« EdellinenJatka »
He was a great patron offall learned men, whom he found well affected to the constilution of our excellent church; and shewed a singular esteem for Dr. Whitgift, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he made his chaplain, and gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire, and a Prebend of Ely. He did his utinost to get the reformation of the ecclesiastical laws, established by Parliament; but through the unreasonable opposition of some of the chief courtiers, this design miscarried.
As he had in his exile at Franckfort been the chief champion against the innovations of the Puritans, so he now continued with the same vigour to oppose their attempts against the discipline and ceremonies of the church. He reviewed and corrected the learned writings of Dr. Whitgift in answer to Cartwright, the principal incendiary; and when Gualter, a learned Calvinist, had declared against pressing the ceremonies on their weak con. sciences, he in an excellent letter expostulated with him for being so free in bis censures, when he had heard but one side, gave hiin an impartial account of the case, and so fully convinced him, that Gualter wrote to beg pardon for his rashness, and promised to give the church public satisfaction. This he accordingly performed in the dedication prefixed to his homilies on St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, addressed to Bishop Cox, and those other bishops whom he had conversed with when exiles in Germany; in which he condemned all separation on account of things indifferent, justified the governors of the church in imposing such ceremonies as contributed to the decency and order of public worship, and compared the schismatical spirit of the Puritans to that of the Donatists.
Bishop Cox having convinced this learned foreigner, and gained him over to be an advocate for our church, hoped that his authority would have a good effect on the Puritans, and incline them to conformity. But in this he found himself mistaken; for they continued with the same obstinacy to oppose the ceremonies, to revile and defame the bishops in scurrilous libels, and to poison the minds of the people with their pernicious principles, Whereupon he wrote to Archbishop Parker, to go on vigorously in reclaiming or punishing them, and not to be disheartened at the frowns of those court-favourites who protected them; assuring him, that he might expect the blessing of God on his pious labours, to free the church from their dangerous attempts, and to restore its unity and
establish uniformity. And when the privy-council interposed in favour of the Puritans, and endeavoured to screen them from punishment, he wrote a bold letter to the lord treasurer Burleigh, in which he expostulated · with the council for ineddling in the affairs of the church,
which ought to be left to the determination of the bishops; ,admonished them to keep themselves within their own
sphere, and acquainted them with his design of appealing · to the queen if they continued to interpose, in matters not belonging to them.
This zeal of the good bishop, in defence of the church, . was in all probability the occasion why some of the courtiers endeavoured to rob him of his best inanors, and on his refusal to alienate them, did their utmost to incense the queen against him and get him deprived. They examined his whole conduct from his first accession to that see, and drew up a large body of articles against him, but the bishop in his reply so fuily vindicated himself from all aspersions, and so clearly confuted their malicious calumnies, that the queen was forced to confess him innocent. Nothwithstanding which, perceiving the malice of his enemies to be implacable, and that there was no possibility of reclaiming them from their sacrilegious designs, he wrote of his own accord to the queen, begging leave to resign. His great age and infirm state of; health made him the more earnest in his petition, and his resignation had been certainly accepted, if they could have found any other divine of note who would have . taken the see on their terms. The first offer of it was made to Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, and on his refusal it was proffered to several others, but the conditions were so ignominious and base, that they all rejected it, by which means Bishop Cox enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the twenty-second of July, 1581, in the eighty-second year of his age. The see continued va. cant near twenty-years after his death; during which time there is no doubt but those sacrilegious designs which he so resolutely opposed were executed with a high hand.
He was a man of deep and solid judgment, and a clear *** apprehension, and attained to great perfection in all polite and useful learning. As he wanted no advantages of education, be improved them with such diligence and industry that he soon became an excellent proficient in divine and human literature. The Holy Scriptures were his chief study; and he was so well versed in the original language of the New Testament, that when a new transla
l'ol. IX. Churchm. Mag. Aug, 1805.
tion of the Bible was made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, now commonly known by the name of the Bishop's Bible, the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the Romans, were allotted to him. His soul always burned with an holy zeal for the true interest of our church ; and he was a vigorous defender of it against all the open assaults of its Popish adversaries, and the no less dangerous designs of the Puritan faction. His opposition - to the sacrilegious proceedings of the court ought never to be forgotten: his earnestness in defending the church against which, put new life into his old age, and made him willing to endure all the fatigue and trouble consequent thereto, at a time when his body was sinking under the decays of nature.
. Remarks upon Mr. Locke's PARAPHRASE and Notes on
the EPISTLES of Sr. Paul: Third Edition.
BY THE REV. THOMAS LUDLAM. M R. LOCKE does not seem to have considered the IV Mosaic economy with his usual accuracy. A want of attention to the peculiar nature of this singular dispensation (so necessary for understanding that of the Gospel) and a want of precision, both in his ideas and expressions, rery unusual with this able writer, appear in many parts of his explanations of these Epistles. After having said thus much, it is a debt due to Mr. Locke, and incumbent on the writer, to make good these assertions. . .
