this confeffedly POPISH "Neceffary Doctrine," &c. Dr. Hey, Dr. Ridley, Mr. Gray, Mr. Daubeny, the Author of the Oxford Differtation, and the whole body of these Divines, conftantly attempt to fix and illuftrate the precife doctrines of our church! To thefe Popish and heterogeneous works of the reign of Henry the Eighth, the whole tribe of our opponents appeal, as to authorities that are indifputable, while the writings under Elizabeth, of the very period when our Articles affumed their prefent form and authority, and of the very perfons who gave them this form and authority, are fcarcely once glanced, at! And what is very material to be remarked, this appeal is chiefly made on the very fubject which conftituted the fundamental ground of difference between the two churches, that which respects human merit, and the proper province of Grace and Works! This circumftance difcovers no little of the true nature of their cause.

But let us specify a few of those works which unquef tionably merit attention on this head. Among these may be mentioned, Firft, the ARTICLES OF KING EDWARD. Thefe Articles were prepared, there feems no reafon to doubt, by Cranmer and Ridley; reviewed by the other moft learned Bishops and Divines; agreed upon in the Convocation of 1552; and, the year following, made the ftandard do&trine of our church . And that they verge as near what Dr. Croft calls Enthusiasm as those of the Cou vocation of 1562, which constitute our prefent Ecclefiaftical Standards, is beyond all question. On the important doc trines of Original Sin, Salvation by Grace through Faith, and Good Works, they are either verbatim the fame with

(y) Nor. Lect. Vol. iii. p. 206, 263, 344, 358, 375, 437, 446, 4ŭI, 463, 501, &c. (z) Lett. 2. p. 162. (a) Bampt. Lect. P. 246. (b) Appendix, p. 169, 182, 329, &c. (b) On the 17th Art. p. 32. (c) See as above, &c. (d) See Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 272; Burnet's Hift. of Reform. Vol. ii. p. 166. (e) Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 272

this later form, or fuch as no fair interpreter can poffibly fet at variance with it.. Nay, fome things, our opponents fay, were added in 1562, with the view of foftening what is here faid on these points 8.

What next perhaps deferves to be noticed is, The CELEBRATED CATECHISM, ufually denominated Bishop Ponet's, or Dr. Nowell's. This Catechifm, it appears most probable, was prepared by the united efforts of the very perfons who prepared the Articles. It is certain, that befides one of the above learned and pious Divines, Bishop Ridley, and fome others of the most eminent of the English Reformers, affifted in its compofition. It was reviewed, approved, and fubfcribed, by the fame Convocation that reviewed, paffed, and subscribed the 39 Articles; and was bound up with them. It was recommended by the King's Letters Patent, and enjoined by his Privy Council to be taught to all scholars as the ground and foundation of their learning in true religion. We cannot, therefore, but confider this work as a very authentic and specific illustration of the original fenfe of our articles, and of the manner in which the doctrines contained in them were taught by our first reformers. And yet, that this interpretation is exceedingly different from that which we are oppofing, few seem to have ventured to denyi.

A further especial illustration of our fubject will be found, in The PUBLIC CONFESSIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Heads of the English Proteftant Church, during their imprisonment in Queen Mary's days. If ever men may be fuppofed incapable of equivocation, and fincere in the avowal of their principles, it must be when, for their adherence to fuch principles, they are approaching the stake. Let then any adequate judge, impartially attend to the

(f) See them in Burnet's Collection of Records, Vol. i. p. 209, No. 55. (g) Above, p. 52. (h) Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 294; Ecc. Mem. Vol. ii. p. 368; Fuller's Ch. Hift. B. 7. p. 421, the Catechifm passim.

(i) See

Summary Declaration of faith published in the first year of this inaufpicious reign, and fubfcribed by thofe venerable leaders in the noble army of Martyrs, Ferrar, Hooper, Coverdale, Philpot, Taylor, Bradford, Rogers, &c.; which they avowed themselves ready to maintain to the last, and for which most of them actually endured the flames *; Let him confult the treatifes written, fubfcribed, or approved, by Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Ferrar, Philpot, Bradford, Taylor, and Careless, on the first disturbance occafioned among them by the Freewillers, and other Separatifts, in the prison of King's Bench: Let him examine the excellent Confeffion written about two years after by John Clement, at the inftigation of the other prifoners then deemed orthodox, and which Mr. Strype fays "may be looked upon as an account of the Belief of the Profeffors in those days: Let him, in fhort, attend to these, or any other public Confeffion of the Church Proteftants, or of any principal Individual among them, during this whole perfecution, and then declare, as an honeft man, whose doctrines are now most similar to them.

