網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

BETH.

Oct. 1595.

tertained Dr. Harsnet in his family, who had decried the doc- ELIZAtrine of irrespective reprobation in a sermon at St. Paul's-cross.

Some time before these articles were passed at Lambeth, Heylin, Whitgift wrote to Hutton, archbishop of York, for his opinion Presbyt. upon the controversy; acquainting him withal with the clash-book 1 ings and animosities at Cambridge. Hutton returned an answer dated October the 1st. “This prelate, in his letter, laments Archbishop the misunderstandings in the university of Cambridge, and letter to seems to throw the blame on those of the anti-Calvinian side. Whitgift. He takes notice of his having a copy of the Lambeth articles ; and that at first he thought to have offered something upon each of them." But whether these strictures were to reinforce, or qualify, or object, he does not tell us. But

upon

farther consideration he laid this method aside, and chose rather to deliver his opinion briefly upon the points of election and reprobation, which seemed to have given rise to the dispute. This way he thought the most advisable ; for, by treating the particular articles, he was afraid some people, for whom he had a great regard, might be exasperated. And lastly, he puts the archbishop in mind, that they two while they lived in Cambridge were exactly of the same sentiment in religious matters.” But what his opinion was upon the heads of reprobation and election, was drawn up, I suppose, in a distinct paper, for it is not inserted in the letter. Upon the whole, it is not clear, Fuller's from this letter, that archbishop Hutton was wholly for the book 9. Lambeth articles. But let this be as it will, it is certain the queen was extremely disobliged at so public a resolution; insomuch that, had it not been for the interest of some of Whitgift's friends, and the particular regard her majesty had for this prelate, she had ordered all these Lambeth divines to be prosecuted to a præmunire. But now being softened to a gentler resolve, she condescended to hear the archbishop in his defence. He excused himself by alleging, that “neither himself or the other divines had made any canons, articles, or decrees, for a standing rule or direction to the Church; but that their design was only to settle some propositions to be sent to Cambridge The Lam, for quieting some unhappy differences in that university.” suppressed The queen, though somewhat satisfied with this apology, Bishop at the commanded the archbishop to recal and suppress those articles queen's with all expedition. This order was so carefully executed, that Heylin's copy of them was not to be met with for a long time after.

a

Hist. Presb. book 10.

WHIT

The Homilies declare

Farther. That these Lambeth articles were not the general Abp.Cant. doctrine of the English Reformation, appears both from the

homilies and the writings of several eminent divines in the Church's communion.

First. The homily of the nativity of our blessed Saviour, against some

speaking of the redemption purchased by him, declares that of them.

“this deliverance or redemption was not partial, intended only for a few, but general and universal for all mankind." And afterwards, in the same discourse, it is said, that “the promise and covenant of God made unto Abraham and his posterity, was to deliver mankind from the bitter curse of the law; and that the promised Messiah was to make perfect satisfaction by his death for the sins of all people.” And thus this passage pronounces clearly against the Lambeth articles upon the point of universal redemption.

The homily of the resurrection seems plainly to combat another article. It is with respect to the falling finally from a state of grace and safety. For speaking how dangerous a thing it would be to relapse into immorality after the pardon of our sins, these expressions are used :-“What a folly would it be for us to lose the inheritance we are now set in, for the vile and transitory pleasures of sin; and what an unkindness would it be to drive our Saviour Christ from us, to banish him violently out of our souls; and instead of him, in whom is all grace and virtue, to receive the ungracious spirit of the devil, the founder of all naughtiness and mischief !” And can the falling away from grace, and the forfeiture of happiness, be insinuated in plainer language? And as to the co-operation of the will, with the assistance of heaven, it may be well supposed as a matter beyond all question from the publishing the homilies. For to what purpose are all those arguments to virtue, and dissuasives from vice, made use of by the compilers, if men are perfectly disabled in their natural faculties, and can do nothing for themselves?

The famous bishop Jewel affirms, that, by the words “ It is

finished,” pronounced by our Saviour upon the cross, it was Apolog.

plainly signified, “ Persolutum jam esse pretium pro peccato Bishop Jewel, and humani generis ; that the ransom for the sin of mankind was of St. Paul's, now fully discharged. And does not this imply his belief of write to the universal redemption? And as this prelate was a leading

Jewel's
Defens.

member in the upper house of convocation, so Noel was prolo

cap. 18.

יי

same purpose,

BETH.

cutor for the lower house, when the Nine-and-thirty Articles ELIZAwere debated and settled. Now, this divine, in his Latin Catechism, assigning the reasons why God is said to be our Father, mentions this as one of the most significant : Quod nos divine per Spiritum Sanctum regeneravit, et per fidem in verum suum et naturalem Filium Jesum Christum nos elegit, sibique filios et regni cælestis hæredes per eundem instituit.” (That is, because he has regenerated us by the Holy Ghost, and elected us by faith in his Son Jesus Christ, &c.) From hence it is inferred, that if election is the effect of our faith in Christ, and is consequent upon this quality, then the “supra et sublapsarian" schemes are out of doors, and cannot be said to be any part of Noel's persuasion.

