never defigned to have been made a fundamental article of belief in the Chriftian Church. If however, on the contrary, it be a system formed either by misapplying to individuals, promises which were made to nations at large; or else by affuming certain notions concerning the attributes of God, and by deciding without due warrant on the manner in which his glory is to be promoted; may not every affertion on this head ftand chargeable with prefumption? While Cha

"What is revealed only is the rule of our duty. Why "then do we fearch into thofe decrees which we call fecret? "If God will have them fecret, why will we not let them be "fecret? He fmote fifty-thousand and seventy of the Bethshe

mites, with a great flaughter, because they looked into his "Ark. (1 Sam. vi. 19.) And who dare pry into what he has " referved, as a fecret, from us?" Leflie's Works, vol. i. p. 801.

y As part of the Calvinistic fyftem is founded on this affumption, that the glory of God is to be promoted by the condemnation of the reprobate; "Ideo (reprobi) Dei judicio "fufcitati funt, ad gloriam ejus fuâ damnatione illuftrandum.” Calvin, Inft. L. III. c. xxiv. 14. we cannot but fuggeft, that this is fo tremendous an affertion, that nothing but the most explicit, the moft unequivocal revelation could have authorized any one to have made it. If we will not content ourfelves with believing, that the honour of the Father is promoted by our faith and obedience to the Gospel of his Son; but must rather indulge in the vanity of reafon, by fpeculating on the motives that induced the Almighty to create all things to his glory; we may humbly venture to say, that the following paffage from a truly pious and learned writer feems to offer motives more confonant

M

rity therefore fhould make us with that fo myfterious a fubject as the Predeftinations of the Moft High had never been agitated, Humility will fuggeft, that we ought to pafs it over in awful and religious filence. It would not have been alluded to in the prefent inftance, had it not been afferted, that our Church exacts from us an avowal of the rigid Calvinistic doctrine, as a term of com

munion.

To apply the 17th Article to this ufe, is to apply it to a purpose abfolutely contrary to that which it was defigned to answer. That this Article is framed in fuch a manner, as that men may fubfcribe to it, holding Predeftination in the Calviniftic fenfe of the term, we

66

confonant to the idea of Him who is Goodness abfolute, than that which has been quoted above: "When God feeks his own glory, he does not fo much endeavour any thing with"out himself. He did not bring this ftately fabric of the uni"verfe into being, that he might for fuch a monument of his "mighty power and beneficence gain fome panegyrics, or applaufe, from a little of that fading breath, which he had "made: neither was that gracious contrivance of reftoring lapfed men to himself a plot, to get himself fome eternal Hallelujahs; as if He had fo ardently thirfted after the lays "of glorified fpirits, or defired a quire of fouls to fing forth "his praises: neither was it to let the world fee how magnifi"cent he was: no: it is his own internal glory that he moft "loves, and the commmunication thereof which he feeks." Smith's Select Difcourses, p. 408.

66

will.

will readily allow; but then we maintain that the words of the Article, in their literal meaning, do not affert the Calvinistic tenets; and at all events, that its concluding claufes were added purposely that those might be included within the pale of our Church, who fhould think that Predeftination ought to be understood in a different manner. When therefore fome of the Sect before us contend, that our Articles will confift with the Doctrine of the Decrees, we cannot condemn their conduct, though we do not affent to their opinions. But when they add, that we are forbidden to entertain any other fentiments on this head; when they infist, that the Framers of those Articles intended that they should exact from us a folemn recognition of the Calvinistic tenets; and when in confequence they apply the bitter terms of hypocrify and perjury to all fuch as fhall give them a different construction, as being more confonant to the genuine meaning of Scripture; it is they who must be charged with having departed from our Articles; inafmuch as they pervert them, if not from their meaning, at leaft from their use; making them peremptory, when they were not defigned to be peremptory; affirming, that they allow no latitude, when they were purpofely

M 2

pofely fo framed as to give latitude; and infifting that they make a particular doctrine the term of communion, when the Church of England, by thofe very Articles, difclaims every fuch intention 2.

As Mr. Whitefield afferted, that in maintaining Calvinifm he was maintaining the great doctrines of our Reformation; the doctrines of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer; we cannot but observe, that these three perfons never taught the Calvinistic tenets; and moreover, that many paffages from their writings might be adduced to fhew that they explicitly difclaimed them. See this argument pursued in A Dissertation on the 17th Article of the Church of England, printed at Oxford, 1773. The following circumftance however may be thought perhaps fufficient of itself to decide the question. When our three great Reformers were in prifon, Bradford, a fhort time previous to their martyrdom, having written a treatise concerning God's Election, in which it should seem that he had inclined towards Calvinifm, fent it to Ridley, begging, that if he thought good, it might receive his fanction, with that of Cranmer and of Latimer. It is evident however, that the three Bishops difapproved of Bradford's treatife; and that not only their approbation was withheld, but that Ridley wrote a small tract, in answer to it; though unfortunately it is now loft. See Letters of the Martyrs, fol. 64. and the Differtation above quoted, p. 72. et feq. Ridley's words, in anfwer to Bradford, are very remarkable: " Syr, in those matters concerning God's Election, I am fo fearful, that I dare not speak farther, yea, "almost none otherwife than the very texte dothe (as it wer) "lead me by the hand." Lett. of Mart. 64, 65. Now, the 17th Article being couched, as near as poffible, in the exprefs terms of Scripture, we not only are enabled to affign it perhaps to its very author, but also to know the precife object he had in view when compiling it. If Ridley then were living, and

66

were

Thus much then will fuffice to confider the question, as far as it concerns one of the Founders of the Sect. The other has placed himself under such circumstances as will allow us to bring more immediate proof against him, of his having departed from the Articles of the Established Church. For to the Liturgy which he gave his new Communion, Articles of Religion are added; formed, in fome refpects indeed, upon ours, but in most of the effential points fo widely different, that it would be unreasonable to call them the fame. In the first place, they are reduced from thirty-nine to twenty-five. Secondly, of fuch of our Articles as are retained, many are fo altered, that they no longer contain the fame fentiments which they were defigned originally to convey and laftly, of those

were to be asked, whether he did not intend that the 17th Article fhould be understood according to the Syftem of Calvin? he would be aftonished at the question. He would tell us that he meant to refer us folely to the Scriptures; and he would add, that in the fenfe in which we confcientioufly believe Scripture fpeaks of Predestination, in that fense we should subscribe to the doctrine. It is remarkable, that when the Bishops and Divines who were imprisoned in Queen Mary's reign, drew up a Confeffion of their Faith, not a word occurs concerning Predestination. See Strype's Ecclef. Memoirs, vol. iii. p. 140, and Appen. p. 42.

a The following may ferve as a fpecimen to fhew the manner in which Mr. Wefley has altered fome of our Artioles :

M 3

Of