the defpicable, feeble, inconfiftent cavils of a Popish medley, in which the print of Gardiners's cloven foot appears throughout. I will only obferve farther, that the then Pelagian, now (fince the ftarting up of Pelagius the fecond, I mean James Van Harmin, about fifty years after the publishing of the book in queftion) Arminian doctrines, are, most of them, to be found in that wretched piece: fuch as thefe, that justifying faith includes obedience to all the law of God that the Scriptures fay nothing in favour of perfonal affurance, or from whence it may be gathered that men may in this life be certain of their election, much lefs of their perfeverance in grace to the end: that the divine promifes, refpecting grace and falvation, are fufpended on conditions of man's performing; that there is a double juftification, primary and final; that though we are juftified by works, yet that very juftification is, in fome fenfe, by grace, becaufe good works are done by God's affiftance; that works, done by juftified perfons, are meritorious towards the attainment of life eternal: and fuch like*. With which I take my leave of this contemptible, un-proteftant performance.

You have just been dabbling in muddy water; but now the stream

"Works itself clear, and, as it runs, refines;

Your next appeal being to the Reformatio legum ecclefiafticarum; a Proteftant codex, drawn up in the Proteftant reign of Edward VI. But from hence, as if you liked neither the book, nor the reign in which it was written, you bring only two fhort quotations; 1 and thofe not very happily chofen for

Burnet virtually proves, that Cranmer had no hand in that part, at leaft, of this book, which relates to juftification. This book makes works a condition, not to fay, a caufe, of juftification; but Cranmer utterly denied them to be fo: as appears from the conclufion of fome papers, drawn up by him, about this time, on that important fubject; for which fee Burnet, Ref. vol. i. 275. See Heylin's Acknowledgment. Life of Laud, p. 3. Page 74.

neither

neither of them clashes with the doctrines of election and final perfeverance, but on the contrary, by evident implication, plainly fuppofe them to be true. The firft paffage you render thus: "Wherefore all are to be admonished by us, that, in their undertakings and actions, they are not to refer themfelves to the decrees of predeftination; fince, in the Holy Scriptures, we fee promifes to good actions, and threats to bad ones, propofed in general terms." This vifibly implies, that there are, in fact, decrees of predeftination; but that thefe decrees, being unknown to us, cannot, for that very reafon, be the rule by which men are to fquare their actions and undertakings. What Calvinift ever denied this? I never knew one that did. We all hold, that God's revealed, not his fecret will. is the rule of human action and that we are not to defcend from the decree to events; but, on the contrary, fhould afcend, from events, to the decree*. God's hidden will of determination is and can be the rule of his own conduct only, becaufe he only is acquainted with his own purposes in their full extent: but the grand, unerring chart of direction to men, and on which they should conftantly fix their eyes, is God's declared will of command, fet forth in the written word. So our Church determines, article feventeenth, "In our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have exprefsly declared unto us in the word of God."

It is equally true, that, "In the Holy Scriptures, we fee promises to good actions, and threats to bad ones, propofed in general terms :" i. e. It is declared, in Scripture, that fuch and fuch caufes fhall generally be productive of fuch and fuch effects, Which is a propofition, not only granted, but infifted upon, by myfelf and by every Calvinift I ever

* See the bishop of London's (Bancroft) fpeech to the king in the Hampton-court conference, p. 29,

yet read or met with. So much, fir, for your first citation. I go on to the other: "Etiam illi de juftificatis perverfè fentiunt, qui credunt illos, poftquam jusli fimul facti funt, in peccatum non poffe incidere aut fi fortè quicquam eorum faciunt, quæ Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere." I have given the Latin, that my readers may judge of your tranflation, which runs thus: "They form very perverfe notions of the juftified, who believe, that, after they are once made juft, they cannot fall into fin: or if, by chance, they should do any thing prohibited by the laws of God, that God does not impute it as fin." On reading this, I inftantly turned to the table of errata, at the end of your pamphlet; but found no correction. What, fir! does accipio properly fignify to impute and charge a thing home? Surely both the genius of the Latin tongue, and the fenfe of the paffage under confideration, require us to render accipere, in this place, by regard, confider, or look upon. The whole paragraph ftands thus: " They judge very mistakenly of juflified perfon, who believe that fuch cannot fall into fin, after they are once made juft or, if they fhould happen to commit any of thofe things which are forbidden by God's law, that God does not look upon those things as fins." To talk (as you would fain make the paffage do) of God's actually imputing fin to juftified perfons, would be a contradiction in terms: fince the negative part of juftification itfelf lies, effentially, in the nonimputation of any fin whatever, Pfalm xxxii. 1, 2. And the man, to whom any one fin is imputed by God, is and muft be, ipfo facto, an unjustified perfon. All, then, that can be inferred from the paffage, is, ift. That juftified men are not impeccable; the doctrine of finlefs perfection in this life, even after grace received, being falfe, fanatical, and prefumptuous. 2. That, confequently, even juftified perfons may, and too frequently do, fall into fin: and, 3. That, whenever they do fo, God, whofe