1. Then, Mr. Locke seems to have no clear idea of the sanctions of the Mosaic law. He represents death, as the unavoidable consequence, and the irremissible punishment of EVERY offence.-Thus, · Gal. ij. 17. Note a, “ Those who are under the law, having once transgressed, remain always sioners, UNALTERABLY so in the eye of the law, which excludes ALL (offenders) from justification."
Gal. iij. 19. Note t, “ The law, denouncing death to all ginners, could save none,” i. e. from death.
2 Cor. iii. 6. Note e, "The letter kills, i. e. pronouncing death, without any way of remission, on all transgressors, leaves them (the transgressors) under an irrevocable sentence of death."
2 Cor. iii. 9. Note g, “ The law has nothing but rigid "condemnation for all transgressors."
Rom. V, 20. Note a, “ By Adam's trangression, death passed upon all men.” j. e. says Mr. L. v. 12, Note l, * All men became mortal.”
Rom. v. 20. Note b, “ Every offence against the law bound death upon every offender.”
Rom. v. 20. Paraph. “Before the law, all mankind died for one offence, i. e. for the offence of one man, which was the only sin that had death annexed to it* ; - but, when the law entered, and took place over a small part of mankind, (i. e. the Jewish nation) death was declared to be the punishment of all offences."
Rom. v. 20. Note c, “ There was but one such sin (i. e. such as had death annexed to it) before the law given by Moses, viz. Adam's eating the forbidden fruitt. But the positive law of God, given to the Israelites, made all their sins such, (i. e. mortal) by annexing the penalty of death to each transgression."
Note e, " The rest of mankind were in a state of death, (i. e. of mortality, Rom. v. 12, Note l,) only for one sin of one man. But, those who were under the (Mosaic) law, which made each transgression they were guilty of mortal, were under the condemnation of death, not only for that one sin of another, but also for every one of their own sins." . Rom. vi. Sect. vi. No. 3. “ The law condemned them to death for every transgression.”
Rom vi. 15. Note t, “ The law requires perfect and complete obedience. Do this, and live." What! for ever? No such thing; but long in the (promised) land.
Roin. vii. 6. Note x, “ The law pronounces death for every the least trangression.”
Rom. vii. 8. Note c, “ The law made every transgression a mortal crime.” · Rom. vii. 10. Note f, “ The law was just, and such as it ought to be, in having the penalty of death annexed to every transgression of it. The least transgression of the law brought death." · Rom. vii. 12. Note i, “The law annexed death to every transgression.” · Rom. vii. 13. Note k, “ The penalty of death was an, nexed to every transgression.”
* Yet it should seem that Cain, somehow or other, expected death as the punishment of what he had done, Gen. iv. 14.
† But what are we to conclude from the prohibition given to Noah, Gen. ix. 4, 5, 6, as well as from Cain's suspicion before noticed, and his eyasive answer to God's inquiry after Abel. Gen. iv. 9.:
Rom. viii. Contents, “ The law made every the least slip death."
Rom. xi. 6. Note &, “The law required perfect, complete obedience.”
II. Mr. Locke uses the words “Mosaic law,” for an idea very different from that of law, i. e. for the Mosaic dispensation. Thus,
Rom. iv. 15. Note t, “The law gives ne power to perform.”
Rom. vii. 8. Note c, “ The law does not enable those under it wholly to extirpate sin, and subdue concupiscence.” No more does the gospel. .
Rom. vii. 9. Note d, “ The law was not able to deliver those under it from the power sin had to destroy them.”
Rom. vii. 10. Note f, - The law was not able to remove the frailty of human nature, and to subdue the carnal appetites.” No more is the gospel.
Rom. vii. 13. Note k, “ The law was given to shew the power of sin, which could prevail on those under it to transgress its commands, notwithstanding its severity in annexing death to every transgression."
Rom. vii. 24. Note t, “ The law gives no ability to attain that complete and punctual obedience, which it requires from all ạnder it."
Rom. viii. 1. Cont. “ The law could not enable those under it wholly to avoid sin.” No more does the gospel enable those under it wholly to avoid sin. ..
Rom. viii. 3. Note i, “ The law was inflexibly rigorous; it provided no allay or mitigation against this rigour; it left no place for atonement." But, what are we to think of the numerous expiations appointed by the Mosaic. law? And how.can it be said that it provided no allay or initigation against this rigour? And how can it be said, that the least slip was mortal, &c.? To be sure, the Mosaic dispensation did not provide an atonement for every sin, or for all but one. .Matt. xii. 31. Whereas, under the gospel, the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.. But, who are to be cleansed from all sin. Not every offender; but those only who repent and believe. - Mr. Locke further says, “ The law could not enable those who were under it, to get a mastery over the flesh, or the fleshly propensities, so as to perform the, obedience it required. It afforded men no help against : their frailty, or vicious inclinations."
The benefits of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations