$$ . 4 Review of Me trincipal fass objesed to the lutheran confeflion differed from the calvinift. This was infertecl among king EDWARD'S articles and was part of the XXVIIIth of queen ELIZABETH'S when firft fubfcribed, though after fome time it was expunged. Malanchten was an excellent divine, and of a moll ca- tholick fpirit, but a calvini/t; Lampadius in his continuation of Pezelius's hiftory, writes thus, p. 409. Philippus rigid me slim, f quifquam alias deprcedßinationef ript, poflea mitigabitfententiam fuam... Neque fa- men ab otbodoxis unquant eft repudiates ant condemnatus, neque ipfè afeve- rioribusfyntbeticis alieniorfuit ; fed ad Bezam, SE PER OMNIA CUM GENEVENSIBUS ORTHODOXIS FACER E, fcribit. i, e. that his fenti- ments were exaétiy the fame with the orthodox Geneva divines. Eraf - mus's paraphrafe was fet up in the churches, becaufe it was the bell, and perhaps the only one then extant. And as for the eruditionofachr?ian man, we (hall fee prefently how fadly this writer has mifreprefent- ed it. P.45 46 But this charitable and ufeful latitude as to the real pretence (lays our author), is another objection with Mr. N: the rubrick which declared, that by kneeling at the facrament no adoration was intended to any corporal pretence of Chri/1, being expunged This is no objection with Mr. N. who wouldhave rejoiced, if it had been fo charitable, as to comprehend the puritans ; it might then have been more ufeful, and prevented the feparation ; for Mr. N. can fee no reafon why the wearing a furplice or fquare cap fhould not be left as indifferent, as the manner of Chrift's prefence in the facrament. But that which follows in our author (viz.) P 47 that " Mr. N. difapproves of every man's enjoying his ownfenfe, with- " ° out fixing it upon others," is neither better nor worfe than a fhameful calumny, which he mull know from the whole (cope of the hiftory of the puritans, to be falfe. Well, but what relief was this charitable lati- tude to the Lutheran or German churches.? Do they adore the corpo- ral prefence ? No, 'tis evident therefore, it was defigned principally in fa- vour of the papifls ; according to Dr. Heylin, who fays, " Great care was " taken to expunge fuch paffages in the common -prayer-book, as gave " offence to the POPISH PARTY, or might be urged by them as an excufe " for not coming to church ; as the prayer tobe delivered from the ty- ranny and enormities of the bifhop of Rome.""And, to come up clofer A to the CHURCH OF ROME, (lays he) the queen enjoined thefacramen -. " tal bread to be made round, in fafhion of wafers, and all the old: " feflivals to be obferved with their feveral eves.' To return to the doctrine of the church of England ; our author and Vindic P. his learned apologift appeal to the articles themfelves as aproof, " that 42. ! no one doclrine ofthechurch, concerning predßination, is contraditíed , by
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=