« VorigeDoorgaan »
the will of God positive, but only permissive; that reprobates are not rejected but for the evil works which God did foresee they will commit. And when his opponent called for his authorities in expounding St. Paul against the judgment of all churches and all good writers, Hooker replied, that the sentences which he might have cited out of all church confessions, together with the best learned monuments of former times, and not the meanest of our own, were more in number than perhaps he willingly would have heard of a ".
In the next place we are presented with the famous Lambeth articles; which we have nothing to do with, they being no part of our faith, nor ever established by any legal authority, bat rather forced upon the University in opposition to that authority. These too are urged against us by the author of the Confeffional, and every thing that he or you have said, is fully answered by the Letter writerb. These articles were drawn up by. Dr. Whitaker and other Calvinists at Cambridge. And the reason why they drew them up was, because the 39 articles were not fufficient for their purpose, “ those points being (as they themselves acknowledged) not concluded and defined by public authority.” The good Archbishop, though he had before expressed his dislike of their proceedings against Barrett ; yet was prevailed upon a Answer to Travers's Supplication, fe&t. 22, & 23. Third letter, p. 61, 76 &c.
agree to these articles for the sake of peace; praying to take care that nothing should be publicly taught to the contrary; and that also in teaching them discretion and moderation should be used, that such as should be in some points differing in judgment, might not be of purpose ftung, or justly grieved: “And that the propositions nevertheless must be so taken and used as their private judgments, thinking them to be true and correfpondent to the doctrine professed in the Church of England, and established by the laws of the land; and not as laws and decrees a.” But these articles gave great offence, not only in the University buc at Court. The Queen was greatly displeased with them. And therefore the Archbishop wrote to Cambridge
, “ desiring the Vice-Chancellor so to use the said propositions as there might be no publication of them otherwise than in private." Notwithstanding which the Queen resented what the Archbishop and the rest had done, and commanded her secretary to send unto his Grace, to acquaint him “ that she misliked much that any allowance had been given by his Grace, and the rest, of any fuch points to be disputed, being a matter tender and dangerous to weak ignorant minds: and thereupon that she required his Grace to suspend themb." And Lord Burleigh, Chancellor of the University reprimanded the Heads of Houses on this occasion,
Serype's Life of Whitgift, P. 462. b Ibid. C. 18. ' Heylin's Hift. Presb. b. x, s. 7. Hift. of
telling them " as good and ancient were of another judgment:" and that as for Baro whom they had censured, “ Ye may punish him, (fays he) if ye will ; but ye shall do it for well doing, in holding the truth, in my opinion 1.” And he delivered his opinion, to the Queen both of the doctrine itfelf and its pernicious consequences, confidered even in a civil view, thus; “b It is not, faith he, difficult to perceive what these men aim at, for they think and teach that whatever human transactions are carried on, whether good or bad, they are all bound up by the law of an immutable decree ; and that this neceffity is imposed even upon the wills of men, that they cannot will otherwise than they do will. If thefe opinions, moft august Sovereign, be true, in vain both myself and your Majesty's other faithful servants anxiously, and with much hesitation, deliberate what upon every occasion ought to be done, what may be most conducive to your own welfare and that of the kingdom: since all confultation must be foolish and vain concerning these matters, which must neceffarily happen." "Nay we are told, that the Queen threatened the Archbishop, with a premunire for what he had done in these matters. And thus these articles were repealed and suppressed. And when afterwards at the conference at Hampton-court, it was moved to add thefe affertions to
a Strype's Life of Whitgift, P. 441. Heylin's Hift. b. xi. b Sec Ellis Lamb. art. Hift. P. 7.
the book of the 39 articles, this proposal was rejected. To what purpose then do you urge the authority of the Lambetb articles, to which we never subscribed, which were never established, nor intended as laws for public use, but only as a temporary expedient to procure peace at that time at Cambridge, and which were recalled and luppressed as soon as published ? Had you been acquainted with the history of them, how they were first obtained and imposed, and afterwards suppressed, you would certainly have thought it more prudent not to have mentioned them.
StilL less to your purpose are the questions and answers bound up with some old bibles. If any bj hops, or others concerned in publishing an edition of the bible, shall think fit to annex a system of their own notions to it, this does not make their notions gospel, or give them the sanction of public authority. But that these questions and answers were bound up in all the editions of Queen Elizabetb's bibles is not true. They appear in neither of Archbishop Parker's editions, nor in Barker's of 1599. You will, I believe, find fome difficulty in reconciling your account with chronology. You tell us they were bound up with the only bible in use in Queen Elizabeth's time; and in confirmation of it produce the edition of 1607; some time after the Queen's death. I do not so much wonder that they should have crept into some editions of the bible in K. James I. reign, when the puritans began to
take greater liberties in imposing their tenets; though it should seem from the edition (or rather new verfion) published by that King's authority in 1611, in which these questions and answers are not inserted, that they were then discountenanced.
But to be more particular. — * In page 45, the last paragragh, and page 49, you affert what is not true - “ That these questions and answers concerning predestination — were always printed at the end of the old testament, and bound up and sold, cum privilegio, with this authorized trantlation of the bible, till about the year 1615"- It appears from p. 45, that you mean the Bishop's bible. “ I apprehend these questions &c. were never bound up with the Bishop's bible, at least Lewis in his history of the trandations of the bible from p. 235 to 264, mentions eight editions of it, and takes no notice of these questions &c. being printed with them, and he is very particular in giving the contents of them. But, as will appear hereafter, he takes particular notice when they were inserted in the Geneva bible. A friend of mine has the best edition of the Bishop's bible printed in 1572, fol. which has fome corrections of the first edition of it in 1568. In that edition the questions &c. do not appear. Nor indeed could they with any
a The following account of this matter was communicated to me by a very judicious friend, who is well acquainted with the several editions of the bible, and the occasions of them.