every page, to every paragraph, to every single sentence of it.

Another Work of great publicity and importance at this period was, THE FAMOUS APOLOGY FOR THE ENGLISH CHURCH, written by Bishop Jewel. This Prelate, Bishop Burnet affirms, and it feems the general fentiment," was the firft, and much the beft, writer of Elizabeth's time." He had a great share in all that was then done, particularly in compiling the Second Book of Homilies "." "His Works" therefore, his Lordfhip juftly obferves, may with "great reafon" be confidered "as a very fure commentary on our articles." But the work which especially immortalized his name, and which most demands our present attention, is this celebrated Apology. It was written at the inftigation, and by the common advice, of the whole body of Divines that were affembled for the purpose of effecting the Reformation. Its exprefs object was, to exhibit the real and precife doctrines of our church; to show her agreement, in matters of faith, with the German, the Helvetian, the French, and the other Reformed churches; and, to refute the objections of the adverfaries of thefe doctrines. In this character, as the avowed Creed of the Church of England, extracts from it appeared in the Harmony of the Confeffions of Eleven Proteftant Churches that was published in the year 1581. It paffed through many editions, and was published, both at home and abroad, in various languages. It was repeatedly vindicated, when attacked by the enemies of the church, and contributed more, it is believed, towards its establishment than any other publication of the age. And, as Hiftorians affure us, in fuch equal esteem, and of such equal authority, with the 39 Articles themselves, was it in those days holden, that a defign was entertained of its being joined with them.

(ww) Pref. to Expo. of Arts. p. 3. (0) Ibid. Annals, p. 249. Life of Parker, p. 179.

(x) See Strype's

This work, therefore, must also afford very important evidence upon the point in queftion; and the interpretation of our ecclefiaftical standards which it favours, is unquestionably that which was intended by the original famers and impofers of them.. Yet to this also we most readily and confidently appeal.

It would be easy to enumerate many other publications to the fame effect; we will however confine ourselves to one more. This fhall be, THE ANALYSIS OF the 39 ARTICLES by the Reverend Thomas Rogers, Rector of Horninger in Suffolk. This was the firft regular commentary upon the Articles, and the only one that appeared during the present reign. The general unanimity of fentiment respecting their true fenfe, for fome time, rendered fuch works unnecessary. It carries upon the face of it a teftimony, that it was "perufed, and by the lawful authority of the church, allowed to be public'." It was dedicated to two fucceffive Arch-Bishops of Canterbury; the first edition of it in 1584 to Arch-Bishop Whitgift, by whom Dr. Fuller tells us, it was countenanced; and the fecond in 1607 to ArchBishop Bancroft, whofe Chaplain the Author was. In this dedication, and the work itself, Mr. R. shows, that the undoubted doctrine and invariable intention of our church in her articles, were always according to the precife and exprefs words of thofe articles; that in no other fenfe they were ever understood by his Grace's moft venerable predeceffors Whitgift, Grindal, Parker, Cranmer, or any other of the renowned Divines and Fathers of our Church; that in this light they were viewed, and acquiefced in, by the Brethren and Puritans themselves; nay, that this interpretation correfponded with the "Confeffions of all the Reformed Churches in Chriftendom."

It is needlefs to fay whose system all this supports. The doctrines, which, in Mr. Roger's judgment, the words of

1

(y) See Title-page, and Preface near the end.

B. 9. p. 173.

(z) Ch. Hift. (a) See the Dedication. (b) Ibid. toward the end.

the articles naturally import; and which, he fays were all approved for true and Chriftian, by the lawful and public allowance of the church, at that time, are clearly Calvinistic. Fuller indeed fays, that fome Proteftants were offended at this interpretation, and complained that Mr. R. had confined the charitable latitude before allowed in the articles: But, as Dr. Ridley is conftrained to admit, the hiftorian gives no proof of fuch a circumftance. Nor does it appear a fact, that the doctrinal part of the book was unacceptable, except to the aiders and abetters of Popery: But, admitting the objection, it does not reach our premises.

But, if all these other approved and public theological works of our most diftinguished Reformers and early Divines thus individually, collectively, and unequivocally, breathe one fpirit, teach one doctrine, and favour our fenfe of the established Confeffion, there can remain little doubt either what the genuine doctrines of the Reformation were, or who they are that adhere to thefe doctrines.

4. Still further light may, however, be obtained on the fubject by confidering, The AUTHORITIES Our Reformers had regard to, in their important Work. It does not indeed by any means follow, as fome appear abfurdly to have concluded, that in all points of doctrine they neceffarily agreed with every Protestant Divine of whom they spoke with approbation, or with whom they held a friendly intercourfe. Our own times afford ample evidence, that men of the most difcordant doctrinal fentiments, may very cordially unite against what they esteem a corrupt Establishment. If therefore in the Book of Martyrology, which was enjoined

(d) Ch. Hift. B. 9. p. 72, 73.

