THE

Church of England vindicated, &c.

REVEREND SIR,

HAPPENING to call on a friend of mine, in Westminster, yesterday evening, December 28th, I found him reading your late letter to the author of Pietas Oxonienfis. Curiofity naturally induced me to look into your pamphlet: and grieved I was, to find, that a perfon in your eminent ftation, and of your diftinguifhed abilities, fhould fo far lofe fight of the duty you owe to that excellent Church which you would feem to defend, as to brand, for methodistical tenets, fome of those capital truths, which were the avowed doctrines of our reformers; and which, at this very day, make fo diftinguished a figure in the unrepealed ftandards of our national faith.

To vindicate the beft of vifible Churches, from the falfe charge of Arminianifm, fastened on her by you, and to prove, that the principles commonly (although, perhaps, not fo properly) termed Calvinistic, are plainly and repeatedly delivered in the authentic declarations of her belief, were the reasons that chiefly induced me to refolve on the prefent undertaking. In confequence of which refolution, I took home your pamphlet with me, and have it now before

me.

I would premife, that the two grand questions, on which I fhall join iffue with you, are, ift, Not fo much whether the Calviniftic doctrines are right or wrong in themselves; as, whether they are, or are not, the doctrines of the Church of England: and, 2. Whether, on proof of their actually being the doctrines of our Church, Arminians can, with a safa confcience,

B 2

confcience, and bond fide, fubfcribe to thofe doctrines

ex animo.

As to the affair of the expulfion, I fhall enter very little into the merits of that; as not directly falling in with my main defign. The injuftice, whether real or fuppofed, fhewn to thofe young men, is of very little confequence, when fet in competition with the open attack, which you, fir, under the habit of a friend, have ventured to make on the Church herself. If it be true, that the perfons, expelled, were fo treated merely for incapacity, and for holding what either the law or the univerfity ftatutes deem illicit conventicles; it would indeed follow, that the hardship, fo generally complained of, was not fo great, as it might feem at firft view. Every fociety, as fuch, have, no doubt, an intrinfic right to agree upon fuch reasonable and lawful rules, as they may deem neceffary for their own interior government and regulation. And, by virtue of that fame right, they may expel fuch of their members, as refuse to adjust their conduct by the rules fo enacted. Yet as excommunication* is the dernier recourse of a Church, and takes place, not until all milder expedients, for the reformation of the offending party, have been tried without effect; fo fhould expulfion from any other fociety. How far this equitable rule was obferved lately at Oxford, is a circumftance not yet cleared up by the affeffors: and, until it is, the public are certainly at liberty to form what judgment they can from appearances.

It has been affirmed, by fome who ought to know, that the pretence of illiteracy and irregularity, in the parties expelled, was only adopted by way of cafting a mift before the eyes of the world: while, in fact, the true reafon of their expulfion was, their attachment to the doctrines of predeftination unto

By our law, fentence of excommunication is not to be pronounced, until after public admonition thrice given, with the interval of at least two days between each admonition.

life, regeneration by the fpirit of God, and juftification by faith alone. If this was the real caufe of that tranfaction, the young men were perfecuted, to all intents and purpofes; and are to be equally pitied and refpected: pitied, for the oppreffive treatment they met with; refpected, for their firmness in adhering to doctrines which they believe to be true, and which, whether true or not, are the undoubted doctrines of the Church established.-Add to this, that, if fome perfons, equally or more illiterate, and irregular in a much worfe fenfe, continue ftill unmolefted members of this very univerfity, all unprejudiced fpectators will cry out,

Dat veniam corvis, vexat cenfura columbas.

