SECTION XX.
The Introduction of Arminianism by archbishop Laud. Short Review of the Calvinism of our Bishops and Universities, antecedently to that Era. Objections answered: And the Whole Concluded.
King Charles the First ascended the throne, at a very unfavourable time, and under circumstances of peculiar disadvantage; a consideration, which should never be forgot, amidst the just censures wherewith impartial posterity must always brand the calamitous maxims by which he steered.
To develop the intricate complication of untoward coincidents, or the political situation of things, which marked the era of Charles's accession, does not fall within the province of my present undertaking. It shall therefore, suffice, to observe, that had Laud possessed any degree of common prudence, the civil complexion of the times would, alone, have taught him, how necessary it was for him to restrain his own restless spirit from raising a storm in the Church, when the symptoms of approaching convulsion had already began to endanger the state. But, on the death of James, the prelate, who had been kept in considerable awe by that prince, was over-joyed to find himself in a state of perfect liberty under Charles, whose favour he had cultivated with success, and into whose ear he continually distilled the most pernicious poison a prince can imbibe.
Indeed, Laud found no great difficulty in bringing the new monarch to his lure. He did but sow in ground already ploughed to his hands. Charles was imperious by nature; and tyrannic by education. With the crown, he inherited all the arbitrary principles of his father. The plan of despotism, rudely sketched by James, was hurried into an absolute system by Charles; who adopted it with more settled obstinacy of determination, and pursued it with more daring boldness of execution.
If Heylyn may he credited, Laud had formed a design, so far back as the year 1600,1 of endeavouring to pervert the church of England from her Calvinistic doctrines. A very extraordinary object for so raw a youth, as he, at that time, was! or, as Heylyn himself expresses it, "a desperate attempt, for a single man, unseconded, and not well-befriended, to oppose himself against an army, to strive against so strong a stream, and cross the current of the times!" He was then about twenty-five years of age; a young master of arts; no more than Fellow of St. John's college, Oxford; not many years emancipated from school; in deacon's orders only; his finances very moderate; without any ecclesiastical preferment; and with hardly a friend in the University, to countenance him amidst that torrent of general and public odium, which his haughty behaviour and his Papistical bias had drawn upon him from every side; for a man, under those circumstances, and in so early a part of life, to project a scheme of such consequence and difficulty, as the divorcing of the established Church from her own essential principles, exhibits an instance of wild self-sufficiency, and of audacious restlessness, scarcely to be exceeded in the whole compass of history.
No wonder that a person, stimulated by this outrageous enthusiasm for innovation, drove so furiously when Charles intrusted him with the reins. Mosheim shall give us a concise view of the plan, adopted both by the sovereign and the prelate.
"All the emotions of his [i.e. of king Charles's] zeal, and the whole tenor of his administration, were directed towards the three following objects:
"1. The extending the royal prerogative, and raising the power of the crown above the authority of the law.
"2 The reduction of all the churches in Great Britain and Ireland, under the jurisdiction of bishops.
"3. The suppression of the opinions and institutions peculiar to Calvinism.
"The person, whom the king chiefly intrusted with the execution of this arduous plan, was William Laud" [who, in July, 1628, became] "bishop of London. This haughty prelate executed the plans of his royal master, and fulfilled the views of his own ambition, without using those mild and moderate methods, which prudence employs, to make unpopular schemes go down. He carried matters with a high hand. When he found the laws opposing his views, he treated them with contempt, and violated them without hesitation. He loaded the Puritans" [and not them only, but all who avowed the doctrinal system of the Church, though ever so zealous for the hierarchy and ceremonies] "with injuries and vexations, and aimed at nothing less than their total extinction. He rejected the Calvinistical doctrine of predestination, publicly, in the year 1625" [viz. in the first year of Charles's reign]; "and, notwithstanding the opposition and remonstrances of [archbishop] Abbot, substituted the Arminian system in its place."2
The Arminians, therefore, were no losers, by the death of king James. On the contrary, their influence continually encreased, from the moment Charles began to wield the sceptre. Being the avowed enemies of limited monarchy, this unhappy prince entered as warmly into their religious principles, as they did, into his political views. Between eight and nine years after his accession, the court-credit of the Arminian faction arrived to its meridian; when on the decease of good archbishop Abbot, Laud was lifted to the see of Canterbury, and the reformed world with indignation and concern saw Lambeth palace become the head quarters of Arminianism, A.D. 1633. There had been six Protestant metropolitans, from the reformation, to the advancement of Laud: viz. Cranmer, Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, Bancroft, and Abbot. Not one of these was tainted with Arminianism. Laud was the first Arminian primate of England, who made profession of the reformed religion. Nor is it unworthy of notice, that Arminius himself, whose doctrines the high-flying Laud so fiercely adopted, was neither more nor less than a Dutch Presbyterian and republican.
I shall confine myself to two remarkable instances of the force and fraud, with which this grand corrupter of our established Church laboured to debauch her parity of faith.
I. The Directions concerning Preachers, issued by James I. (as already noted), in the year 1622, forbad every clergyman, under the degree of a bishop, or of a dean, to preach in public, either for or against such of the doctrines of grace as were specified in those Directions. But as this prohibition was very unpleasing to the public in general,3 so was it far from producing universal obedience. The king, perceiving how much offence his Directions had given to the nation thought proper to publish a subsequent apology for his conduct in that matter:4 which discreet step conduced, both to calm the minds of the people, and to blunt the force of the Directions themselves. This was not the first time that James had been drawn into a scrape by Laud: nor the first time of his majesty's receding from the imprudent measures into which he had been hurried by that warm and forward ecclesiastic.5
But Charles had very little of his father's "king-craft." In June 1626 (i.e. hardly more than four months after his coronation), Laud got him to revive the unpopular Directions concerning Preachers; of which a new edition appeared, in the form of a proclamation, extending the prohibition to bishops and deans themselves: who were, by this ill-judged stretch of royal supremacy, commanded to forbear, from treating of predestination in their sermons and writings.6
One immediate design of this proclamation was, to shelter Richard Montagu (who bad lately written in behalf of the Arminian doctrines, and of absolute obedience to kings7) from the printed refutations, which were showering upon him from all quarters. Among the numerous champions, who had hewn Montagu's Arminianism in pieces, were, Dr. Sutcliffe, dean of Exeter; bishop Carleton, of Chichester; and Mr. Wooton, divinity professor in Gresham college.8 The parliament too, near a twelvemonth before, had severely censured Montagu's performance (entitled, An Appeal to Caesar), in which, said the committee of enquiry, "There are many things directly contrary to the [xxxix] Articles of Religion established by parliament. He denies that Arminius was the first who infected Leyden with errors and schisms. The synod of Dort, so honoured by the late king, he calls foreign and partial. He plainly intimates, that there are Puritan bishops; which, we conceive, tends much to the disturbance of the peace in Church and State. He respects Bellarmine, but slights Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Whitaker, and Reynolds. He much discountenances God's word: disgraces lectures, and lecturers, and preaching itself; nay, even reading the Bible. Upon the whole, the frame of the book is, to encourage Popery, in maintaining the papists to be the true Church, and that they differ not from us in any fundamental point."9 So spake the committee of the house of commons 1625.
'Tis very observable, that Charles and Laud had recourse to a proclamation, because they were afraid to trust the Arminian controversy to the management of a convocation. Heylyn has blabbed this curious secret: and unwarily informs us, that the bishops and clergy of England were so averse to Arminianism, that it would have been highly unsafe to have staked on their decision, the court design of banishing predestination from the pulpits. Read his own words: " Andrews did not hold it fit for any thing to be done in that particular" [viz. concerning new modelling the Church of England from Calvinism to Arminianism], "as the case then stood: the truth in those opinions" [by the truth Heylyn means the Arminian tenets] not being so generally entertained among the clergy; nor the archbishop [viz. Abbot, who was then living] and the greater part of the prelates so inclinable to them [i.e. to Arminius's doctrines], as to venture the determining of those points to a convocation. But that which was not thought fit, in that conjecture, for a convocation, his majesty was pleased to take order in, by his royal edict. Many books had been written against Montagu, &c."10
Some considerable time after the said proclamation, or "royal edict," had been issued, Dr. Davenant, bishop of Salisbury, preached before the king at Whitehall. His text, as himself acquaints us, was Rom. vi. 23. The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. "Here," says his lordship, "I expounded the threefold happiness of the godly.
"1. Happy in the Lord, whom they serve: God or Christ Jesus.
"2. Happy in the reward of their service: eternal life.
"3. Happy in the manner of their reward: carisma, or gratuitum donum in Christo [i.e. the reward is God's free, unmerited gift in Christ.]
"The two former points were not excepted against. In the third and last, I considered eternal life in three divers instances:
"1. in the eternal destination thereunto, which we call election.
"2. In our conversation, regeneration, or" [manifestative] "justification: which I termed the embryo of eternal life
"3. And last of all, in our coronation, when full possesion of eternal life is given us.
"In all these, I shewed it to be carisma, or the free gift of God, through Christ; and not procured, or pre-merited, by any special acts depending, upon the free-will of men. The last point, wherein I opposed the Popish doctrine of merit, was not disliked. The second, wherein I shewed, that effectual vocation, or regeneration, whereby we have eternal life inchoated and begun in us, is a free gift; was not expressly taxed. Only the first was it which bred the offence: not in regard of the doctrine itself, but because, as my lord's grace [i.e. Harsenet, archbishop of York] said, the king had prohibited the debasing thereof."11
What was the consequence of the excellent bishop's presuming to assert predestination to the face of the Arminian king and his whole court? "Presently after my sermon was ended, it was signified unto me, by my lord of York, my lord of (r) Winchester,12 and my lord Chamberlain, that his majesty was much displeased that I had stirred this question, which he had forbidden to be meddled withal, one way or other. My answer was, that I had delivered nothing but the received doctrine of our Church, established in the seventeenth article and that I was ready to justify the truth of what I had then taught. Their answer was, that the doctrine was not gainsayed; but his highness had given command. that these questions should riot he debated: and therefore he took it more offensively, that any should be so bold, as, in his own hearing, to break his royal commands.
"My reply was only this: that I never understood his majesty had forbid the handling of any doctrine comprized in the articles of our Church; but only the raising of new questions, or adding of new sense thereunto: which I had not done, nor ever should do. This was all that passed betwixt us, on Sunday night, after my sermon.
The matter thus rested, and I heard no more of it, 'till coming to the Tuesday sermon, one of the clerks of the council told me, that I was to attend at the council table, the next day at two of the clock. I told him, I would wait upon their lordships, at the hour appointed.
"When I came thither, my lord of York made a speech of well-nigh half an hour long, aggravating the boldness of my offence, and shewing the many inconveniences which it was likely to draw after it. When his grace had finished, I desired the lords, that since I was called thither as an offender, I might not be put to answer a long speech on the sudden; but that my lord's grace would be pleased to charge me, point by point, and so to receive my answer: for I did not }et understand, wherein I had broken any commandment of his majesty's, which my lord in his whole discourse took for granted. Having made this motion, I made no farther answer: and all the lords were silent for a while.
"At length, my lord's grace said, I knew, well enough, the point which was urged against me: namely, the breach of the king's declaration. Then I stood upon this defence: that the doctrine of predestination, which I taught, was not forbidden by the Declaration, (1.) Because in the Declaration, all the [thirty nine] articles are established: amongst which, the article of predestination is one. (2.) Because all ministers are urged to subscribe unto the truth of the article [viz. of the 17th article, which concerns predestination], and all subjects to continue in the profession of that, as well as of the rest. Upon these and such like grounds, I gathered, it [i.e. predestination] could not be esteemed among forbidden, curious, or needless doctrines.
