« VorigeDoorgaan »
life, to finde ful testification of al his graces and
consistency appear there, for Arcbishop Parker,
great promoter of this translation, in his preface afferts the direct opposite to the third question and answer. He asserts there - after quoting the text, Search the scriptures, for in them &c.
“ These woordes were first spoken unto the Jewes .che our Saviour, but by him in his doctrine ment to
al: for they concerne al, of what nation, of what tongue, of what profession foever any man be. For to al belongeth it to be called unto eternal lyfe
, so many as by the witnesse of the scriptures desire to finde eternal lyfe. No man, woman, or chylde, is excluded from this salvation, and therefore to every of them is this spoken, proportionally yet, and in their degrees, and ages, and as the reason and congruitie of their vocation may alk." Again a little lower after quoting Josuah 1. v. 8. He adds “ Yet as wel spake almightie God this precept to al his people in the directions of their wayes to hymwarde, as he ment it to Yosuah: For that he hath care of al, he accepteth no man's person, his wyl is that al menne should be saved, his wyl is that al menne should comme to the way of trueth: How could this be more conveniently declared by God to man, then when Christ his wel beloved Son our most loving Saviour, the way, the trueth, and the lyfe of us al, dyd byd us openly searche the scriptures, assuring us herein to finde eternal
that Christe spake to us al in this his precept of searching the scriptures.” How then do you make it out, that these questions and answers touching the doctrine of predestination were, by order of the said godly Bishops, bound up with this same bible? Or how do these questions and answers clearly demonstrate the sense of our Church touching the doctrines in question? It should seem from the above quotations, that the doctrine of our Church, at that critical time, was directly opposite to what is contained in the questions and answers, viz. the doctrine of universal redemption. ,
From page 264 to page 276, Lewis gives an account of the editions of the Geneva bible. The first of which, printed in England, was in 1572.
It appears p. 234. of Lewis, from a letter of Archbishop Parker, that this bible was never intended for public use, but admitted to be printed for the use of private families. The first edition printed at Geneva was in the year 1557. Lewis p. 276 takes notice, that in one printed 1583, fol. certaine questions and answers 'touching the doctrine of predestination, &c. were inserted. He adds in a note -" These, I observe, were reprinted in the editions, 4to. 1592, 1615." 'Tis probable these questions and answers might be first joined to the Geneva bible of 1583. That they were not always printed with it, an edition of it in 1599, 410. in my pofleffion can testify. These
questions and answers therefore can only demonAtrate the sense of the church of Geneva, or of the followers of that church, touching the doctrines in question.
The confeffion of faith quoted by you p. 53. is bound up at the end of my Geneva bible of 1599. Therefore you conclude a little too fast, that the doctrines mentioned in it are the ancient, undoubted, received tenets of the Church of England." I know not that it ever was joined to the authorized translations.
of the Geneva bible made use of all their power to get it established as the authorized translation, but they never could obtain any more than to have it printed here for the use of private families. Crenmer's bible was always used in churches 'till the Bishop's was printed in 1568, which superseded it; and James the It's succeeded that in 1611."
Your quotation from the catechism ascribed to Bishop Ponet may seem more to your purpose ; that Catechism being set forth by command of King Edward VI. But neither does that come up to your point. The free-agency of man is not there denied, nor universal redemption : nor is the indefe&tibility of the elect asserted. The catechism it is true, speaks in pretty high terms of élec
tion and predestination. But you would have given a more fair representation of the doctrine therein contained, had you not omitted the following passage which immediately precedes your quo. tation, viz: “ To the church properly belong those who truly fear, honour, and worship God, wholly applying their minds to live an holy and godly life, and who placing their only hope and confidence in him, expect with certainty the blesfing of eternal life.” After which followsą“ As many as are in this faith stedfast were chosen, predestinated &c.” We see then that in this author's opinion, those only are elect and predestinated, who truly fear God and live a holy and godly life; the only fruits by which the good tree may be known a.
But who would have thought that we should be pressed with the authority of the synod of Dori? and be told that the abettors of the doctrines of free-will &c. were deprived and debarred by this synod FROM ALL OFFICES IN ANY UNIVERSITY? How do the decrees of this fynod concern us? Were they ever received in England or in this University ? And what do you mean by saying that these errors were condemned by all the reformed churches ? It was only a national synod, and it .' a The judicious reader is desired to consult Heslin's hift. quinq. artic. p. 2. chap. 15. at the beginning; where this quotation from Bishop Ponet's catechism is set in a clear and most satisfactory light. This history is an answer to Prynn's Antiarminianism, in which may be found this and most of your
calls itself fo: and its sentence against the remonstrants is directed only to all and singular the pastors &c. in fæderato Belgio, “ in the united Provinces." Its authority was never owned by the Lutheran churches, or here in England. Divines of other nations were indeed invited to this fynod: but not many came. Our King James sent there not five Bishops and Doctors in Divinity, but only one Bishop and three other Doctors in Divinity, and afterwards he fent Dr. Balcanqual, a Scotchman. If these entered the synod rigid Calvinists, they came from it much less fo. If they signed the decrees of the synod, they did it with restrictions and limitations ? They offered these three propofitions as their sentiments, which they say were in like manner approved by the foreign Divines. I. “ b Deus lapsi humani generis miseratus, misit filium suum, qui feipsum dedit pretium redemptionis pro peccatis totius mundi.” II.“ In hoc merito mortis Christi fundatur universale promissum evangelicum,
a Hales's Golden Remains.
b God having compassion on the finful race of man, sent his own Son, who gave himself a ransom for the fins of the whole world. II. In this merit of Christ's death is founded the universal promise of the gofpel; according to which all that believe in Christ may actually receive remision of fins, and life eternal. III. As according to this evangelical promise falvation is offered to all men, the administration of God's grace in the church is such, as is sufficient to convince all impenitent and incredulous men, that they have perished, and. forfeited the benefits offered them, through their own voluntary fault, and through reglect or contempt of the gospel,