confiftency appear there, for Arcbifhop Parker, ' the great promoter of this tranflation, in his preface afferts the direct oppofite to the third queftion and answer. He afferts there after quoting the text, Search the fcriptures, for in them &c. "These woordes were first spoken unto the Jewes our Saviour, but by him in his doctrine ment to al for they concerne al, of what nation, of what tongue, of what profeffion foever any man be. For to al belongeth it to be called unto eternal lyfe, fo many as by the witneffe of the fcriptures defire to finde eternal lyfe. No man, woman, or chylde, is excluded from this falvation, and therefore to every of them is this spoken, proportionally yet, and in their degrees, and ages, and as the reafon and congruitie of their vocation may ask." Again a little lower after quoting Jofuab 1. v. 8. He adds "Yet as wel fpake almightie God this precept to al his people in the directions of their wayes to hymwarde, as he ment it to Jofuah: For that he hath care of al, he accepteth no man's perfon, his wyl is that al menne should be faved, 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 Chrift his wel beloved Son our most loving Saviour, the way, the trueth, and the lyfe of us al, dyd byd us openly searche the fcriptures, affuring us herein to finde eternal life, to finde ful teftification of al his graces and benefits towardes us in the treasure therof? Therefore it is moft convenient that we should al suppose that Chrifte spake to us al in this his precept of fearching the scriptures." How then do you make it out, that these questions and answers touching the doctrine of predeftination were, by order of the faid godly Bifhops, bound up with this fame bible? Or how do these questions and answers clearly demonftrate the fenfe of our Church touching the doctrines in queftion? It should seem from the above quotations, that the doctrine of our Church, at that critical time, was directly oppofite to what is contained in the questions and answers, viz. the doctrine of univerfal 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 Archbifhop Parker, that this bible was never intended for public ufe, 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 anfwers 'touching the doctrine of predeftination, &c. were inferted. He adds in a note note "These, I obferve, were reprinted in the editions, 4to. 1592, 1615." 'Tis probable thefe queftions and anfwers might be first joined to the Geneva bible of 1583. That they were not always printed with it, an edition of it in 1599, 4to. in my poffeffion can testify. These questions questions and answers therefore can only demonAtrate the fense 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. THE patrons of the Geneva bible made use of all their power to get it established as the authorized tranflation, but they never could obtain any more. than to have it printed here for the use of private families. Cranmer's bible was always used in churches 'till the Bishop's was printed in 1568, which fuperfeded it; and James the Ift's fucceeded that in 1611." YOUR quotation from the catechifm afcribed to Bishop Ponet may seem more to your purpose; that catechifm being fet forth by command of King Edward VI. But neither does that come up to your point. The free-agency of man is not theré denied, nor universal redemption: nor is the indefectibility of the elect afferted. The catechifm it is true, fpeaks in pretty high terms of elec tion and predestination. But you would have given a more fair reprefentation of the doctrine therein contained, had you not omitted the following paffage 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 bleffing of eternal life." After which follows-" As many as are in this faith ftedfaft were chofen, predeftinated &c." We fee then that in this author's opinion, thofe only are elect and predeftinated, who truly fear God and live a holy and godly life; the only fruits by which the good tree may be known". BUT who would have thought that we should be preffed with the authority of the fynod of Dort? and be told that the abettors of the doctrines of free-will &c. were deprived and debarred by this fynod 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 fynod, and it a The judicious reader is defired to confult Heylin's hift. quinq. artic. p. 2. chap. 15. at the beginning; where this quotation from Bishop Ponet's catechifm is fet in a clear and moft fatisfactory light. This hiftory is an answer to Prynn's Antiarminianism, in which may be found this and most of your other arguments. calls itself fo: and its fentence against the remonftrants is directed only to all and fingular the paftors &c. in fœderato 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 fent there not five Bishops and Doctors in Divinity, but only one Bishop and three other Doctors in Divinity, and afterwards he sent Dr. Balcanqual, a Scotchman. If these entered the fynod rigid Calvinifts, they came from it much less fo. If they figned the decrees of the fynod, they did it with restrictions and limitations. They offered these three propofitions as their sentiments, which they fay were in like manner approved by the foreign Divines. I. «b Deus lapfi humani generis miferatus, mifit filium fuum, qui feipfum dedit pretium redemptionis pro peccatis totius mundi." II. "In hoc merito mortis Christi fundatur univerfale promiffum evangelicum, a Hales's Golden Remains. b God having compaffion on the finful race of man, fent his own Son, who gave himself a ranfom for the fins of the whole world. II. In this merit of Christ's death is founded the univerfal promife of the gofpel; according to which all that behieve in Chrift may actually receive remiffion of fins, and life eternal. III. As according to this evangelical promise falvation is offered to all men, the adminiftration of God's grace in the church is fuch, as is fufficient to convince all impenitent and incredulous men, that they have perished, and forfeited the benefits offered them, through their own voluntary fault, and through neglect or contempt of the gospel, |