"And here, I desired, that, out of any clause in the Declaration, it might be shewed me, that, keeping myself within the bounds of the article I had transgressed his majesty's command. But the Declaration was not produced, nor any particular words in it. Only this was urged, that the king's will was, that, for the peace of the Church, these high questions should be forborne."13 His lordship, after discreetly promising a general conformity to his majesty's pleasure, saluted the council, and withdrew.
Fuller observes, that the bishop, at his first coming into the council chamber, presented himself, before the board, on his knees. A circumstance of mortifying indignity, which the spiteful Laud was in all probability, the procurer of. A very strange sight, to behold a bishop of Salisbury, one of the most respectable peers of the realm, constrained to that humiliating posture, only for preaching a doctrine to which he had solemnly subscribed; and which was confessed to be a true doctrine, by the very persons themselves who were the inflicters of the disgrace, and at the very time when the disgrace was inflicted! This we learn from the bishop's own narrative: "Though it grieved me," says Davenant, "that the established doctrine of our Church should be distasted; yet, it grieved me less, because the truth of what I delivered was acknowledged even by those who thought fit to have me questioned for the delivery of it."14 With what face could Charles's Arminian bishops reprimand so great a prelate as Davenant, for inculcating a scriptural tenet, to which the reprimanders themselves had set their own hands, and even then admitted to be a truth of the Bible and of the Church?
On his knees he might have remained, during the whole time of his continuance before the privy council, "for any favour he found from any of his own function there present. But the temporal lords bid him arise, and stand to his own defence; being as yet only accused, not convicted."15 Bishop Laud, who had, 'tis likely, been one of Davenant's auditory at Whitehall, when the offensive sermon was preached; and who was evidently, the contriver of the preacher's embroilment, contented himself with having already effectually played his part behind the curtain: and, though present as a privy counsellor, slily refrained from assuming any visible share in the examination of Davenant. "Doctor Harsenet, archbishop of York, managed all the business against [Salisbury]. Bishop Laud, walking by, all the while, in silence, spake not one word."16 But every body knew, by whose magic this court storm had been raised.
The storm, however, was quickly laid. Within a short time, good bishop Davenant was admitted to kiss the king's hand. What passed, on that occasion, is worthy of perusal. "When I came in, his majesty declared his resolution that he would not have this high point" [viz. the high point of predestination] "meddled withal, or debated, either the one way or the other; because it was too high for the people's understanding: and other points, which concern reformation and newness of life, were more needful and profitable. I promised obedience therein: and so, kissing his majesty's hand, departed."17 Was not the king a hopeful proficient in Laud's Arminian school? He "would not have" predestination "meddled with, or debated, either one way or the other:" i.e. he pretended to prohibit the opposing, no less than the asserting, of that doctrine. But he meant no more than half of what he said. Montagu (to mention a single instance, out of many) was encouraged and promoted, for opposing predestination: i.e. for literally transgressing the king's ostensible injunction. Who sees not the drift and design of all this? Let me add, that the absolute sovereignty of the most high and only wise God, manifested in the free predestination of men, according to the purpose of his unerring will, was contravened, with an exceeding ill grace, by such a monarch as Charles, who was for rendering his own authority absolute over the lips, the actions, the property, the persons, and even the religious opinions, of all the men who lived within the limits of the British dominion. An earthly prince may establish an unbounded authority, and be blameless! but the King of Heaven cannot dispose as he pleases of his own, without being tyrannical and unjust!
II. The other instance, which I shall just mention, of the methods by which Laud sought to graft Arminianism on the creed of these nations, discovers no less of insidious artifice, than his foregoing treatment of Davenant displays of open insolence and coercion. I mean the thin craft and the shallow subtlety, with which he pretended to supersede those articles of religion which had been solemnly recognized and admitted by the bishops and clergy of Ireland, assembled, in full convocation, at Dublin, in the year 1615.
Of those articles, the following are some.
"God, from all eternity, did, by his unchangeable council, ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass. Yet so, as, thereby, no violence is offered to the wills of the reasonable creatures: and neither the liberty, nor the contingency, of the second causes, is taken away; but established rather
"By the same eternal council, God hath predestinated some unto life, and reprobated some unto death, of both which, there is a curtain number, known only to God, which can neither be increased nor diminished.
"The cause, moving God to predestinate to life, is not the foreseeing of faith, or perseverance, or good works, or of any thing which is in the person predestinated; but only the good pleasure of God himself. For, all things being ordained for the manifestation of his glory, and his glory being to appear both in the works of his mercy and of his justice; it seemed good to his heavenly wisdom to choose out a certain number, towards whom he would extend his undeserved mercy: leaving the rest to be spectacles of his justice.
"All God's elect are, in their time, inseparably united unto Christ, by the effectual and vital influence, of the Holy Ghost, derived from him [i.e. from Christ], as from the head, to every true member of his mystical body. And being thus made one with Christ, they are truly regenerated, and made partakers of him and all his benefits."18
More of these excellent articles may be seen, in the performance referred to below. The Lambeth Articles, and also as many of our own 39 as directly relate to the Calvinistic doctrines, were incorporated with the Irish Confession; and the whole ratified by the authority of king James I. the then reigning prince.
His son Charles had filled the throne, between 9 and 10 years, ere Laud would venture to nibble publicly at the said confession. With what low arts of intrigue and address he, at length, in the yeur 1634, feigned to have compassed his point, may be learned from Heylyn.19 Matters were conducted with such duplicity, that even the learned and sagacious archbishop Usher did not penetrate the more than Jesuitic slyness of Laud, Strafford, and Brumhall. Witness that part of Usher's letter to his friend Dr. Ward (the same Dr. Ward who had assisted at the synod at Dort); wherein the upright, unsuspecting primate thus apprizes Ward of what had passed in the Irish convocation of 1634. "The articles of religion, agreed upon in our former synod, Anno 1615, we let stand as they did before. But, for the manifesting, of our agreement with the Church of England, we have received and approved your articles also" [i.e. the 39 articles], "concluded in the year 1572; as you may see in the first of our canons."20
The archbishop was in the right. But Laud and his party endeavoured to infer, that the Church of Ireland, by receiving and approving the 39 Articles of the Church of England, had actually quitted and abolished the Irish articles antecedently established in 1615. This was the quirk which Laud had in view from the first. But it was a quirk, and nothing else. For, by "receiving" and "approving" the English articles "also"; the Irish prelates and clergy did neither cancel nor supersede their own prior articles, but only "manifested," or publicly and deliberately avowed, their doctrinal "agreement" with the Church established on this side St. George's Channel. So that Laud's Arminian policy amounted to no more, after all, than a stroke of mere chicane; which shewed, indeed, the sophistry and deceit whereof he it as capable, but which, in reality, left the old articles standing in full force "as they did before."
The articles of 1615 are, to this day, a part of the national creed established in Ireland. They were solemnly admitted by the ecclesiastical power, and as solemnly ratified by the civil. They could only be repealed and abolished by the same authority which had established them. But this has never been done. Consequently, they are in full force, to this very hour; and, together with our 39 (admitted "also," merely by way of declaratively "manifesting" or acknowledging the "agreement" between the two churches), constitute the legal standard of faith in that kingdom. For the truth of this, we have not only the unexceptionable testimony of archbishop Usher himself (who presided, personally, in this convocation of 1634, when the English articles were "also" received); but likewise the evidence of the canon then and there passed, and which to this moment keeps its place at the head of the Irish "Constitutions and canons ecclesiastical." It runs thus. "For the manifestation of our agreement with the Church of England, in the confession of the same Christian faith, and the doctrine of the sacraments; we do receive and approve the book of articles of religion, agreed upon by the archbishops, and bishops, and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord God, 1572, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent, touching true religion. And, therefore, if any, hereafter, shall affirm, that any of those articles are, in any part, superstitious or erroneous; or such as he may not, with a good conscience, subscribe unto; let him be excommunicated, and not absolved before, he make a public revocation of his error." Here is not the remotest hint, concerning any setting aside of the former articles. The canon only associates the 39 articles with the preceding ones, and gives to the former the same weight of respectability in Ireland which they bear in England.
Dr. Fuller, therefore, was too hasty, in asserting that the Irish articles were "utterly excluded."21 There was no exclusion, nor amputation, in the case. Laud himself, some years afterwards, confessed the very point I am now maintaining. He tells us, that one of the accusations against him, on his trial, in 1644, was, concerning "The articles of Ireland, which call the Pope the man of sin. But," continues Laud, "the articles of Ireland bind neither this Church nor me."22 Exceptio probat regulam in non exceptis. His grace's observation decides the question at once. "The articles of Ireland bind not" the Church of England, "nor me" as an English prelate. What was this, but allowing, to every purpose of argument, that the Irish articles continued to "bind" the Church and bishops of that kingdom, though they bound not the Church and bishops of this? I must again remind my reader, that Laud advanced the above remark in the year 1644: which was no fewer than ten years after the Irish articles are pretended to have been set aside. It remains, that the famous articles of Ireland were never repealed at all. Without doubt, Laud intended to repeal them, when due opportunity should serve; and associated the English articles with the Irish ones, by way of prelude to the future abolition of the latter. But the civil storm, which soon began to thicken, rendered that, and many similar projects of his, abortive. It saved the thirty-nine articles themselves from annihilation.
How violently matters were carried, in England, for the suppression of the old doctrines, and for the extension of Arminianism, appears, among a thousand instances besides, from the visitation articles, issued by Laud's trusty friend and pliable machine, Dr. Richard Montagu. When this profligate priest disgraced the mitre of Norwich, among, the questions, propounded to the churchwardens of that diocese, was the following: "Doth your minister, commonly, or of set purpose, in his popular sermons, fall upon those much disputed and little-understood doctrines of God's eternal predestination, of election antecedaneous, of reprobation irrespective without sinne foreseene, of free-mill, of perseverance, and not falling from grace; points obscure, unfoldable, unfoordable, untractable?"23
This, and similar practices of such diocesans as were tools to the court, were the fruits of archbishop Laud's own "injunctions," signified to the bishops in general, and charging them, "in his majestie's name," that they should "take special care, that no minister, nor lecturer, in their diocesse, should preach upon the prohibited controverted points, contrary to his majestie's declarations and instructions:" and that they, the bishops, "should give an yearly account, to the archbishop, of their proceedings herein."24 And thus, as Mr. Prynne25 truly observes, "The Arminian errors were freely vented, in all diocesses, without any public opposition: and those who out of zeal to truth, durst open their mouths to refute them, were silenced, suspended, and brought into the high commission, to their undoing: while the Arminians, on the contrary, had free liberty to broach their erroneous tenets, without control, and were advanced to the greatest benefices and ecclesiastical dignities."26
Had Charles's political views been crowned with success, archbishop Laud would, most undoubtedly, have given the coup de grace to our established Calvinism, by procuring the XXXIX Articles to be repealed in form, and by substituting Arminian ones in their room. Together with the utter extinction of civil liberty, the Church would have been shorn of those evangelical principles which, through the good hand of God upon us, are still it's glory. We had been made
"An island, in our own doctrines, far
disjoin'd
From the whole world of Protestants beside."
