juxta quod omnes in Chriftum credentes remiffio nem peccatorum & vitam æternam reipsà confequantur." III." In ecclefia, uti juxta hoc promiffum evangelicum falus omnibus offertur, ea eft administratio gratiæ fuæ, quæ fufficit ad convincendum omnes impænitentes & incredulos, quod fua culpa voluntaria, vel neglectu, vel contemptu evangelii perierint, & beneficia oblata amiferint."

THESE are opinions very different from yours, and plainly affert universal redemption and freeagency. It was indeed in a great measure owing to the heats and violence, with which matters were carried in that fynod, and the great feverity of the horrible decrees there framed, that our Englife Divines, who attended that fynod, began to have lefs reverence for the doctrines of Calvin. Thus it fared with the learned Mr. Hales, who went thither a rigid Calvinift: " but there I bid John Calvin good night," faid he to his friend Mr. Farindon a. And Bishop Hall, one of thefe Divines, published afterwards a fmall piece entitled, via media, "the way of peace in these five bufy articles, commonly known by the name of Arminius." Here he endeavours to reconcile both parties by fetting forth fuch propofitions, as he thought both might agree in; and tells us that the Church of England, in her articles, goes a mid-way betwixt both. Among these propofitions (though I cannot fubfcribe to all of

a Mr. Farindan's letter prefixed to his Golden Remains..

them

them) there are thefe following; viz. "God does neither actually damn, or appoint any foul to damnation, without the confideration and respect of fin." "God pitying the woful condition of man, fallen by his free-will into fin and perdition, fent his own Son that he fhould give himself a ranfom for the fins of the whole world." "In working upon the will, God does not overthrow the nature of the will, but causeth it to work after its own native manner, freely and willingly." So much for the famous fynod of Dort!

You had better have forborne to put us in mind of what paffed in the fucceeding reigns, or to have made mention of THAT HONOURABLE House of Commons. I defire you to confider what faction it was, which then prevailed towards the overthrow of the Church. Was it not that of the Puritans? And were not the doctrines of Calvinifm their leading principles? Did they not hold these very tenets of election, abfolute predeftination &c. which you so warmly efpoufe? These were the men who cried out, The Church, The Church,-the Temple of the Lord are we; who called themfelves "the elect people of God," " his fheep," "his chofen," his faints;" who fancied themselves acting under the influences of thè fpirit, and guided by his infpiration: and under this persuasion broke out into treafon and rebellion, murdered the beft

a

a P. 73.

of

of Kings, and overthrew our excellent couftitution both in church and state. The doctrines which you would father upon Cranmer and Ridley were really those of Prynn, Hugh Peters, Marshall, Owen, and others, who composed the assembly of Divines, "most of whom were (according to my Lord Clarendon ) declared and avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England; fome of them infamous in their lives and converfations; and most of them of very mean parts in learning, if not of fcandalous ignorance, and of no other reputation than of malice to the Church of England."

WE Come now to the articles of religion. With regard to them, I would obferve in general that they were drawn up with great moderation; and thofe in particular which treat of thefe difficult points of free-will &c. were purpofely worded in general terms, that perfons who were of different perfwafions in feveral particulars relating to them might yet agree in the general doctrines there delivered. They went (as Bifhop Hall obferves) a mid-way between both, guarding against the extremities on each fide; on one hand condemning the Papifts, who afcribed a merit to good works, and on the other the Antinomians, who denied the neceffity of them. We have an inftance of the like moderation in the 23d article, which teaches" that

a Hift. Reb. vol. 1. b. 5. p. 415.

it

it is not lawful for any man to take upon himfelf the office of publick preaching or miniftering the facraments in the congregation before he be lawfully called;" and that " those we ought to judge lawfully called, which be chofen and called to this work, by men who have publick authority given them in the congregation to call and fend minifters into the Lord's vineyard." Who thefe men are is not here determined. The compilers were not willing to condemn or unchurch the reformed churches abroad, where epifcopacy was not established, and therefore prudently avoided determining the question, whether epifcopal ordination is neceffary. Those who hold, and those who deny the neceffity of epifcopal ordination, may both fubfcribe to this article: thofe only are condemned by it, who hold that a man may preach without any lawful vocation. The fame moderation the compilers of our articles have obferved in the points before us. The Proteftant churches abroad were divided in these points: fome held with Luther, and fome with Calvin. Cranmer and Ridley therefore, and the other compilers of our articles, expreffed them purposely in general terms, so as to include all moderate men on both fides, and condemn only the extremities on either.

а

BUT we are told that "a these articles were drawn up on purpose to prevent diverfity of opinions, and

a P. 32.

therefore

therefore the compilers of them were particularly careful to avoid the poffibility of an ambiguous expreffion." The very fame objections were fome time ago made by Dr. Clarke, and have been lately renewed by the author of the Confeffional, and have received a fufficient answer both from Dr. Waterland and the Letter-writer. "The compilers could only mean diverfity of opinions about opinions expressed and decided in the articles, and not about others.”

THE fame Letter-writer diftinguishes between general propofitions and ambiguous or equivocal ones; and fo did Dr. Waterland before him." It is not fairly fuggefted (fays that excellent writer) that when men of different fentiments, as to particular explications, fubfcribe to the fame general words, that they fubfcribe in contradictory, or even in different fenfes. Both fubfcribe to the fame general propofitions, and both in the fame fenfe, only they differ in the particulars relating to it: which is not differing, (at leaft it need not be) about the fenfe of the article, but about particulars not contained in the article." His meaning may be illuftrated by the following inftance: We all fubfcribe to this propofition, viz. Subjects ought to be obedient to their lawful fovereign; though we may differ about the motives of that obedience, and the authority on which it is founded; fome

a Letter 2d, p. 136.

b Case of Arian fubfcription, p. 40.

thinking