I am not certain, much lefs dare I to affirm, that the public have hit upon the true caufe of this remarkable expulfion. If they have (and even the account given by yourself, feems to juftify the general belief), we may now, with the utmost truth, adopt the old cry of the Church is in danger*." Since, for a confiderable number of the moft eminent perfons belonging to one of the moft refpectable univerfities in Europe, to fit in judgment on fix of their own body, and pafs fentence of condemnation upon them, for believing and afferting the leading truths of that very Church with which the expellers, no less than the expelled, profefs to agree; is, mutatis mutandis, as if a Romish council fhould anathematize fix Papifts for holding tranfubftantiation; or a Scotch fynod fhould excommunicate fix Prefbyterians, for maintaining a parity among the clergy to be more apoftolical than epifcopacy. For, gratuitous predeftination, justification by faith only, and the efficacy of divine grace in regeneration, are, as palpably, afferted by the Church of England;, as tranfubftantiation is by the Church of Rome, or parity of minifters by - the Church of Scotland.

How ftrangely are times altered in Oxford, fince Ufher preached there! See the Preface to his Sermons in Quarto.

Before I enter on the proof of this, I must clear my way, by firft confidering what you, fir, alledge on the other fide. In doing which, I fhall endeavour to preserve, not only the decency, but the refpect, to which your merits, both as a scholar and as a writer, juftly entitle you. Though fame is mistaken, if you have not condefcended to act as a fecretary, on this, as well as a preceding occafion. However this be, I cannot help wifhing, that fo worthy and confiderable a perfon had drawn his pen, rather in attempting to heal, than widen, the unhappy breaches among us; and had undertaken to vindicate, instead of feeking to confute, the doctrines of the Church he profeffes to revere. But, alas! every day's experience proves the truth of the old adage; "All is not wife, that wife men fay; nor all good, that good men do."

Now, fir, to the point. With regard to the doctrines in debate between Calvinifts and Arminians, you ingenuously confefs, that they are matters, which "wife and good men have always differed about," page 69. I applaud your juftice, in granting that Calvinifts, no lefs than Arminians, may be "wife and good men :" but I cannot fay, I admire the want of precifion, with which you exprefs yourself. Wife and good men did not always differ about thofe points. There is, on the contrary, the utmost reason to believe, that the main body of the Chriftian Church (in which I do not include the Arians of thofe times) were unanimous believers of the doctrines now termed Calviniftic, for the four first centuries: until, at the opening of the fifth, a Welsh monk, known by the affumed name of Pelagius, ftruck out a new path of his own, and laid out the foundations of that mystery of iniquity, which has, more or lefs, been working ever fince.

I am aware, that fome Arminian writers, both English and foreign, have had the affurance (fomewhat like the Papifts on another occafion) to af, "Where

"Where was the doctrine of predeftination before St. Auftin?" To which I anfwer, in my turn, where was not the doctrine of predeftination before Pelagius? That his opinions, concerning the flight effects of original fin, the power of man's free will, and the poffibility of human merit, were novel and unheard of until then, appears, among other circumstances, from the furprise and horror, with which they were received by the univerfal Church. A valuable hiftorian, of our own, tells us truly, that "To recount the learned works of fathers written; their pious fermons preached; paffionate [i. e. pathetic] epiftles fent; private conferences entertained; public difputations held; provincial fynods fummoned; general councils called; wholesome canons made, to confute and condemn thefe opinions, under the name of Pelagius, or his fcholar Celeftius; would amount to a volume fitter for a porter's back to bear, than a fcholar's brains to perufe." [Fuller, Church Hift. Cent. v. p. 28.]

The learned Dr. Cave, whom no one will fufpect of being a factor for Calvinism, tells us plainly, that Pelagius "Hærefin novam condidit," was the founder of a new herefy, [Hift. Lit. tom. i. ann. 405.] which is as good as to fay, that the Chriftian Church were, until that time, in undisturbed poffeffion of the doctrines of grace. The fame great man lets us know what the fubftance of this new herefy was. "Peccatum originale funditus fuftulit; docens, Adami peccatum foboli ejus non imputari. Homines, plerofque faltem, non gratiæ divinæ benefici, fed propter operum fuorum merita, juftificari, & ad vitam æternam prædestinari, contendit:" He [i. e. Pelagius] took away original fin from its very foundations, by afferting, that Adam's tranfgreffion is not imputed to his pofterity: and infifted, that men, or, however, the greater part of them, are juftified, and predeftinated to eternal life, not by the favour of divine grace, but for the worthiness of their own works. Now if the non-impu