But, as things then stood, the repeal of the articles would have been too dangerous a stride. Though Laud took care to have the bishoprics and crown benefices, as fast as they became vacant, filled up, for the most part, by a colony of new Arminians; yet, the old Calvinistic prelates and beneficiaries did not die off, with sufficient rapidity, for him to secure a majority in the convocation. Besides: the body of the people, incapacitated from being corrupted by preferment would never have parted tamely with their Protestant creed, had Laud even been able to have packed an ecclesiastical convocation to his mind. The members of the Church of England had, in general, at that time, a very large portion of principle and virtue: which rendered them, as a body, not only respectable, but formidable. Religion was deemed sacred by the public; and a thing worthy of contending for. The temper of those times would not have borne the total alteration at which Laud aimed Matters were, therefore, to be done by degrees. The reformed doctrine, established by law, and rooted in the hearts of the nation, could not, with safety to its assailants, be taken, sword in hand; but they flattered themselves, that it might be gradually undermined. The archbishop was forced to content himself, for the present, with altering the face of the Church, before he would venture to make a home thrust at her internal constitution. He was for painting her first, and for completely debauching her afterwards. The superinduction of Popish ceremonies was to clear the way for that of Popish Arminianism: which two streams, when united in their course, were to have emptied themselves into the dead sea of arbitrary power.
But, just as the luckless metropolitan had made a promising entrance on his toil, Providence stopped him short: and the adventurer fell, himself, into the pit which he had made for the country that bred him, and for the Church that fed him. How unjustifiable soever (humanly speaking) the means might be, which brought this prelate to the scaffold, the Church and kingdom of England would have had little reason to lament his fall, had he fallen alone, and not, like the apostate sun of the morning, dragged other stars, from their orbits, with his tail. It is very remarkable, that, on his trial, he utterly denied himself to be either an Arminian, or a promoter of Arminianism. A denial, badly calculated to impress us with a favourable idea of his regard to veracity. "I answer, in general," said he, "that I never endeavoured to introduce Arminianism into our church; nor ever maintained any Arminian opinions. I did neither protect, nor countenance, the Arminians' persons, books or tenets. True it is, I was, in a declaration of the commons house, taxed as a favourer, [and] advancer of Arminians and their opinions, without any particular proof at all: which was a great slander to me."27 O human nature, how low art thou capable of falling!
I shall close this essay, with a short and general review,
1. Of the Calvinism of our old English bishops.
2. Of the Calvinism of our English Universities.
3. Of the state of the Calvinistic doctrines in our Church, from the death of archbishop Laud to the present time; And,
4. Obviate an objection or two, by which those doctrines are defamed.
I. What has been already observed, concerning the principal bishops, who flourished under king Edward VI. (during whose reign the Reformation was first established in England), renders any farther demonstration of their Calvinism entirely needless. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Ferrar, Ponet, were eminent among the golden fathers who adorned that truly Protestant period.
Under Elizabeth, the Church could boast of prelates no less sound, holy, and learned. Hear how pathetically their orthodoxy was lamented by the Popish party. "In England," said the zealous Scultingius, "Calvin's Book of Institutions is almost preferred to the Bible itself" [had the Papists said, 'In England, Calvin's Institutions are valued next after the Bible,' he had come nearer the mark]. "The pretended English bishops enjoin all the clergy to get the book almost by heart, never to have it out of their hands, to lay it by them in a conspicuous part of their pulpits; in a word, to prize and keep it as carefully, as the old Romans are said to have preserved the Sybilline oracles." Another angry Papist (Stapleton) a native of our own Island, thus made his moan: "The Institutions of Calvin are so greatly esteemed in England, that the book has been most accurately translated into English, and is even fixed in the parish churches for the people to read. Moreover, in each of the two Universities, after the students have finished their circuit in philosophy, as many of them as are designed for the ministry, are lectured first of all in that book."28
Indeed, the doctrinal Calvinism of Elizabeth's bishops is almost incapable of exaggeration. Would they, in the memorable convocation of 1562, have "thought fit that ministers should converse in Ponet's catechism," in order to "learn true divinity from it;"29 if they themselves had not been Calvinists of the strongest dye?
Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, shall give us a sample how highly the foreign Calvinistic divines were esteemed and venerated by our episcopal bench. That ingenious prelate thus celebrated the praises (A.D. 1573.) of some transmarine worthies who were then living:
De Bullingero, Biblandro, Martyre, Zancho,
Et Gualthero, Gesnero, de Peilcano,
Nostrum judicium si, forsan, Cole, requiris;
Hos egro doctrina eximios, pietate gravesque,
Judicio: queis similes perpaucos hic habit orbis.30
That is: "Do you ask, what I think of Bullinger, Bibliander, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Gualter, Gesner, and Pelicanus? My opinion of them is, that they are illustrious in point of learning, venerable for their piety, and that they have very few equals in the whole world.
Even in the reign of Charles I. a new edition of Doctor Willett's famous book, entitled, Synopsis Papismi (from which, some extracts have been laid before the reader, Sect. XVIII) was favoured with a patent, the preamble to which takes notice, "That the Doctor was a very painful man in behalf of the Church, and that his Synopsis had been approved by the bishops; held in great esteem by the two Universities; and much desired by all the learned, both of the clergy and laity, throughout the king's dominions."31 This was in 1630. So uncorrupt in doctrine did the bishops, the Universities, the clergy, and the people, generally, continue, even under the malignant aspect of the Laudean planet!
Descend we lower still. The reign of Charles II. was not wholly undignified with Calvinistic bishops. Witness the great Dr. Saunderson, bishop of Lincoln. "When I began," says this valuable prelate, "to set myself to the study of divinity as my proper business, Calvin's Institutions were recommended to me, as they were generally to all young scholars in those times, as the best and perfectest system of divinity, and the fittest to be laid as a groundwork of that profession. And indeed my expectation was not at all deceived, in the reading of those Institutions."32 Dr. Edwards, to whom I am indebted for this quotation, adds, that as bishop Saunderson "began with Calvin, so he proceeded to approve of his [Calvin's] sentiments, through his whole life: as we see in his letters to Dr. Hammond, and in other parts of his writings."33 His lordship was the author of an admirable tract, intitled, Pax Ecclesiae: in which among a great number of other judicious observations, the discerning prelate thus accounts for the "advantages," on which the "Arminian party hath and yet doth gain strength to itself." As for instance,"The publishing of Mr. Mountagu's appeal, with allowance [i.e. under the sanction of court countenance]: which both hath given confidence to sundry, who before were Arminians, but in secret, now to walk unmasked, and to profess their opinions publicly in all companies." The good bishop also accounted for the progress of the new doctrine, on another consideration: viz. "The plausibleness of Arminianism, and the congruity it hath, in sundry points, with the principles of corrupt nature, and of carnal reason. For 'tis a wonderful tickling to flesh and blood, to have the powers of nature magnified, and to hear itself flattered, as if she carried the greatest stroke in the work of salvation: especially, when those soothings are conveyed under the pretence of vindicating the dispensations of God's providence from the imputation of injustice." His lordship then proceeds to specify, what he terms, "The manifold cunning of the Arminians, to advance their own party: as, 1. In pleading for a liberty for every man to abound in his own sense, in things undetermined by the church: that so they [the Arminians] may spread their own tenets the more freely. Whereas, yet, it is too apparent, by their writing; and speeches, that their intent and endeavour is, to take the benefit of this liberty themselves; but not to allow it to those that dissent from them. 2. In bragging out some of their private tenets, as if they were the received established doctrine of the Church of England; by forcing the words of Articles, or Common Prayer Book, to a sense which appeareth not to have been intended therein: as Mr. Mountagu hath done, in the point of falling from grace. Whereas the contrary tenet, viz. of the final perseverance of the righteous in grace and faith, may be, as strong evidence, every way, and by as natural deducement, collected out of the said books; as shall be easily proved, if it he required. 3. In seeking to derive envy on the opposite [i.e. on the Calvinistic] opinions; by delivering them in terms odious, and of ill and suspicious sound. 4. Which is the most unjust and uncharitable course of all the rest, in seeking to draw the persons of those that dissent from them, into dislike with the state: as if they [i.e. as if the Calvinists] were Puritans, or Disciplinarians, or that way affected." So much for bishop Saunderson's judgment, concerning the "manifold, unjust, and uncharitable cunning of the Arminians, to advance their own party." But what was his judgment, concerning the Calvinistic system itself? Read it, in his own words. "Lest this covenant [i.e. the covenant of grace and redemption] should yet be ineffectual, and Christ die in vain; because none of the sons of Adam, left to themselves, especially in this wretched state of [original] corruption, could actually have repented and believed in Christ; [it pleased God] For the glory of his grace, to elect and cull a certain number of particular persons, out of the corrupted lump of mankind, to be advanced into this covenant, and thereby entitled to salvation; and that without any cause, or motive at all, in themselves; but merely of his [i.e. of God's] own free grace and good pleasure in Jesus Christ: pretermitting, and passing by the rest, to perish justly, in their sins." It is, adds his lordship, a part of God's decree, "To confer in due season, upon the persons so elected, all fit and effected means and graces, needful, for them, unto salvation: proportionably to their personal capacities and conditions. Thus much, concerning the salvation of those whom God hath of his free mercy elected thereunto. But with the reprobates, whom he hath in his justice appointed to destruction, he dealeth in another fashion: as concerning whom be hath decreed, either,
"1. To afford them neither the extraordinary, nor so much as the outward and ordinary means of faith. Or else,
"2. In the presence of the outward means of the word and sacraments, to withhold the inward concurrence of his enlightening and renewing spirit to work with those means. For want whereof, they [the outward means] become ineffectual to them [viz. to the reprobate] for their good; working upon them either malignity, so as their hearts are the more hardened thereby in sin and unbelief; or infirmly, so as not to work in them a perfect conversion: but to produce (instead of the gracious habits of sanctification, as faith, repentance, charity, humility, &c.) some weak and infirm shadows of those graces: which for their formal semblance sake, do sometimes bear the name of those graces they resemble, but were never, in the mean time, the very true graces themselves; and, in the end, are discovered to have been false, by the want of perseverance."34 I shall only add, from the same masterly tract, his lordship's idea of efficacious grace. Upon the elect, says he, who live to the use of reason, God confers "Such a measure of faith in the Son of God, of repentance from dead works, of new and holy obedience to God's commandments, together with final perseverance in all these; as, in his excellent wisdom, he seeth meet: wrought and preserved in them, outwardly, by the word and sacraments; and, inwardly, by the operation of his Holy Spirit, shed in their hearts. Whereby, sweetly and without Constraint [i.e. without forcible compulsion], but yet effectually, their understandings, wills, and affections, are subdued to the acknowledgement and obedience of the gospel: and both these are done, ordinarily, and by ordinary means."35 So writes the bishop, to whom our English Liturgy is indebted for its judicious preface, which begins with, "It has been the wisdom of the Church, &c."
The truly apostolic bishop Pearson (who succeeded the no less excellent bishop Wilkins, in the see of Chester) was another of Charles the second's prelates, who did honour to the rochet. Dr. Pearson's Calvinism is so well known, (consult for instance, his valuable Exposition of the Creed,) that I shall only cite a memorable anecdote of him, on the testimony of the learned Dr. John Edwards "When I was a young Master of Arts," said Pearson to Edwards, "I thought there was no difficulty in these grand articles," [viz. in the Articles which divide the Calvinists and the Arminians]; "and that I was able to determine any of them with ease: especially on the Arminian side. But I have, since, found it otherwise. And I disapprove of men's rash censuring and condemning the other [viz. the Calvinistic] side."36 And, indeed, as Dr. Edwards observes, we might have guessed this to be the bishop's inclination, by his approving of Mr. Hales's Remains.
So lately, as in the reign of queen Anne, the English bench was graced with a Beveridge. But further, than the reign of that queen, this deponent saith not.
II. Now for a sketch of the former state of religion in the two Universities.
Every body knows the situation in which religious affairs were left by Henry VIII. That monarch, as Luther smartly and justly expressed it, "killed the Pope's body, but saved his soul alive."37 i.e. his majesty stabbed the Papal supremacy;38 continuing, however, to the last hour of his life, a devoted bigot to the essential doctrine of the Roman Church.
