SECTION XVIII.
The Re-Establishment of the Church of England, by Queen Elizabeth.
Queen Mary's death, in November, 1558, quite changed the face of religious affairs in England. The princess Elizabeth, during the reign of her half-sister, was so obnoxious to the latter, both on a domestic and a religious account, that her life had been in perpetual danger. Mary, whose politics were as contemptible, as her cruelty and superstition were detestable; would, more than once, have very willingly dispatched Elizabeth to the other world. But this design was constantly overruled by king Philip. That Prince is supposed, by some, to have screened Elizabeth, from a hope of marrying her himself, in case of Mary's death, whose state of health grew continually worse and worse. This might possibly be one motive, to the protection which he gave the princess: for, after the decease of queen Mary, Elizabeth was hardly seated on the throne, before Philip actually solicited her hand. But, probably, what operated most strongly in Elizabeth's behalf, was, the close connection that subsisted between France and Scotland. So far back as the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. the plan seems to have been laid, for the Dauphin's marriage to Mary queen of Scots; which projected marriagetook effect in 1558. Philip knew, that, on the demise of his own queen, none 1 stood between Mary of Scots and the crown of England, but Elizabeth. It was necessary, therefore, to preserve Elizabeth alive; lest France, in right of the Dauphiness, should be aggrandized by the addition of England and Ireland: which would have been throwing too much weight into the French scale. It was, probably, owing to a similar consideration of policy, that, in the succeeding century, Charles I. when prince of Wales, was suffered to return hither from Spain. In all likelihood, Philip IV. would have made the prince pay very dear for his romantic ramble to that court, if the king of Bohemia had not, in right of his consort, been next heir to the crown of England. Thus does the secret, but efficacious, direction of divine providence, make even the political wisdom of this world instrumental to the accomplishment of the divine decrees!
When Elizabeth mounted the throne, the Church of England, with all its doctrinal Calvinism, became, once more, the pure religion of this nation. The proofs are so numerous, that I must only abstract a few.
I. The Liturgy, the XXXIX Articles, and the supplementary Homilies added to those of king Edward, are such glaring evidences on the side of2 Calvinism, as might well supply the place of all evidence beside. These being so well known, I shall carry my appeal to other facts, which lie more out of the way of common notice.
II. The only commentary on the 39 articles, which was. published in the reign of Elizabeth, is that of Mr. Thomas Rogers, rector of Horninger, in Suffolk. He dedicated it to archbishop Whitgift: by whom (says Fuller) it was countenaced."3 A subsequent edition of it, in 1607, the author dedicated to archbishop Bancroft, whose chaplain he was. As it is not a very scarce book, I shall make no transcripts from it: but only intimate that the Commentary does not (as is too often the case) vary from the text, but is perfectly and judiciously Calvinistical, from beginning to end. The only people to whom it gave offence in those days were Papists, Presbyterians, and such as leaned to either of those extremes. Now, I would ask, whether a professedly predestinarian analysis and exposition of the 39 Articles, dedicated to two archbishops of Canterbury, and approved by both of them, is not one conclusive proof that doctrinal Calvinism was, all through the reign of Elizabeth, and in the beginning of James I., considered as the true and undoubted system of the church of England?
III. The marginal notes, which occur in the Bibles that were published during Elizabeth's reign, unanswerably prove the same point. Observe, I speak not of the Geneva Bible, translated, commented on, and published by the English who had been exiles in that city: which edition, however valuable on some accounts, was never received as authentic by the Church and State of England. But I speak of such Bibles, and of such only, as passed the review of the leading ecclesiastics at home, and came out by the warrant and under the sanction of "the queen's most excellent majesty."
Of these warranted Bibles there were, principally, three kinds. The first was commonly denominated, The Great Bible. Another wentby name of The Bishop's Bible. The third was the Quarto Bible for the use of families.
(1.) Of the Great Bible, otherwise called Archbishop Cranmer's Bible, there had been more than one edition, antecedently to the accession of queen Elizabeth. It was completed for the press, A.D. 1537, in or about the 28th year of the reign of Henry VIII. It was by lord Cromwell's interest with the king that Cranmer obtained the royal license to translate and publish the Scriptures: and this was the first English Bible that was printed by authority. The care of the translation lay wholly on Cranmer; assigning little portions of this holy book to divers bishops and learned men to do. And, to his inexpressible satisfaction, he saw the work finished in this year(1537), about July or August." 4 When the care of the translation is said to have lain wholly on archbishop Cranmer, we must understand no more, by that expression, than that Cranmer, on this occasion, revised and corrected the translation made, six or seven years before, by Mr. William Tyndal, the martyr. This appears, not only on comparing the text of Cranmer's, or the great Bible, with the text of Tyndal's; but is also noted, by the exactly careful compiler of Cranmer's History. The Bible, as Fox speaks, had been printed in the year 1532, and reprinted again three or four years after. The printers were Grafton and Whitchurch, who printed it at Hamburgh. The corrector (of the press) was John Rogers, a learned divine, afterwards a canon of St. Paul's, in king Edward's time, and the first martyr in the next reign (viz. in the reign of Mary). The translator was William Tyndal, another learned martyr; with the help of Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter, but, before all this second edition was finished, Tyndal was taken and put to death for his religion, in Flanders, in the year 1536, and his name then growing into ignominy, as one burnt for a heretic, they [i.e. the printers] thought it might prejudice the book, if he should be named for the translator thereof; and so they used a feigned name, calling it Thomas Matthews's Bible. In this Bible were certain prologues (prefixed at the head of the respective books) and a special table collected of the common places in the Bibles, and texts of Scripture for proving the same; and chiefly the common places of the Lord's Supper, the marriage of priests and the mass: of which [i.e. of the mass] it was there said, that it was not to be found in Scripture, This Bible giving the (Popish) clergy offence, was gotten to be restrained. Some years after, came forth the Bible aforesaid [i.e. the Great Bible, otherwise termed, Cranmer's], wherein Cranmer had the greatest hand; which, as I suppose, was nothing but the former [i.e. Tyndal's] corrected; the prologues and tables being left out."5
So much for the origin of Cranmer's Bible. Let us now consult that Bible itself; which (besides the light it will throw on our general argument) will contribute, not a little, to confirm what has been already asserted and proved, concerning the Calvinism of that great and good archbishop.
Though Cranmer's, or the Great Bible, was prepared for publication in 1537, I cannot find that it was actually published till 1539. It is a very scarce and curious book; of which, however, I have been able to procure a sight. It is entitled, "The Byble in Englyshe, &c. prynted by Richard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch, 1539." It is a large folio, on a black letter, ornamented with small wooden cuts; and divided into chapters, but not into verses. The margin has Scripture references, but no expository notes. The deficiency of notes is remedied by a summary of contents, placed at the head of each chapter. From a sample of which summaries, archbishop Cranmer appears to have been, even at that early period, much enlightened into the doctrines of grace.
The contents to Rom. iii. run thus: "Both the Jewes and Gentyls are under synne, and are justyfyed only by the grace of God in Christ."
Contents to Rom. iv. "He [i.e. St. Paul declareth, by the example of Abraham, that fayth justyfyeth, and not the lawe, nor the workes thereof."
In the prefixed "summe and content of all the Holy Scripture," good Cranmer observes, that God is he "Of whom all thinges proceade; and without whom ther is nothynge which is ryghteous and mercyful; and who worketh all thyngs in all, after hys wyll: of whom it may not he demaunded, wherefore he doth thys or that." The reader will not consider the above extracts as an absolute digression from the times of queen Elizabeth, when he recollects that the Great Bible, and two others which are next to be mentioned, were the current Bibles in the beginning of her reign; 'till the scarcity and dearness of these occasioned the publication of what was called the Bishops' Bible.
The other two, which appeared before Elizabeth's accession, were, the folio edition of 1549; and the quarto edition of 1552. Both printed in the reign of king Edward VI. and under the care of archbishop Cranmer. These, likewise, I have consulted; and from them I copy the passages hereafter given.
That of 1549 is on a small, neat, slenderly blackish letter, somewhat approaching toward the saxon style of character. It is dedicated to king Edward, and has prologues to the respective books of both Testaments. The marginal notes being exceedingly few, I shall give proof of the pure divinity which then obtained among the Protestants of the Church of England from the valuable "table of the principal matters," which runs alphabetically, and is prefixed to the Old Testament. Under the head of election we thus read: "Our eleccyon is by grace, and not by workes. Few are electe, or chosen. We are electe of God the Father, thorow his good wil, before the construcyon of the world, that by the grace and merite of Christ, we should have health [i.e. salvation], serving al men by charitie. The elect cannot be accused, forasmuch as God justifieth them" Under the head of predestination, we read thus: "The predestinate are sainctes, or holy people, made lyke to the image of the sonne of God, and called, justifyed, and glorifyed by him. God had predestynate, before the makyng of the world, for to redeme us by the blond of his sonne, for to save and make us hys chyldren by adopcyon, accordynge to the purpose of his wyl. The carnal and sensual people cannot comprehende the eleccyon and predestinacyon of God: because they stryve for to save themselves, by theyr owne workes and merites; which cannot be." Under the article of will, it is affirmed that the will of God is immutable, and the which no man can resist. And, under the head of perseverance, or continuance in grace, it is asserted that perseverance in the truth is geven of Christ unto the faithful. Thus speaks Cranmer's Bible of 1549.
The quarto edition, of 1552, is on a black letter with wooden cuts; divided into chapters, but not into verses. The translation appears to be Tyndal's. In this curious Bible (which was re-printed under Elizabeth, in 1566), a note, subjoined to the 3d chapter of Romans, runs thus: " God, in his lawe, doth not onely requyre of us an outward ryghtewesnes, but also an inward perfection. That is to saye, we are not onely bounde to fulfyll the workes of the lawe, outwardly, in our lyvinge; but, also, inwardly, in our heartes: to be most syncere; to love God entirely, above all thinges; and our neyghbours as ourselves. But our nature is so corrupted, that no man living is able to do the same. Wherefore no man can be justified by the workes of the lawe." The note to Rom. ix. is this: "It is evident by this texte, that our workes or merytes do not justifye us, but that our salvation doth wholly depende upon the free election of God; whiche, beynge the ryghtewesnes itselfe, doth chose whome it pleseth hym unto lyfe everlastynge." The note to Rom. xi. is: "God doth preserve his elect, even in the middest of thousandes of idolaters." Thus wrote Cranmer, and our other bishops, in 1552.
(2.) Come we now to the Bishops' Bible: emphatically so called, because it was set on foot, promoted, and completed, chiefly under the auspices of Parker, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury after Cranmer. A beginning was made in it, A.D. 1565, and the seventh of Elizabeth: but the work was not published, 'till 1568. The other principal prelates concerned in this edition were, Sandes, then bishop of Worcester; Guest, bishop of Rochester; Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich; Davies, bishop of St. David's; and Cox, bishop of Ely.6 This is supposed to have been the first English Bible whose chapters were subdivided into verses. It is a large folio, on a black letter; and, in fact, no more than an improved edition of Cranmer's or the Great Bible, already mentioned. I have not had it in my power to see the original edition of this the Bishops' Bible, printed in 1568. What I have consulted is a re-publication of it, six years afterwards; viz. the edition of 1574, illustrated with archbishop Parker's arms and preface, and Cranmer's original preface annexed.
Queen Elizabeth's prelates did by no means warp from the doctrinal purity of their Protestant predecessors under the blessed king Edward. Witness the following passages, which occur in the preface to the New Testament of the Bishops' Bible. "By him [i.e. by Christ] hath he [i.e. God the Father] decreed to geve, to his elect, the lyfe everlasting." And again, "Here may we beholde the eternal legacies of the New Testament, bequeathed from God the Father, in Christe his sonne, to all his electes."
In what is entitled, "the Summe of the whole Scripture," prefixed (as it was also to Cranmer's own edition of 1539), it is observed, that God is he "from whom al thinges do come; without whom there is nothing at al: who also worketh al in al, after his owne wyl; to whom it is not lawful to say, wherefore he doth thus or thus."
