Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

end. Taking this for our general rule of judgment on this subject, it must be expected that there should be a consistency in the Divine proceedings. Yet we find, that after the decree had been passed against Nineveh, that it should be destroyed in forty days; that God repented of his purpose, in consequence of the subsequent conduct of the inhabitants. It is for the maintainers of absolute decrees to reconcile these inconsistencies. My conclusion from them is, that God's moral government will, in all cases, be found consistent with the free agency of men; and that the perplexity which has been introduced into this subject, has been derived from man's presuming to speak with precision on cases, on which it has not pleased God to give him competent information.

When I consider, in reverential silence, the Providence of an all-wise God controlling and directing the affairs of the universe, I feel myself standing upon the firm shore, contemplating the majestic object of the boundless ocean before me. But when I attempt to trace out the exact line by which that Providence is directed, I am, as it were, launched off in a perilous bark upon the wide deep, and every moment on the point of being swallowed up in the fathomless abyss. It is enough for men to know, that the Judge of all the earth will do right. To make use of your own words, (and I cannot make use of better) « it is enough for us to acknowledge, that all God’s dealings with the children of men are holy, just, and good; that there

a day coming, wherein his proceedings, however dark to us at present, will be vindicated before angels and men; when all the glorified saints shall confess, that their salvation is wholly owing to God's free grace


mercy in Jesus Christ; and all that perish, shall acknowledge that their destruction is entirely of themselves.” Page 79.

Having dispatched this subject, I proceed to pages 88 and 89 of your publication, which must not be passed over, though it is with reluctance I say any thing about them. It must, doubtless, have escaped your recollection, (for I cannot permit myself to think that you would assert what you must otherwise know not to be true) that a great part of what is said in the pages under consideration, has been proved to be in direct contradiction to historic fact. In pages 102, 103, and 104, of the answer to Pietas Oxoniensis, you will find this subject drawn out for


consideration ; where you were informed, that these Lambeth Articles were originally drawn up at Cambridge; and so far from containing, as you say, the avowed sense of the Church of England, were drawn up for the satisfaction of those Calvinists at Cambridge, who thought the Thirty-Nine Articles not sufficiently explicit for their purpose; that these Lambeth Articles never received the sanction of the Church of England; but, on the contrary, were so much disapproved of, as to be recalled as soon as published; and that, upon the motion made at the Hampton Court conference, to add the substance of them to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the proposal was rejected.

You refer me to the authority of Strype and Toplady. The former tells us, in his Life of Whitgift, page 459, that the Archbishop, speaking of these Lambeth Articles, expressed himself thus : “ I know them to be sound doctrine, and uniformly professed in the Church of England, and agreeable to the Articles of religion established by authority." But this proves only that Whitgift was himself a Calvinist, not that the Lambeth Articles contained the avowed sense of the Church of England. Whereas the observation of the same historian, where he says, page 435, that till about the year 1595, “ Calvin's way of explaining the Divine decrees was not entertained by many learned men in Cambridge ; and that Calvinism was not understood to be certainly the sense of our Articles, even by those who held that doctrine," evidently appears to justify a conclusion, the very opposite to the one you have drawn on this subject.

On appeal to Toplady, I find him, like a true Calvinist, after bringing all the Calvinistic part of the story before his readers, thus taking leave of the Archbishop : “ Thus (says he) have we seen of what principles and spirit were the Archbishops of Canterbury all through the reign of Elizabeth, the illustrious refoundress of the Church of England.” But the partial writer, unwilling to say any thing that might tend to efface the Calvinistic impression, which it was his object to leave upon his reader's mind, avoids making any mention of the reception which the Lambeth Articles met with at Court. He takes care not to relate, what an impartial historian ought not to have omitted, the circumstance of this illustrious refoundress of the Church of England, threatening the Archbishop with a premunire for his conduct on this occasion; at 12 NASTUS men die immediate suppression ir ne te tue in mestion ; together vih fie TSUNSTHL9 beir being actually suprasimut TIR I termi a manner, says Culier i upr ve wr to be met with for à me me ate

Fama e erammstances, therefore, relative

še Landez Les jury appreciated, I scruple 166 3 ur.. je is unravourable to the Case poate re LTD support, as any AntiCanis a rs m be. Finding nothing wat lui meie mr gress. I pass on to page #wiers, in pursunce pour pian adopted in a borner stie. Te pike še Guide to the Church in oppesisira se Church of Engiand on the subject oi te erenrenca Article. A single obSerrative or two men mais eu vill be sufficient; for it what I saizaic berte, that the Carinistic sense of pratestinata a mezi to třis Article, is not the genuine Stikk Church of England, Dothing in my book will be wand in contradiction to it

The last clause in your contrast must not, however, be passed by with so slight a notice. I say in my book that * with respect to absoInte decrees determining the future salvation of individuals, I see nothing in seripture that leads me to conclude there are any such."* To this position you oppose the following quotation from a homily: “ Scripture doth acknowledge but two places after this life ; the one proper to the elect and blessed of God; the other to the reprobates." This mode of proof may satisfy you, Sir: it does not dissatisfy

• Collier, vol. i. p. 615. † Guide, p. 77.

cluding page


because it convinces me, that in failure of proof from scripture, to which the appeal was made, you have had recourse to an extract from the homily levelled against the Romish error of purgatory ; but which, the most cursory reader must perceive, has not the least application to the subject in question.

I rejoice, and probably you may rejoice with me, that I spy land; being at length arrived at the conof your

third letter. It is not my wish to detain you longer, than whilst I add a remark or two more by way of conclusion.

The object of your third letter has been to establish the Calvinistic doctrine of election and predestination, as the acknowledged doctrine of the Church of England. The object in view in my reply to it, has been to demonstrate the contrary position. This has been done by an appeal to historic fact, which, by bringing the reader acquainted with the circumstances that accompanied the original establishment of our present Church doctrine, qualifies him to form a decided opinion on the subject. Unless, therefore, all consistency be denied both to our reformers and our Church, I have proved, in the foregoing letter, if I have proved any thing, that the Calvinistic sense of predestination cannot be the genuine sense of the Church of England.

One word more, and I have done. When I consider the disadvantage that has accrued to the Christian cause from the too curious investigation of this subject, how much the human passions have been mixed up with it, and how little good has been produced by any thing that has

« PreviousContinue »