But, "After the death of Henry, by the industrious zeal of Calvin and his disciples, more especially Peter Martyr, the [English] Universities, schools, and churches, became the oracles of Calvinism. Hence it happened, that when it was proposed, under the reign of Edward VI. to give a fixed and stable turn to the doctrine and discipline of the Church [of England], Geneva was acknowledged as a sister-church, and the theological system, there established by Calvin, was adopted, and tendered the public rule of faith in England. This, however, was done, without any change of the form of episcopal government."39 Thus stood matters, while Edward swayed the sceptre.
When Mary governed, the Protestant fabric, reared by Edward, was overturned: and as the Universities, under him, had been reformed from Popery to Calvinism; they were, under her, forcibly carried back from Calvinism to Popery.
Elizabeth brought things to the right pass again; and our "Universities," as well as our Churches, became once more, "the oracles of Calvinism:" and so they continued, not only 'till that good queen ascended to a brighter crown, but through the reign of her successor James, and (notwithstanding Laud's vehement efforts to the contrary) through the Arminian reign of Charles I. I shall give a few instances.
In 1595, William Barret, for having contradicted the doctrine of final perseverance, and for having aspersed Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, and other luminaries of the Protestant church, was forced to make reparation, both to the truths of God, and to the venerable names which he had so flippantly traduced, by publicly reading his recantation: which recantation had been drawn up for him, by the University of Cambridge, for that purpose.40
Peter Baro's troubles in the same University, and in the same year with Barret, have been already noted in our XVIIIth Section.
To the above brace of brothers, let me add Dr. John Houson, by way of making up a leash. This said Houson, though a canon of Christ's Church, and though he had been vice-chancellor of Oxford, fell under the censure of the University, for (what was then esteemed a crime of no small magnitude) "advancing somewhat, tending to the disparagement of the Geneva annotations on the Holy Scriptures."41 The sermons, in which he launched this indirect "disparagement," were termed, Conciones publicas, minus orthodoxas, et plenas offensionis: i.e. "not sufficiently orthodox, and replete with offence." In fine, the preacher was called in question, and suspended, "by Dr. Robert Abbot" [brother to archbishop Abbot, and shortly after bishop of Salisbury], "who was then doctor of the chair and vice-chancellor."42 So fared it with canon Houson, A.D. 1614.
And no wonder. For Heylyn, himself gives us the following needless information: "It cannot be denied," says the Arminian, "but that, by the error of those times, the reputation which Calvin had attained to in both Universities, and the extreme diligence of his followers" [i.e. of the bishops, clergy, and laity in general] "for the better carrying on of their own designs" [viz. the laudable designs of barring out Popery and Pelagianism] "there was a general tendency unto his (i.e. to Calvin's) opinions."43 The same Arminian adds, that Calvin's Book of Institutes was, for the most part, the foundation on which the young divines of those times did build their studies." He even confesses that he could "find" but two Anti-Calvinists in the whole University of Oxford, at the period here treated of: which poor "two" were, Buckridge, tutor to Laud; and the above suspended Dr. Houson. Well, therefore, may the said Heylyn observe (though we should have known it without his information), that, in the two Universities, the Anti-Calvinians were "but few in number, and make but a very thin appearance."44 Extremely few and thin indeed, if their whole number amounted to no more than two! So that Heylyn should not have applied (as he does) that line to the case in hand,
Apparent rari nantes in Gurgite vato;
but should rather have altered it to
Apparent gemini nantes in Gurgite vasto;
I mean, supposing Dr. Buckridge was really not a Calvinist. Of which, however, I stand in some doubt, Should my doubt be well grounded, Virgil's line must undergo a second alteration: and we must say of solitary Houson,
Apparet solus natans in Gurgite vasto.
If Buckride was then an Anti-Calvinist, he seems to have been a hidden one: else would not vice-chancellor Abbot have suspended the fellow of John's with as little scruple, as he inflicted that censure on the canon of Christ's Church? Heylyn's even number, therefore, of two, does not hang well together. Divide his two Arminian doctors, by one; and in all probability the remainder will give the quotient.45
Unhappily for the credit of Arminianism, Laud himself, its grand hero in England, incurred no little danger and molestation, at Oxford, on account of his having been suspected to lean towards that new and hated system.-" In the year 1606, Mr. Laud, who had then but just taken his Batchelor's degree in divinity, was questioned" [i.e. called to account], by Dr. Airy, the vice-chancellor, for a sermon preached in St. Mary's church, on the 26th of October, as containing in it sundry scandalous and Popish passages: the good man [i.e. the vice-chancellor] taking all things to be matter of Popery, which were not held forth unto him in Calvin's Institutes."46 It appears that the orthodox University at large were of the vice-chancellor's mind, both as to the excellency of Calvin, and as to the malignity of Laud. For Heylyn adds: "Which advantage being taken by Dr. Abbot, he so violently persecuted the poor man [i.e. poor Mr. Laud], and so openly branded him for a Papist, or at least Popishly inclined: that it was almost made an heresy, as I have heard from his [viz. from Laud's] own mouth, for any one to be seen in his company; and a misprision of heresy, to give him a civil salutation as he passed the streets."47 They saw what materials he was made of, and stigmatized him accordingly.
Eight years after Laud's public disgrace, above recited, to wit, A.D. 1614, when the said Laud had risen to the presidentship of St. John's College, the spirited and active Dr. Abbot [not the archbishop, but the bishop] took him openly to task, in a very sacred place, and on a very solemn occasion: or, as Heylyn phrases it, "Fell violently foul on Dr. William Laud, whom, in his sermon at St. Peter's, on Easter-Sunday, he (Abbot) publicly exposed to contempt and scorn, under the notion of a Papist; as Barret's doctrines had been formerly condemned at Cambridge" [and with ample reason], "by the name of Popery."48 As to Barret, he justified the suspicions which were entertained of him at Cambridge, by actually declaring himself a Papist, shortly after.49 And for Laud, a few years made it sufficiently plain, that the Oxonians were not very wide of the mark, in questioning the genuine Protestancy of that unhappy gentle man. Considering the zealous orthodoxy of the University in those days, Laud was well off, to escape without expulsion.
Various were the subsequent toils which Laud met with; many a weary step did he take, and many a mortifying repulse did he suffer, ere he could climb the hill of promotion, to which he so ardently aspired. Heylyn laments, very pathetically, the difficulties which this his patron had to surmount, on his first attempts to ascend the ladder ecclesiastic. "At this time," says he, viz. about the year 1624, and the last of king James's reign, "bishop Laud, to whom the raising and promoting of the Arminian doctrines (as they call them) is of late ascribed, was hardly able to promote and preserve himself: oppressed with an hard hand, by archbishop Abbot; secretly traduced to the king, for the unfortunate business of the earl of Devonshire; attaining, with great difficulty, the poor bishoprick of St. David's, after ten years' service" [i.e. after ten years court attendance]; "and, yet, but green in favour with the Duke of Buckingham."50 However, in due season, the "green" favourite waxed a grey one.
Nothing is more prolific than heresy. About three years after Laud had been "publicly exposed to contempt and scorn," by vice-chancellor Abbot, in the pulpit of St. Peter's Oxford, another bird of Laud's feather (but whose nest was in the University of Cambridge, as Fellow of Trinity College there) underwent a very uncomfortable plucking. This gentleman's name was Edward Simpson: who, A.D. 1617, preached a sermon before king James I. at Royston; taking for his text, "John iii. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Hence be endeavoured to prove that the commission of any great sin doth extinguish grace and God's spirit, for the time, in the man. He added also, that St. Paul, in the 7th of Romans, spake not of himself as an apostle and regenerate, but statu legis. Hereat his majesty took, and publicly expressed great distaste: because Arminius had lately been blamed for extracting the like exposition out of the works of Faustus Socinus. Whereupon, he [king James] sent to the two professors in Cambridge, for their judgment herein: who [i.e. the two Cambridge divinity-professors] proved, and subscribed, the place in the 7th chapter of Romans to be understood of a regenerate man, according to St. Austin's later opinion in his retractation." What was the result? "The preacher was enjoined a public recantation before the king, which accordingly was performed. Nor doth such a palinody sound any thing to his disgrace: having St. Austin himself for his precedent, who modestly retracted what formerly he had written therein."51
"Nor must we forget Mr. Gabriel Bridges, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford: who, by preaching, on the 19th of January [1623], against the absolute decree, in maintenance of universal grace, and the cooperation of man's free-will prevented by it, in the public Church of "the University; laid him more open to the prosecution of Dr. Prideaux, and to the censure of the vice-chancellor and the rest of the heads, &c."52 We learn, from another writer, that the prosecution of Mr. Bridges terminated in his public recantation of his errors, and that the said recantation, though forced at first, proved eventually real and sincere: the good man being brought to a better mind, and to a serious conviction of the truths he had too hastily opposed.53
Some years afterwards, I find another religious delinquent; one Mr. Brookes, of Wadham College, Oxford: censured, "by the University heads, for broaching and justifying some Arminian assertions, in a sermon preached at St. Mary's."54 This young culprit, thus censured and disgraced in the reign of James, was rewarded in that of Charles, by promotion to a wealthy cure of souls.
The Theses, publicly maintained by such as proceeded Doctors in divinity, are an additional demonstration of the old University Calvinism. Mr. Prynne has collected a great number of these from the authentic acts of Oxford in particular: and introduces them, with the following just remark. These "Act-Theses and questions are always (before they are either admitted, printed, published, or disputed on) propounded to a general convocation of the whole University, and by them particularly allowed, voted, and then recorded in the University register, for a testimony to posterity, as orthodox and consonant to the established doctrine, faith, and articles of the Church of England. So that the whole University's judgment is comprized in them [i.e. in those Theses], as well as theirs that give them."55
"Aeterna Dei predestinatione continentur, aliorum electio ad vitam aeternam, aliorum ad mortem reprobatio: i.e. The election of some persons to everlasting life, and the reprobation of others unto death, are comprized, respectively, in God's eternal decree of predestination.
"Electorum certa est salus, ut periere non possint. - The salvation of the elect is so certain, that they cannot possibly perish.
"Electi non possunt, in hac vita, implere legem Dei. - The elect are unable in the present life to fulfil the law of God.
"Doctrina praedestinationis olim tradita ab Augustino, et nostris temporibus a Calvino, eadem est. - The doctrine of predestination, which St. Austin anciently taught, is the same with that doctrine of predestination, which in our own times, Calvin hath taught.
"Praescientia Dei aeterno decreto omnia ordinantis, non pugnavit cum arbitrii libertate primis parentibus concessa. - The foreknowledge of God, who ordaineth all things by his eternal decree, did not clash with that freedom of will which he granted (in the state of innocence) to Adam and Eve.
In the reign of James I. the Oxonian Doctors maintained the following and similar positions, for that degree in divinity:
"Tota salus electorum est mere gratuita. - The salvation of the elect is, from first to last, absolutely free and unmerited.
"Electi debent esse, et sunt tandem, suae salutis certi. - The elect ought to be assured of their salvation; and, sooner or later, they are so.
"Reprobus quisque sua solius perit malitia. - Every reprobate perishes in consequence of his own wickedness only.
"An, qui in Christo sunt perire possint? Neg. - They, who are in Christ, cannot perish.
"An certi salutis suae omnes salventur? Aff. - All, who are assured of their salvation shall surely be saved.
"An, fideles possint certa fide, statuere remissa esse peccata? Aff. - Believers may, with an assured faith, conclude that their sins are forgiven.
"Non est liberum arbitrium. - Man's will is not free.
"Sancti non possunt excidere gratia. - Real saints cannot fall entirely from grace.
"An, homo possit se praeparare ad gratiam recipiendam? Neg. - Man cannot prepare himself to receive grace.