These early Productions deferve the more attention, bes cause it is common to infinuate, that the interpretation of the Articles now termed Methodistic or Calvinistic, was only introduced by the return of the Exiles", on the ac ceffion of Elizabeth, and was not in the primary intention of our Church. According to this fuggeftion, the above illustrations of them, which were written before that

(k) See Strype's Eccles. Mem. under 1554. p. 140, and Cat. of Originals, No. 17; Burnet's Hift. of Reform. Vol. ii. p. 285; and Fox's Acts and Monuments, Vol.ii.p. 1641, where the Declara is more perfect. (1) Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 350; Appendix, p 195, No. 83; Eccles. Mem; Coverdale's Letters of the Martyrs; and Fox.

(m) Eccles. Mem. Vol. iii p. 363; Cat. of Origin. No. 61.

(n) See Heylin's Quinq. Hift. Tracts, p. 609; Dr. Hey's Nor. Lect. Vol. ii. p. 209; Daub. Appen. p. 230 ; &c.

period, muft exhibit the most moderate view of their doctrines. Dr. Heylin appears to labour to prove, that the doctrines afterwards established were not defigned to be, what are sometimes called, more rigid. It is fufficient to our purpose if they were not intended to be less fo, which will scarcely be much contefted with us. But, as the decifions under Elizabeth are those which are binding upon Minifters now, to a few of the most authentic and important theological publications under her reign, we will particularly appeal.

The first we will notice, is, A "Declaration" of the Proteftants' doctrine drawn up, and fubfcribed, by Sandys and the other eminent Divines, met in Conference at Weftminster, for the purpose of preparing the Book of Common Prayer, in the year 1559. This Declaration is nothing else than a republication, and explanatory enlargement, of the Articles of King Edward; and the reafon affigned by themfelves why they do not adopt the very words of those Articles, is," that they were led to particularize against the objections of their adverfaries:" But, as they think proper to add, "that in altering, augmenting or diminishing, adding or omitting, they neither improve, nor yet recede from any of the faid articles; but fully confent unto the whole, as to a moft true and found Doctrine, grounded upon God's Word." There is manifeftly therefore no infringement of our system here.

The fanie may be affirmed of the CONFESSION to which the subscription of the Clergy was required in the following year; and, in fhort, of every work either of eninence or authority, which preceded the regular Settlement of our 39 Articles in their present form in 1562".

And what the precife doctrines then defigned in them were, we have as full evidence as the nature of the cafe is

(0) Quinq. Hift. Tracts, p. 597. (p) See Strype's Annals of the Reformat. p. 114. (q) Ibid. p. 207, 209. (r) See Strype's

Life of Parker, p. 120.

1

well capable of, in the CATECHISM that was reviewed, corrected," approved and allowed," by the fame Convocation, which paffed thefe Articles. This Catechifm, it seems clear, as Mr. Strype concludes from internal evidence, is only an improved Edition of that we have already noticed, which paffed the Synod of 1552; or at the least, much use has been made of this former work in its compofition. It was now drawn up at the inftigation of the great Secretary Cecil, by the eminently learned and pious Dr. Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's, who was Prolocutor of the Convocation in which it, and the 39 Articles were paffed. It underwent the most careful and mature examination and discussion of the most celebrated Divines in the Kingdom, with the exprefs view, that it might be "a ftanding fummary of the Doctrines profeffed in our church." When it was printed, it was subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops, dedicated, to them, and to the Bishop of London, by name, and to all the reft of the Bishops. It paffed in a short space, through several editions, and was tranflated into different languages. It was commonly used in fchools. And, in fhort, in fuch high estimation was it holden, on its firft coming abroad, and for many years after, by Parker, Whitgift, Cooper, and the other Dignitaries of our church, that it was even enjoined to be studied by Minifters, in order "that they might learn true divinity from it." And to crown the whole, its importance has been recognized, and its worth extolled by two eminent modern Prelates, Bishop Cleaver', and the Bishop of Durham. No testimony can therefore be more deferving of attention in our inquiry. And yet, none can be more decifive in our favour. We appeal to

(s) See Strype's Annals, p. 313-316; Life of Parker, p. 122, 301. (t) See Preface, p. 6. to his Edit. of it, or below § 2. (v) See his Charge, 1792, 2nd Edit. Appendix, p. 54; and the Oxford Encheiridion Ecclefiafticum,

E