ePub 版

WHIT- He goes on to a considerable length upon the same argu

Abp. Cant. ment; but what has been cited is enough to show his opinion.

However, notwithstanding what has been produced on this side of the question, it is certain the Calvinian system prevailed upon great numbers, and seems to have been the general, or at least the governing persuasion in the university of Cambridge. As for Harsnet, it does not appear he met with any check or discountenance for laying such black imputations upon the predestinarian doctrine: though it must be confessed he exposed himself sufficiently by dilating so much upon the subject, and declaiming so vigorously in so public a place : for, commonly, at St. Paul's-cross, the privy-council, the bishops in town, and the judges, made part of the audience. But we do not find Harsnet underwent

censure upon

this score, either by the High Commission, or that any complaint was made to the queen or council. Whereas, had the discourse been judged inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church, this might have been expected. On the other hand, Harsnet was one of Whitgift's chaplains, and afterwards recommended by him to king James, by whom he was first preferred to the mastership of Pembroke-hall, and then to the see of Chichester; from whence he was translated to Norwich, and in the next reign promoted to the archbishopric of York.

But notwithstanding Harsnet's success, the opposite opinion seems to have had the ascendant in Cambridge; where, the heat of the controversy being kept up, Dr. Baroe, finding him

self overbalanced, was willing to relinquish the chair, and quit 647. the university. Fuller will have it, he expected being turned

out when the term of his professorship was expired. He takes notice, “his triennial lecture began to draw near an end.” Here Dr. Heylin, from the records of the university, proves Fuller mistaken in assigning the length of the time, and shows the Margaret professor was never chosen for more than two years. This learned writer observes, elsewhere, that Baroe

held his professor's place to the end of the term, and did not Quinquart.

so much as offer himself for another election. But notwithHist. p. 623.

standing he was not ejected, it is probable he might retire from his post upon the score of being uneasy; for now his doctrine was not only censured by the Lambeth articles, but a complaint against him, subscribed by some of the heads, had been sent up to the lord Burleigh. Now since this letter opens the


p. 165.


history of this controversy, shows the rise of the dispute, and ELIZAthe strength of the contending parties, it may not be improper to lay it before the reader.

A Copy of a Letter sent from some of the Heads in Cambridge to

Lord Burleigh, Lord High Treasurer of England, and Chancellor of the University.

« Right HONOURABLE, “ Our bounden duty remembered : we are right sorry to A letter to have such occasion to trouble your lordship, but the peace of Burleigh, this University and Church (which is dear unto us) being chancellor of brought in peril by the late reviving of new opinions and trou- touching the blesome controversies amongst us, hath urged us in regard of rian com

predestinuthe places we here sustain) not only to be careful for the troversy.

suppressing the same to our power, but also to give your lordship farther information hereof, as our honourable head and careful chancellor.

About a year past (amongst divers others who here attempted to teach publicly new and strange opinions in religion,) one Mr. Barret, more boldly than the rest, did preach divers popish errors in St. Mary's, to the just offence of many, which he was enjoined to retract, but hath refused so to do in such sort as hath been prescribed : with whose fact and opinions your lordship was made acquainted by Dr. Some, the deputy vice-chancellor. Hereby offence and division growing, as after by Dr. Baroe's public lectures and determinations in the schools, contrary (as his auditors have informed) to Dr. Whiteacres, and the sound received truth ever since her majesty's reign; we sent up to London by common consent in November last, Dr. Tyndal and Dr. Whiteacres, (men especially chosen for that purpose) for conference with my lord of Canterbury, , and other principal divines there, that the controversies being examined, and the truth by their consent confirmed, the contrary errors and contentions thereabouts might the rather cease. By whose good travel with sound consent in truth, such advice and care were taken by certain propositions (containing certain substantial points of religion, taught and received in this University and Church during the time of her majesty's reign, and consented unto and published by the best approved divines, both at home and abroad), for the maintaining of the same

[merged small][ocr errors]

WHIT- truth and peace of the Church, as thereby we enjoyed here Abp. Cant. great and comfortable quiet, until Dr. Baroe, (in January last,

in his sermon ad clerum, in St. Mary's, contrary to restraint and commandment from the vice-chancellor and the heads), by renewing again these opinions, disturbed our peace, whereby his adherents and disciples were and are too much emboldened to maintain false doctrine, to the corrupting and disturbing the University and the Church, if it be not in time effectually prevented. For remedy whereof we have, with joint consent and care, (upon complaint of divers bachelors of divinity), proceeded in the examination of the cause, according to our statutes, and usual manner of proceeding in such causes, whereby it appeareth, by sufficient testimonies, that Dr. Baroe hath offended in such things as his articles had charged him withal.

