II. A Review of the Doctrines of the Reformation, with an Account of the feveral Deviations to the prefent general Departure from them. In a Series of Letters to a young Gentleman defigned for the Miniftry. By Thomas Bowman, M. A. Vicar of Martham, Norfolk. 8vo. Pr 35. 6d. Dilly.

T has been generally allowed, that the articles of our church relating to original fin, free-will, grace, faith, predestination, and other points of this nature, are formed upon Calvinistical principles, Yet it is well known, that most of the clergy are now Arminians. How this has happened we shall not here examine. Our author fuppofes, that numbers have taken things upon truft, and entered into the ministry, without knowing or confidering what are the real doctrines to which they subscribe. The defign of this work is therefore to caution our young divines against such a lamentable inattention; to open the eyes of the undifcerning; to fhew them how they have been impofed upon by false teachers; and to prefent them with a juft and perfect view of the doctrines of the Reformation.

*

In the first letter he produces fix articles on the fubjects above-mentioned; and compares them with fome paffages in the homilies and the liturgy: from thence he deduces the following pofitions, which, he fays, are the genuine doctrines of the church of England, viz.

That we are by nature children of wrath, miferable, helplefs, unable to do a good work, or think a good thought, without the preventing grace of God-that we can be justified only by faith in the death and obedience of Jefus Chrift; not for the fake of our faith as the procuring cause of our justification, but for the alone meritorious righteousness of Chrift-that we can do nothing acceptable in the fight of God, till we are justified by faith in the merits of Chrift-that repentance and faith are the free gifts of God-that, after we are justified, it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do that which is good-that we are faved of mere mercy and favour, not on any account, for our defervings; but because it was the good will and pleasure of God, before the foundation of the world, to choose us in Christ, and ordain us to eternal falvation through him.

In the fecond letter, the author having fhewn, from the writings of Cranmer, Latimer, Jewel, Fulk, Perkins, and Hooker, from the teftimony of Philpot, archdeacon of Winchefter, and the Catechifm fet forth by king Edward VI. that thefe doctrines were generally received by our divines, and ac

* Art, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17.

knowledged

knowledged to be the doctrines of the church of England, at the time of, and foon after the Reformation, proceeds in this

manner :

These are the principal writers of queen Elizabeth's time: and if you compare the other writers of that age with these, you will find they all agree in this, that falvation is wholly by grace. "The uniformity of doctrine was held in our church without disturbance, as long as thofe worthy bifhops lived, who were employed in the Reformation." (Bp. Carlton's Examinątion of Montague's Appello Cæfarem p. 5.) The doctrines they teach are apparently those which are diftinguished by the name of Calvinism. These therefore are the doctrines of the church of England. If more teftimonies were neceffary to prove this, multitudes might be produced. It may not however be amifs to mention a few. "I am well affured (faid the good bishop laft mentioned) that the learned bishops who were in the reformation of our church, did so much honour to St. Auftin, that in collecting of the articles and homilies, and other things in that reformation, they had an efpecial respect unto St. Auftin's doctrines." (Exam. of Montague, p. 49.) The doctrines of Austin and Calvin are, for the most part, the fame. They both with the fame earneftnefs affert the natural misery, condemnation, and helplessness of man, the freeness and fovereignty of divine grace. Their principal difagreement is in the article of baptifm. Attend to the words of the famous Dr Samuel Ward, one of our plenipotentiaries at the fynod of Dort. "This alfo I can truly add for a conclufion, that the univerfal church hath always adhered to St. Austin in these points, ever fince his time till now. The church of England alfo from the beginning of the Reformation, and this our famous University, with all those who from thence till now, have with us enjoyed the divinity chair, if we except one foreign Frenchman (viz. Peter Baro)-have likewise conftantly adhered to him." (Concio ad Clerum Camb. Jan. 12. 1625, p. 45.) The great Dr. Whitaker, "whom, fays Bp. Hall (Epist. 7. Decad. 1.) no man ever faw without reverence, or heard without wonder," in his Cygnea Cantio (Camb. 1593) p. 15, 16. foon after the first appearance of Arminianifm, has thefe memorable words. "The church of England ever fince the gospel was restored, hath always held and embraced this opinion (the Calvinian) of election and reprobation. This, Bucer in our university; Peter Martyr at Oxford; have profeffed: two eminent divines, who have moft abundantly watered our church with their streams, in the days of king Edward: whofe memories fhall always be honourable among us, unless we will be most ungrateful. This opinion their

