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;

mi je nesing mon he immediate suppression vř že mnozes trices in question; together with the erzunssance of their being actually suppe, and so carefii a manner, says Colier + dat à moy was not to be met with for a ing me uter.”

Frim al de crammstances, therefore, relative ate Lamber is murty appreciated, I scruple nos a affen, they are as unfavourable to the cause 700 lave fruit nem to support, as any AntiCalvinist can wsi dem to be. Finding nothing that need impede my progress, I pass on to page 36, where, in pursuance of your pian adopted in a former letter, you place the Guide to the Church in opposition to the Church of England on the mibject of the seventeenth Article. A single observation or two upon this head will be sufficient; for if what I maintain be true, that the Calvinistic sense of predestination annexed to this Article, is not the genuine sense of the Church of England, nothing in my book will be found in contradiction to it.

The last cause in your contrast must not, however, be passed by with so slight a notice. I say in my book, that "with respect to absolute decrees determining the future salvation of individuals, I see nothing in scripture 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. ii. p. 645. † Guide, p. 77.

me; 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 concluding page of 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.

י.

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

TET NO KET

heen mui wan & I am neinesi a vet dut a subjest vina nas úminished our dIR VINU Hgreasing or kuveite, neck be ant a rest ir ever. The joger live in de vol de meel an ecrimesi dat virus ent pursy ends f 1 more adhe vering of de fiesò da so die gová of the souz bidrag de Apostle's Crection to provoke one ancher at jive ant to do good works, we shall be sure to be you fatty engaged; fr darty vl he, vis de understanding all mysteries and all knowledge maY perish with its possessor. Calvinists, however distinguished for their exemplary character, have, generally speaking, been too apt to flow the aample of their prototype: with whom the west word* was not, at times, thought too bad for those who did not see the doctrine of grace in the exact light in which he saw it. I honour their real, I respect their piety, at the same time that I lament their want of knowledge, of judgment, and of charity. Although your language is not, I confess, clothed in so coarse a dress, as some that I have received from anonymous quarters on the subject of my book; yet I think the idea conveyed in your 91st page does not, in point of charity, fall much short of any that I have been treated with; where you say, that you believe “few will presume to question the doctrine of particular election,” &c.

Those who differ from Calvin upon his favoured points, he scrupled not to call," Perfidi et impii nebulones; stulti bomines; virulenti isti canes." And their doctrines he called, "Deliria; Impii errores; insulsitas."-Vide Epistolæ Col. 142. Institut. lib. III. cap. xxiii. sec. 2.

(in the sense in which it is understood by Calvinists) but those who are strangers to the power of sin in themselves, or to the riches of grace in God."

I forbear a comment. Permit me only to remind you, Sir, of the words of Gregory Nazianzen, when, lamenting over the contentions among Christians, he thus expressed himself: "The only godliness we glory in, is to find somewhat whereby we may judge others to be ungodly."*

But though, as an honest man, I shall never shrink from what I conceive to be truth, on account of the obloquy with which the prosecution of it may be accompanied; yet, Sir, I can assure you I would rather lose my argument, than maintain it in a manner inconsistent with the character of a Christian minister. In that character-in return for the uncharitableness of your judgment, where you suppose me capable of subscribing to articles which I do not believe, and the consequent severity of the sentence pronounced in the last page of your letter-my hearty desire to God for you is, that your knowledge of Christianity may so keep pace with your zeal, that you may become, what every Christian minister must wish you to be, as orthodox in profession, as I understand you now are exemplary in piety and in practice.

I have the honour to be,

&c. &c.

[The reader, should he be disposed, may see the subject of the foregoing letter still more fully handled, in answer to Mr. Overton, in "Vindiciae Ecclesiæ Anglicana," chap. ii. sec. 1 and 2.1

*Greg. Naz. in Apol.