"An, homo possit scire, se habere gratiam? Aff. - A man, who has grace, may know that he has it.
"An, electio sit ex praevisis operibus? Neg. - Election is not occasioned by God's foresight of good works.
"An, decretum reprobationis sit absolutum? Aff. - The decree of reprobation is absolute.
"An, Deus autor peccati, juxta reformatorum sententiam, statuatur? Neg. - The Doctrine of the reformers, or of the reformed divines, does not make God the author of sin.
"An, gratia regenerationis omnibus offeratur? Neg. - The grace of regeneration is not offered to all men.
"An, gratia regenerationis possit resisti? Neg. - The grace of regeneration is irresistible.
"An, voluntas, in prima conversione, habeat se tantum passive? Aff. - The will of men is entirely passive, in the first reception of grace.
"An, reconciliatio per mortem Christi sit singulis hominibus impetrati? Neg. - Christ's death did not procure reconciliation with God for every man.
"An, lapsus Adami, diverso respectu, dici possit necessarius et contingens? Aff. - The fall of Adam was both contingent and necessary.
"An, decretum, de danda fide, sit, in mente divina, priua decreto de danda salute? Neg. - God first decreed to save his people; and, in consequence of that decree, resolved to give them faith.
"An, semel vere justificatus semper maneat justificatus? Aff. - The man who is once truly justified continues justified for ever.
"An, voluntas humana resistere possit gratiae Dei efficaci? Neg. - Man's will cannot resist the efficacious grace of God.
"An, post Adama lapsum, libertas ad bonum sit prorsus amissa? Aff. - Ever since the fall of Adam, the human will has utterly lost all its freedom to [spiritual] good.
"An omnes baptizati sint justificati? Neg. - All baptized persons are not therefore in a state of justification.
"An, ipse actus fidei nobis imputetur pro justitia legis sensu proprio? Neg. - Strictly speaking, the act of believing is not imputed to us for legal righteousness.
"An, fides, et fidei justitia, sint propria electorum? Aff. - Faith itself, and the righteousness of faith, are peculiar to the elect."
Among others, the Theses, which next follow, were asserted by the Oxford doctors, even after the accession of Charles I. when Calvinism ceased to enjoy the sunshine of court encouragement.
Anno 1625. "An, praedestinatio sit ex praevisa fide, vel operibus? Neg. - Predestination to life is not for faith and good works foreseen."
Anno.1627. "An, praedestinatio ad salutem sit mutabilis? Neg. - Predestination to life is an unchangeable act of God.
"An, fides semel habita, possit amitti? Neg. - True faith, once had, can never be lost.
"An, vera fides cadat in reprobum? Neg. - No reprobate can truly believe.
"An, efficacia gratiae pendeat a libero influxu arbitrii? Neg. - The efficacy of divine grace is not suspended on the free influence of man's will.
"An, Christus divinae justitiae, vice nostra proprie et integre satisfecerit? Aff. - Christ did, literally and completely, make satisfaction to the justice of God, in our room and stead."
Anno 1628. "An, arbitrium humanum determinet gratiam divinam? Neg. - God's grace is not determined by man's will."
Examples might be multiplied, to a volume. But the reader may judge of the crop, by the small gleaning here presented to his view. The Church of England, in those day's might boast of Oxonians who believed, as well as subscribed, her Thirty-nine Articles.
Nor did the other "oeulus Angliae" the University of Cambridge, yield a jot to her elder sister, in point of orthodoxy. The eminent Dr. Samuel Ward, in May 1628, thus wrote, from Cambridge, to archbishop Usher: "As for our University, none do patronise these (i.e. the Arminian) points, either in schools, or pulpit. Though, because preferments at court are conferred on such as incline that way, causeth some to look that way."56 In the same letter, he blames a Dr. Jackson, who had lately "professed himself an Arminian:" and adds, concerning the said Jackson, "I do conceive all that which he disputeth in his book, against negative reprobation, as not sorting with the antecedent will of God, for the salvation of all, to be against the seventeenth article of religion, which plainly averreth a gratuitous predestination of some and not of all. Therefore, from thence (i.e. from the seventeenth article of the Church of England) is inferred, a not election of others to that grace: which is that which, properly, is styled, reprobation."57
More than six years after, viz. in June, 1634, when Arminianism had waxed both older and bolder, the same Dr. Ward wrote as follows, to the said great and good archbishop: "We have had some doings here (at Cambridge) of late, about one of Pembroke-hall (viz. Mr. Tourney); who, preaching in St. Mary's about the beginning of Lent, upon James ii. 22, seemed to avouch the insufficiency of faith to justification, and to impugn the doctrine of our eleventh article of justification by faith only: for which he was convented by the vice-chancellor, who was willing to accept of an easy acknowledgment. But the same party, preaching his Latin sermon, pro gradu, the last week, upon Rom. iii. 28; he said he came not Palinodiam canere, sed eandem Cantilenam canere. Which moved our vice-chancellor, Dr. Love, to call for his sermon: which he refused to deliver. Whereupon, on Wednesday last, being Barnaby day, the day appointed for the admission of the batchelors of divinity, which must answer, Die Comitiorum; he (viz. the Arminian preacher) was stayed (i.e. stopt of his degree) by the major part of the suffrages of the doctors of the faculty. And though sundry doctors did favour him" (even as many as wished to recommend themselves at court and at Lambeth) "and would have had him to be the man that should answer, Die Comitiorum; yet he is put by: and one Mr. Flatkers, of our (viz. of Sydney) college, chosen to answer, whose first question is, sola fides justificat. - The truth is, that there are some heads among us that are great abetters of Mr. Tourney, the party above mentioned; who, no doubt, are backed by others. I pray God, we may persist in the doctrine of our Church, contained in our articles and homilies! innovators are too much favoured, now-a-days. Our vice-chancellor hath carried business, for matter of religion, both stoutly and discreetly. - It may be you are willing to hear of our University affairs. I may truly say, I never knew them in worse condition, since I was a member thereof: which is almost forty-six years. Not but that I hope the greater part is orthodox. But new heads are brought in, and they are backed in maintaining novelties, and them which broach new opinions. Others" (i.e. those who abide by the old Calvinian truths) "are disgraced, and checked, when they come above" (i.e. when they either went to court, or waited on Charles's new Arminian bishops) "as I myself was, by my lord of York" (viz. Richard Neile) "last Lent, in consistory, for favouring Puritans" (the stale, unjust, and shameless pretence, under which the Laudaean faction sought to cover their design of smothering the Church doctrines): "and all from false informations from hence, which are believed without any examination. - I think they would have me out of my professor's place. And I could with the same, if I could have one to succeed according to my mind. - Well, howsoever, God's will be done; and he teach us humility and patience! I heard, also, of some doings with you. The Lord of Heaven direct you and us, and teach us to submit to Him in all things. - I have not yet sent my answer to Mr. Ch., but intend ere long. I have not finished yet one point: (viz.) to shew that the Arminian opinions were condemned in the synods which condemned the Pelagian heresy. - The tractate, De Praedestinationis, in defence of your lordship (I know not your adversary, nor his name), is Doctor Twiffe's. It may be, he hath sent your lordship a copy of it. He is a deserving man. We have a (new) vice-chancellor, who favours novelties, both in rites and doctrines."58 Observe here, 1. That Arminianism was then beginning to gain ground in Cambridge. 2. This made good Doctor Ward sigh and weep over the corrupt inundation, which he dreaded would overwhelm the Church of England. 3. Laud, Neile, and the other ecclesiastical instruments of court oppression, laboured, might and main, to "disgrace" and " check "all the conscientious churchmen who stood to the "Articles" and "Homilies." Among the rest, this Dr. Ward, and archbishop Usher himself, had been brow-beaten and insulted by the unblushing priests who held the rudder. 4. Matters, however, though gloomy and unpromising, were not yet so bad, but an Arminian clergyman, "backed" by people in power, was, for being an Arminian, refused his degree "by the major part of the suffrages" of the Cambridge doctors, tenth year of Charles's reign, and the second of Laud's primacy. - 5. How differently did the court-current flow, about sixteen years before, when the identical Dr. Ward, who wrote the above letter, was sent by king James, in triumph, to the synod of Dort !
Let the same reverend and learned hand inform us, how the Church of Rome exulted, on the eclipse of Calvinism in England. "Our commencement is now over: where dean Baden, now Dr. Baden, did well perform his part; who answered the act, Vesperiis Comitiorum. And so did the batchelor of divinity, Die Comitiorum; being one of the fellows of our college. The (late) vice-chancellor, Dr. Love, did well perform his part; especially, in encountering with one Franciscus de St. Clara (but his true name is Davenport), who, in a book set forth at Douay, would reconcile our articles of religion with the definitions of the council of Trent."59 The encreasing rampancy of Arminianism in this kingdom, which encouraged the Pope himself to make Laud two separate offers of a cardinal's hat, emboldened the Roman minorite, Davenport, to lend a helping hand to the common cause, by striving to strike up a match between the thirty-nine articles and the decisions of Trent. Nor did the minorite, in this shameless effort at impossibility, act at all more absurdly than did those degenerate and impudent Protestants, who first pretended to find Arminianism in the said thirty-nine articles of the Church of England. Was Arminianism really the doctrine of these articles, Francis de St. Clara might have spared half his trouble: for there would then be, so far as Arminianism is concerned, no shadow of difference between the English articles and the Trentish determinations.
I shall conclude this brief enquiry into the Calvinism of our Universities, with a sketch of the happy effects which archbishop Usher's preaching had, at Oxford, on the youths of that renowned seminary, antecedently to the civil wars.
"The persuasion of his (i.e. of Usher's incomparable learning, the observation of his awful gravity, the evidence of his eminent and exemplary piety, all improved to the height, by his indefatigable industry, drew students to flock to him as doves to the windows. It joys us to recollect how multitudes of scholars, especially the heads of our tribes, thronged to hear the sound of his silver bell, and how much they were taken with the voice of this wise charmer. Surely, if ever, it was then, that the gospel ran and was glorified in Oxford. - Here, you might have seen a sturdy Saul changed into a submissive Paul: a persecutor transformed into a preacher. There, a tender hearted Josiah lamenting after the Lord, and with Ephraim, smiting on his thigh, saying, What have I done? Others, with the penitent Jews, so stabbed at the heart, as to cry out, Men, brethren, and fathers, what shall we do?''60 - Could archbishop Usher have risen from the dead, and preached in Oxford, as heretofore; delivering the ancient truths, and with the same spiritual success, I fear there has been a subsequent period when his converted students would have been expelled, and the preacher himself rung out of the town. - This reminds me of the
IIId remaining particular: namely, just to touch upon the state of religion amongst us, since the primary introduction of Arminianism by archbishop Laud.
The final catastrophes of Charles's reign are well known; of which catastrophes his own tyranny, perverseness, and insincerity, together with the violent conduct of his ministers, must undoubtedly be considered as the main source. With regard to ecclesiastical matters, the triumphant Sectarists did but finish what Laud had begun. That prelate laboured to destroy the internal doctrines of the Church: and the republican zealot, followed the blow, by demolishing the whole fabric.
In the unsettled times which intervened between the execution of Charles I. and the restoration of his family to the crown, the church lay in ruins. A violent extreme very frequently engenders its opposite. As Laud had directed much of his zeal and force towards his favourite point of re-baptizing the church into the grossest absurdities of splendid superstition, his enemies were no sooner masters of the field than they bent things too much the other way, and opened a channel to the wildest extravagancies of fanaticism. The elegant simplicity, with which the national worship had been solemnized during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., gave place, in many instances, to naked and slovenly modes of celebration, that rendered the public performance of divine offices rather matter of contempt and disgust than steps to decent and reasonable devotion.
