eminent for his piety, than for his other choice endowments," although "on the fcore of profound knowledge and univerfal fcience, he was perhaps never equalled," even at Cambridge 2. It is alfo thus introduced in the 'Scholar armed: "We begin with an excellent sketch of the Chriftian plan, by the mafterly hand of the great Lord Chancellor Bacon; who, with his other high qualifications, was one of the best Divines of the age in which he flourished"."-What then were Lord Bacon's ideas on our subject? "I believe," this great Philofopher, fpeaking of God, fays, "that he chofe, according to his good pleasure, man to be that creature, to whose nature the perfon of the eternal Son of God fhould be united; and amongst the genera·tions of men, ELECTED A SMALL FLOCK, in whom, by the participation of himself, he purposed to exprefs the riches of his glory; all the miniftration of angels, damnation of devils and reprobates, and univerfal administration of all creatures, and difpenfation of all times, having no other end, but as the ways and ambages of God, to be further glorified in his faints, who are one with their head the Mediator, who is one with God *."

"I believe," he further fays, "that the sufferings and merits of Chrift, as they are fufficient to do away the fins of the whole world, fo they are only effectual to those which are regenerate by the Holy Ghost; who breatheth where he will of free grace; which grace, as a feed incorruptible, quickeneth the spirit of man, and conceiveth him anew a fon of God and member of Chrift w -So alfo, after enumerating the ordinary means by which "the work of the Spirit" is effected, "All which," he fays, "though fome be more principal, God ufeth as the means of vocation and converfion of his elect; not derogating from his power to call immediately by his grace, and at all hours

(z) Visitation Sermon, p. 9. (y) Vol. i. Preface. 454. (w) Ibid. p. 456.

Vol. iv.

P.

(x) Works,

F

and moments of the day, that is, of man's life, according to his good pleafure." In conformity with thefe paffages are his notions of the "Catholic Church of God, which is 'Chrift's fpoufe, and Chrift's body." This he represents as confifting "of the fpirits of the faithful diffolved, and the fpirits of the faithful militant, and of the names yet to be born, which are already written in the book of Life":"

And does all this harmonize with the phrafeology of certain modern Divines? Does this afford Mr. Haggitt good ground for triumphing in Lord Bacon's authority against Calvinifts? Does Lord Bacon, like Mr. H., clafs "the doctrine of partial election," among pofitions which are "fo horrid and fo ftrange, that when we fee them authorized by the names of grave refpe&table characters, we are ready to reject the atteftation of our own fenfes*!" Muft we not indeed reject the atteftation of our fenfes to admit this? Yet on the fame occafion upon which Mr. H. extols Lord Bacon's Confeffion, he gives this account of Election!

My laft inftance fhall be, The PETITION prefented by Thomas Talbot, and his brethren in fentiment, to the Convocation that fettled our Articles; the occafion and circumftances of which, Mr. Strype relates as follows: Obferving upon the 17th Article, under the year 1562, No mention, he fuppofes, is made in it of " abfolute Reprobation," that no Proteftant might fcruple to fign it; becaufe, he says, "there were among thofe who now profeffed the Gospel, and had fuffered perfecution for it under Queen Mary, confiderable numbers differing from the rest that followed fome foreign Divines of great name, in the point of Predeftination.... One of these was Thomas Talbot, Parfon of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-Street, London. Those of this (v) Ibid. p. 456. (s) See Vifitation Sermon, p., 11, and Preface, p. 14. The paffage Mr. H. quotes from this Author, according to his Lordship's own exprefs words, "WHOLLY pertaineth to them which impugn our prefent Ecclefiaftical Government,." It is therefore wholly inapplicable to the perfons here vindicated.

(t) Ibid. p. 457.

(r) See Works, Vol. iv. p. 468.

perfuafion," he adds, "were mightily cried out against by the others, as Freewillers, Pelagians, Papifts, Anabaptists, &c." and "threatened with punishment." They therefore presented a petition to the Bishops, plainly declaring their opinions and fufferings, and begging for toleration ".-Here then, in those who followed the foreign Divines, and these who differed from them, and were cried out against, we have clearly the whole Body of the English Proteftants, except a few extravagant Sectaries. By examining therefore, what those opinions were of the one, that were cenfured by the other, we fhall, as far as our prefent argument is concerned, learn the sentiments of both.

