actions and if so, for us to conclude, that what is represented by them, is inconsistent with the contingency of events or free-will, &c. is the same absurdity, as to conclude that China is no bigger than a sheet of paper, because the map that represents it is contained in that compass. It is true, we call God's foreknowledge and our own, by the the same name; but this is not from any real likeness in the nature of the faculties, but from some proportion observable in the effects of them: both having this advantage, that they prevent any surprise on the person endowed with them. Now as it is true, that no contingency or freedom in the creatures can any way deceive or surprise God, put Him to a loss, or oblige Him to alter his measures; so, on the other hand, it is likewise true, that the Divine prescience does not hinder freedom; and a thing may either be or not be, notwithstanding that foresight of it which we ascribe to God. When, therefore, it is alleged, that if God foresee I shall be saved, my salvation is infallible; this does not follow; because the foreknowledge of God is not like man's, which requires necessity in the event, in order to its being certain, but of another nature consistent with contingency; and our inability to comprehend this arises from our ignorance of the true nature of what we call foreknowledge in God, &c. Only of this we are sure, that in this it differs from ours, that it may consist either with the being or not being of what is said to be foreseen, &c. Thus St. Paul was a chosen vessel, and he reckons himself in the number of the predestinated.* And * Eph. i. 5.

yet he supposes it possible for him to miss of salvation, and therefore he looked upon himself as obliged to use mortification, and exercise all other graces, in order to make his calling and election sure; lest, as he tells us, that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself shall be a castaway, or a reprobate, as the word is translated in other places." ***.

1

To Archbishop Usher, upon whose authority you build, the language of Zophar to Job might have been addressed with propriety: Canst thou, by searching, find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?"*

It may not, however, be improper to inform you, should you be ignorant of the circumstance, that the good Archbishop, who, in your judgment, so ably and satisfactorily handled this subject, died with very different sentiments upon it: a declared renunciation of his Calvinistic tenets being to be found on record. Other authorities, which you have pressed into your service on this occasion, would not, I think, if fully investigated, stand you in much better account.

The fact is, it rarely happens, that professed Calvinists write long upon their favourite subject, without being inconsistent with themselves. Indeed, without wasting time on this subject, I would only observe, that some instances which you have brought, with the view of establishing your position respecting the absolute decrees, do not to me appear * Job ii. 7,.8. + Vide Collier, vol. ii.

craiz te mea NTP Implish that The ID 2 before us?

Teu meme de eers

more of nature. He

SB any shine, and the tur De art may bring Jul where me abour of man mis, spettere is a mere stail be no harvest. Ins Son's para jeme, vil respect to the Surse d nature, becomes a mimiīrumul decree to The Tirta Meme # fe event; and man

The stuns sa fom S. Paul's vorage, when Sommars with other pars if scripture, does not mer le me of more conclusive. It was menei a S. Fi, that the crew of the ship in Vi le vas stund not be lost; but St. Paul va se ir ivm ensiering this decree (if you einose a cal I sich an dèste sense, that he tinyt I necessary a guari the crew against a ciremmsance dat would have frustrated it: "Except these abide in the ship says he) ye cannot be sted: The evnencrence of human means, therefore, was, in St. Pan's opinion, necessary to the accomplishment of the Divine decree. Thus the decree in this instance waited upon the actions of men. But you will say, as you have said, that the means were secured in this case together with the * Gen. viii. 29. † Gen. ii. 19.

Acts xxvii. 31.

end. Taking this for our general rule of judgment on this subject, it must be expected that there should be a consistency in the Divine proceedings. Yet we find, that after the decree had been passed against Nineveh, that it should be destroyed in forty days; that God repented of his purpose, in consequence of the subsequent conduct of the inhabitants. It is for the maintainers of absolute decrees to reconcile these inconsistencies. My conclusion from them is, that God's moral government will, in all cases, be found consistent with the free agency of men; and that the perplexity which has been introduced into this subject, has been derived from man's presuming to speak with precision on cases, on which it has not pleased God to give him competent information.

When I consider, in reverential silence, the Providence of an all-wise God controlling and directing the affairs of the universe, I feel myself standing upon the firm shore, contemplating the majestic object of the boundless ocean before me. But when I attempt to trace out the exact line by which that Providence is directed, I am, as it were, launched off in a perilous bark upon the wide deep, and every moment on the point of being swallowed up in the fathomless abyss. It is enough for men to know, that the Judge of all the earth will do right. To make use of your own words, (and I cannot make use of better)" it is enough for us to acknowledge, that all God's dealings with the children of men are holy, just, and good; that there is a day coming, wherein his proceedings, however dark to us at present, will be vindicated before

angels and men; when all the glorified saints shall confess, that their salvation is wholly owing to God's free grace and mercy in Jesus Christ; and all that perish, shall acknowledge that their destruction is entirely of themselves." Page 79.

Having dispatched this subject, I proceed to pages 88 and 89 of your publication, which must not be passed over, though it is with reluctance I say any thing about them. It must, doubtless, have escaped your recollection, (for I cannot permit myself to think that you would assert what you must otherwise know not to be true) that a great part of what is said in the pages under consideration, has been proved to be in direct contradiction to historic fact. In pages 102, 103, and 104, of the answer to Pietas Oxoniensis, you will find this subject drawn out for your consideration; where you were informed, that these Lambeth Articles were originally drawn up at Cambridge; and so far from containing, as you say, the avowed sense of the Church of England, were drawn up for the satisfaction of those Calvinists at Cambridge, who thought the Thirty-Nine Articles not sufficiently explicit for their purpose; that these Lambeth Articles never received the sanction of the Church of England; but, on the contrary, were so much disapproved of, as to be recalled as soon as published; and that, upon the motion made at the Hampton Court conference, to add the substance of them to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the proposal was rejected.

You refer me to the authority of Strype and Toplady. The former tells us, in his Life of Whitgift, page 459, that the Archbishop, speaking of