It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that, during the period now treated of (viz. the usurpation), many eminent divines flourished, whose piety and learning, abilities and candour, would have adorned any denomination, and have done honour to any party, whatever. Mr. Stephen Charnock, for example, in whom all those illustrious qualities were united, and to a very uncommon degree, may rank with the best and most respectable men, to whom this island ever gave birth. Yet is it equally true that no small number of the then authorized teachers were immerged in the thickest dregs of ignorance, bigotry, and fanaticism. For, the plan (now adopted by Mr. John Wesley, and which has ever been in fashion among the Turks) was then too generally pursued in England: viz. that of prostituting the ministerial function to the lowest and most illiterate mechanics, persons of almost any class, but especially common soldiers, who pretended to be pregnant with "a message from the Lord," had free access to the pulpit. If the preacher was hardly "letter-learned" enough to read his text, that very circumstance was, in the opinion of many, but a stronger demonstration of his being supernaturally "gifted." It is easy to conceive what an inverted and distorted figure the Protestant doctrines must have made, when viewed through the medium of such ministrations. Corruptio optimi est passima. It was this unhappy circumstance which opened the chief door to those floods of licentious ridicule and burlesque, poured on the most venerable and important truths, in the subsequent days of Charles II.61 Among the lay preachers who most signalized themselves during the usurpation, was John Goodwin, the Arminian leveller and fifth monarchy man; with whom must be joined his co-adjutant in the work of the ministry (for they both occupied one pulpit), the renowned Mr. Thomas Venner, no less eminent for the insurrections which he raised, for the murders he committed, and for his horrible dying behaviour at the gallows, than for his skilfulness in hooping barrels (which was his proper trade), and for the ardour wherewith he propagated Arminianism.
Monarchy and the Church of England revived together, in 1663. By the Church of England, I here mean, the frame and the forms of the Church: or, in other words, her hierarchy, discipline, worship and revenues. Does the reader ask, why I express myself with such precision and limitation: I would rather answer this question in the words of another, than in words of my own. - "Upon the Restoration, the Church, though she still retained her old subscriptions and articles of faith, was found to have totally changed her speculative principles."62 That is, though the liturgy, articles, and homilies, were not weeded of their Calvinism, yet very many of the new clergy were tinged with Arminianism. To preserve appearances, the old doctrines were permitted to keep their place in the printed standards; but a great number of the new subscribers had, in reality ranged themselves under a different banner. - Thus, no sooner had the goodness of Divine Providence retrieved the Church from the hands of her declared enemies, than she suffered by the doctrinal desertion of her ostensible friends. Not that the desertion then, any more than now, was universal. But those who embraced that odd species of dissenting conformity, known by the name of Arminianism, appear to have constituted the majority:63 and have done so from that day to this.
IV. Let me now proceed to the ventilation of such objections, raised against the doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England, as I have either omitted to confute, or have but lightly touched upon, in my former publications.
1. We are gravely told, by one Arminian after another, that the principles of our established Church are, "not Calvinian, but Melancthonian." If this was true, what would the Arminians get by it? just nothing at all. For, as I have64 elsewhere proved, Melancthon carried the doctrine of predestination to as high a pitch as Luther and Calvin themselves. Nor did he ever retract a single syllable of what he wrote on that subject.
But Melancthon, how orthodox soever, does not appear (and I have studied these matters with as much attention, I believe, as any Arminian among us) to have had the least hand, or the least influence, directly or indirectly, on any part of the English Reformation. He was, for aught I have ever been able to find, no more concerned in fabricating the Church of England, than was Zoroaster or Confucius. Let the Arminians prove the contrary, and we will weigh their proofs in the exactest balance of candour and attention. - I go still farther; and add, so remote was Melancthon from being an English reformer, that I never yet heard of any church at all whose reformation he was the instrument of effecting. I know, indeed, that he is generally numbered among the foreign reformers; but he seems to have that honour assigned to him, more by the courtesy of some authors, than by virtue of historical fact. His framing the Augsburgh Confession does not prove him a reformer: for that pacific department was committed to his care, by princes whose churches were already reformed to his hand. Nor did his pious endeavours to assist Herman the archbishop of Cologne, in reforming that city, entitle him to the above name; for both the archbishop's efforts, and his own, proved entirely unsuccessful.
As I am on the subject of Melancthon, I will digress into some other particulars concerning him.
Mr. Hume is abundantly too severe to the memory of that learned man, in numbering him among those whom he impertinently traduces, as "wretched composers of metaphysical polemics."65 Melancthon, with all his supposed "wretchedness" of parts, had more solid knowledge in his little finger, than Mr. Hume has of infidelity, from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot. Add to which, that this censure, if admitted, would involve, not only the greatest Christian divines of all ages, but likewise more than half the philosophers of antiquity: who dealt as much in "metaphysics," and in "polemics," as any believing priest whatever. Besides: who has dabbled more in "polemical metaphysics," than Mr. Hume himself? and a metaphysical polemist, is a metaphsiycal polemist, let his metaphysics and his polemics be of what cast they will. Moreover, the sneer could not have fallen more wide of the mark: for no divine of Melancthon's eminence, then living, had a less metaphysical head, or dealt more sparingly in polemics than he. - Let the ingenious declaimer read before he declaims: and his conclusions will be less precipitant.
Amidst all my just veneration for the name and memory of Melancthon, I must observe, that he possessed one quality, which threw no little shade on the lustre of his virtues and of his talents. I mean that timid, temporizing spirit, which, either through weakness of nerves, or weakness of faith, appears to have been the evil that most easily beset him. Dr. Robertson remarks, that, in 1550, after the artful business of the Interim66 had been successfully carried by the power and intrigues of the emperor Charles (a step which he would not have found so easy, had the honest and courageous Luther been living); Melancthon, now deprived of the manly counsels of Luther, which were wont to inspire him with fortitude, and to preserve him steady amidst the storms and dangers that threatened the Church, was seduced into unwarrantable concessions, by the timidity of his temper, his fond desire of peace, and his excessive complaisance towards persons of high rank."67
On this, as well as many other occasions, throughout his life, Melancthon's complaisance was indeed excessive, to a fault. The name Dydimus, which he once assumed (when he published a tract under the rose), suited but too well with that duplicity of conduct, which put him so often upon trimming and shuffling in the things which pertain to God. At bottom, his principles were sound: and he hated,68 in reality, the painful ambidexterousness wherewith he thought it prudent to balance between the friends and the enemies of the Reformation.
"All Europe was convinced that Melancthon was not so averse as Luther to an accommodation with the Romanists: and that he would have sacrificed many things for the sake of peace."69 Of this, Melancthon gave proof upon proof: but never more enormously, than at the Augsburgh conference, in 1530, when he appeared to be in a humour to sacrifice, not only many things, but every thing, for the sake of a coalition with the Church of Rome. He agreed, "That men should not be said to be justified by faith alone, but by faith and grace [i.e. by faith and inherent grace or holiness]: That good works are necessary [viz. to justification]: That reprobates are included in the Church: That man has a free-will: That the blessed saints intercede for us and may be honoured: That the body and blood of Christ are contained in both elements: That those of the laity are not to be condemned who receive the eucharist only under one kind: That the usual veneration should be given to the holy sacrament; That mass should be publicly celebrated with the usual ceremonies: That the Popish bishops should hold their ancient jurisdiction: and that the parish priests should possess a power of excommunication, and be subject, in spiritual matters, to the said Roman bishops."70
This was "sacrificing" with a witness. But, it seems, the good man would have sacrificed still more, if Luther and the other Protestants, by whose commission he [Melancthon] treated with the Romish divines, had not taken fire at the extravagant concessions already made, and restrained him from going on. "Melancthon, who was very much inclined to peace" [i.e. to patch up a peace with the Church of Rome, by allowing her every point she wanted], "might have come nearer, if he had been invested with ample powers. But the rigid Protestants had been dissatisfied with his condescensions, and ordered him to advance no farther."71 - Thus acted the man, who declared himself to be, what he most certainly was in his heart, so convinced of the truth of Luther's doctrine," that he "would never forsake it!"72 Nor does it appear that he ever did inwardly forsake the doctrine of Luther. But can I commend him for his pusillanimous flexibility, which induced him to curry human favour at the expense of divine truth; and for straining his own conscience, in order to shake hands with Rome? I commend him not.
Take another instance of his ductility. "Melancthon was consulted upon the divorce which Henry VIII. was determined to have against Catherine of Spain: and he gave his opinion, that the law in Leviticus is dispensable, and that the marriage [viz. the king's marriage with his brother's widow] might be lawful; and that, in these matters, states and princes might make what laws they pleased."73 Throw this artful piece of court casuistry which way you will, 'twill pitch upon its legs, and stand plum upon all four. It told Henry, in effect, that he might either retain his conjugal sister, or put her away, just as appetite should serve. For what was past, his majesty had incurred no sin: because in these matters the law of God may be dispensed with by princes. And, as to the future, if the king did not choose to persist in exerting his right to dispense with God's law, he might at any time rid himself of a stale wife by giving her a bill of divorcement. Such was Melancthon's "excessive complaisance to persons of high rank!"
The advice he gave to Œcolampadius bore the same impress of artifice and duplicity. The Lutherans and the Zuinglians differed concerning the nature of the holy sacrament. The former supposed, that the real body and blood of Christ were consubstantiated with the elements, though the elements were not trans-substantiated into the real body and blood: but that both subsisted together, as fire subsists in and with a red-hot iron. The Zuinglians, on the other hand, believed that the consecrated symbols were no more than a merely commemorative representation. A conference was opened, upon this matter, between some divines of each parry. Œcolampadius wrote to Melancthon, requesting him to terminate the dispute, by declaring himself in favour of the Zuinglian opinion. Observe Melancthon's answer: "I cannot approve the opinion of the Sacramentarians; but, if you would act politicly, you should speak otherwise: for, you know, there are many learned men among them, whose friendship would be advantageous to me."74
Luther could never bring himself to hunt with the hound and run with the hare. He was formed of materials too heroic, not to abhor collusion, and all its narrow, skulking arts. Hence, he often rallied Melancthon, and sometimes chid him in terms of severity, for his religious cowardice. These friendly stimulations roused and quickened Melancthon, for a short while: but he soon relapsed into Melancthon again.
Let a man espouse what system be will, he must unavoidably displease some party or other. But the man who affects to adopt such a system as may render him obnoxious to no party whatever, very rarely acquires that measure of esteem from any, which he fondly expects to receive from all. Melancthon hoped, that his extreme moderation would have exempted him entirely from the feuds of enmity and opposition. But he was disappointed: and the disappointment had an unfavourable effect on his spirits. In angling, with so much anxiety, for universal applause, he incurred that suspicion, which is the usual reward of irresolute fluctuation. A great part of the Protestants disliked him, for not seeming Protestant enough: and most of the Papists hated him, for not being sufficiently Popish. The consequence was, that he led a very uneasy life between the two.
"Nature," says Monsieur Bayle, "which gave Melancthon a peaceable temper, made him a present ill suited with the time in which he was to live. He was like a lamb in the midst of wolves. His moderation served only to he his cross. No body liked his mildness."75 - "He was never out of danger: but might truly be said, through fear, to be all his life-time subject to bondage. Thus he declared in one of his works that he had held his professor's place [at Wittenburg] forty years, without being ever sure that he should not be turned out of it before the end of the week."76 Honesty is the best policy. Who would wish, by disguising his sentiments, to tread the artificial and painful path of the trimming Melancthon?
Notwithstanding his acknowledged defect of courage, he yet ventured to assert the strongest predestination. A learned77 Papist even goes so far as to charge Calvin himself with borrowing some of the arguments, by which he supports that doctrine, from Melancthon. This accusation, though false, shews the agreement which subsisted between those two divines upon that important article.