On Rom. iii. 20, the note is, "He includeth here the whole lawe, both ceremonial and moral; whose workes cannot justifie, because they be imperfect in al men."
On Rom. ix. 11. "The wyl and purpose of God is the cause of the election and reprobation: for his mercy and calling, through Christ, are the means of salvation; and the withdrawing of his mercy is the cause of damnation."
On Rom. x. 4. "Christ hath fulfilled the whole lawe; and therefore, whosoever believeth in him is counted just before God, as wel as (if) he had fulfilled the whole lawe himselfe."
On Rom. xi. 35. "By this the apostle declareth, That God, by his free wyl and election, doth geve salvation unto menne, without any desertes of theyr owne."
On 1 Pet. i. 2. "The free election of God is the efficient cause of our salvation: the material cause, is Christe's obedience."
On 2 Pet. i. 10. "Albeit it [viz. election] be sure in itselfe, forasmuche as God cannot change; yet we must confirm it in ourselves" [i.e. we should get a subjective assurance of our election] "by the fruite of the Spirite: knowing that the purpose of God electeth, calleth, sanctifieth, and justifieth us." So spake these excellent prelates, in the famous Bishop' Bible.
(3.) The Quarto Bible, published in queen Elizabeth's reign, appears to have been designed as a still farther improvement on the preceding. Though the explicatory notes are more numerous and diffuse, yet the reduction of the type, and the consequent reduction of the size, rendered it cheaper than the former editions; and of course, better calculated for private and domestic use.
Of this Bible, the first edition (according to Strype) appeared in 1576.7 Another in 1582.8 That which I have now before me is the edition of 1602, published by Barker, the queen's own printer. The marginal remarks, and some other matters, with which this presents us, will prove that Calvinism continued to flourish in the Church of England (i.e. the church continued to abide by her own fundamental principles), to the very close of Elizabeth's life: for the reader need not be reminded that 1602 was the last year of that queen's reign.
From this Bible I extract the following notes, in lieu of a multitude which might be cited.
On Matth. xi. 26, the remark is: "Faith cometh not of man's will, nor power but by the secret illumination of God, which is the declaration of his eternal counsel."
On Matth. viii. 31. "The devil desireth ever to doe harme; but he can do no more than God doeth appoint."
On Matth. ix. 37. it is observed, that Christ compares "The number of the elect to a plentiful harvest."
On Matth. xxi. 33. "The vineyard is the people whom he had elected."
On Matth. xxv. 34. "Hereby God declareth the certainty of our predestination; whereby we are saved because we were chosen in Christ before the foundations of the world."
On the 35th verse of tile same chapter: "Christ meaneth not that our salvation dependeth on our works, or merits; but teacheth what it is to live justly according to godlinesse and charitie; and that God recompenseth his, of his free mercy, likewise as he doth elect them."
Matth. xxvi. 24. "To the intent his disciples might know that all this" [viz. the sufferings and crucifixion of Christ] "was appointed by the providence of God."
Mark iv. 9. "God doth not open all men's hearts to understand his mysteries." And 'tis presently after added that there are some, meaning the reprobate, who, "attaine not to the pith and substance" [of religion], "but onely stay in the outward rinde and barke."
Mark xiii. 22. "The elect may waver and be troubled, but they cannot utterly be deceived and overcome."
Mark xiv. 21. "This declareth that nothing can be done without God's providence."
On the 49th verse of the same chapter: "Which declareth, that no man can do any thing contrary to God's ordinance."
Luke i. 30. "Not for her merits, but onely through God's free mercy, who loved us when we were sinners, that whosoever rejoiceth should rejoice in the Lord."
On verse 32. Christ "is the true Sonne of God, begotten from before all beginning; and manifested in the flesh at the determinate time."
Luke vii. 35. "He [i.e. Christ] sheweth that the wicked, altho' they turne from God, shall nothing hinder the elect to continue in the faith of the Gospel."
Luke viii. 3. "Whereby they acknowledged they had received of him; and also shewed their perseverance, which prooved their knowledge to be of God." Such, therefore, as do not persevere were never made wise with the knowledge that cometh from God.
Luke x. 21. "He [Christ] attributeth it to the free election of God, that the wise and worldlings know not the gospel, and yet the poore base people understand it."
On verse 31, the phrase "by chance" is thus interpreted: "so it seemed to man's judgment; altho' this was so appointed by God's counsel and providence."
Luke xvii. 37. "Nothing can hinder the faithful to be joined to their head, Jesus Christ."
Luke xxii. 22. The text says, Truely the Sonne of man goeth as it is appointed: the commentary adds, "by the secret counsel of God."
Luke xxiii. 35. The text calls Christ the chosen of God. On which the marginal note thus remarks: "whom God hath before all others appointed to be the Messias. Otherwise the Scripture calleth them the elect of God, whom hee hath chosen, before all begining, to life everlasting."
Luke xxiv. 16. "This declareth, that we can neither see nor understande, 'till God open our eyes."
Verse 28. "Christ did both shut their eyes, and open them: he would keepe them in suspence, 'till his time came to manifest himself unto them."
John iv. 14. "He" [i.e. the true believer] "shall never he dried up, or destitute."
John vi. 37. " God doeth regenerate his elect, and causeth them to obey the gospel."
John vii. 33. Christ "sheweth unto them, that they have no power over him, 'till the time come that his Father hath ordained."
John x. 15. "As the Father cannot forget him" [i.e. cannot forget Christ himself,] "no more can he forget us."
Verse 17. "Christ, even in that he is man, hath deserved his Father's love and everlasting life, not to his flesh onely, but to us also, who, by his obedience and perfect justice" [i.e. perfect righteousness,] "are imputed righteous."
Verse 26. The text says, Ye believe not, for yee are not of my sheepe; i.e. because ye are not in the number of my elect. The marginal note judiciously says, "The cause wherefore the reprobate cannot believe."
John xiv. 21, "He" [i.e. the assured believer] "shall sensibly feele, that the grace of God abideth in him."
John xvii. 3. The text runs, That hee should give eternal life to all them that thou hast given him. The margin says: "Which are the elect."
Verse 6. "Our election standeth in the good pleasure of God, which is the only foundation and cause of our salvation; and is declared to us in Christ, through whom we are justified by faith, and sanctified."
Verse 12. The text styles Judas a child of perdition. The marginal note says, that "He was so called, not only because he perished, but because God had appointed and ordained him to this end."
Verse 19. "Christ's holinesse is our's."
On Acts ii. 23, the observations are: "God caused their wickednesse " [i.e. the wickedness of Christ's betrayer and crucifiers] "to set foorth his glory, contrary to their mindes. As Judas's treason, and their crueltie toward Christ, were most detestable; so were they not only knowen to the eternall wisdome of God, but also directed, by his immutable counsel, to a most blessed ende."
On chap. iv. 21. "God hath put a ring thorow the wicked's noses, so that he stayeth them from their mischievous purposes." Was it not a little unmannerly in queen Elizabeth's bishops, to represent sovereign free-willers as a company of bears, restrained by the decree, and led captive by Providence, with rings in their noses ?
On the 28th verse of the same chapter, the right reverend commentators scruple not to affirm, that "All things are done by the force of God's purpose, according to the decree of his will."
Chap. xiii. 48. " None can beleeve, but they whom God doth appoynt, before all beginnings, to be saved."
In a short, but excellent, preface, prefixed to the Epistle to the Romans, and entitled, "The Argument; "the heads of tile Church of England thus expressed themselves: "The great mercie of God is declared towards man in Christ Jesus, whose ritghteousnesse is made our's by faith. For, when man, by reason of his owne corruption, could not fulfil the law; yea, committed most abominably, both against the law of God and nature; the infinite bountie of God ordeined, that man's salvation should only stand in the perfit obedience of his Sonne Jesus Christ. And to the intent that none should thinke that the covenant which God made to him [i.e. with Abraham] and his posteritie was not performed; either because the Jewes received not Christ, or els beleeved not that he was the true Redeemer; the examples of Ismael and Esau declare, that all are not Abraham's posteritie, which come of Abraham according to the flesh: the very strangers and Gentiles, grafted in by faith, are made heires of the promise. The cause whereof is the only will of God; forasmuch, of his free mercy, he electeth some to he saved, and, of his just judgment, rejecteth others to be damned: as appeareth by the testimonie of the Scriptures."
From these introductory remarks, the reader may sufficiently ascertain the complexion of those subsequent notes on the epistle itself, with which the Calvinistic prelates enobled its margin. For brevity's sake, let the few following stand for all.
Rom. ii. 11. There is no respect of persons with God: "As touching any outward qualitie" [such as high birth, learning, riches, &c.]. "But, as the potter, before he make his vessels, he doeth appoynt some to glory and others to ignominie."
Chap. iv. 4. Now to him that worketlt not, &c. "That dependeth not on his works, neither thinketh to merite by them."
Ibid. ver. 25. Christ was raised "To accomplish and make perfect our justification."
Chap. v. 17. "The justice" [justitia, i.e. the righteousness] "of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to the faithful."
Chap. viii. 35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? "Wherewith he loved us, or God in Christ: which love is grounded on his determinate purpose; and Christ is the pledge thereof."
Chap. xi. 29. "To whom God giveth his Spirit of adoption, and whom he called effectually, he cannot perish; for God's eternal counsel never changeth."
1 Cor. iii. 3. "The hardnesse of man's heart, before he be regenerate, is as a stonie table, Ezek. ii. 19. and xxxvi. 26. But, being regenerate by the Spirit of God, it is as soft as flesh; that the grace of the gospel may be written in it, as in new tables."
Ibid. verse 9. "The gospel declareth, that Christ is made our righteousness."
Ibid. verse 13. "The Jews' eyes were not lightned, but blinded; and so could not come to Christ."
Chap v. 21. The text says, That we are made the righteousness of God in Christ: the margin adds, "by imputation."
On Gal. i. 7. "What is more contrary to our free justification by faith, than the justification by the law; or [by] our workes? Therefore, to joyne these together, is to joyne light with darknesse, death with life; and doeth utterly overthrow the gospel."
Ibid. iii. 12. "The law - condemneth all them which in all points doe not fulfil it." And how is this condemnation to be escaped? By our own righteousness? Certainly not. For our own works do not "in all points fulfil" the law. But by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, who actually did "fulfil" the law, and that "in all points."
Ephes. i. 4. "This election, to life everlasting, can never bee changed. But, in temporal offices, which God hath appointed for a certaine space, when the term is expired, he changeth his election: as we see in Saul and Judas."
Ibid. verse 23. "That is the great love of Christ toward his church, that he counteth not himself perfect without us which are his members: and therefore the church is also called Christ [i.e. Christ mystical], as 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13."
Titus iii. 5. "God doth not justify us for respect of any thing which he seeth in us: but doeth prevent us [i.e. he is beforehand with us] with his grace, and freely accepteth us." So, chap. i. 2. God hath promised eternal life before the world began. "Of his meere liberalitie, without forseeing our faith or works as a cause to move hint to this free mercie."
On James ii. 14, the note is: "St. Paul, to the Romanes and Galatians, disputeth against them which attributed justification to works; and here St. James reasoneth against them which utterly condemne workes. Therefore Paul sheweth the causes of our justification; and James, the effects. There [i.e. in Paul's Epistles] it is declared, how we are justified: here [i.e. James's Epistle], howe wee are knowen to be justified. There, works are excluded as not the cause of our justification: here, they are approoved, as effects proceeding thereof. There, they [i.e. good works] are denied to go before them that shall be justified: and here they are sayd to follow them that are justified."
Ibid. verse 22. "The more his [i.e. Abraham's] faith was declared by his obedience and good works, the more was it knowen to men to be perfect; as the goodnesse of a tree is knowen by her good fruite: otherwise, no man can have perfection in this world; for every man must pray for remission of sinnes, and increase of faith."
2 Pet. i. 10. Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: "Albeit it be sure in itselfe, forasmuche as God cannot change; yet we must coufirme it in ourselves, by the fruits of the Spirit: knowing, that the purpose of God electeth, calleth, sanctifyeth, and justifyeth us."
