ed in burning John Lambert, and Anne Askew, for those very principles which he himself afterwards embraced*. And in the reign of Edward VI, he is confessed, by the same historians, to have "procured the death," (as one of them expresses it,) of Joanna Bocher, and George Paris. The King was opposed to the execution of these persons, and signed the warrants for their execution with tears in his eyes, telling Cranmer that he did it in compliance with his persuasion, and in submission to his ecclesiastical authority; and that if it was wrong, he, (the Archbishop,) must answer for it to Godt. In this representation, the Episcopal biographer, Mr. Gilpin, in his Lives of the Reformers, coucurs. "Joan Bocher," says he," and George "Paris were accused, one for denying the human"ity of Christ; the other for denying his divinity. "They were both tried and condemned to the "stake; and the Archbishop not only consented to "these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aver "sion of the young King into a compliance. Your "Majesty must distinguish, (said he, informing his "royal pupil's conscience,) between common opin❝ions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. "These latter we must, on no account, suffer to be "opposed‡."

*Cranmer's Memorials, Book 1. Chap. 17. p 65. Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. 11. p. 112.

† Hist. Ref. 11. 112.

The Lives of Reformers, By William Gilpin, M. A. Vol. *L. p. 99.

But it is gratifying to know, that Presbyterians, instead of delighting to load Cranmer with reproach, for these instances of misguided zeal, have always treated his memory with a respectful generosity. They have seldom failed to charge this part of his conduct to the delusion of the age, and not to the heart of the man; and have been ready to acknowledge, in the strongest terms, his excellent qualities, and his noble services to the Church of Christ. And it is but justice to add, that the Bishops and other leading divines of England, who were contemporary with Calvin, or who lived half a century after him, always treated his character with similar respect and affection, nor ever lisped a syllable in the strain of Dr. Bowden. To what are we to ascribe the different representation which is now so fashionable, and so industriously propagated among our Episcopal brethren? How shall we account for it, that gentlemen who abound in unqualified praises of Cranmer, and even of Laud, are not ashamed continually to reproach the memory of Calvin, with conduct in which they went far beyond him? Can charity herself avoid suspecting, that it is the man himself who is hated, more than his alleged persecuting spirit?

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How both throw out many reflections on that system of doctrine which is generally called Calvinism. The latter, in particular, speaks of it as a "detestable" system, of which he has no language adequately to express his " abhor

rence." It was my original intention to devote a whole letter to the consideration of this greatly misunderstood and abused system of truth. But having been already carried so much beyond the limits at first prescribed to this reply, I dare not so far tresspass on your patience as to enter into the formal discussion of a subject, which has engaged the attention of the strongest heads and best hearts that the world ever knew; and a subject as awful and difficult as it is interesting.

I cannot forbear, however, to state a few facts. And when these are calmly considered, I think your surprise at the conduct of these gentlemen, will by no means be diminished.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England are undoubtedly Calvinistic. This is proved, not only by the bare inspection of the Articles themselves; but also by the known sentiments of those who formed them; and by the decisive interpretation of some of the ablest Bishops, and other divines, that ever adorned that Church*.

The same Convocation which drew up the Thirty-nine Articles, reviewed, corrected, formally approved, and ordered to be published, as it now

* See Overton's True Churchman, passim. I know that this writer has made some mistakes. But when his work is compared with the able Review of it in the Christian Observer, an Episcopal Journal; and also with Mr. Daubeny's answer, and the Review of the latter, in the same Journal, the mass of evidence in support of my position will be found įrresistible.

stands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Nowell. This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst enemies of Calvin, to be decidedly Calvinistic. It is acknowledged to be so by Bishop Cleaver, who, a few years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet the Convocation, which embraced all the principal dignitaries of the Church, publicly recommended it, as "a standing summary of the doctrines professed in that Church;" and many years after it was held in such high esteem, by Archbishops Whitgift and Parker, and other cotemporary Prelates, that even ministers were enjoined to study it, that they might "learn true divinity from it*."

The illustrious Reformer, and Martyr, Bradford, a short time before he suffered, wrote and published a decidedly Calvinistic work on Election and Predestination, which he sent to Archbishop Cranmer, and to Bishops Ridley and Latimer, who all gave it their approbation; after which it received the approbation of " the rest of the eminent mi"nisters in and about London."

The famous Lambeth Articles, formed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, are acknowledged by all who ever read them, to be among the most strongly Calvinistical compositions that ever were penned. Yet these articles were drawn up and signed by

* Strype's Annals, 313–316—Life of Parker, 122, 301.

† Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 350. The Editors of the Christian Observer attest that they have seen Bradford's treatise, and that it is unquestionably Calvinistic.

Archbishop Whitgift, that very Prelate of whose character and principles Dr. Hobart frequently speaks in the most exalted terms, and whom he holds up to view as one of the most illustrious divines and fathers of the Church of England.-The Archbishop was assisted in this service by the Bishops of London and Bangor, and by some others. After recieving the public approbation of these dignitaries, the Articles were sent to the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Rochester, who also subscribed them. Thus ratified, Archbishop Whitgift sent them to the University of Cambridge, with a letter, in which he declared, "That these Arti"cles were not to be considered as laws and decrees, but as propositions, which he and his brethren were persuaded were true, and correspond"ing with the doctrine professed in the Church

66

of England, and established by the laws of the "land*." Nor is this all. It having been suggested by some, that the Archbishop agreed to these articles, rather for the sake of peace, than because he believed them; Strype, his Episcopal biographer, repels the charge with indignation; declaring that such an insinuation is as false, as it is mean and disparaging to the Primate†.

We have seen also, in a foregoing part of this Letter, by the confession of Heylin himself, an implacable enemy of Calvin, that the great body of