(c) See the Book. (e) 3d Lett. to Conf. p. 16. See alfo the Confeffional, Edit. 3. p. 232–235. (f) See the War that has been continually waged, Whether Calvin or Melancthon had a greater hand in our Reforma.; Heylin's Quinq. Hift, Tracts, p. 548; Toplady's Hifloric Proofs of the Doctrinal Calv. of the Ch. of England, p. 367, &c.; &c.

to be had in Churches, fome things may be found inimical to our Ritual, and the Epifcopal Habit ; or if in Erafmus' Paraphrafe which attained the fame honour", the interpretation in fome particulars fcarcely reaches the prevalent doctrines of those times, on this principle, the circumstance is eafily accounted for. Both these Works contained many things that were excellent, and in an efpecial manner tended to promote the main object of a feparation from Rome. For these reasons, they were defervedly esteemed and recommended to especial notice. But it does not follow, that every thing contained in them coincided exactly with the Reformers' fentiments. That Erafmus' doctrines were not wholly approved, is indeed declared in the Epiftle dedicatory prefixed to the tranflation of his Paraphrafe on the Acts. But after this writer's judgment, "a little trip among fo many notable good works for the interpretation of scripture, and for the help of the fimple, fhould rather be borne withal, than fo many good things, to be either rejected or kept away from the hungry and Chriftian reader." And beyond all doubt, his Works fhould be received with fome qualification, who, as his Biographer informs us, could exclaim, "that he abhorred the Reformers ""; and could frequently revile them with the utmoft virulence. If however our opponents will have it, that because this Paraphrafe was placed in Churches, the Reformers could not hold any opinions which are difapproved in it, they muft, for the fame reafon, conclude from Fox's Book, that our Reformers were a kind of Puritans!

614.

(g) See Fox's Acts and Mon. p. 1366; and Quinq. Hift. p. 613, (h) Ibid. p. 548. (i) See Jortin's Life Erafmus, p. 608, 442, 481. (k) See Dr. Hey's Nor. Lect. Vol. ii. p. 208. Vol. iii. p. 502; Daubeny's Appendix, p. 203, 211, 244. Mr. D. fupposes, that hence an argument against our system arises which is unanswerable, because when Erasmus obtained this honour, “Luther had published a Commentary on Galatians, and Calvin his Institutes." But who knows not, that Luther held different notions from our Re formers on the Sacrament, and Calvin on Discipline?

Doubtless then, their conduct in refpect to both thefe Works, is to be interpreted on the principle juft mentioned; and with an eye to the fame principle, muft their expreffions of approbation be taken in many other inftances.

The general Doctrines of the Reformation muft, however, reflect fome light upon the precife views of the founders of our church; and thofe Works, and Authors, which they continually quote, and refer to, for the illuftration of their fentiments, must afford very important evidence on the fubject. We appeal then also, upon the points in question, to the WRITINGS OF LUTHER1, the renowned Leader, and acknowledged Chief, in the great Tranfaction; to the WHOLE BODY OF THE CONFESSIONS OF ALL the Reformed Churches; to the Authorities which, next to the Sacred Scriptures, our Reformers especially profeffed to respect, the PRIMITIVE CHURCH", and THE WORKS OF ST. AUSTIN. No human authority had certainly fo great weight with them, or was fo frequently reforted to by them, as that of Auftin. "I am well affured," faid Bishop Carleton, who was one of the four English Divines chofen by King James to affist at the Synod of Dort, “ that the learned Bifhops, who were in the Reformation, in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, did fo much honour St. Auguftine, that, in the collecting of the Articles and Homilies, and other things in that Reformation, they had an efpecial respect unto St. Auguftine's doctrines P.". "It is not to be denied," proceeds Bishop Burnet," but that the Article,”

(1) See e. g. his Treatife De Servo Arbitrio, and his Commentarium in Gal.; with Burnet's Expo. of Arts. p. 150–152. (m) See The Harmony of Eleven Proteftant Churches, published 1581, and the Body of Confeffions of Sixteen Churches, published 1612; Rogers on the 39 Arts.; Bingham's Apology of the French Church for the Eng. Church. (n); See. Milner's Hift, of the Ch. during the three firft Centuries; Bp. Beveridge's, and Welchman's, Expo. of Arts. (9) See the following Notes to (v). (p) Examina. of Mon;

tague, p. 49.