the will of God pofitive, but only permiffive; that reprobates are not rejected but for the evil works which God did forefee they will commit. And when his opponent called for his authorities in expounding St. Paul against the judgment of all churches and all good writers, Hooker replied, that the fentences which he might have cited out of all church confeffions, together with the best learned monuments of former times, and not the meanest of our own, were more in number than perhaps he willingly would have heard of a ".

In the next place we are prefented with the famous Lambeth articles; which we have nothing to do with, they being no part of our faith, nor ever established by any legal authority, but rather forced upon the University in oppofition to that authority. Thefe too are urged against us by the author of the Confeffional, and every thing that he or you have faid, is fully anfwered by the Letter writer. Thefe articles were drawn up by Dr. Whitaker and other Calvinists at Cambridge. And the reason why they drew them up was, because the 39 articles were not fufficient for their purpose, "those points being (as they themselves acknowledged) not concluded and defined by public authority." The good Archbishop, though. he had before expreffed his diflike of their proceedings against Barrett; yet was prevailed upon to

a Answer to Travers's Supplication, fect. 22, & 23.

Third letter, p. 61, 76 &c.

agree

a

agree to these articles for the fake of peace; praying to take care that nothing fhould be publicly taught to the contrary; and that also in teaching them discretion and moderation should be used, that fuch as should be in fome points differing in judgment, might not be of purpose stung, or juftly grieved: "And that the propositions nevertheless must be so taken and ufed as their private judgments, thinking them to be true and corref pondent to the doctrine profeffed in the Church of England, and established by the laws of the land; and not as laws and decrees "." But thefe articles gave great offence, not only in the University but at Court. The Queen was greatly displeased with them. And therefore the Archbishop wrote to Cambridge, defiring the Vice-Chancellor fo to use the said propofitions as there might be no publication of them otherwife than in private." Notwithstanding which the Queen refented what the Archbishop and the reft had done, and commanded her fecretary to send unto his Grace, to acquaint him" that she misliked much that any allowance had been given by his Grace, and the rest, of any fuch points to be difputed, being a matter tender and dangerous to weak ignorant minds: and thereupon that she required his Grace to fufpend themb." And Lord Burleigh, Chancellor of the Univerfity reprimanded the Heads of Houses on this occafion,

a Strype's Life of Whitgift, P. 462.

b Ibid. C. 18. Heylin's Hift. Pref. b. x, §. 7. Hift. of Lamb. art.

F 2

telling

1

telling them" as good and ancient were of another judgment:" and that as for Baro whom they had cenfured, "Ye may punifh him, (fays he) if ye will; but ye shall do it for well doing, in holding the truth, in my opinion." And he delivered his opinion, to the Queen both of the doctrine itself and its pernicious confequences, confidered even in a civil view, thus; "It is not, faith he, difficult to perceive what these men aim at, for they think and teach that whatever human tranfactions are carried on, whether good or bad, they are all bound up by the law of an immutable decree; and that this neceffity is impofed even upon the wills of men, that they cannot will otherwife than they do will. If thefe opinions, moft auguft Sovereign, be true, in vain both myself and your Majefty's other faithful fervants anxiously, and with much hesitation, deliberate what upon every occafion ought to be done, what may be most conducive to your own welfare and that of the kingdom: fince all confultation must be foolish and vain concerning these matters, which must neceffarily happen." Nay we are told, that the Queen threatened the Archbishop with a premunire for what he had done in these matters. And thus thefe articles were repealed and fuppreffed. And when afterwards at the conference at Hampton-court, it was moved to add thefe affertions to

с

a Strype's Life of Whitgift, P. 441. Heylin's Hist. b. xi. 5. 5. b See Ellis Lamb. art. Hift. P. 7.

c Ibid.

the

the book of the 39 articles, this propofal was rejected. To what purpose then do you urge the authority of the Lambeth articles, to which we never fubfcribed, which were never eftablished, nor intended as laws for public ufe, but only as a temporary expedient to procure peace at that time at Cambridge, and which were recalled and fuppreffed as foon as published? Had you been acquainted with the history of them, how they were firft obtained and impofed, and afterwards fuppreffed, you would certainly have thought it more prudent not to have mentioned them.

STILL lefs to your purpose are the questions and anfwers bound up with some old bibles. If any bishops, or others concerned in publishing an edition of the bible, shall think fit to annex a system of their own notions to it, this does not make their notions gospel, or give them the fanction of public authority. But that these questions and answers were bound up in all the editions of Queen Elizabeth's bibles is not true. They appear in neither of Archbishop Parker's editions, nor in Barker's of 1599. You will, I believe, find fome difficulty in reconciling your account with chronology. You tell us they were bound up with the only bible in use in Queen Elizabeth's time; and in confirmation of it produce the edition of 1607, fome time after the Queen's death. I do not fo much wonder that they should have crept into fome editions of the bible in K. James I. reign, when the puritans began to

take greater liberties in impofing their tenets; though it fhould feem from the edition (or rather new verfion) published by that King's authority in 1611, in which these questions and answers are not inferted, that they were then discountenanced.

BUT to be more particular. In page 45, the laft paragragh, and page 49, you affert what is not true" That thefe questions and answers concerning predeftination -were always printed at the end of the old teftament, and bound up and fold, cum privilegio, with this authorized tranf lation of the bible, till about the year 1615"-. It appears from p. 45, that you mean the Bishop's bible. "I apprehend thefe queftions &c. were never bound up with the Bishop's bible, at least Lewis in his hiftory of the tranflations of the bible from p. 235 to 264, mentions eight editions of it, and takes no notice of thefe questions &c. being printed with them, and he is very particular in giving the contents of them. But, as will appear hereafter, he takes particular notice when they were inferted in the Geneva bible. A friend of mine has the best edition of the Bishop's bible printed in 1572, fol. which has fome corrections of the first edition of it in 1568. In that edition the questions &c. do not appear. Nor indeed could they with any

a The following account of this matter was communicated to me by a very judicious friend, who is well acquainted with the feveral editions of the bible, and the occafions of them.

confiftency