856 A Review of the principal fads objec?ed to the die true faith ; bifhop Ferrar, Bradford, Taylor, and Philpot, wrote to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, then prifoners at Oxfòrd, defiring them to take cognizance of this matter, and give their advice. Upon which occafion bifhop Ridley, wrote a treatife ofGod's eleclion and,predeftination, P3503x52 Philpot another, Bradfird a third, and Mr. Carelefi an eminent martyr, publifhed a confeffion of his faith, one part whereof was in favour of abfolute predeftination; and the prifoners in Newgate, as well as in the )zing's bench, generally fubfcribed it. Mr. N. could produce a number of other teftimonies from the letters of the martyrs, and the books of homilies, which prove to a demonftration, that the first reformers were in this fcheme ; but Mr. Prynne has done it already fo carefully, with refpeft to all the fivepoints, in his antiarminianifm, or the church of England's old antithefis to new arminianifm, that nothing feems to have efcaped his diligence. Of free will, The article of FREE WILL is another point of controvert with the Vindic. p, y 124, 12,6. arminians. Our author cenfures the puritans for "branding it always with " the odious name of popery, in order to reprefent thole ofthat opinion in " the molt dy/agreeable colours. Nor can Mr. N. be acquitted ofpar- " tiality (lays he) againfi thole who believe the freedom cf"the human will, R° becatf he calls it the pelagian doctrine, and charges it withfupplanting " the received doctrine of the reformation. .. Mr. N's account of Mr. " Hart and others (lays he) is, that they ran their notions as high as the " modern arminians, or as Pelagius himfelf, djpifüzg learning, &c. but " quotes no authority, nor produces any evidence to f ippart this heavy cen- "Pure, which plainly is not levelled only at thof who believed the freedom " of the humane will in queen MARY'S days." How bewildered is this writer, when Mr. N's marginal references fail him ! Ifhe had been acquainted with thefe times he muff havé known, that the article offree will was then always reckoned a branch Foxy Mem. ofthe popifh controvenfy. We renounce (fay the reformers, in their con- 1o2' L' feflion of faith) the PAP ISTICAL DOCTRINE ?Um, will, &c.- -- But Mr. N's partiality confafis in calling it the PELAGIAN DOCTRINE, with- out any authority or evidence. Mutt he then croud his margin with authorities for every phrafe or exprefliion he ufes? Let this writer con- fult Mr. Strype, wliofe words are thefe ; " Many ofthem that were un- Mérn. " der reftraint for the profefiion of the gofpel [in queen MARY'S days] Cran. p.350, " were filch as held free will, tending to the derogationofGod's g race and 354 352. " refufed the doctrine of abfolutepredeftinationandoriginalfin' (which, by the way, is an evidence that the reformers in general believedthofe doctrines.) " They [the free-willers] were men of ftrift and holy " lives, but very hot in.their opinions and difputations, and unquiet, " The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=