“ There is also, since the former, another complaint preferred against him by certain bachelors in divinity, that he hath not only in the sermon, but also for the space of this fourteen or fifteen years, taught in his lectures, preached in his sermons, determined in the schools, and printed in several books, divers points of doctrine, not only contrary to himself, but also contrary to that which hath been taught and received ever since her majesty's reign, and agreeable to the errors of popery, which we know your lordship hath always disliked and hated : so that we justly complain, who for the space of many years past have yielded him sundry benefits and favours here in the university, being a stranger, and forborne him when he hath often heretofore busy and curious in aliena republica'), broached new and strange questions in religion. Now, unless we should be careless in maintaining the truth of religion established, and of our duties in our places, we cannot (being resolved and confirmed in the truth of the long professed and received doctrine) but continue to use all good means, and seek at your lordship’s hands some effectual remedy hereof, lest by permitting passage to these errors, the whole body of popery should by little and little break in upon us, to the overthrow of our religion, and consequently the withdrawing of many here and elsewhere from true obedience to her majesty.

May it therefore please your lordship to have an honourable consideration of the premises, and (for the better maintaining of peace, and the truth of religion, so long received in this university and Church,) to vouchsafe your lordship’s good


aid and advice, both to the comfort of us, (wholly consenting ELIZAand agreeing in judgment,) and all others of the university truly affected, and to the suppression in time, not only of these errors, but even of gross popery, like by such means in time easily to creep in amongst us (as we find by late experience it hath dangerously begun). Thus craving pardon for troubling your lordship, and commending the same in prayers to Almighty God, we humbly take our leave.

“ Your lordship’s humble,

" And bounden to be commanded, “ ROGER GOAD, Procan. THOMAS PRESTON, R. SOME,

Tho. LEG,



“ From Cambridge,
“ March the 8th, 1595."



By this complaining letter, the reader may perceive the

648. university began to make a stand upon the predestinarian The Church novelties, to throw off the impositions of Calvinism, and re- not reformed cover the old doctrine of the Reformation. I say the old doc- upon the trine, for that the Church reformed upon different notions of scheme, free-will, perseverance, &c. may be collected from what has been discipline or already observed in the reigns of king Henry VIII. and king doctrine. Edward VI. And here, besides the “ Institution and Erudi

Eighth Sertion of a Christian Man,” drawn up by the bishops, we have mon in the single authorities of Latimer and Hooper. To which may Hooper's be added the Homilies, set forth in the reign of king Edward Expos. on VI.; some of which are very full to this purpose. I subjoin more testimonies from the Homilies, and other divines ments.

A Sermon, in the reign of king Edward ; but what has been said may “How Danserve to satisfy the reader, that as Calvin's Church govern- thing it is ment found no entertainment with our first reformers, so to fall from neither did his doctrine pass their test, or settle into any public Homil

. establishment

edit. 1687. To proceed: Richard Fletcher, bishop of London, drew


Second Part 1 The orthodoxy of Baroe and Barret is now generally recognised; but they both manion suffered severely from their Calvinistic antagonists, who, however erroneous, multiplied from God, amazingly, as appears from Calvinistic writers, such as Gill, Toplady, &c.

might the Ten


[ocr errors]

id. p. 83.

of the Ser


num. 95.


WHIT- some regulations for his diocese, and reforming his spiritual

GIFT, Abp. Cant. courts. How far they were executed is uncertain ; for they March 5,

run in a form of recommendation, rather than command. However, since they mention the complaints against the ecclesiastical courts, point to the remedy, set forth the discipline, and

open the methods of proceeding, I shall transcribe them into See Records, the records. A general

And now this year may conclude with the mention of a geassembly at neral assembly at Montrose, in June last. At this meeting the

king's commissioners insisted upon the following articles :

First. That whosoever engaged in any treasonable practice against the king's person and government, should, after legal conviction, be excommunicated; that by this means there might be a coustant harmony between the Church and State.

Secondly. That no excommunication should be pronounced at the discretion of particular persons, but that a sufficient number of the Church should be first convened, and the censure agreed by public consent.

Thirdly. That none should be excommunicated for civil causes, for petty instances of misbehaviour, or particular injuries to ministers, lest by such mismanagement this solemn exercise of the keys should fall into contempt.

Fourthly. That for the future none should be summarily excommunicated, but that the legal and customary summons of the parties should be premised.

The assembly agreed to the first proposition, with the limitation of " legitima cognitione Ecclesiastica præeunte;" or that “ the cause should be first examined by the Church.” The second article was passed without reserve ; but they demurred to the third and fourth : these, they said, were points of great weight, and required time for deliberation. And thus the settling those two articles was postponed to the next assembly. However, to offer something towards satisfaction in the mean time, they forbid any summary excommunication, “ nisi salus Ecclesiæ periclitetur," i.e.“ unless the Church was in danger: and when that case came up, they intended, no doubt, to be

judges themselves. This clause was interpreted by the king as Spotswood. a reserve for liberty, and a colour for arbitrary proceedings.

The next year affords little Church history in England, but An assembly in Scotland a great deal. The assembly met at Edinburgh, to

« 上一頁繼續 »