judgment

judgment is neceffarily according to truth, confiders fuch falling as finful; fin being fin, as much when committed by a child of God, as when committed by any other the ftate of the offending perfon not being able to reverse the nature of things. Nay, fin is, if poffible, more exceeding finful in a regenerate man, than if he was not fo. But what has all this to do with your novel, Arminian doctrine of totally and finally falling from grace? It rather makes for the oppofite doctrine of final perfeverance: fince the "reformatio legum," by only declaring that the juftified may fall into fin (which nobody denies, but enthufiafts) and that fin is fin, let who will commit it (which every man in his fenfes allows); Cranmer and his brother-commiffioners, by going no farther, but letting the matter reft here, tacitly fet their feal to the "perpetuity of a regenerate man's eftate:" according to the known axiom, that exceptio probat regulam in non exceptis.

With regard to what you advance from Latimer, [page 75], from Hooper [page 76], and from Kidley, [page 78], it helps not your caufe a jot. I had, in my rough draught of thefe papers, prepared a vindication of theie venerable prelates and reformers from the flander of Arminianifm, which you have, fo unjustly, laboured to faften upon them; together with a refutation of the forced, unnatural inferences, deduced by you from the few mangled citations you bring. I find, however, that the infertion of this would fwell the prefent publication beyond the fize I intend; and fhall therefore poftpone fubmitting that part of my work to the world, until I fee whether you ftill have the hardinefs to perfift in charging thofe Proteftant worthies with opinions they deteited. If I might take the liberty of advising you, I would recommend to you at least filence upon that head, in time to come. I am clear, that you endeavoured to cull out the moft unguarded paffages, you could, from the writings of the above excellent

men:

laboured effort, ever yet made, to farther Arminianifm on the Church of England: but all his attempts

univerfity degree; fet twice on the pillory; have his ears cut off; be imprisoned for life; and fined in 5000l. a moiety whereof, very probably, went to Mr. Heylin, for his dexterity in drawing logical inferences, and for his activity in publishing a treatife (before the trial came on), feiting forth the punishments which, the court expected, fhould be inflicted on fuch offenders as Mr. Prynne. But, whether Heylin came in for any of the 5000l. or not; the author of his life, immediately after the paffage laft quoted from him, adds: "For the reward of which, and other good fervices, that, with wonderful prudence, as well as diligence, he faithfully performed; his majefty was gracioufly pleafed to requite him, by beltowing on him the parfonage of Houghton, in the bithopric of Durham, which afterwards he exchanged with Dr. Marshall, for the parfonage of Alresford in Hampshire, that was about the fame value: to which exchange he was commanded by his majesty, that he might live nearer the court for readinefs to do his majefty's fervice:" [and Laudable fervice it was, if we may judge of the whole by the fample.] "neither was he envied for this, or his other preferments, becaufe every one knew his merits the only caufe of his promotion." ib. And fo much for Heylin, and his merits: fome of which, I fuppofe, confifted in being a pandour for popery: feveral of his books, but efpecially his History of the Reformation, having been the means, it is believed (fays the life-writer, p. 24, 25.) of perverting "fome perfons, and thofe of the moit illuftrious quality, from the Protellant faith to Popery: after which is added the following paffage from bishop Burnet, who obferves, that Dr. Heylin delivers many

things in fuch a manner, and fo ftrangely, that one would think he had been fecretly fet on to it by thofe of the Church of Rome: though I doubt not (fays the bishop) but he was a fincere Proteftant, but vislently carried away by fome particular conceits." To which the biographer's anfwer is this, page 25. "If it be true that any have embraced the Roman faith, by means of that book (f), he [Burnet] may conclude them to be very incompetent judges in the matters of religion, that will be prevailed upon, to change it, by the perufal of one fingle history." A very flimfy vindication from fo heavy a charge! See Heylin's Life, prefixed to his Miscellaneous Tracts, in fol. 1681.

I thought the reader would not be displeased to see a sketch of that man's character, whofe name and writings are fill fo precious in the eftimation of high-flown Arminians and Tories. I shall only prolong this large note with one obfervation more: viz. What can we think of the Proteftantifm of that clergyman, who has left it on record, as his fettled opinion, that the death of king Edward VI. (though fucceeded by the butcheries of a Popish reign) was rather a benefit,

(f) The duchefs of York turned Papift by reading it. Echard.

than