The fubftance of the Declaration of the opinions of the Petitioners, then, is this: "That God's holy predeftination is not the caufe of fin:... That God doth foreknow, and predeftinate, all good and goodness; but doth only foreknow, and not predeftinate any evil, wickednefs, or fin....For this caufe," they fay, "they are esteemed of their Brethren, the Proteftants, fautors of falfe religion, and conftrained to fuftain at their hands the shameful reproach and infamy of Freewillmen, Pelagians, Papists, Epicures, Anabaptists, and enemies to God's holy predeftination and providence;" and threatened with fuch punishments as were denounced against thefe errors and fects. "Whereas," they affirm, "they hold no fuch thing as they are burdened withal; but do only hold concerning predestination as is above briefly declared." They beg therefore," it may be provided, that none of those punishments, which the Clergy have authority to exercise upon any of the aforefaid errors and fects, shall extend to be executed upon any manner of perfons as do hold of predestination as is above declared; except it be duly proved, that the fame perfons do by their express words or writings, affirm and maintain, that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, will, or work, of himself, any

(n) Annals, p. 293--295,

thing that should, in any cafe, help, or ferve toward his own Jalvation, or any part thereof; or else fome other manifest Articles, or points of error, which any of the aforefaid fects, or any other, do hold."

These then were the principles of the Diffentients, in accommodation to whom, Mr. Strype believes, the Article is filent about abfolute Reprobation. And is it not therefore in vain to argue with those who deny the Calvinism of the reft, who conftituted the main Body? What now becomes of the conceit fo much infifted upon, that it was only Pelagianifm which our Reformers difliked and condemned? Is this Pelagianifm, that ascribes all good and goodness to God's holy predeftination? Is it only Semipelagianism; is it Arminianifm, which denies "that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, will, or work, any thing, that can, in any cafe, help, or serve, towards his own falvation, or any part thereof?" Or rather, would not these fentiments of the more moderate party now be called Calvinistic?But how oppofite, how diametrically oppofite, is this whole representation to that of our opponents, who contend that the main body of our Reformers were a kind of Arminian "Freewillmen," and that they accommodated the Article to a few diffenting Calvinifts!

that

3. The next argument I will briefly notice, to prove the private fentiments of our Reformers were Calviniftic, fhall be-The CONCESSIONS AND REASONINGS OF AVOWED

ARMINIANS.

We have already feen what, among others, Bishop Burnet has conceded. But his conceffion is fo remarkably important and decifive on the subject, that it well merits a repetition. Bishop Burnet then, let it be obferved, was himself, confeffedly, an Arminian". The avowed object of his Expofition of the Articles was, to prove them not Calvinistic ;

(0) Ibid. See the Petition. of Articles, p. 6.

(p) See Preface to Expofition

or at least, to quiet the misgiving confciences of fubfcribing Arminians, and to wipe away the reproach, even then prevalent," that our Articles looked one way, and our Doctors, for the most part, went the other 9."—He was instigated to this work by Queen Mary; and the great Arch-Bifhop Tillotfon', an Arminian; and was, doubtlefs, therefore, confidered, at least, as well qualified for it, as any Divine in the Nation. It is most certain then, that Bishop Burnet would admit nothing on the other fide of the question, but what he was constrained to do by the force of the most manifeft truth. Yet, as was shown above, has he, in this very work, moft expressly afferted the whole matter for which we are contending; namely, that " In England, the FIRST REFORMERS were GENERALLY in the SUBLAPSARIAN Hypothefis :" but that "Perkins and others afferted the Supralapfarian way;" which, he says, the foreign Reformers "generally followed."-Can there then remain a fhadow of doubt but that this was really the fact?

Hear however the fame truth from the mouth of another Witnefs, equally free from fufpicion. No man, it is well known, ever discovered a more virulent hatred for every Calviniftic doctrine, or a more fervent zeal to free our Church from the imputation of holding any fuch Doctrine, than Dr. Heylin has done. No Man's Works on the fubject, are perhaps fo frequently resorted to,by modern Writers of the fame fentiments. Yet, he too has been compelled to admit the truth of our prefent pofition again, and again. "It cannot be denied," fays this zealous Arminian, "but that, by the error of thefe times, the reputation which Calvin had attained to in both Univerfities, and the extreme diligence of his followers, . . . there was a GENERAL TENDENCY

(q) See his Remarks on the Examination of his Expofition of the 2d Article; and Preface to Expofition. (r) Ibid. fee. (s) Expofition of Articles, p. 151. (t) See Dr. Hey's Nor. Lect. Vol. ii. P. 208; Mr. Daubeny's Appendix, p. 210; &c.