auditors

auditors in both our univerfities; the bishops, deans, and other divines, who upon the advancement of our famous queen Elizabeth to the crown, returned either from exile, or were released from the prifons into which they had been thrust for the profeffion of the gofpel; or faved from the hands of perfecuting bishops; thofe by whom our church was reformed, our religion established, popery thrust out and quite destroyed; (all which we may remember, though few of this kind be yet living) this opinion, I fay, they themselves have held, and commended unto us: in this faith have they lived, in this they died, in this they always wished that we should conftantly continue."-Nor are we without teftimonies to this truth of a much later date. Dr. Heylin, fpeaking of the tenets which were efpoufed in queen Elizabeth's time, fays, "Predeftination, and the points depending thereupon, were received as the established doctrines of the church of England."-The books of Calvin were made the rule by which all men were to fquare their writings, his word only, (like the ipfe dixit of Pythagoras) was admitted for the fole rule to which they were to frame and conform their judgments." (Life of Abp. Laud, p. 51, 52.) This teftimony has the more weight, as it comes from one who zealously afferted the contrary opinions. Bishop Burnet, tho' he much inclined to Arminianifm, and undertook the expofi tion of the articles at the defire of a zealous Arminian, frankly acknowledges, that " in England the firft reformers were generally in the fublapfarian hypothefis." (On the Art. p. 151. edit. 1699.) The fame writer declares (p. 113.) "St. Austin confidered all mankind as loft in Adam, and in that he made the decree of election to begin; there being no other reprobation afferted by him, than the leaving men to continue in that state of damnation, in which they were by reason of Adam's fin." In the next page, fpeaking of this doctrine, he has this remark. "It is known that this was the tenet of those who prepared the articles, it having been the generally received opinion from St. Austin's days downwards." Again," Another fort of people was much complained of, who built so much on the received opinion of predeftination, that they thought they might live as they pleased; fince nothing could resist an absolute decree. This had a very ill effect on the lives of many, who thought they were fet loose from all obligations; and that was indeed the greatest scandal of the reformation. (Burnet's Hift. of the Reformation, ad ann. 1549.)

The teftimony of a judicious foreigner, who took great pains to know the opinions embraced by different nations at different periods of time, may be pertinently introduced. "When it was propofed, under the reign of Edward VI. to give a ftable

and fixed form to the doctrine and difcipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a fifter church; and the theological system there established by Calvin, was adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith in England." (Mofheim Eccles. Hift. Vol. II. p. 204.) In a few pages after he has these words; "It is certain that the Calviniftical doctrine of predeftination prevailed among the first English reformers, the greatest part of whom were at leaft Sublapfarians." (p. 217.)'

Mr. Bowman fubjoins the teftimony of Mr. Rogers, who publifhed an expofition of the Articles in 1584, about thirteen years after they had received the fanction of parliament, and an extract from "Certaine Questions and Answers touching the Doctrine of Predeftination:" printed by Christopher Barker in 1581; which, till the year 1615, were bound up with our English Bibles.

In the third Letter our author endeavours to point out the feveral deviations of theological writers from the Calvinistic interpretation of the Articles.

He obferves, that the first disturbers of that uniformity in doctrine, which the Articles were defigned to establish, were Barret and Baro at Cambridge, and after them Thompson. William Barret was fellow of Caius college. In a fermon preached April 29, 1595, he spoke sharply against Calvin and his opinions, and advised the students not to read his book of Institutions, which was the fyftem of divinity then generally ufed. But his difcourfe was fo offenfive to the university, that fix days after he was fummoned before the heads of the colleges, and obliged to recant.

In the fame year the point of absolute predestination, and the doctrines depending thereon, being much controverted, the University of Cambridge fent Dr. Whitaker, and Dr. Tyndal, as their representatives, to Lambeth, where archbishop Whitgift had fummoned several learned divines to confult about measures for propagating the truth, and fuppreffing the errors which many began to efpoufe.The refult of their conference was a publication of nine Articles, which are known by the title of the Lambeth Articles.

• Peter Baro, a Frenchman, was Margaret profeffor of divinity at Cambridge, and had efpoufed and taught doctrines like thofe which were afterwards diftinguished by the name of Arminianifm; but foon after the publication of the Lambeth Articles, was obliged by the University to refign his profefforship on account of his opinions.

Nor was Cambridge fingular in maintaining these doctrines. Her fifter University embraced and taught the fame. "The

divines

divines of Oxford, and indeed all the first reformers, were in the fame fentiments with thofe of Cambridge about the difputed points; Calvin's Inftitutions being publicly read in the schools by appointment of the convocation." Neal's Hift. Purit. vol. I. P. 584.

In the year 1615, were published articles of religion for the kingdom of Ireland. They are in fubftance the fame as our xxxix articles, and in many places drawn up in the fame words.

'Indeed, as most of the Irish bishops in that convocation were English divines, we may well fuppofe, and need not wonder, that they speak the fenfe of the church of England, and in particular that they well illuftrate and explain our xviith article, on predestination, which was then fo much the subject of controverfy.

When Edward Symfon, fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, preached before king James at Royston, 1616, and in his difcourfe advanced fome of the Arminian tenets, the king fent to the two divinity profeffors at Cambridge for their opinion of the fermon; who condemned it; and the preacher was enjoined, and performed a public recantation before him..

The predeftinarian controverfy had been long maintained, and had at length produced alarming divifions in Holland; when, in order to put an end to thofe differences, a fynod was held at Dort in the year 1618. To this fynod most of the Proteftant churches were invited to fend their reprefentatives.The refult of this famous meeting is well known. The Arminian tenets were condemned, as contrary to the word of God; and the doctrines of Calvin were declared to be agreeable to the fcriptures.'

Our author concludes this letter with the following remark: The firft deviation then from our articles, was in favour of Arminianifm: yet it is evident that every attempt to introduce it was publicly discountenanced; that the king himfelf, by his writings and authority, defended the opinions of Calvin; and that the archbishops and bifhops, the two univerfities, and our national reprefentatives at a foreign fynod, all acknowledged Calvinifin to be the doctrine of the church of England.'

In the fourth letter our author purfues his enquiry, and obferves, that foon after the Synod of Dort Arminianism was openly embraced and even preached without any legal cenfure.

Our fickle monarch, he fays, who had fo fharply inveighed against Arminianifin in his writings, and warmly approved the proceedings of the fynod of Dort; in the year 1621 promoted door Laud, the great favourer of Arminianifin, to the bishoprick