at Francfort] and that they would unite their Endeavours to obtain fuch a Form of Worship as they had feen practifed in (what they call'd) the best reformed Churches. The others, who were of different Sentiments, reply'd, that it would not be in their Power to appoint what Ceremonies should be obferved; but they were determin'd to fubmit to things indifferent, and hoped thofe of Geneva would do fo too: "And that whereas all the reformed Ibid. p. 189. "Churches differ among themselves in "divers Ceremonies, and yet agree in "the Unity of Doctrine; we see no Inconvenience, [fay they] if we use Some Ceremonies divers from them, "fo that we agree in the chief Points "of our Religion." The Letter from the Church of Geneva was fign'd by eleven Perfons, Chriftopher Goodman, Miles Coverdale, John Knox, John Bodly, William Williams, Anthony Gilby, Francis Withers, William Fuller, John Pullen, William Bevoyet, William Whittingham. Thefe fign in the Name of the Church, That of Francfort was faid to be most nu-Mem. Refor. merous, and amounted only to about vol. III. 80 Perfons; but making the greatest Francfort, Allowances, we cannot fuppofe, that 133 the Church of Geneva, Ministers and

cc

Troubles of

People, did, at moft, amount to One Hundred And of thefe Ministers feveral, tho' they prefer'd the Geneva Model, yet could, and actually did comply with the established Form, and were Beneficed in the Church.

Let us then take an impartial View of this Matter, and in order to form a Judgment, remember what Mr. N. fays, Pag. 42. with an Air of Triumph against Bishop Burnet," is it reasonable that the Majority should depart from

Сс

their Sentiments in Religion, because "the PRINCE with the Minority are of "another Mind?" Sure then, if the Minority, even with the Supreme Magiftrate on their Side, had no Right to an Establishment (for it is of that the Bishop is fpeaking, and to that Mr. N. objects) a Minority without the Prince, fo fmall a Number as fhould not be called a Minority, an Handful of Men, were extreamly unreasonable to expect the Eftablishment of their own Form of Worship, and the Extirpation of every other. If the vaft Numbers of Papifts, Lutherans, and of those both from abroad and at home, who were for King Edward's Reformation, be confider'd, what Pretence, what Shadow of a Pretence had a fingle Hundred of Men from Geneva to claim the San

&tion of publick Authority, to enjoin and enforce their Scheme? a Project as impracticable as it was unreasonable!

Thus, the Lutherans and Calvinists were each for their Plan; but there was a third Propofal, King Edward's Reformation. It happens very unluckily that Mr. N's, or, if he pleases, the Puritans Objections to this Plan, as it was re-established by Queen Elizabeth, are really fo many Arguments in its Favour, with refpect to the feveral Parts of it, Doctrine, Government and Worship.

As to the first Point, indeed, there was but little Difference; however a Cenfure is pafs'd upon the Queen by Mr. N. himself, for not being rigid enough in her Opinions, and among N's Hift. other Faults laid to her Charge, fhe isp. 123. blamed for being fond of old Rites and Ceremonies, thinking her Brother had Stripp'd Religion too much of its Ornaments, and made the Doctrines of the Church too narrow in fome Points. Something of the like Nature is infinuated in one of the famous Admonitions to the Parliament, for the extirpating the Epifcopal Government, and the establishing the Geneva Platform, or, in their Stile, the Holy Difcipline, wherein the Puritans make the follow

СС

cr

ing Declarations : For the Articles concerning the Subftance of Doctrine ufing a Godly Interpretation, in a "Point or two, which are either too Sparely, or elfe too darkly fet down, we are, and are ready according to Duty, to fubfcribe unto them." For this, and other the like Reafons, Mr. N. gives them the Character of being zealous Calvinifts; and Mr. Fuller Fuller lib. 9.obferves, "fome have unjustly taxed p. 72. the Composers for too much Favour "extended in their large Expreffions, "clean thro' the Contexture of thefe "Articles- which were penn'd in comprehenfive Words, to take in all who differing in the Branches meet in the Root of the fame Religion." That the Articles of the Church of England are fo fparely fet down as not to countenance the fevereft Notions of zealous Calvinifts, is certainly true, and has been often proved, but especially by a late judicious, learned and moderate Writer, in a Piece, intituled, An Apology for the Church of England; printed for E. Widwinter in St. Paul's Church-Tard. This Gentleman has fhewn, beyond all Contradiction, that the Articles were compiled with a Latitude, that fairly admits a Subscription from thofe of the

1

Sentiments of Arminius, as well as Calvin. He obferves, that among the Compilers, there were feveral AntiCalvinians; and, as those who compiled the Articles were not all Calvinifts themselves, fo they were very far from defigning to frame Articles upon the rigid Calvinistic Notions. That as thefe Reformers were known to be Men of Temper, Prudence and Moderation, 'tis but Juftice to fuppofe, that in Points fo nice and intricate, they intended fuch a Latitude as would admit Subfcription, by moderate Perfons, of what is now called the Arminian, as well as of the Calviniftic Opinion. This Temper, fo agreeable to the general Principles upon which the Church of England was established, they likewife obferved, with refpect to the Article of Christ's Defcent into Hell; for tho' there are several Opinions about it, yet they have not fpecially determined which is the true one; and were particularly careful in the Review of the Articles, to ftrike out that Paffage, which decided upon the Point. That, as the fuppofing the Articles left in medio, between moderate and rigid CALVINISTS does not make them ufelefs; fo neither does the leaving them in medio, between moderate Armini

ans