begins to be perfonal. And however, in the original defign and opening of his publication, Mr. O. might confider himself as only vindicating the true Churchmanship of Ministers, whose characters, in his opinion, had been unjustly afperfed, and defending the genuine doctrines of our Church; yet, from the commencement of this Chapter, he must be con fidered, by others, as having changed his ground,

and affumed a character foreign to the title under which he had chofen to appear before the world. Mr. O.'s publication was ushered in with a formal complaint against "aggreffors, who have attacked perfonally, and by name, a number of individuals, who had taken no fuch liberty with them." Preface, p. 4. And the subject of their charge is reprefented to be of fuch a nature, 66 as affects at once their understanding, their integrity, their reputation, and their intereft." For these individuals Mr. O. comes forward in the character of apologist. This character, by determining the nature of Mr. Q.'s publication, teaches his readers what they were to expect from it. And, had Mr. O. confined himself to this, his readers, judging from the apology that he made, in what the fuppofed charge confifted, and how far it had or had not been fubftantiated, might' have been qualified to draw their conclufion with respect to the merits of the cafe. Here Mr. O.'s publication, in conformity with its have terminated.

title, ought to

But the object Mr. O. had in view on this occafion, appears to have been, not fo much to apologize for a fuppofed condemned party, as to criminate their accufers, the reputed aggreffors, whom he defcribes as "the real offenders."

But admitting Mr. O.'s representation of the unjust treatment experienced by his Ministers to be correct, it will hardly be thought, that he has adopted