Jude 4. "He confirmeth their heart, against the contemners of religion, and apostates; shewing, that such men trouble not the church at all adventures, but are appointed thereunto by the determinate counsel of God."
Thus speak the excellent prelates, who were concerned in the editions of our Protestant Bibles, published cum privilegio Regiae majestatis.
IV. The professed Calvinism of our church may be farther argued, from the learned and orthodox Francis Junius's Commentary on the Book of Revelation, bound up with the Bibles of those times. One citation from which commentary shall here suffice. Rev. xiii. 8. Whose names are not written in the book of life, &c. "That is," says Junius, "such as are not, from everlasting, elected in Christ Jesus." Let it be observed that this was the same Junius, who overthrew Arminius, in a debate concerning free-will; the particulars of which debate were transmitted, at large, to posterity.9
V. The questions and answers concerning predestination, inserted into the authorized Bibles of that age, are another proof that the doctrines of Calvin were owned to be the doctrines of our establishment.
Mr. Strype was able to trace up the insertion of these questions and answers into queen Elizabeth's Bibles, as far as the year 158210 (and I myself have lately seen an edition of 1583, wherein those questions and answers stand); a period twenty years earlier than that, in which the edition, which I am now making use of, was printed. That historian, whose fidelity, in his relation of facts, is unimpeachable, is not always very happy in his conjectures. The questions and answers, says he, were "joined to the Bible without any public licence and authority, as it seems."11 I am persuaded, that, had the vast multitude of materials, which this industrious compiler was digesting into an orderly series, allowed him leisure for due consideration, it would have "seemed" even to himself, utterly impossible for the said questions and answers to have crept into these editions of the Bible, "without public licence and authority," under the government of a queen so tenderly jealous of her ecclesiastical supremacy, and amidst that unrelaxing vigilance for which both her council and her bishops were so remarkable. Can any body coolly suppose that, at such a time, her majesty's own publisher would have ventured to fly in the face of church and state, by foisting in these questions, without proper authority? "Oh, but the authority is no where recorded." Nor was there any reason why it should, in a case so palpably plain. The simple circumstance of their being admitted there at all is proof enough that they were admitted by authority. But, supposing it even possible, that they might have stolen in at first; would not the instrusion have been presently detected? And would not the questions and answers, if real interlopers, have been displaced from the subsequent editions? Would they have been permitted to keep their station, all through the remainder of queen Elizabeth's reign (for more than twenty years elapsed, from their first insertion, to the death of that princess), if they had not been introduced by due license? And would they have been, moreover, continued in all the editions of the Bible, which were published, after her decease, during the first twelve years (at least) of her successor king James?
Come we now to the questions and answers themselves.
In the editions of 1583, 1602, and 1614, I find them prefixed to the New Testament. The title they bear, is,
"Certaine questions and answeres, touching the doctrine of predestination, the use of God's word, and sacraments."
They begin thus;
"Question. Why do men so much vary in matters of religion?
"Answere. Because all have not the like measure of knowledge, neither do all beleeve the gospel of Christ.
"Quest. What is the reason thereof?
"Answ. Because they only beleeve the gospel and doctrine of Christ, which are ordained unto eternall life.
"Quest. Are not all ordained unto eternal life ?
"Answ. Some are vessels of wrath, ordained unto destruction; as others are vessels of mercie prepared to glory.
"Quest. How standeth it with God's justice, that some are appointed unto damnation?
"Answ. Very well: because all men have in themselves sinne, which deserveth no less. And therefore the mercy of God is wonderfull, in that he vouchsafeth to save some of that sinfull race, and to bring them to the knowledge of the trueth.
"Quest. If God's ordinance and determination must of necessitie take effect; then, what need any man to care? for hee that liveth well must needs be damned, if hee be thereunto ordained; and hee that liveth ill must needs be saved, if hee be thereunto appointed?
"Answ. Not so: For it is not possible, that either the elect should alwayes be without care to doe well; or that the reprobate should have any will thereunto. For, to have either good will, or good worke, is a testimonie of the Spirit of God, which is given to the elect onely; whereby faith is so wrought in them, that, being graft in Christ, they grow in holinesse to that glory whereunto they are appointed. Neither are they so vaine, as once to thinke that they may doe as they liste themselves, because they are predestinate unto salvation; but rather they endeavour to walke in such good workes as God in Christ Jesus had ordained them unto, and prepared for them to bee occupied in, to their owne comfort, stay and assurance, and to his glory.
"Quest. But how shall I know myself to be one of those whom God hath ordained to life eternal?
"Answ. By the motions of spiritual] life, which belong onely to the children of God: by the which, that life is perceived, even as the life of this body is discerned by the sense and motions thereof.
"Quest. What meane you by the motions of spirituall life?
"Answ. I meane remorse of conscience, joined with the lothing of sinne, and love of righteousnesse; the hand of faith reaching unto life eternall in Christ; the conscience comforted in distresse, and raised up to confidence in God, by the worke of his Spirit; a thankfull remembrance of God's benefits received; and the using of all adversities as occasion of amentment sent from God.
"Quest. Cannot such perish, as at some time or other feele these motions within themselves?
"Answ. It is not posible that they should: for, as God's purpose is not changeable, so hee repenteth not of the gifts and graces of his adoption; neither doth hee cast off those whom he hath once received.
"Quest. Why then should we pray, by the example of David, that he cast us not from his face, and that hee take not his Holy Spirit from us?
"Answ. In so praying, we make protestation of the weaknesse of [our] flesh, which mooveth us to doubt: yet should not wee have courage to aske, if wee were not assured, that God will give, according to his purpose and promise, that which we require.
"Quest. Doe the children of God feele the motions aforesaid alwayes alike?
"Answ. No, truly: for God, sometime, to prove his, seemeth to leave them in such sort, that the flesh overmatcheth the spirit; whereof ariseth trouble of conscience, for the time. Yet the spirit of adoption is never taken from them that have once received it: else might they perish. But as, in many diseases of the body, the powers of bodily life are letted; so, in some assaults, these motions of spirituall life are not perceived, because they lye hidden in our manifold infirmitys, as the fire covered with ashes. Yet as, after sicknesse, cometh health; and, after cloudes, the sunne shineth cleare; so the powers of spirituall life will, more or lesse, be felt and perceived, in the children of God.
"Quest. What if I never feele these motions in myself? Shall I despaire, and thinke myself a cast-away?
"Answ. God forbid. For God calleth his, at what time hee seeth good: and the instruments, whereby he usually calleth, have not the like effect at all times. Yet, it is not good to neglect the meanes, whereby God hath determined to work the salvation of his. For as waxe is not melted without heate; nor clay hardened but by meanes thereof; so God useth meanes, both to draw those unto himselfe, whom hee hath appoynted unto salvation, and also to bewray the wickednesse of them whom he justly condemneth." The remainder of these learned and masterly questions and answers well deserves to be transcribed: but what have been now alleged are sufficient to prove the purpose for which I bring them.
VI. A judicious little tractate (the work, originally, of pious bishop Cranmer), bound up likewise with the Bibles of this reign, still continued to demonstrate the Calvinism of the church. It is entitled, 'The Summe of the whole Scripture of the Bookes of the Old and New Testament.' Under the article God, this valuable compendium of scripture-doctrine expressly asserts, as usual, that he "worketh all in all, after his owne will; to whom it is not lawful to say, Wherefore doth hee thus or thus?" It affirms, that in consequence of Adam's original transgression, "We, which be sprong from him by the flesh, hee in nature the children of wrath, made subject to thrall and death, to damnation, to the yoke and tyranny of the devill." It maintains, that, by Christ's oblation of himself, "All sinne" is "blotted out, and quite put away:" and, that the Spirit of God, and the Scriptures of truth, are given, in order to lead us to Christ, "that wee, believing, mought have, in his name, life everlasting."
VII. Nor can I omit the mention of some excellent prayers, designed for private use, and then bound up at the end of the liturgy. Two of these shall here answer for the rest. The collect for Sunday was this: "O Almightie and mercifull Lord, which givest unto thy elect people the Holy Ghost, as a sure pledge of thy heavenly kingdome; grant unto us, O Lord, thy Holy Spirit, that he may beare witnesse with our spirit that we be thy children, and heires of thy kingdom: and that, by the operation of this Spirit, we may kill all carnal lustes, unlawfull pleasures, concupisences, evill affections, contrary unto thy will; by our Savior and Lord Jesu Christ. Amen."
The other, which I shall cite, is part of that most admirable supplication, entitled, 'A Prayer to be said at the Houre of Death.' And I beseech God, that Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, and myself, may be enabled, at that important crisis, to expire under the full impression of the gracious sentiments with which it is fraught. "I, wretched sinner, give and submit myself wholly to thy most blessed will: and being sure that the thing cannot perish which is committed unto thy mercy, willingly now I leave this fraile and wicked flesh, in hope of the resurrection, which, in better wise, shall restore it to me againe. I see and knowledge that there is, in myselfe, no helpe of salvation: but all my confidence, hope, and trust, is in thy most merciful goodnesse. I have no merits, nor good workes, which I may alledge before thee. Of siunes, and evill workes, alas! I see a great heape. But, through thy mercy, I trust to be in the number of them, to whom thou wilt not impute their sins; but take and accept me for righteous and just, and to be the inheritour of everlasting life. Thou, merciful Lord, wast born for my sake; thou diddest both hunger and thirst for my sake; thou diddest preach and teach, thou diddest pray and fast, for my sake; thou diddest all good workes and deedes for my sake: thou sufferedst most grieveous paines and torments for my sake; and, finally, thou gavest they most precious body to die, and they blood to be shed on the crosse, for my sake. Let thy blood cleanse and wash away the spots and foulness of my sinnes. Let thy righteousness hide and cover mine unrighteousnesse. Let the merites of thy passion and blood bee the satisfaction for my sinnes."
VIII. If ever there was a Calvinistic confession of faith since the world began, the two Helvetic, or Swiss confessions (the smaller, drawn up A.D. 1536, the larger, A. D. 1566.) have a right to he so termed. Even the vindicator of Mr. Wesley's minutes will hardly, I should imagine, venture to contest the doctrinal Calvinism of those excellent Creeds, which do honour to the ancestors of his Protestant countrymen.
In that valuable collection, entitled, Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum Fidei, which comprizes the several confessions of faith avowed by all the Protestant churches (among which confessions, the 39 articles of our own church shine with a lustre as bright as any); the Helvetic system leads the van: in a short preface to which, the editor (p. 4.) affirms, that the last and larger of the two was "subscribed by the divines of Zurich, Bern, Shaffhausen, St. Gall, Grisonny, Basil, Bienne, and Geneva," and that "The Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the reformed churches in France, all the Dutch churches, together with many of the Protestant churches in Poland, Hungary, and Germany, testified their approbation of the said Helvetic confession."12 What I quote this passage for is to prove that the Church of England, after its restoration by queen Elizabeth, acknowledged its approbation of the doctrines contained in that thoroughly Calvinistic declaration of faith: which approbation our church would by no means have testified, had not her own principles been as thoroughly and confessedly Calvinistic as were the principles of the said Swiss churches.
Object not, that the truth of this circumstance rests on the authority of the foreign compiler of the Syntagma Confessionum. For the very same circumstance is affirmed and in still stronger terms, by a most respectable English historian. His words are these, under the year 1566, "There was lately a confession of faith set forth by Bullinger and others, for the churches of Helvetia: which our church did then heartily consent to and own. This I take from the pen of one that well knew, viz. Grindal [at that time] bishop of London [and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury]: for there is a letter of his, to the said Bullinger, wherein, among other things, speaking of our church [i.e. the Church of England's] affairs, he [the bishop] shewed, how that many did endeavour to bring into the [English] church a doctrine different from that pure and sincere profession which was embraced by the churches of Helvetia: But [added the good prelate], ad hunc usque diem, cum vestris ecclesiis, vestruque confessione nuper edita plenissimi consentimus:"13 i.e. 'down to this very day, we [viz. we bishops and clergy of the Church of England] do perfectly agree with your [i.e. with the Switz] churches, and with your confession of faith lately set forth.'
