« EdellinenJatka »
reign ? And how comes it to pass that our opponent's insist upon it, that our articles not only are not Calvinistic, but are opposed to the tenets of Calvinism i-If those prelates and theologians, who performed these public and important duties, in so satisfactory and honourable a manner, were not intended in this statement, why were they not expressly exempted from the censure?-It does not even appear that the persons, who were principally preferred, were disaffected to the
government forms of worship, here by law es* tablished: '--but that is beyond the line of this publication.
Bishop Burnet, who was no Calvinist, published the history of the Reformation ; and his performance was so well approved that he received the thanks of parliament for it, a most singular honour for an author! Yet in the Refutation Heylin is almost exclusively quoted, and Burnet is never mentioned, whose history has a stamp of impartiality to which Heylin's can make no pretensions.
« These discussions were carried on with some eagerness and warmth, in the middle and at the end of Elizabeth's reign; but the ability and spirit, with which she conducted her govern'ment, prevented any serious inconvenience or mischief.'1
The name of William Barret occurs in connexion with the Lambeth Articles ; and I shall here introduce a quotation concerning him, which seems to bear strongly on this part of the argument. William Barret, fellow of Gonvill and
· Caius's College, publicly made a recantation in · St. Mary's Church, (Cambridge,) A.D. 1595. He
revoked what he had preached there, ad clerum, according to the sense which was afterwards • called Arminianism, about predestination, faith,
perseverance, &c. He hath this particular passage ' in his public retractations, which is very remarka• ble, and from which we learn what was the sense • of the church of England. I do believe, says he, • concerning the doctrine of election and repro
bation, as the church of England believeth and
teacheth, in the book of the articles of faith, in ' the article of predestination.'—And he concludes <thus, I uttered these words-rashly against
Calvin, a man that hath very well deserved of the church of God; to wit, that he durst presume to
lift up himself against the high and almighty · God. By which words, I confess that I have * done great injury to that most learned, and right
godly man: and I do beseech you to pardon this my rashness; as also that I uttered many bitter words against Peter Martyr, Theodore Beza, Jerome Zanchius, Francis Junius, and the rest of the same religion, being the lights and ornaments of our church; calling them by the odious names of Calvinists, and other slanderous terms, branding them with a grievous mark of reproach.
Whom, because our church doth worthily reverence, it was not meet that I should take away • their good name from them, or any ways impair 6 their credit, or deter others of our country from
reading their most learned works. I am there· fore very sorry and grieved for this most grievous offence, which I have given in this most famous
university, which is the temple of true religion, • and sacred receptacle of piety. And I do pro'mise, by God's help, I will never hereafter offend
in like sort. And I do earnestly beseech you, right worshipful, and all others, to whom I have given this offence, either in the former articles, 'or in any part of my
sermon, that you would of your courtesy pardon me, upon this my repentance.'
* Extract from a letter of the heads of the colleges to their Chancellor, touching Mr. Barret and his sermon.' This sermon, being so offensive 'to the church, so injurious to the worthy learned ‘men of our time, so strongly savouring of the * leaven of popery, and contrary to the doctrine, ‘nature, quality, and condition of faith, set forth ‘in the articles of religion, and homilies appointed 'to be read in the churches, and that hath been ‘taught, ever since her Majesty's reign, in sermons, " and defended in the public schools and open 'commencements, without contradiction, in the • Universities; we thought it meet to repress these
novelties of doctrine by such means as our sta'tutes do appoint, and hath been used in like case, ' when your Lordship was in the University, and ever since, for the maintainance of truth and
pre“servation of unity, both in the church and in the university; which could not but be much broken by such impudent challenging of Calvin, Beza, * Peter Martyr, Zanchius, and others, of error in • the doctrine of faith in most bitter terms, whom we never knew in our church heretofore to be touched in that matter.' "The articles, which were drawn up by the vice
• chancellor and heads of houses,-conclude thus : - This doctrine, being not about inferior points of ' matters indifferent, but of the substantial ground, (and chief comfort and anchor-hold of our salva* tion, hath been, to our knowledge, continually
and generally received, taught, and defended, in ' this university, in lectures, disputations, and ser
mons, and in other places in sermons, from the · beginning of her Majesty's reign, and so still 'holden; and we take it agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of England.'—Extract from the
petition of the heads of houses, and main body of 'the university, to Archbishop Whitgift, on this 'occasion.—'We are persuaded, that in these ' questions of controversies, not only the undoubted 'truth of God's word, but the doctrine of our
church, by continuance of practice and custom confirmed, and by authority established, is now by ' this opposition of some oppugned.'—Extract from
Archbishop Whitgift's letter, to the heads of · houses.- To traduce Calvin in the pulpit, I can by no means like : neither do I allow the same towards Augustine, Jerome, and other learned
fathers, who were patrons of those opinions, 'which now go under the name of Calvin.'1
As it may perhaps surprise the reader to find the name of Jerome in this connexion, I subjoin a few short extracts from him, as a specimen of quotation, on the other side from those in the Refutation.—' In good works God is the accom
plisher: (perfector:) “ It is not of him that “ willeth, neither of him that runneth; but of “ God who sheweth mercy, and assisteth”—misi Dr. Jolin Edwards, Evangelical Truths Restored, p. 533—535.
erentis et adjuvantis Dei.—' We are saved, not
by the power of free will, (liberi arbitrii,) but by 'the clemency of God.' * We always pray in
vain, if it be in our free will to do what we de'sire'-si in nostro arbitrio sit, facere quod vol
umus. This language decidedly shews, that the • liberum arbitrium of Jerome was something en
tirely distinct from free agency. A free agent, sub servo arbitrio, voluntarily did what he chose to do : but, his will being enslaved by sinful passions, he had no disposition, and consequently 'no ability,' to choose what was good in the sight of God. Nay, when so far freed, as to say, Volo, “ to will is present with me;" he feels himself so entangled by remains of the old bondage, that “ how to perform that which is good he finds “ not;” except as he is enabled by the God of all grace, in answer to his constant earnest prayers.
[ In the feeble reign of his successor, the opinions of Calvin made considerable progress, - and produced their natural effects of weakening ' the grounds of subordination, and of lessening ' attachment to regal authority; and the unwise and injudicious conduct of Charles the First
gave 'full scope for the operation of those principles,
which terminated in the tragical death of that un· fortunate monarch, and the entire subversion, for ' a time, of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution.''
In what respects do the opinions of Calvin as to the doctrines of Christianity 'naturally weaken *the grounds of subordination, and lessen attach'ment to regal authority?' Calvin's opinions as
· Ref. 583.