I fhall trouble you only with an additional extract from this preface, which speaks fo plainly the language of MELANCTHON, in his Loci Theologici, as to furnish the most undeniable proof, that HOOPER was no difciple of CALVIN, whofe rigid doctrine MELANCTHON ftrenuously and uniformly opposed. "JOHN faith, no man cometh to me, except my Father draw him. Many men understand these words in a wrong fense; as though GoD required in a reafonable man no more than in a dead poft, and marketh not the words that follow; every man that heareth, and learneth of my Father, cometh to me. GOD draweth with his word and the Holy Ghoft; but man's duty is to heare and learne; that is to fay, to receive the grace of GOD, confent to the promife, and not repugne the God that calleth. GOD doth promise the Holy Ghost unto them that aske him, and not to them that contemne him."

1

Now what fhall we fay about our reformers? If they defigned that the famous article, on which all Calvinifts build fo much, fhould be understood in the Calvinistic fenfe, they must be condemned out of their own mouths as the most inconfiftent; of men and as fuch, very unqualified for the important office they

undertook, that of reforming and new modelling our national church.

The confidential communication that paffed between CRANMER and MELANCTHON, (who profeffed the highest veneration for each other) previous to the compofition of the English articles, has been already remarked. But it is, moreover, known, upon the authority of HEYLIN, that CALVIN made an offer of his affiftance to CRANMER in the prosecution of the reformation in this country, but that the offer was declined. "The Archbishop (fays the hiftorian) knew the man, and therefore refused his offer." Prefuming, Sir, you can be at no lofs to draw the conclufion, I pafs on.

It has been above obferved, that foon after EDWARD's establishment on the throne, a paraphrase of the New Teftament was ordered, by authority, to be set up in all churches for general information. Now at this time LUTHER had published a commentary of Galatians, and CALVIN his Inftitutes. But it was the paraphrafe of ERASMUS which our reformers thought most proper to promote the object in view on this occafion; the paraphrase of a man who had distinguished himself in oppofition to the errors both of LUTHER and CALVIN, on the subject of the

enflaved will and abfolute decrees. The argument to be drawn from this circumftance in favour of our reformers not being what all Calvinists are defirous of representing them, is, it is prefumed, fuch as no Calvinist will ever fairly answer. For if our reformers meant that the doctrine of our church fhould be received in the Calvinistic fenfe, and at the fame time made use of a paraphrase calculated to convey a different fenfe to her members, they were in fact pulling down with one hand what they profeffed to be building up with the other.

Having thus briefly proved that our reformers, if we give them credit for found fenfe and confiftency of character, did not mean, in the fyftem of divinity which they laid down in our articles and liturgy, to contradict themselves; and that confequently the fenfe which Calvinifts have annexed to our church articles, is not the fenfe in which they were originally compofed; I proceed to my fecond pofition, which is in fact but a corollary to my firft, namely, that our church, in the fubfcription to her articles, does not require a profeffion of faith from her clergy different from that which they are taught to preach to their congregations in the use of the established liturgy.

Every regularly established church muft, to be confistent, maintain an uniformity in doctrine. It has been before proved, that the compofers of our articles and liturgy were not Calvinists; ergo, the Calvinistic fenfe of the articles is not the true fenfe.

The only objection to the foregoing fyllogifm, if you make any, will be to the fecond: branch of it, respecting the liturgy of the church. But the general meaning of our church fervice must be so obvious to every unprejudiced mind, and has been fo particularly drawn out by Mr. FLETCHER and Dean TUCKER, in oppofition to the Calviniftic notions, that it would be throwing away time and paper to detain you on that fubject.

The Seventh Article, in your sense of it, teaches the doctrine of partial redemption and absolute unconditional election to eternal life. The liturgy of the church teaches, in every part of it, univerfal redemption and conditional falvation. But the articles and liturgy of the fame church cannot be in contradiction to each other,

We will now try the article itself, upon which you build your favourite doctrine, by the fame rule of judgment by which we have already tried the compofers of it, by applying to it this self-evident pro

pofition, that as a compofition defigned for the ufe of the Christian miniftry, it must convey one determined fenfe, and cannot contradict itself.

Now the main fubftance of this article, according to your idea, teaches the abfolute and unconditional election and confequent falvation of particular perfons. But the concluding part of the article, in the most plain and decided terms, teaches the very oppofite doctrine, by telling us that God's promises are to be received, as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture. Upon turning to the facred scripture, we find these promises are general and conditional. The facred fcripture informs us, that redemption by CHRIST is as general as the fall was by ADAM, and confequently univerfal. Again it informs us, that the redemption by CHRIST was not more univerfal in its plan than it was GOD's with that it fhould be in its effects. Two plain texts will be fufficient to establish the foregoing pofitions." As by the offence of one, judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even fo (in like manner) by the righteoufnefs of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Rom. v. 18. "GOD will have all men to be faved, and to come unto the knowlege of the truth; for the one Mediator, the man CHRIST JESUS, gave himself a