Is the reader desirous to see a specimen of the Helvetic confession? He shall have it. The whole is very long: consisting of no fewer than thirty Sections, or chapters. It is drawn up with wonderful candour, piety, and judgment. The sixth chapter treats of Divine Providence: concerning which it thus speaks: "Every thing whatever is destined of God to some certain end, or purpose. He it is, who hath ordained both its commencement, and the means by which the end shall be attained. The heathens, indeed, attributed things to blind fortune, and to precarious chance: but St. James directs us to say, If the Lord will, we'll do this or that. So speaks St. Austin: all things whatever, even those things not excepted, which, to us vain mortals, seem to cone to pass rashly and without design; do in reality, accomplish nothing but the command of God: for at his command it is, that they come to pass at all."14
The eighth chapter treats of original sin: and justly observes, that, "When God is, in Scripture, said to blind, to harden, and deliver men over to a reprobate mind; the meaning is, that God doth so, in a way of just judgment, as a righteous judge and avenger. Moreover, as often as Scripture affirms God to be the worker of any evil, it does not mean that evil is not of man's own committing; but that God, by his just judgment, permits evil to be wrought, and doth not hinder it, though it be in his power to hinder it if he so pleased. Or, it may be understood thus; that God makes a good use of men's evil actions; as he did of the sins committed by Joseph's brethren."15
The ninth chapter treats of free-will. Part of it runs thus: "The regenerate are active, as well as passive, in their choice and performance of what is good. For they are acted upon by God, in order to their doing what they do."16 Again: "The will itself is not only changed by God's Holy Spirit; but is also furnished with ability, freely to will and do that which is good."17
I shall only add another paragraph, from the tenth chapter, which treats of God's predestination. "God hath, from eternity, predestinated, or elected, freely, and of his own absolute grace, without any respect of man [i.e. without any respect of man's goodness], the saints whom it is his will to save in Christ: according to that of the Apostle [Eph, i.], God hath chosen us in him, before the foundations of the world. And, again: Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, and grace, which was given us in Christ, before the eternal ages, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ [2 Tim. i. 9, 10]."18 So speaks the Helvetic confession: with which, the Church of England doth so "perfectly agree."
IX. Something has already been said, concerning what is commonly called bishop Ponet's catechism, drawn up in the reign of king Edward VI. The same famous catechism will supply us with an additional proof of the continued Calvinism of our church, under the reign of queen Elizabeth. For, that catechism was not only revived, but enlarged, in the year 1562; and allowed by the same identical convocation which resettled our 39 articles upon their present footing. That I may not seem to advance any thing rashly, I shall, as usual, produce the authorities on which I go.
"One considerable thing more passed the hands of this convocation: viz. The catechism in Latin, for the use of schools, and also for a brief summary of religion, to be owned and professed in this reformed church. And this is the same with that which is commonly known, to this day, by the name of Nowell's Catechism. The occasion was this. Upon secretary Cecil's advice, Nowell, dean of St. Paul's, drew up a catechism in elegant Latin: yet making much use of the catechism set forth towards the latter end of king Edward's reign. This, when the dean had finished, he dedicated to the same secretary who set him on work. And the clergy of the convocation thought tit to peruse it: and, having well considered it, and making some corrections, gave it a more public character, as proceeding from them, and so allowing and approving the use of it.
"This catechism lay in Cecil's hand for above a year: and then was returned to Nowell again, with some learned man's notes: remaining with him, 'till 1570. And then it was called for again, by both archbishops, in order to the publishing of it: and, by Cecil's consent (to whom it was dedicated before) being dedicated now by the author to the two archbishops and the bishop of London, by name, and to all the rest of the bishops, it was printed. And printed again, 1572. And again, 1578. Bearing this title, Christianae Pietatis prima Institutio, ad Usum Scholarum Latine scripta. This catechism was translated also, by the same dean's procurement, into English and Greek, for the use also of young learners.
"This catechism seems to be the same with that set forth a month or two before king Edward's death, and licensed and recommended by the said king's letter set before it. For the two persons that hold the dialogue, in both catechisms, are magister and auditor. In that letter, it is said to have been written by a certain pious and learned man; and to have been, moreover, diligently perused by certain bishops, and other persons of learning, to whom the king had committed it. And (it was) likewise the same (catechism) which, in queen Mary's first convocation was much quarrelled with" (and no wonder; for Popery and Calvinism are but wet friends); "and, lastly, which the Popish bishops brought with them, when they came to Mr. Philpot's examination: which Philpot (the arch-deacon and martyr, of whom before), very probably, was one of those learned men in convocation, that king Edward had committed this catechism to their perusal of." Poor Mr. Wesley thought, I suppose, that he had long ago taken leave of bishop Ponet's ghost; but we see, the ghost is so unceremonious us to appear again: nay, enhances the terrors of its appearance, by stalking; hand-in-hand with additional ghosts; even the ghosts of Philpot, Cranmer, Ridley, and other "certain bishops and learned men" of king Edward's convocation. But I return to the historian.
"It was thought fit (namely, in the reign of Elizabeth) that ministers should converse in this catechism, and learn true divinity from it. But this some [viz. some of the rigid Puritans], conceited of their own learning, after wards thought much of. Thus Thomas Cartwright, in his Admonition, complained, that now, ministers, like young children, must be instructed, and learn catechisms: where, in the margin, he placed these words, Ministers of London enjoyned to learn Mr. Nowell's catechism. To which, thus arch-bishop Whitgift made answer: "That catechism, which you, in derision, quote in the margin, is a book fit for you to learn also. And I know no man so well learned, but it may become him to read and learn that learned and necessary book." Such was the esteem of this catechism, upon its coming abroad, that, at some visitation, as it seems, in London, the reading of it was recommended to the ministers: and that with good reason; having passed the synod.
"Let me add, that, many years after, concerning this catechism, thus it was writ by a great bishop (Cowper, bishop of Winchester), in answer to (a pamphlet entitled) Martin Mar Prelate. For a catechism (said the bishop), I refer them to that which was made by the learned and godly man, Mr. Nowell, dean of St. Paul's; received and allowed by the Church of England, and very fully grounded and established upon the word of God. There may you see all the parts of true religion received; the difficulties expounded; the truth declared; the corruptions of the Church of Rome rejected."19
Thus do not only the ghosts of king Edward's bishops, and of queen Mary's martyrs; but the ghosts also of queen Elizabeth's prelates, and of the whole convocation which passed the book of articles, unite with the ghost of John Calvin, to frighten the vaunting Mr. Wesley and the quaking Mr. Sellon. Both the knight and the squire are haunted by the merciless traio, who are perpetually holding up Ponet's catechism to view.
But that catechism, though materially, was not exactly, the same with Nowell's. So, at least, I learn from the annalist; for I have never been able to procure a sight of dean Nowell's edition. But, that the Calvinistic doctrines suffered no injury, nor amputation, by passing through the hands of that learned editor, and of the convocation of 1562, I am fully satisfied. Should it be asked, on what grounds I am convinced that those, doctrines continued with full force to predominate in Nowell's improved edition? My answer would be, Let us attend to what Heylyn himself observes, concerning Nowell's catechism. Whence an additional advantage will also arise: for the quotations from it, which the Arminian brings, will remedy, in some measure, the inability I am under of quoting it myself.
"It is objected," says Heylin, "that Mr. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. Paul's, who was prolocutor in this convocation, maintaineth in his catechism a doctrine contrary to that which the Arminians, as some call them, do now contend for; and that it is not to be thought, that he and others, engaged with them in the same convocation, were either so ignorant, as not to know what they put into the [39)] articles; or so infatuated by God, [as] to put in things quite contrary to their own judgments: which being supposed, or took for granted, we are directed to his catechism, written in the English tongue, and dedicated to the two archbishops." The sum of the argument is this. The self-same bishops and clergymen in convocation, who revised and allowed the XXXIX articles, as we have them at this very day, did also revise and allow Nowell's improved edition of Ponet's catechism: and the said houses of convocation cannot, with any shew of reason and justice, be supposed to have been either so ignorant, or so infatuated, as to approve two contrary systems of religion, at one and the same time. Consequently, the Calvinism of the catechism is an additional argument that the articles are Calvinistic; and the Calvinism of the articles is an additional argument to prove the Calvinism of the catechism. Say not, that this kind of reasoning is circular, and therefore inconclusive. For, as contraries are often admitted to illustrate each other; so may correlatives.
Heylyn found himself extremely hampered by the above argument: which indeed proved a circle, that hemmed him tightly round. His subsequent concessions, and subsequent twistings, demonstrate, that this was a circle which, on his own Arminian principles, he knew not how to square. For his twistings, I refer my readers to his book itself. But his concessions merit a place here.
He confesses, that the two following passages are a part of Nowell's catechism. "To the Church do all they properly belong, as many as do truly fear, honour, and call upon God, altogether applying their minds to live holily and godly, and with putting, all their trust in God, do most assuredly look for the blessedness of eternal life. They that be stedfast, stable, and constant in this faith, were chosen and appointed, and (as we term it) predestinate, to this so great felicity." The other passage which Heylyn cites is: "The Church is the body of the Christian commonwealth: that is, the universal number and fellowship of the faithful, whom God, through Christ, hath, before all beginning of time, appointed to everlasting life."
Heylin observes, that those passages have been alledged, from Nowell's catechism, "to prove that Mr. Nowell had no communion with Arminians." And what says Heylin, in answer to this? He was forced to acknowledge the justness of the inference: which he does, in the following remarkable words: "To say truth, he [i.e. Nowell] could have no communion with the Arminians, as some please to call them, though he had desired it: Arminius being not born, or but newly born, when Mr. Nowell wrote that catechism. And Mr. Nowell had been dead some years before the name of an Arminian had been heard in England."20
So much having been said, concerning this good man's catechism, it may not prove disagreeable to the reader, to be informed of some particulars relative to the good man himself: which I have therefore subjoined, in the note21 below.
X. The great, the general, the just alarm, occasioned by the surreptitious publication of such books (which now and then made shift to steal from the press) as tended to countenance the doctrines of man's free-will, and the possibility of sinless perfection in this life; is another glaring proof, how totally those corrupt tenets were then supposed to deviate from the pure system of the Church of England. Let one example stand for several.
"The free-will men," says Mr. Strype, under the year 1581, "at this time, gave some disturbance by their doctrine. And now they had procured Castalio's books to be printed here, or brought over hither."22 This Castalio was, by birth, a Frenchman: extremely poor, but very learned and ingenious. Though he always continued a layman, he was yet a perpetual dabbler in divinity: his peculiar notions in which, he sought to obtrude upon other, people, with much bigotry, and sometimes with little decency. While he kept within any tolerable bounds of moderation, he experienced a generous and affectionate patron in Calvin: but, by degrees, his impatient, dogmatizing zeal put him upon running to such blasphemous lengths against predestination, as obliged Calvin to turn him adrift. Such, however, were Calvin's benevolence and candour, that, if Castalio's own account is to be relied on, he was dismissed from Geneva with a very favourable attestation to his character. Retiring to Basil, he obtained a Greek professorship: and died there, in 1563. His professorship was far from yielding him a maintenance. It is even said, that he was forced to divide his time between study and manual labour. His mornings were appropriated to literature: his afternoons to digging, like a common workman. But all would not afford him and his numerous family a competent support. He wanted necessaries to the very last. Hence his melting complaint, to an opulent friend: You distill your oyl but by drops, into my lamp. How discommendable soever his heterodoxies might be deemed, the reflections of candid posterity must for ever bear hard on the learned men of that age, for suffering a person of Castalio's fine acquirements to languish under the pressure of such complicated difficulties.