Dr. Baroe, Margaret professor in Cambridge, about the year Dr. Baroe, 1574, declares strongly against the Zuinglian or Calvinian doc- Margaret trine of predestination. In his lecture upon these words of determines Jonah, “ Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown," solute reprohe asserts, that the denouncing this judgment is not to be bution. looked on as if the prophet had proclaimed an absolute decree from heaven; but this decisive language was used only to awaken the Ninevites to repentance. For notwithstanding the sentence has a positive and decretory sound, it is certain there 646. was a condition implied, and therefore the threatening must be construed to this meaning: that the Ninevites should certainly be overthrown, unless they repented. That the text is thus to be understood, is evident from the event. From hence Baroe Præhe proceeds to discourse the point of election to eternal life. lect. 29. And from this history of Jonah, and a resembling case in Genesis, he makes no scruple to affirm, that “it is the will of God we should have eternal life, if we believe and persevere in the faith of Christ; but if we do not believe, or fall short in our perseverance, then it is not the will of God we should be saved." He illustrates this point farther by the message delivered to Hezekiah by the prophet Esaiah. And here, notwithstanding 2 Kings xx. the issue seems not to correspond with the sentence pronounced, he salves the inconsistency with the implication of a lect. 30.

“ and thus (says he) the immutability of the Divine attributes is obvious and intelligible.” But of this Baroe more afterwards.

Harsnet's sermon at St. Paul's-cross, preached in the year 1584, is more full and remarkable for this purpose. His text

Gen. xx. 3.

1. Baroe Præ

tacit reserve ;

11.

sermon at
St. Paul's-
cross, bound

up at the

WHIT- was these words :-“As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no

GIFT, Abp. Cant. pleasure in the death of the wicked.” From hence he takes Ezek.xxxii. occasion to break out into some warmth against the Calvinian

doctrine of reprobation. “There is a conceit in the world (says A remarkable sermon he), which speaks little better of our gracious God than this: against the that God should design many thousands of souls to hell before rians preach- they were; not in eye to their faults, but to his own absolute Paul's-cross will and power, and to get him glory in their damnation. This llarsnet. opinion is grown high and monstrous, and like a Goliah, and

men do shake and tremble at it, yet never a man reaches to David's sling to cast it down. In the name of the Lord of

Hosts, we will encounter it; for it has reviled not the host of Harsnet's the living God, but the Lord of Hosts himself.

“ First. That it is directly in opposition to this text of holy

Scripture, and so turns the truth of God into a lie. For end of Dr. whereas God in this text doth say and swear, that he doth not Three Ser- delight in the death of man, this opinion saith, that not one, or year 1658.two, but millions of men should fry in hell ; and that he made them for no other

purpose

than to be the children of death and hell, and that for no other cause but his mere pleasure sake; and so say, that God doth not only say, but will swear to a lie. For the oath should have run thus : “As I live, saith the Lord, I do delight in the death of man.'

“ Secondly. It doth (not by consequence, but) directly make God the author of sin. For if God, without eye to sin, did design men to hell, then did he say and set down that he should sin; for without sin he cannot come to hell. And, indeed, doth not this opinion say, that the Almighty God, in the eye

of his counsel, did not only see, but say, that Adam should fall, and so order, and decree, and set down his fall, that it was no more possible for him not to fall, than it was possible for him not to eat? And of that, when God doth order, set down, and decree (I trust), he is the author, unless they will say, then when the right honourable lord keeper doth say in open court, 'we order,' he means not to be the author of that his order."

Which said, he tells us :

“ Thirdly. That it takes away from Adam (in his state of innocency) all freedom of will and liberty not to sin ; for had he had freedom to have altered God's designment, Adam's liberty had been above the designment of God. And

יל

BETH.

here I remember a little witty solution is made: that is, if ELIZAwe respect Adam's will, he had power not to sin ; but if God's decrees, he could not but sin. This is a silly solution ; and indeed it is as much as if you should take a sound strong man, that hath power to walk and to lie still, and bind him hand and foot (as they do in Bedlam), and lay him down, and then bid him rise up and walk, or else you will stir him up with a whip, and he tell you that there be chains, so that he is not able to stir. And you tell him again, that that is no excuse ; for if he look upon his health, his strength, his legs, he hath power to walk, or stand still ; but if upon his chains, indeed, in that respect, he is not able to walk. I trust he that should whip that man for not walking, were well worthy to be whipped himself.

“Fourthly. As God doth abhor a heart and a heart, and his soul detesteth also a double-minded man, so himself cannot have a mind and a mind,-a face, like Janus, to look two ways. Yet this opinion maketh in God two wills, the one flat opposite to the other. A hidden will, by which he appointed and willed Adam should sin; and an open will, by which he forbade him to sin. His open will said to Adam, in Paradise, ‘Adam, thou shalt not eat of the tree of good and evil ;' his hidden will said, “Thou shalt eat,-nay, now I myself cannot keep thee from eating, for my decree from eternity is passed; thou shalt eat, that thou mayst drown all thy posterity in sin, and that I may drench them, as I have designed, in the bottomless pit of hell.'

“ Fifthly. Among all the abominations of queen Jezebel, that was the greatest (1 Kings xxi.), when, as hunting after the life of innocent Naboth, she set him up amongst the princes of the land, that so he might have the greater fall. God planted man in paradise (as in a pleasant vineyard), and mounted him to the world as on a stage, and honoured him with the sovereignty over all the creatures; he put all things in subjection under his feet, so that he could not pass a decree from all eternity against him, to throw him down headlong into hell. For God is not a Jezebel, tollere in altum,' to lift up a man, “ut casu graviore ruat,' that he may make the greater noise with his fall."

[ocr errors]

1 The Universalism of Origen, and the Manicheism of Augustin, are theological antipodes the former of which is the theory of light and happiness, the latter of darkness and misery.

« 上一頁繼續 »