Our own bishop Davenant, who was a consummate judge of these matters, observes, that "Melancthon took offence at the manner of delivering the doctrine of predestination and reprobation, insisted on by some: but, for the substance of doctrine, he acknowledged his agreement with Calvin. That men must come to the knowledge of their election, from their faith and holy life, was Melancthon's opinion: but that their foreseen faith and holiness was the cause, or condition, or motive, upon which God founded his decree of election, was far from his mind."78 We are reminded, by a later writer than the good bishop, that Calvin condescended to dedicate his Treatise against Pighius to Melancthon: for which token of Calvin's friendship, Melancthon warmly expressed his gratitude. "Mr. Calvin confirmed his own [flock] at home, and strongly opposed his adversaries abroad: publishing his four books about Free-will, which he dedicated to Philip Melancthon; against Albert Pighius, the greatest sophister of the age, and who had singled out Calvin for his antagonist, being promised a cardinal's hat if he could carry the victory. But [Pighius] being frustrated of his labour, he got that which the enemies of truth only deserve, viz. that he stank amongst learned and good men, himself being deceived by the devil. How much Melancthon esteemed those books of Mr. Calvin, himself testifies in his epistles, which are in print."79
Melancthon, as well as Calvin, was a Sublapsarian.80 In those times, Arminianism was a term utterly unknown in the Christian church. Melancthon died, A. D. 1560, i.e. the same year, in which Arminius was born. The enemies of grace were then termed Pelagians and Semipelagians.
Melancthon had an elegant genius, cultivated by intense application. His piety was elevated, his learning profound, and his usefulness very considerable. Could he have got the better of that unhappy diffidence, which was perpetually betraying him into inconsistencies, and hampering him with perplexities, he might have been classed with the greatest of mankind. Among his other friends, Zanchius, with much tenderness and delicacy, warned him of the danger to which his capital deficiency exposed him. "Non dubitante pii," said that great man, in one of his letters to Melancthon, "de tua eximia eruditione, et singulari pietate; tantum hoc precamur omnes, donet et, virum alioqui fortem, majori etiam spiritus fortitudine Deus. Vide, quam familiariter ego, omnium minimus, tui tamen inter omnes observantissimus, tecum, loquor, exime et doctissime Philippe.81 i.e. All good men unite in acknowledging your uncommon learning and piety. But it is no less true that we likewise unite in beseeching God to endue you with a larger portion of courage and boldness. See how free the least considerable, but not the least respectful, of your friends, ventures to make with you."
Envy is, perhaps, not often honoured with residence in so valuable a mind as that of Melancthon. At the very time, however, when his intimacy with Luther was at its height, he seems to have viewed the ascendency, which that reformer had acquired among Protestants, with jealousy and pain. I wish the following incident could be reasonably ascribed to a less ungenerous principle. "Melancthon often exhorted Bucer not to yield so much to Luther."82 He seems to have reiterated this secret exhortation, not only by word of mouth, but also by letter: and Bucer, wearied and disgusted with Melancthon's teazings, seems to have at last communicated the matter to Luther himself. So at least I conjecture, from the aspect of what follows: "He [i.e. Melancthon] himself writes, that Luther was so enraged against him, about a letter received from Bucer, that he [Melancthon] thought of nothing but withdrawing himself for ever from Luther's presence. He lived under such continual constraint from Luther, &c. and was so oppressed with labour and vexation, that, being quite spent, he wrote to his friend Camerarius: I am in bondage, as if I were in the cave of the Cyclop (for I cannot disguise my sentiments to you), and I have often thoughts of making my escape."83 At one time he entertained the romantic design of retiring into the Holy Land, and of spending the remainder of his days in the identical caverns formerly occupied by St. Jerom.84 But, the storm abating, that whimsical scheme subsided with it.
Is it not very extraordinary, that a person of Melancthon's tender spirits and goodness of heart should justify and applaud the magistrates of Geneva, for punishing Servetus's religious mistakes with death? "They acted right," says Melancthon, "in bringing that blasphemer to the stake, after having first granted him the privilege of a fair trial."85 Alas, what is man!
No less inconsistent were Melancthon's nibblings at the doctrine of fate, in the sense wherein that doctrine was held by some Stoics. The astrological fate, or a destiny resulting from the positions and influence of the planets, is a very absurd and a very profane tenet. Melancthon would have done rightly in entering his caveat against it, had his caveat been sincere. But, even here, he acted with his usual dissimulation. In his heart, he leaned very strongly toward that exceptionable species of illegitimate fatality. "I will observe," says Bayle, "that he [Melancthon] was credulous, as to prodigies, astrology, and dreams."86 Mr. Rolt adds, "from Melancthon's Epistles it may be observed, that he was a believer in judicial astrology, a caster of nativities, and an interpreter of dreams. Strange weakness in so great a man!87 - So far, therefore, was he from really denying predestination and fate, that he held those doctrines even to excess: i.e. in the most irrational, gloomy, and superstitious point of view in which it is possible for the human mind to entertain them.
The reformers were, however, sensible of Melancthon's well meaning piety, though the strange mixture and variegation of his spiritual complexion made them often at a loss how to deal with him.
- Each finding, as a friend,
Something to blame, and something to
commend.
Luther had a very great regard for him, but perceived it needful, both to refrain him, and to spur him on, as occasion required. Calvin held him in considerable estimation, and treated him with the most benevolent tenderness. He was also honoured with the correspondence of archbishop Cranmer; who conceived a favourable idea of his learning and humility. But they who insinuate that he [Melancthon] was concerned with that prelate in reforming the Church of England, seem to have advanced a conjecture totally unwarranted by a single grain of proof. I can find no more than two occasions on which he was invited into England (but they were only invitations, for he never came): namely, in the reign of Hen. VIII.,88 whom he had pleased to the life, by his gentle casuistry, concerning that monarch's divorce: and again a little before the death of Edward VI., who intended to have given him a quiet retreat in England, from his troubles in Germany, by fixing him at Cambridge, after the death of Bucer.89 But when the first Invitation was given him, Henry had no design to reform (nor did he, to his dying day, reform) the doctrinal system of the Church. And when the second invitation was signified to Melancthon, the Church had been reformed already, by the care of king Edward, the duke of Somerset, Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer, Martyr, Calvin, and others. Certain it is, that Zanchius was actually invited hither, in due season, "to assist in carrying on the reformation:"90 and that the reformer, of our Church were disappointed of his help, by his preferring a settlement at Strasbourg; the divinity chair of that city being offered him while he was on his journey towards this kingdom.91
2. It is objected against the Calvinism of our established Church, that "in several parts of the liturgy, &c. she herself seems to speak the language of Arminius." - Impossible! for the Church (as we have already observed) having been reformed and established long enough before Arminius existed, she can never be supposed to have borrowed either her sentiments or her language from a man who was then unborn.
A number of passages have been amassed, by some desparing Arminians, in order to prove, from the liturgy and homilies themselves, that the Church of England is but a sort of shoot from the Arminian stock. The passages, however, are no more to the purpose than if they were alleged to prove that queen Elizabeth was Adam's wife and the mother of all mankind. Notwithstanding this, I have given each of them a distinct consideration in a pamphlet which has long lain by me; and which shall be committed to the press whenever the indulgence of the public shall call for its appearance. In the mean while I shall weigh two passages, which are urged with great triumph, and not without some colour of seeming plausibility, by Mr. John Wesley and Co.
The first of these two citations is selected from the liturgy where, in the communion service, the officiating minister, at the delivery of the holy elements, says, to every receiver, "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee:" and "the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee." - Does not this look something like absolutely universal redemption? Not, when soberly considered: unless it could be proved that every individual of the whole human race, from Adam to the last of mankind, have been, are, and will be, communicants in the Church of England. - "Oh but it proves that all who do so communicate are, in her judgment, redeemed by Christ." Granted. And why does she suppose them redeemed? Even because she invites none to the Lord's table but those who do "truly and earnestly repent them of their sins, and are in love and charity with their neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways."92 As, therefore, the Church takes for granted that all who present themselves at that solemn ordinance are partakers of these graces, she very consistently infers that they are likewise all redeemed by the blood of Christ; for who can question the redemption of penitents and saints? "Oh, but there is reason to believe that all communicants are not penitents and saints." Whether they are, or are not, must be left to the decision of God. It is enough, to the present point, that the Church describes the redeemed of the Lord under the characters of penitent and holy: and, thereby (in exact harmony with scripture), virtually excludes, from a visible interest in Christ's redemption, those who do not repent and obey. For each converted and sanctified receiver, the Church affirms that the "body of Christ was given," and, "the blood of Christ was shed." What is this but saying, by necessary consequence, that we have no right to extend the death of Christ to such persons as are not converted and sanctified? So that the very word: themselves, of the administration, are a proof, not of an unlimited, but of an exceedingly restrictive, redemption.
The second quotation is taken from one of the homilies. "In the homily of almsdoing," say Wesley and Sellon, "there is this apocryphal text, that alms make an atonement for sins." - I know not what adequate atonement these two Arminians can make to the church, for the slander and falsehood of that insinuation, which they mean to convey under the cover of this remark. Let us consult the homily itself: and its import will be found, not only quite innocent of Arminianism, but positively orthodox, and most highly calvinistic.
"Ye shall understand, dearly beloved, that neither those places of the Scripture, before alleged; neither the doctrine of the blessed martyr Cyprian; neither any other godly and learned man; when they, in extolling the dignity, profit, fruit, and effect of virtuous and liberal alms, do say that it washeth away sins, and bringeth us to the favour of God, do mean that our work and charitable deeds are the original cause of our acceptation before God, or that, for the dignity or worthiness thereof, our sins may be washed away, and we purged and cleansed of all the spots of our iniquity: for that were indeed to deface Christ, and to defraud him of his glory. But they mean this, and this is the understanding of those and such-like sayings: that God, of his mercy and special favour towards them whom he hath appointed to everlasting salvation, hath so offered his grace especially, and they have so received it fruitfully, that although, by reason of their sinful living, they seemed before to have been the children of wrath and perdition; yet, now, the spirit of God mightily working in them unto obedience to God's will and commandments, they declare, by their outward deed and life, in the shewing of mercy and charity (which cannot come, but of the Spirit of God and his especial grace), that they are the undoubted children of God, appointed to everlasting life. And so, as, by their wickedness and ungodly living" [viz. before they were converted], "they shewed themselves, according to the judgment of men which follow the outward appearance, to be reprobates and cast-aways; so now, by their obedience unto God's holy will, and by their mercifulness and tender pity (wherein they shew themselves to be like unto God, who is the fountain and spring of mercy), they declare, openly and manifestly to the sight of men, that they are the sons of God, and elect of him unto salvation. For as the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit; so the good deeds of man are not the cause that maketh man good: but he is first made good, by the spirit and grace of God, that effectually worketh in him; and afterward he bringeth forth good fruits. And then, as the good fruit doth argue the goodness of the tree; so doth the good and merciful deed of the man argue and certainly prove the goodness of him that doth it: according to Christ's saying, Ye shall know them by their fruits."93
If the Church had not thus explained her own meaning, Messrs. Wesley and Sellon might have had some seeming foundation for insinuating that the homily asserts the propitiatory merit of almsgiving. But as she so largely and so expressly defines the sense in which she admits the justifying power of that good work; the above pair of Arminian defamers are absolutely inexcusable for their gross and wilful violation of justice and truth, in laying to the charge of the Church things which she knoweth not.94
3. It is objected, that the Calvinistic doctrines are Puritanic; and were tenaciously held by many, who opposed the established hierarchy.
I answer: that the term Puritan, belonged, in its primary application, to those persons, and to those persons alone, who dissented from the government, the discipline, and the ceremonies, of the Church of England. This will never be controverted by any who are at all acquainted with the history of Elizabeth's reign, in whose time that word (Puritan) was first coined. Nor was it ever applied to churchmen themselves, till about two years before the death of king James the first: when a temporising Italian Papist [viz. Antony de Dominis, once archbishop of Spalato] craftily endevoured to transfer the name, from Protestant dissenters, to such members of the established Church as were enemies to regal tyranny, and to the new doctrines of Arminius.95 In the succeeding reign of Charles, Laud kept up the ball which De Dominis had raised: and by degrees, every conscientious son of the Church, who was Protestant enough to maintain her doctrines, and English-man enough to support the civil constitution of the kingdom, was at court treated as a Puritan.
Wilson developes the whole matter, with great fidelity, under the year 1622. "This animosity of the king's [viz. of king James I.] against the (real) Puritans, was thought to be fomented by the Papists, whose agent bishop Laud was suspected to be; though in religion he had a motley form by himself, and would never (as a priest plainly told me in Flanders) bring his neck under the obedience of the Roman yoke, though he might stickle for the grandeur of the clergy. And now he began to be Buckingham's confessor (as he expresseth in his own notes), and wore the court livery: though the king had a sufficient character of him, and was pleased with asseveration, to protest his [viz. Laud's] incentive spirit should be kept under, that the flame should not break out by any preferment from him. But that was now forgotten in some measure: and he crept so into favour, that he was thought to be the bellows that blew these fires. For the Papists used all the artifices they could, to make a breach between the king and his people; that they might enter at the same for their own ends. Which to accomplish, they slily closed with the chief ministers of state, to put the king upon all his projects and monopolies displeasing to the people, that they might the more alienate their affections from him; sowing their seeds of division also betwixt Puritan and Protestant; so that, (like the second commandment) they quite excluded the Protestant [under the false idea of Puritanism]: for all those were Puritans, with this high-grown Arminian Popish party, that held in judgment the doctrine of the reformed Churches, or in practice lived according to the doctrine publicly taught in the Church of England."96
To such a height did the court-madness arise, that all were supposed to be tinctured with Puritanism who did not flatter James even to blasphemy. "It was too apparent, that some of the clergy to make the way the smoother to their wished end, began so to adore the king, that he could not be named, but more reverence was done to it than to the name of God: and the judges, in their itinerant circuits, the more to enslave the people to obedience, being to speak of the king, would give him such sacred and oraculous titles, as if their advancement to higher places must necessarily be laid upon the foundation of the people's debasement."97
Hear what the wise and upright archbishop Usher told king Charles the first, to his face, from the pulpit, in 1627. "I see, that those, who will not yield to that new doctrine which hath disturbed the Low Countries" [i.e. who will not embrace Arminianism], "there is an odious name cast upon them, and they are counted Puritans. which is a thing tending to dissention. We know who are esteemed by Christ: and were it not a vile thing to term him a Puritan? - And king James maintained the same" [viz. the same Calvinistic doctrines which the Church of England has adopted]: "and shall those be counted so" [i.e. be counted Puritans] "who confess those points which he maintained? Do not think I speak any thing as being hired on any side. But I foresee, that the forecasting of that name upon those who maintain the doctrine published by the pen of our (late) sovereign, will prove a means for the disturbing of our peace. - I will not deny, but confess, that, in those five points which disturb the Low Countries, I am in the mind of my sovereign. I am not ashamed to confess it: nor never will be. - And I do here profess before God, that if I were an Arminian, and did hold those five points which have caused those troubles in the Low Countries, and is like to cause them here among us; the case standing as it doth, that the greatest number of the prophets blow their horns another way; I hold I were bound in conscience to hold my peace, and keep my knowledge to myself, rather than, by my unseasonable uttering of it, to disturb the peace of the Church. - This is the last time I shall be called to this place: therefore, I will leave this advice; which, if it be neglected, peradventure it will be too late easily to stop things."98 - Observe, here, 1. That, in this prelate's judgment, king James lived and died a doctrinal Calvinist - 2. That Calvinism was a thing as essentially different from Puritanism as light from darkness - 3. That if the belief of the Calvinian doctrines be puritanic, it would follow that Christ himself was a Puritan. - 4. The good archbishop was not ashamed to avow those doctrines in the presence of king Charles and of his Arminian court. - 5. As he is said to have foretold the massacre of the Irish Protestants, so, in the above discourse, he has plainly predicted the civil wars which, many years after, actually ensued. - 6. We have his grace's explicit testimony, that, even in the reign of Charles the first, "the greatest number" of the established clergy "blew their horns," i.e. preached and published, not in the Arminian strain, but quite "another way," though in direct opposition to the wind and tide of court encouragement. - 7. He was sensible that, for his honesty and faithful dealing, this was "the last time" he should ever be asked to preach before the king: he therefore resolved to make, and make he did, the most of that last opportunity, by giving his majesty some very wholesome, though not very palatable, "advice." Which advice had the king uniformly followed, he had, probably, saved the Church from ruin, the three kingdoms from destruction, and his own head from the axe. - 8. The archbishop's integrity is more to be admired, as the king's declaration, for imposing silence on preachers touching the points in dispute, had been published so lately as the year before the above sermon was delivered. The heroic prelate thought it right to obey God rather than man.
After all, what if the Puritans themselves, truly and properly so called, should be found to have been dissenters, not from the doctrines, but merely and solely from the rites and regimen, of the Church of England? That this was actually and literally the case, i.e. that the Puritans (in the reigns of Elizabeth and the first James) cordially approved the furniture, though they disrelished the fabric, of our excellent ecclesiastical house, appears from the most conclusive and incontrovertible evidence.
On this subject, archbishop Hutton thus expressed himself, in 1604. "The Puritans, whose fantastical zeal I mislike, though they differ in ceremonies and accidents, yet they agree with us in substance of religion."99
"People of the same country," says Mr. Nicolas Tindal, "of the same religion, and of the same judgment and doctrine, parted communion on account of a few habits and ceremonies."100 According to this historian, the very Brownists themselves, though they bear the character of having been the most rigid and intractable of all the then Separatists, were one with the Church, in matters of doctrine. "The Brownists did not differ from the Church in any doctrinal points."101 With the superficial Mr. Tindal agrees the profound and laborious Mr. Chambers: "The occasion of their [i.e. of the Brownists'] separation was, not any fault they found with the faith, but only with the discipline and form of government, of the other Churches in England."102 (p)
Even Peter Heylyn found himself constrained to draw a line between Calvinists and Puritans. And thus he draws it. "I must needs say the name of doctrinal Puritanism is not very ancient. - Nor am I of opinion, that Puritan and Calvinian are terms convertible. For though all Puritans are Calvinians, both in doctrine and practice; yet, all Calvinians are not to be counted as Puritans also: whose practices [i.e. the practices of the Puritans] many of them [i.e. many of the Calvinists] abhor, and whose inconformities they detest."103
A writer, whose portmanteau Heylyn was not worthy to carry, shall clinch the present nail of the evidence. I mean the very respectable bishop Saunderson: who affirms, that to charge Calvinists with Puritanism, is a "most unjust and uncharitable course;" whereby his lordship thought the Arminians had "prevailed more, than by all the rest [of their artifices], in seeking to draw the persons of those that dissent from them into dislike with the State, as if they were Puritans, or disciplinarians, or, at least, that way affected. Whereas, "adds this judicious prelate, "1. The questions in debate are such as no way touch upon Puritanism, either off or on. - 2. Many of the [Calvinists] have as freely and clearly declared their judgments, by preaching and writing against all puritanism and puritanical principles, as the stoutest Arminian in England hath done. - Could that blessed archbishop Whitgift, or the modest and learned Hooker, have ever thought, so much as by dream, that men, concurring with them in opinion, should for some of these very opinions, be called Puritans?"104 - I hope we shall hear no more of the puritanic tendency of Calvinism.
4. Another false and shameless objection against these doctrines is, that they are "unfavourable to loyalty." But no insinuation can be more abominably unjust. We assert, with Scripture, that the powers which be are ordained of God: consequently, we cannot be disloyal without flying in the face of that very predestination and Providence for which we so zealously contend. A spur, this, to civil obedience, which Arminianism must for ever want.
From innumerable proofs, I select one very pertinent and remarkable instance. Let us contrast the loyalty of the Calvinistic archbishop Usher with that of the Arminian ranter and fifth monarchy man, John Goodwin.
"The execution of king Charles I. struck archbishop Usher with great horror. The countess of Peterborough's house, where the primate [Usher] then lived, being just over against Charing-Cross, several of her gentlemen and servants went up to the leads of the house, from whence they could plainly see what was acting before Whitehall. As soon as his majesty came upon the scaffold, some of the household told the primate of it: and asked him, whether he would see the king once more before he was put to death? He was, at first, unwilling; but, at last, went up: where, as the ceremonial advanced, the primate grew more and more affected; and when the executioners in vizards began to put up the king's hair, the archbishop grew pale, and would have fainted, if he had not been immediately carried off."105
Very different was that tragical incident relished by Goodwin the free-will man. I have proved, in a foregoing part of this work,106 that he considered all "kingship as the great antichrist:" and, in perfect consistency with this mad and detestable principle, he "not only justified putting the king to death, but magnified it as the gloriousest action men were capable of." What half killed the most reverend Calvinist of Armagh, made the heart of that irreverend free-will man of Coleman-street to leap for joy. Loyal Usher began to swoon at the sight of majesty on a scaffold: but the Arminian rebel John Goodwin vindicated, and in folio too, the stroke of that nefarious axe which deprived majesty of life.
A single question and answer shall, for the present, wind up the topic of loyalty. Whom did Providence honour with being the auspicious instrument of entailing the British crown on the house of the amiable and illustrious monarch who now adorns the throne? His Calvinistic majesty king William III.
5. "Oh, but Calvin himself pronounces the decree of reprobation an horrible decree." - I know not which exceeds: Mr. Sellon's ignorance, or Mr. Wesley's disingenuity. Calvin no where stiles "reprobation," an "horrible decree." These two Arminians, therefore, are, in plain English, a pair of horrible liars.
It is in treating of God's determination to permit the fall of Adam, that Calvin says, Decretum quidem horribile fateor; inficiari tamen nemo poterit, quin praesciverit Deus, quem exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet.107 i.e. "I acknowledge this decree to be an awful one: it is however, undeniable, that, before the creation of man, God knew what the event of it would be."
I would willingly imagine, that Mr. Wesley is not so wretched a Latinist as to believe that he and his subaltern acted fairly, in rendering the word horribilis, as it stands in the above connection, by the English adjective horrible. Though there is a sameness of sound, there is no necessary sameness of signification, in the two epithets. We have annexed a secondary idea to the English words "horror" and "horrible;" which the Latin "horror" and "horribilis" do not always import. I shall give two or three instances: taking care, for the sake of poor Mr. Sellon, to add English explanations of the Latin passages I bring.
When Cicero says, Horribile est, causam capitis dicere; horribilius, priore loco dicere:108 is not this the meaning? "It is an awful undertaking, to plead a cause in which life and death are concerned; more awful still, to be the first opener of such a cause." - When Virgil109 mentions the horribilius iras of Juno; what are we to understand, but the tremendous resentment of the goddess? - The same poet's110 horrentigue atrum nemus imminet umbra, must be rendered by, "the impending grove is dark with solemn shade." Similar (as Servius observed) is that of Lucan: Arboribus suus horror inest:111 i.e. "There is something venerable in a grove of trees." - Nor did the noble and profoundly learned Daniel Heinsius use an improper term, when, (speaking of Julius Scaliger) he said, Cujus nomen sine horrore et religione commemorare non possum:112