When the writings of this classical free-willer began to appear publicly in England, the friends of our established Church took immediate alarm. Among these, was Sir. Francis Knollis, treasurer of the queen's household: "who," says Strype, "thought it highly convenient to have the book searched for, and the reading of it hindered."23 With this view, he wrote a letter to the lord treasurer, and to the earl of Leicester. His letter seems to have had the intended effect. It ran thus:
"My very good lords,
"Your hableness and readiness to do good, in these perilous days of traiterous practices both against God and against her majesty, doth embolden me to presume to remember your good lordships, that, by your good means, order may be taken, that the true authors and favourers of the setting forth of Castalio's book, with the24 abuses of the bishop of London in that behalf, may be diligently examined and bolted out: that, the hypocrisy therein used, being known, the pestilent doctrine thereof may he the more soundly suppressed. For it seemeth to me, that these free-will men, or Anabaptistical sectaries, do follow the same scopes that the deified men of the Family of Love (afterwards known by the name of Ranters) do follow: saving that the same perfection which the Family of Love do pretend to obtain by virtue of love, the same perfection do Castalio's sectaries pretend to obtain by the virtue of faith.25 But it is not by faith, in believing to be saved in the merits of Christ; but by a faith in believing that every man is able to fulfil the law of God; and that the cause why men do not fulfil the law, is the want of this Castalio's belief. Now both these sects [i.e. both the Familists, or Ranters; and the followers of Castalio] do serve the turns of the Papists: as all free-will men, and justiciaries, or justifiers of themselves, do. Yet, this difference is betwixt the Papists and these sectaries (I do mean touching their practices here in England): for these sectaries [i.e. the free-will men and perfectionists] are more hypocritical, and will sooner deny their doctrines and assertions, to avoid punishment, than the Papists will.
"London, September 29, 1581."26
Such were the sentiments, then entertained, concerning the poisonous nature and dangerous tendency of the principles advanced by the free-will men!
XI. Mr. Sellon's impertinence obliges me to repeat a very remarkable incident in the Religious History of queen Elizabeth's reign, which I have had occasion to mention in a former27 publication: namely, the case of Thomas Talbot, parson of St. Mary Magdalene's, in Milk-street, London. This Talbot presented a petition to the bishops and clergy assembled in convocation; which petition set forth, that the said parson Talbot, and some private persons who concurred with him in opinion, were "mightily cried out against" by the members of the Church of England, because the said Talbot and his associates believed that God doth only foreknow, but not predestinate, any "evil, wickedness, or sin." For thus believing, the petitioners complained, that they were "esteemed and taken, of their brethren the Protestants, for fautors of false religion; and are constrained, hitherto, to sustain at their bands, daily, the shameful reproach and infamy of free-will men, Pelagians, Papists, Epicures, Anabaptists, and enemies to God's holy predestination and providence; with other such like opprobrious words; and threatnings of such like, or as great punishments and corrections, as, upon any of the aforesaid errors and sects, is meet and due to be executed." The petitioners next entreat, that they may enjoy their opinion of 'God's not being the author and predestinator of man's sin and damnation,' "Without any prejudice or suspicion, to be had towards them, of the opprobrious infamy of such heretical names above named: and, that none of those corrections, punishments and executions, which the clergy hath in their authority, already, and hereafter, by the authority of this present parliament, from henceforth shall have in their authority, to exercise upon any of the aforesaid errors and sects, or any other, shall in no wise, extend to be executed upon any manner of person or persons, as do hold of predestination as is above declared: except it be duly proved. that the same person or persons do, by their express words or writings, affirm, or maintain, that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, will, or work, of himself, any thing that should, in any case, help or serve towards his own salvation, or any part thereof."28 Hence, among several other conclusions, I inferred, and still infer, that our Protestant bishops and clergy were, in Elizabeth's reign, more highly Calvinistical, than perhaps, the Scripture itself will warrant: for they roundly affirmed God to be the author both "of man's sin and damnation:" That such persons, as did not hold this, were looked upon as "differing from the rest" of our Protestant Churchmen: That those few people, who supposed God "not to be any cause of man's sin and damnation," were "mightily cried out against," by the main body of our reformed Church, as "fautors" or "favourers of false religion:" that "free-will men" were ranked among "Pelagians, Papists, Epicures, Anabaptists, and enemies to God's holy predestination and providence: that, to be called "a free-will man," was looked upon as a "shameful reproach" and "opprobrious infamy:" yea, that a free-willer was deemed "heretical;" and not only so, but exposed to the "corrections, punishments, and executions" of the civil magistrate: that the few opposers of predestination were then both more modest, and more orthodox (or, rather, less heterodox), than the generality of our modern Arminians. More modest: in that the Milk-street parson only requested a bare toleration for himself and his Semipelagian brethren; which request argued both a consciousness, and an acknowledgement, that he and they dissented from our established Church. More orthodox: in that, as we have seen from the very phraseology of their own petition, they were ready to consent, that any ecclesiastical censure or civil penalty should be inflicted on such of their number, as should "affirm and maintain, that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, will, or work, of himself, any thing that should in any case help or serve towards his own salvation, or any part thereof." I, therefore, ask, again; where is now the Arminian, who would make such a concession as this? Nay, where is now the Arminian, who does not stiffly maintain the very reverse? Whence I infer, that our new Anti-calvinists are as much degenerated from the decency even of their Pelagian fore-fathers, as those Pelagian fore-fathers were degenerated from the purity of the Protestant faith in general, and from that of our own national Church in particular.
And now, what say Mess. Wesley and Sellon, by way of answer to my argument for the Calvinism of the Church of England, drawn from the tenor of the above-cited petition? Instead of answering, the astonished Arminians descant as follows: "Good God! To what a pitch of tyranny and wickedness was the Calvinistic faction gotten, in Elizabeth's days! It is plain that Dr. Heylyn says true, when he tells us, It was safer for any man, in those times, to have been looked upon as an heathen or publican, than an Anti-calvinist. This shews, what a deplorable state the Church was at that time in: reformed from bad to worse; from Popish superstition to Calvinistic blasphemy. These bishops and clergy" [viz. the bishops and clergy in the convocation of 1562, to whom Talbot's petition was presented; who were also the very identical bishops and clergy that then settled the present liturgy, and framed the present XXXIX Articles of the Church of England], "These bishops and clergy were a company of silly men, to say no worse."29 The Church is much obliged to Mr. John and his man Wat, for their complaisance to her. Unhappily, however, for themselves and their cause, they have, in the ferment of their scurrilous heat, unwarily set their seal to the whole of the argument I plead for. They acknowledge (who could ever have thought it?) even John Wesley and Walter Sellon do, themselves, acknowledge, that the Church of England was "reformed from Popish superstition to Calvinistic" principles; and that, in good queen Bess's golden days, when Calvinism had no harm in it, "it was safer for any man to have been looked upon as an heathen or publican, than an Anti-calvinist." Granted. And what is this, but the very point for which I contend?30
XII. I must repeat another instance, than which it is hardly possible, perhaps, to allege an incident more strong, striking, and conclusive, in favour of the absolute Calvinism of the Church of England: I mean, the advice, offered and recommended by queen Elizabeth's bishops themselves, that "Incorrigible Arians, Pelagians or free-will men, be sent into some one castle, in North Wales, or Wallingford; and there to live of their own labour and exercise; and none other be suffered to resort unto them, but their keepers: until they be found to repent their errors."31
This most remarkable paper of advice is thus introduced by Mr. Strype: "Another thing also was now drawn up in writing, by the archbishop [Parker], and bishops, for the further regulation of the interior clergy. This paper consisted of interpretations and further considerations of certain of the queen's injunctions, for the better direction of the clergy, and for keeping good order in the church. It was framed, as it seems to me, by the pen of Cox, bishop of Ely; and revised by the archbishop."32 Let it be noticed, that dean Nowell's catechism, together with the "second book of homilies, as we have them at this day in our homily book,"33 was compiled and published; as also the "articles of faith to be subscribed to by ministers, and the form of declaration" [i.e. the declaration of conformity to the liturgy and rites] "to be by them openly spoken and professed were likewise framed," about34 the same time, and by the self-same bishops who advised the queen to shut up all incorrigible free-will "men in some one castle in North Wales, or Wallingford."
From my former Vindication of the Church of England, permit me to transcribe a brief remark or two, which I then made, on this extraordinary advice offered by queen Elizabeth's bishops and clergy in convocation assembled. I observed, I do not quote this mortifying paragraph [mortifying indeed, to Arminians and Arminianizers], from any approbation I entertain of the expedient recommended; for I abhor every thing that even looks like persecution, for principles merely religious. But I cannot help deducing two conclusions from this curious portion of our ecclesiastical history. 1st, That free-will men were considered, by the Church of England, when in her purity, as some of the most dangerous recusants she had to grapple with: else, she would never have advised the confining of them in a remote prison, where none should be permitted to have access to them, their keepers only excepted. 2ndly, That free-will men were, at that time, very few in number: otherwise, "One castle," however spacious, would not have been thought large enough to contain them. I heartily congratulate our present free-willers, on their living in an age of liberty.
And I still congratulate them, with the utmost sincerity. Among which congratulated number, I include even Mr. Wesley and Mr. Sellon. Had the advice of the episcopal bench been followed, and had it continued in force to this day, Mr. Wesley, instead of ranging the three kingdoms, like a bird of passage; would have been caged on the dreary summit of a Welsh mountain: or, compelled to fix his nest in some hole of Wallingford Castle, must have beat time to the music of the winds. The melodious Mr. Sellon, likewise, instead of improving and ravishing the public with his mellifluous notes, must have followed his master to the coop: and warbled his harmonious woes to the dull, dark, damp, solitary walls; or whistled his pensive strains to the owls and to the bats. I mean if these two Arminians had stood to their principles: of which 1 stand in much doubt.
I am glad the sweet singers are at full liberty to hop from spray to spray in pursuit of flies, though I cannot wish them a large capture. And whereas I had reasonably and naturally inferred, that free-willers were once very few in number, from the circumstance of a single castle's being deemed sufficient to hold them all; I am well pleased that the said nightingales should have it in their power to counter-act my inference with this sage objection (p. 39.): to wit that "One castle would have held all the avowed Protestants in England, in queen Mary's days." But this happens to be a mistake. For, though many Protestants fled, as opportunity offered, into other countries; yet the multitude of those that remained was so great, that Mary's Popish bishops were tired, and her Popish administration were ashamed, of the imprisonments, the sufferings, and the slaughters, by which her detestable reign was distinguished. Let Strype testify, whether "One castle would have held all the avowed Protestants in England." That authentic historian affirms, that, in London only, "The Tower, the Fleet, the Marshalsea, the King's-bench, Newgate, and the two Counters were full of them."35 It was even computed, that no fewer than twenty thousand persons, who had been, from the very first, bigotted Papists, were, during the persecution, converted to Protestantism, in the course of one twelve-month only.36 A very elegant and masterly historian, now living, confirms the falsehood of Mr. Sellon's conjecture. "The patience and fortitude with which the martyrs for the reformation submitted to their sufferings; the heroic contempt of death, expressed by persons of every rank, and age, and sex confirmed many more in the Protestant faith than the threats of their enraged persecutors could frighten into apostacy. The business of such as were entrusted with the trying of heretics grew upon them, and appeared as endless as it was odious. The queen's ablest ministers became sensible, how impolitic, as well as dangerous, it was, to irritate the people by the frequent spectacle of public executions, which they detested, as no less unjust than cruel. Even Philip was so thoroughly convinced of her having run to an excess of rigour, that he assumed a part, to which he was little accustomed; becoming an advocate for moderation and lenity."37 In supposing therefore, that "all the avowed Protestants in England, might in the days of Mary," have been comprehended in "one castle;" Mr. Sellon rashly estimates the integrity of the martyrs, by his own: but he should remember, that they were conscientious Calvinists, and himself is a prevaricating Arminian.
On the whole, it follows, that one castle would not have held all the professed Protestants in queen Mary's reign: But that one castle would have held all the Protestant free-willers in the reign of queen Elizabeth.
