firj Polume of the Hiflory of the Puritans. Parker, Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, and Whitehead, were on the other fide, though they did not (peak with the ftri tnefs of thofe who lived after the controverfy had been thoroughly debated. He affirms further, with Dr. Heylin, that " it does not appear that Vindic. 1e in compiling the articles, any deference was paid to Calvin's judgment or P. 43 authority ; inßead of that, the agfante he offered was to his no little " grief and dfatisfadlion refuted." But for this he cites no authority. On the other hand, 'tis certain Cranmer writ to Calvin, for his advice Mem. Cran. about calling a general fynod of proteftants; who fo far approved it, as p. 409, 410. to fay, " he would pafs over ten feas to further it, but hoped he might be fpared." When the fame great prelate thought of drawing up articles offaith for the church of England, he communicated his de- fign to Calvin, who greatly commended it, and defired him to proceed with all expedition. Calvin alto wrote to the proteltor, and to king Cale. Ep, EDWARD himfelf, which was fo very acceptable to his majefty and his ad Farel. whole council, that Cranmer informed him, " he could not do any thing T", 'S. " more profitable than to write often to the king." Peter Martyr, Bucer, and Fagius, who were Calvin's difciples, were Pent for into Eng- gland to promote the reformation, and were his ftrongfeconds, according to Mr. Collyer. Nay, if we may believe Dr. Heylin, it was at the fol- Hitt. Prefb. litation of Mr. Calvin and his emiffiries (as he is pleafed to file them), P' 239' that the common-prayer-book of king EDWARD underwent a fecond review ; and that the firft liturgy was difcontinued, and the fecond fu- perinduced, to give fatisfaéton to Calvin's cavils, and the miftakes of others of his friends and followers. How then does it appear, that our fsrft reformers had no refpeét to this learned foreigner, or that his afliftance was refufed ? Our author, and the apologift whom he follows, go on to obferve, Vindic. p, that " in drawing up the articles, the compilers, next to thefcripture and 44 doélrine of the primitive church, had an eye to the Auguftan confegion, " the writings of Melanchton, the works of Erafmus, and the erudition " ofa chrfian" Here again we have Dr. Heylin without any autho- rity. But admitting for once, that the compilers of the articles had a regard to the Augu/lan confefon ; is there any difference between that and calvinifm, except in the manner of Chrift's prefence in the facrar ment ? Sure I am, Calvin himfelffubfcribed it, as he writes to Schallin. gins, anno 1557. Nec vero Auguftanam confefionem repudio, cui pridem Uolens ß lubens fubfcripfi, Jiicut earn author ipfè [Melanchton] interpreta- tus eß. And it is very rematkable, that in the original lubfcription ofBurner on the articles, both honks of convocation renounced the ubiquity of Chr's 39 Artic, bodily preetence; which was the only point of confequence, wherein the P' 308. VoL. L 5 R lutheran 853
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=