XIII. The avowed and undeniable Calvinism of those prelates, with whom that discerning princess took care to fill the metropolitical see of Canterbury, during the whole of her reign, supplies another argument, for the palpable Calvinism of the church. Indeed, the same care was taken of the inferior sees: witness the venerable Calvinistic names of Sandys, Hutton, and Matthew, archbishops of York; Aylmer, and Bancroft, bishops of London; Horne, Watson, and Cowper, bishops of Winchester; Coy, Barlow, Jewell, Gheast, Babington, Parkhurst, Young, Scambler, Pilkington, and many others, who were rather ornaments to the mitre, than the mitre to them.
I should expatiate on too large a field, were I (as I once designed) to enter on the proof, which history affords, of the orthodox principles of those and the other leading38 bishops in that reign. I must therefore, confine myself to the prelates of Canterbury: who were Parker, Grindal, and Whitgift.
(1.) Dr. Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop, Dec. 17, 1559, in Lambeth chapel. Almost immediately afterwards, his grace received a letter from Calvin: which letter he communicated to the queen's privy council, who, when they had seriously considered its contents, ordered the archbishop to transmit their thanks to Calvin for his pains and kindness. I shall recite this matter more at large, in the historian's own words.
A letter was sent, this year (1560), to archbishop Parker, "From, the hands of a great divine, John Calvin: importing, how he [viz. Calvin] rejoiced in the happiness of England, and that God had raised up so gracious a queen to be instrumental in propagating the true faith of Jesus Christ, by restoring the gospel, and expelling idolatry, together with the bishop of Rome's usurped power. Calvin then made a serious motion of uniting Protestants together, as he had done before39 in king Edward's reign. He [now] intreated the archbishop to prevail with her majesty to summon a general assembly of all the Protestant clergy, wheresoever dispersed; and that a set form and method [i.e. of public service, and government of the church] might be established, not only in her dominions, but also among all the reformed and evangelical churches abroad.
This was a noble offer: and the archbishop soon acquainted the queen's council with it. They took it into consideration, and desired his grace to thank Calvin, and to let him know, they liked his proposals, which were fair and desirable: yet, as to the government of the church, to signify to him, that the Church of England would still retain her episcopacy."40 And it was Calvin's desire that she might. Nay, that great reformer (as hath been already observed) wished for the introduction of Protestant episcopacy into the reformed churches abroad. Witness, farther, what Mr. Strype immediately subjoins:
"This was a great work, and created serious thoughts in the archbishop's mind, for the framing a proper method to set it on foot: but he had considered but a little while of these matters, when news arrived at court that Calvin was dead. How Calvin stood affected in the said point of episcopacy, and how readily and gladly he and other heads of the reformed churches would have received it, is evident enough from his writings and epistles. In his hook of the necessity of reforming the Church, he hath these words: Talem nobis Hierarchiam exhibeant, &c. Let them give us such an hierarchy, in which bishops may be so above the rest, as they refuse not to be under Christ, and depend upon him as their only head; that they maintain a brotherly society, &c. if there be any that do not behave themselves with all reverence and obedience toward them, there is no Anathema, but I confess them worthy of it."41 Calvin's opinion being so favourable to the English episcopacy, it was no wonder that he and the archbishop of Canterbury were on terms of most friendly and intimate correspondence. The truth is, they were reciprocal admirers of each other, and agreed no less in matters of discipline than of doctrine.
In the year 1563, Musculus's Common Places, which contain a complete and very excellent system of Calvinistical divinity, were translated into English, and the translation dedicated to the said archbishop Parker. Nay, in the opinion of Mr. Strype, the archbishop himself honoured the book with the prefatory admonition to the reader, concerning Church-discipline and ceremonies. "Musculus's Common Places came forth, this year, in folio; translated out of Latin into English, for the use of English divines and others, in order to instruct them in a body of sound divinity purged from the errors of Popery. The author [viz. Musculus] was a learned professor of divinity, in Bern, Switzerland; and reckoned among the most profound doctors that had written in the Church of God. The translator was Mr. Man, head of Merton College, Oxford; who dedicated the book to our archbishop." (Strype's Life of Parker, p. 150.) In this book, the doctrines of absolute predestination and grace are wrought up to the highest standard. I have the Latin edition by me, and number it among my choicest literary treasures. Let me ask, whether the archbishop would not only have permitted the English version of it to he dedicated to himself, but also have prefixed to it a "preface of his own," if his grace had not indeed looked upon that performance as, what Mr. Strype justly terms it, "a body of sound divinity?"
The extraordinary countenance afforded by the same archbishop to the Geneva Bible, is a strong accessory proof of his doctrinal Calvinism. One Mr. John Bodleigh began to prepare a new edition of that Bible, in 1569, and, "applied himself to the queen's secretary, Cecil. But the secretary suspended giving his furtherance, till he had heard the advice of the archbishop, and the bishop of London. Both the archbishop and bishop willingly gave their letters to the secretary, in Bodleigh's behalf; writing to him, that they thought so well of the first impression, and the review of those who had since travelled therein, that they, [viz. the bishops of Canterbury and London wished it would please him [secretary Cecil] to be a means, that twelve years longer term might be, by special privilege, granted him [i.e. to Bodleigh], in consideration of the charges, by him and his associates, in the first impression, and the review sithence sustained."42 Thus, though the Geneva Bible never had the express authority of the state to recommend it, it had the approbation of the principal ecclesiastics in the Church of England.
But the translation, called, the Bishops Bible, mentioned above, and from which some striking extracts have been given, puts the Calvinism of archbishop Parker (who had the chief hand in that version) beyond all controversy. "The archbishop took upon him the labour to contrive, and to set the whole work a going in a proper method; by sorting out the whole Bible into parcels, and distributing those parcels to able bishops, and other learned men, to peruse and collate each the books allotted them: sending, withal, his instructions for the method they should observe, and they to add some short marginal notes for the illustration or correction of the text. And all these portions of the Bible being finished, and sent back to the archbishop, he was to add the last hand to them, and so to take care for printing and publishing the whole."43 All which was accordingly done. History records many other proofs of archbishop Parker's orthodoxy (the modelling of the XXXIX Articles, for instance; and his concurrence with the rest of the bishops, in the proposal for confining "incorrigible free-will men," to hard labour and discipline, "in some one castle;" with various particulars besides, all tending to the same point): but the few, already specified, shall, at present, suffice. This good archbishop, dying in 1575, was succeeded, in the see of Canterbury,
(2.) By the learned and pious Dr. Edmund Grindal: a prelate, in whose breast the entire assemblage of Christian graces met, and in whose life every moral virtue shone. A remarkable incident is related of him, when a boy. He was, from his infancy, biassed by a strong propensity to literature: and used to make some valuable book or other the constant companion of his solitary walks. Passing, one day, through a field, with his coat or waistcoat buttoned half-way up, and a volume resting in his bosom, an arrow, from some unknown quarter, lighted on his breast, and must have killed him immediately, if the book had not intercepted the point of the weapon in its way to his heart.44
Being transplanted from his native county of Cumberland, to Cambridge; he there became fellow of Pembroke Hall; and, in consideration of his distinguished abilities and merit, was nominated by bishop Ridley to be one of his chaplains; his other two being Mr. John Rogers and Mr. John Bradford, who were both (as was their lord, the bishop himself) afterwards martyred in the reign of Mary. Dr. Grindal would, probably, have been baptized with the same fiery baptism, had not that watchful Providence, whose care he eminently experienced from his earliest years, enabled him to escape into Germany; where he stayed till Elizabeth became queen. On his return to England, he was, successively, bishop of London, archbishop of York, and at last of Canterbury. He died A.D. 1583, and lies buried in the chancel of Croydon Church. Pious king Edward VI., sensible of Grindal's worth, had nominated him to a bishopric, a little before his [the king's] decease; but Providence reserved our prelate's advancement to the more fixed and settled times of Elizabeth.
His attachment to the Calvinistic principles has never, so far as I can find, been disputed. And, indeed, his extraordinary zeal for that pure, Protestant system, was the reason why this good archbishop has been so maliciously pecked at, by more than one Arminian traducer; particularly, by the infamous Peter Heylin.
A person need but look into Mr. Fox's inestimable Martyrology, and he will presently perceive, that predestination and its connected doctrines are the threads of gold and scarlet which pervade the whole of that performance. The venerable author was indebted, for much assistance in his work, to the pains and care of Grindal.45 "Many accounts of the acts and disputations, of the sufferings and ends, of the godly men under queen Mary, came, from time to time, to Grindal's hands: and, as they came to his hands, he conveyed them to Fox. Nor did he only do this; but, withal, frequently gave Fox his thoughts concerning them, and his instructions and counsels about them. I find Grindal, soon after Bradford's martyrdom, sending Fox his history, together with many of his holy letters. Grindal wrote him likewise, that he had a great heap of such papers: to whom Fox [replied], he doubted not that he would, with the like vigilancy and faithfulness, peruse and digest them. Indeed, Grindal had greater opportunities of knowing Bradford, and getting his papers, than others [had]: they two having been fellow chaplains together to [Ridley] the bishop of London, and to the king [viz. Edward VI.], and fellow-prebendaries of St. Paul's; and I might add also, fellows of the same college."46 Doctor Grindal also furnished Fox with the accounts of Cranmer, Ridley, and others of the eminent martyrs. By which it appears, "How earnest an assistant Grindal was to Fox, in compiling his martyrology; both by his continual counsel, and by supplying him with materials for it: much whereof he sent him drawn up and methodized by his own pen, in English."47
I have already proved, that Peter Martyr was a Calvinist of the truest dye: and under his ministry it was, that Grindal sat, during the exile of the latter in Germany, while Mary swayed the sceptre in England. For, thus wrote Grindal, in a letter to the imprisoned bishop Ridley: "We [i.e. the Protestant refugees] be here dispersed in divers and several places. Certayne be at Tigurye; good students, of either University, a number; very well entreated of Maister Bullinger, &c. Another number of us remayne at Argentine, and take the commodity of Maister Martyr's lessons, who is a very notable father."48
On his return to England (which was in the very next month after queen Elizabeth's accession), he was one of the principal commissioners, appointed to the revisal of the Book of Common Prayer. The Calvinism therefore, of the liturgy, evinces the Calvinism of Grindal. The review of the Common Prayer was quickly finished: and it was read, for the first time after its restoration, on Sunday, May 12, 1559, in the queen's chapel; and on the succeeding Wednesday (May 15), it was solemnly read in St. Paul's church, after a prefatory sermon, preached by Grindal.
No reader, at all versed in the History of the Reformed Churches, need be told, that the famous Jerom Zanchius subscribed to some Lutheran peculiarities, concerning the Lord's Supper, under certain salvoes and restrictions of his own framing, and which he explicitly avowed. On this occasion, Zanchy wrote to his old friend, Dr. Grindal, then bishop of London. "Grindal answered Zanchy's letter, in one dated in August [i563], from Fulham: wherein he [bishop Grindal] signified, that, for his own part, he attributed so much to Zanchy's piety and prudence, that he had a good opinion of all his actions; especially, since he had the opinion of such a learned man as Calvin, in what he had done. This, the bishop said, much confirmed him: being apt to attribute much to his [i.e. to Calvin's] judgment." The excellent prelate concluded with commending Zanchy to God, "Who, he doubted not, would give him a mouth and wisdom which the adversaries of the truth could not resist."49
In a foregoing50 part of this work, I have taken some notice of one Justus Velsius, a Duch free-willer, who, (A.D. 1563,) made much noise in London. He was what would now be called an Arminian-perfectionist. "The bishop of London [Dr. Grindal] was concerned with this man, both as he was of the Dutch congregation, and had made disturbance there, over which our bishop was superintendent; as also because his opinions came as far as the ears of the court. For he [Velsius] presumed in the month of March, to write bold letters to the secretary [of state]; nay, to the queen herself: superscribing to the, queen, Ad proprias manus: sending withal his book unto them. Which he did, also, two months before, to the bishop: avowing it to be by him conceived and writ from the enlightening of the spirit of Christ.
"The bishop, therefore, thought very fit, and that upon the secretary's advice, to write shortly some animadversions upon it [i.e. upon Velsius's heterodox book]. Therein he [the bishop] observed, 1. That he [Velsius] set forth no confession of faith, as he ought; but prescribed a rule, according to which he would have all consciences to be tried. Nor was there any mention of faith. And that he craftily passed over justification by faith; and what he thought of the powers in man, and free-will, and what concerning works. (2.) That, in those things, it was most certain, he had, in foreign parts, desperately erred, and disquieted men's consciences, and taught matters contrary to orthodox doctrine; and that there were witnesses then in England of it."51 Beside the tenet of free-will, and justification by works, wherein the bishop affirmed this Pelagian to have "desperately erred;" there were several other monstrous opinions, for which that able prelate severely censured the said Velsius: such as the doctrine of a twofold regeneration, to wit, of the outward man, and the inward; and that a believer is godded into God. But the bishop's judgment, concerning Velsius's mad tenet of sinless perfection, deserves particular notice: "Hence it appeared, why he [Velsius] had said before, we are that which Christ is, and Christians are gods in men: because he had a mind to affirm perfection, which he feigned to be in a Christian, and that all Christians were gods, that is, free of all spot and fault. Which arrogance, how detestable it is, there is no pious man but sees. He could not more openly reject the doctrine of faith, and the remission of sins, and so set up a new gospel."52 Nothing could be more wild, and remote from truth, than Velsius's corrupt doctrines: nothing more sober, sound, and scriptural, than good bishop Grindal's Calvinistical animadversions. In conclusion, Velsius was "Cited before the ecclesiastical commission; where the bishop of London Dr. Grindal], and the bishop of Winchester [Dr. Horne], and the dean of St. Paul's [Dr. Alexander Nowell], conferred roundly with him, exposing the errors of his book before mentioned: which he stubbornly endeavouring to vindicate, they at last charged him, in the queen's name, to depart the kingdom."53 This was the same Velsius, with whom Calvin himself had held a public disputation, concerning free-will at Frankford, in 1556.54 I will not venture to say, that another divine (named Horne), who likewise disputed against Velsius at the same place, in the same year, and on the same subject, was our English Dr. Horne, afterwards the bishop of Winchester, just mentioned: though, to me, it seems extremely probable. Certain it is, that bishop Horne was then an exile in Germany, for the Protestant faith ; and that he continued so, all through the reign of queen Mary.55
Another evidence of Grindal's Calvinism presents itself, under the year 1566. "Theodore Beza, late assistant to Calvin, and now the chief minister of Geneva, made a present, this year, to bishop Grindal, of his Annotations on the New Testament: and the same reverend father [i.e. the bishop] soon after sent him [i.e. sent Beza] a letter thanking him for the book; and withal a gratification. What it [i.e. what Grindal's present to Beza] was, I cannot tell: perhaps, it was the bishop's picture, or his ring. But Beza called it, Longe maximum gratissimumque tui mnhmosunon, i.e. A very great and most acceptable remembrance of himself, which he would keep for his sake. The bishop, in his letter, had much commended his [Beza's] annotations, as accurate and learned: but Beza modestly declined the praise, and added, that then they might seem such as the bishop had charactered them, when they should be critically corrected by him, and by such learned men as he.56 How "much" soever the bishop "commended" Beza's annotations, hardly any strain of commendation could exceed the merits and value of those admirable notes; or the learning, judgment, and piety, of that eminent supralapsarian writer.
Geneva, though never episcopized since its reformation from Popery, was nevertheless regarded and cherished by queen Elizabeth, by her statesmen, and by the English bishops, as a sister-church, harmonizing with our own in doctrinals; though not consentaneous to it in ceremonials. Some time in the year 1581, that famous Protestant city had like to have been enslaved by an enterprizing Popish neighbour (the duke of Savoy); but was relieved by a seasonable accession of forces from the Swiss Cantons. The expenses, however, to which the necessary preparations for defence had put the citizens, obliged them to have recourse to the benevolence of other Protestant communities. Amongst the rest, England was applied to, through the intervention of the queen's ambassador in France, and of good Dr. Grindal at home. The ambassador's importunate letter, written, on this occasion, to Sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, may be read in Strype.57 The matter being laid before the queen, her majesty and privy council dispatched circular letters to all the bishops of England, desiring them "T'o promote a liberal charity upon this occasion, through their several dioceses:" and styling it "a needful service for the church."58 The queen and council farther observed in their letter to each bishop respectively, that the town of Geneva seemed to have "Deserved the fruits of Christian compassion, by former courtesies and favours, shewed to sundry her majesty's subjects, during the late persecution in queen Mary's time: wherein, as they shall render charity for charity, and give good demonstration to the world, that, in their wealth and peace, they are not careless of the afflictions of Joseph; so shall you give us cause to think, that you not only care, as in Christian compassion you are bound, to relieve the present distress of that poor town, which, through God's goodness, hath served, in this latter age, for a nursery unto God's church ; but also to satisfy this our request : to the end we may continue that good opinion we have of your lordship."59
Thus was Geneva considered a "nursery to God's church;" and her distresses were termed, "the afflictions of Joseph." A letter, issued, soon after by archbishop Grindal, as metropolitan, to the prelates of his province, breathed the same spirit of tenderness and brotherly affection for the said city and church of Geneva. "Considering," said his grace, "that under her majesty, and their lordships of, her most honourable privy council, the immediate charge of the province doth appertain to me; and, especially, of the clergy; and the consideration of this pitiful relief, tending to the defence of so notable and sincere a church; I thinke it my part and bounden duty, to recommend the furtherance of so good a cause to your lordship."60
I am not insensible, that this excellent primate has been maliciously charged with leaning to puritanism: which charge, were it proveable, might go far towards invalidating that branch of my argument for the doctrinal Calvinism of the church, drawn from the doctrinal Calvinism of this her good archbishop. But by whom is the bill filed against him? Chiefly, by that historic knight of the post, Peter Heylyn: a writer, who had long taken a final leave of truth, whenever it stood in his way; and who was quite petrified to every feeling of shame. There are accumulated proofs, that Grindal was rather a bigot to the constitution and discipline of the church, than that his attachment to either was lax and cool. Instances occurred, in the course of his administration, wherein his zeal for the exteriors of our ecclesiastical fabric, out-weighed, perhaps, that due proportion of moderation and temper, which he has been falsely represented as possessing to an extreme. A short testimony, or two, from judicious and dispassionate writers, shall, at present, suffice to support the remark now made. Should future occasion require more solid proofs, I can carry my appeal to some prolix, but most conclusive and incontestible facts.
Dr. Grindal had, at first, his scruples respecting conformity. But 'tis no less true, that lie did not accept of preferment in the church, 'till those scruples were solved to the satisfaction of his own mind. The satisfactory solution of which scruples rendered hint, afterwards, (I will not say, a fiercer, but) a much warmer churchman, than it he had conformed, hand over head, without previously examining matters for himself.
"Upon his first coming over from his exile, queen Elizabeth being possessed of the crown, when preferment in the church was to be laid upon him, his dread of Popery created him some demur in accepting the same: fearing to comply with the very appearances and shadows of it, in the habits and some other rites appointed, 'till he had satisfaction, partly by serious consideration with himself, and partly by the advice of certain foreign divines; chiefly Peter Martyr and Henry Bullinger, men of the greatest learning in divinity that age afforded. And, therefore, afterwards, when some, for these external matters in religious worship, made seditions, and brake the church's quiet; he [Grindal] thought himself bound, as a faithful and careful overseer of the church of Christ in England (when all his mild persuasions and arguments proved ineffectual), to prosecute the refusers, and to use the severer methods, warranted by the laws, against them.61 His zeal and affection to the state of the reformed Church of England shewed itself, as on every occasion, so, particularly, in endeavouring to reclaim those they styled Precisians and Puritans; who, for some few ceremonies, made a breach in Christian communion. Though his spirit was easy and complaisant, and liked not of rigour; yet, when he saw that no other means would bring them to obedience, he approved of restraint: especially of the heads of the faction; whom he styled fanatical and incurable."62 Even Collier, it seems, vindicates our prelate from Heylyn's charge. "He was," says Jeremy, "no negligent governor, nor a person of latitude, or indifference for the ceremonies of the church."63 In the judgment of the famous lord Bacon, Dr. Grindal was "the greatest and gravest prelate of this land."64 And amidst all the insults he suffered from his contemporary aspersors, and all the malicious dirt with which his venerable memory has been pelted since his decease it reflects no small ray of honour on his name, to add, that he had "A great respect to Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bulinger, Zanchy, and the rest of the pious foreign reformers."65
(3.) Dr. John Whitgift succeeded Grindal in the metropolitical chair, A.D. 1583. He was a prelate of great abilities, and of warn: piety; sound in the faith, and very zealous for the church. If any branches of his conduct tended to shade, in some degree, the brightness of his acknowledged virtues, the extreme rigour which the non-conformists experienced at his hands, and the perpetual incense of profuse adulation which he seldom failed to offer at the shrine of secular power, seem the most (perhaps, the only) vulnerable parts of his character. And yet, on one hand, truth obliges us to confess, that some, among the then Puritans, were persons of the most intractable and exasperating perverseness, whose separation from the establishment was formed on the narrowest principles of prejudice, and whose outrageous zeal against the hierarchy and ceremonies of the church transported them beyond all bounds of moderation and decency. While Protestants, agreeing in doctrinals, were thus biting and devouring one another about rituals, Rome, the common enemy to both, laughed and enjoyed the sport. On the other hand, let it he remembered, in extenuation of Whitgift's lavish complaisance to the court, that he lived under the jealous eye of a high-spirited queen, who was constantly on the watch for every occasion of screwing up her ecclesiastical supremacy to the utmost height.
Strong and numerous are the evidences of this archbishop's orthodoxy. I shall briefly select a few.
Some time in the reign of Elizabeth, one Peter Baro, or Baron, born at Estampes, a city of Gastinois, in France, thought proper to visit England, in quality of a Protestant refugee. A protester, 'tis true, he was: for he had not been long settled at Cambridge, before he publicly entered his protest against some eminent doctrines of the church established, which had so generously sheltered him in her bosom.
Our Universities were, at that time, like our monarchs, defenders of the faith. Cambridge was all in alarm at the heterodoxies vented by the French divinity professor. Complaint was made, that he "Taught the Popish doctrine of the co-operation of faith and works to justification: that he laboured to make men believe that the reformed church's doctrine was not so differing from Popish doctrine, but that, by distinctions, they might be reconciled: with other strange matters, which they" [viz. the complainants, who were the heads of the University] "looked upon as damnable errors; being the highway, not only to Popery, but to Atheism."66
Dr. Fuller67 gives us some other propositions, maintained by Baro: which propositions, though moderately orthodox (at least, the heterodoxies were so decently wrapped up, as to elude a superficial eye), were deemed of ambiguous construction, and therefore branded in due season.
The transactions at Cambridge, relative to Baro, could not long escape bishop Whitgift's notice. This wakeful and discerning guardian of the church appears to have been doubtful of Baro, from the first; and never to have rightly relished the unsuspecting patronage, afforded by lord Burleigh, to that artful foreigner. The event proved, that Whitgift could better see into church matters, with one eye, than Burleigh could, with two. The good prelate thought, among other particulars, that Baro was not so tight a predestinarian, as the Church and Universities of England then expected a divinity-professor to be. Whitgift, says Mr. Strype, had his "Objections against Baro, for some tenets, differing, as was thought, from the true doctrine of the decrees of God concerning the final state of man."68 Nor did his lordship prove mistaken.
It was not 'till the year 1595, that Baro ventured to unmasque his batteries against the established doctrine of predestination, in his sermon ad clerum. This sermon gave vast and deserved offence, both to the church and to the court of England: for not only the bishops and the leading clergy were displeased, but, as Mr. Strype expressly affirms, "The queen also shewed herself particularly angry with Baro, in some discourse she had of these matters with the archbishop:"69 to whom her majesty justly observed, that Baro, "Being an alien, ought to have carried himself quietly and peaceably in a country where he was so humanely harboured, and where both he and his family had been infranchised."70 The archbishop, though he equally disapproved both the Pelagianism and the contentious proceedings or Baro, candidly endeavoured to soften the queen's resentment against him; and was probably the means of restraining it from falling with weight on the French delinquent's head.
Baro and William Barrett distinguished themselves, about one and the same time, as opposers of predestination, in the University of Cambridge: and Heylin himself gives us to understand, that they, and one Harsenet, were the first Protestant divines, since the Reformation, by whom the Calvinistic system was publicly attacked. Mr. Tyndal, the historian, has the same remark; "The predestinarian controversy" [i.e. the controversy agitated against predestination] "was begun in 1595, by Barrett, fellow of Caius College, Cambridge, who preached against Calvin's doctrine of predestination, &c. for which he was censured by the University, and forced to retract in St. Mary's church. He was afterwards sent to Lambeth, and examined before archbishop Whitgift; who enjoined him to confess his errors, and not teach the like doctrines for the future: but he chose rather to quit the University [and openly declare himself aPapist beyond sea]. This gave occasion for the famous Lambeth articles: in which the Calvinistical sense of predestination, election, and the other controverted points, is strongly asserted; and to which the scholars in the Universities were strictly enjoined to conform." 71
Though Whitgift, as already observed, generously interceded with the queen, in behalf of Baro's person yet was he warmly displeased with the innovating insolence of that pragmatical Frenchman, who, presuming too far on the tenderness and moderation with which he had been hitherto forborne, dared, at length, to broach the following doctrines; which being too grossly Pelagian for any farther tolerance, raised a storm against him, that all his craft and interest could never afterwards compose.
"Docuit, Deum omnes et singulos, absoluta voluntate, ad vitam aeternam creasse.
"Voluntatem Dei duplicem esse, viz. antecedentem, et consequentem. Antecedente quidem voluntate, Deum neminem rejecisse.
"Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus et signulis.
"Promissiones Dei ad vitam universales esse: et aeque spectre ad Cainum et Abelem, Esauum atque Jacobum, Judam atque Petrum; et Cainam non magis a Deo fuisse rejectum, quam Abelem, antequam se excluserat."72
That is: "God created all and every individual of mankind, with a real will to save them.
"The will of God is two-fold: antecedent, and consequent. God reprobates no man, by his will of antecedence.
"Christ died for all and every individual of the human race.
"God's promises, respecting eternal life, are universal: and were made equally to Cain and Abel, to Esau and Jacob, to Judas and Peter. Nor, 'till Cain excluded himself, was he any more rejected of God than was Abel."
These were the four monstrous propositions, for which Baro was prosecuted in the vice-chancellor's court. In an age, when even a slack predestinarian, or a Half-Calvinist, was started at, as a shocking phaenomenon, a gross free-willer, a palpable universalist (who preached up an ignorant, a dependent, a disappointed, and a changing deity, as an object of rational worship), might well be shunned and exclaimed against, as a Mostrum horrendum, Informe, ingens, cullussen ademptum.
Lord Burleigh was then chancellor of Cambridge. Partly, through his lordship's bad state of health at that time, which would not permit him to treat University matters with his usual attention; and, partly, from a principle of compassion to the heterodox foreigner as a foreigner; Baro was not (as Barrett, the English Pelagian, had just been) violently displaced, but allowed to resign. The archbishop however, in a previous conversation with him, took him severely to task: of which his grace gave some account, in a letter to Doctor Goad, the vice-chancellor; in which letter the archbishop informed Goad, "That he was very sorry that Doctor Baro, notwithstanding all the advertisements [or admonitions] which had been given to him, and his [i.e. Baro's] faithful promise made to him [i.e. to himself the archbishop], did nevertheless continue his troublesome course of contending. That he [the archbishop] had of late, by Dr. Neville, signified to him [to Baro] how hardly her majesty had been informed against him for these causes: and how unfit it was, that he, being a stranger, and receiving such courtesy and friendship here, of good will, and not for any need we had of him; should be so busy in another commonwealth, and make himself as it were author of new stirs and contentions in this church. That at his last being with him, he [the archbishop] shewed to him [to Baro] the propositions [i.e. the Lambeth articles], and demanded his opinion of every one of them severally, and that at two several times: and although, the latter time, Baro seemed to make some frivolous and childish objections against some one or two of them only; yet did he confess that they were all true, and that they did, not impugn any of his assertions."73
What a frontlet of brass must Baro have possessed, ere he could go about to face down archbishop Whitgift with this most gigantic of untruths, that none of his (i.e. of Baro's) assertions were impugned by any thing contained in the Lambeth articles! No other possible overstrain of falsehood can transcend the enormity of this. I know but of one, that can any way pretend to come up with it: viz. the declaration of those modest Arminians who affirm that there is nothing in the XXXIX Articles, which any way impugns the doctrines of Pelagius and Van Harmin. The fellow, who averred, that he once drove a ten-penny nail through the moon; and his companion, who added, that he remembered it very well, for he himself stood on the other side and clinched it; were but dwarfs in the art of audacious falsification, when compared with Baro the first, and with those numerous swarms of modern Baros, who have, since, so plentifully overspread the face of the Church of England.
The most important of Baro's "assertions," as he called them, for which he lost his preferments, have been already specified. Let the reader only compare those assertions, with the Lambeth articles; and he will immediately perceive, with what modesty and veracity, Baro would have persuaded the archbishop, that there was no contrariety between the two systems.
The articles of74 Lambeth (so called, because drawn up at Lambeth palace, under the eye, and with the assistance, of archbishop Whitgift himself; in concert with Bancroft, then bishop of London, afterwards translated to Canterbury; together with Vaughan, bishop of Bangor; Tindal, dean of Ely; Dr. Whitaker, the queen's divinity professor; and other eminent dignitaries of the church; the articles of Lambeth, drawn up, as aforesaid, by these great prelates and divines) exhibit also an irrefragable proof of the primate's Calvinism. Translated into English, they run thus.
"1. God hath, from eternity, predestinated certain persons to life; and hath reprobated certain persons unto death.
"2. The moving, or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the persons predestinated: but the alone will of God's good pleasure.
"3. The predestinate are a pre-determined and certain number, which can neither be lessened, nor increased.
"4 Such as are not predestinated to salvation shall inevitably be condemned on account of their sins.
"5. The true, lively, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away, in the elect, either finally, or totally.
"6. A true believer, that is, one who is endued with justifying faith, is certified, by the full assurance of faith, that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be everlastingly saved by Christ.
"7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not granted, to all men, by which they may be saved if they will.
"8. No man is able to come to Christ, unless it be given him, and unless the Father draw him: and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to his Son.
"9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved."75
Such were these famous articles; concerning which, his grace of Canterbury expressed himself in the following very remarkable terms: "I know them to be sound doctrines, and uniformly professed in this Church of England, and agreeable to the articles of religion established by authority."76 Under this just persuasion, he communicated them to his brother of York, Doctor Matthew Hutton: who returned them, with some judicious remarks (which see in Strype), and with this remarkable subscription:
Hae theses ex Scaris literis vel aperte colligi, vel necessaria consecutione deduci, possunt; et ex scriptis Augustini. Matth. Ebor.
That is: "These positions are gatherable from the Holy Scriptures, either expressly, or by necessary consequence; and also from the writings of St. Austin. Matthew York."
The Lambeth articles, thus approved by the archbishops of both provinces, were forwarded to Cambridge: accompanied by a letter, from Whitgift himself, to that University: wherein he requested the heads of houses, "To take care, that nothing be publicly taught to the contrary," i.e. contrary to those articles: adding, that he thought the said nine articles "to be true, and correspondent to the doctrine professed in the Church of England, and established by the laws of the land."77
The reader may, possibly, wish to know what became of Peter Baro. Dr. Hutton, archbishop of York, was for having him treated with exemplary severity. Whitgift had wrote to Hutton, on the last day of February, 1595, "wherein among other things, he desired his opinion of Baro's assertions: when that prelate [viz. his grace of York,] in his answer, shewed how little he liked of Baro and his learning; wishing, that Baro was in his own country, and not to have disturbed the peace of our church: and would have one to be put in his place, who was learned, godly, and mild of nature; and that Cambridge afforded store of such."78 Thus, in the judgment of that grave archbishop, to preach against predestination was to "disturb the peace of the church:" and the plain drift of his advice was, that Baro should be displaced from his office at Cambridge, and be banished to France, his native soil; where, without molestation, he might safely disseminate his Pelagian tares among his Popish countrymen.
But Whitgift (prompted either by his own candour, or, which is more probable, by his profound deference to lord Burleigh) was for pursuing more snug and gentle measures. He prudently deemed it sufficient, to avail himself of Baro's natural timidity, which with proper management, would make the French free-willer glad to quit the University, and sheer off into his primative obscurity. This was tossing up matters, with less noise than if he had been formally divested of his professorship; and answered, to better advantage, all the purposes of more ostensible rigour. The end of his triennial lectures drawing near, the University were determined not to re-elect him, but to turn him decently and quietly adrift. "He himself was sensible thereof, and besides, he saw the articles of Lambeth lately sent to the University; and foresaw that subscription thereunto would be expected from, yea, imposed on, him. To which he could not condescend: and therefore resolved to quit his place. So that his departure was not his free act, out of voluntary election; but that whereunto his will was necessarily determined. Witness his own return to a friend, who required of him the cause of his withdrawing : Fagio, said he, ne fugarer; I fly, that I may not he driven away."79 So writes Dr. Fuller. And, matters standing thus, we cannot wonder that Anthony Wood should stile Baro's decampment, a removal: "He was," says that writer, "removed from his place of Margaret professor, about the year 1596; not without the consent of Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury."80 The truth is an English University, and the Church of England herself, were then too hot to hold an Arminian. More shame for posterity, if our love to our own essential principles has, since, waxed so cold (though the said principles themselves, unchanged to this day, are alive to stare us in the face); that not a few Arminian salamanders, basking in the rays of our ecclesiastic and academic sunshine, can say, with some certain good people of old, Aha, I am warm: I have seen, and call stand, the fire81 of subscription, conformity, assent, and consent; yea, I can even pass through the fire, so dextrously, as not to singe a hair of my Pelagian Moloch's head.
Such casuists remind me of an anecdote, or two, related, with much simplicity, by honest Whiston.
He mentions an acquaintance of his (one Dr. Cannon), "Who would join with the church in signing the 39 articles, without believing them, as legal qualifications for preferment only." Every body knows, that Mr. Whiston was a violent enemy to the doctrine of tile Trinity; and, in particular, proclaimed eternal war against that admirable form of sound words, commonly called the Athanasian Creed. Whence, he thus proceeds in his information concerning the aforesaid Dr. Cannon. "he joined with the Athanasian creed itself, in the cathedral of Ely, at a time when I was there and refused it. I asked him how one that believed so very little, could join in a thing, so absurd? His answer was, what is one man's meat is another man's poison. He also told Mr. Jackson, that, if he were at Paris, he would declare himself a Roman Catholic; and, if he were at Constantinople, he would declare himself a Mussulman. He was ready to wonder at Mr. Jackson, for believing St. Paul before himself, when they [viz. St. Paul and Dr. Cannon] were of contrary sentiments. So great an opinion had he of his own sagacity."82
'Tis some little comfort, to consider, that protean casuistry, like that by which Dr. Cannon regulated his motions, is not peculiar to some who wear gowns and cassocks. Who would have suspected, so great a man, as the lord chancellor King, could have deviated into the same slippery path of Jesuitical evasion? "I must," says Whiston, "tell a melancholy story, of my own knowledge. When I was once talking with the [then] lord chief justice King, we fell into a debate about signing articles, which we did not believe, for preferment: which he openly justified; and pleaded for it, that we must not lose our usefulness for scruples. Strange doctrine," adds Whiston, "in the mouth of one bred up among dissenters, whose whole dissent from the legally established church was built on scruples! I replied, That I was sorry to hear his lordship say so: and desired to know, whether in their courts [viz. the temporal courts of law], they allowed of such prevarication, or not? He answered, they did not allow of it. Whi