647

it and others added, while some of the rest have undergone various alterations. *

Numerous other reasons might be produced, but I omit them; because I consider those already mentioned to be quite sufficient for proving, that the clause concerning examination and revision, as it is termed, was with the greatest justice and propriety inserted in the instrument of consent of which we have made previous mention.

I am not ignorant, that other reasons are adduced, in opposition to these; and one in particular, which is made a principal subject of public conversation, and is accounted of all others the most solid. To it, therefore, I consider it necessary to offer a brief reply. It is thus stated:

"By such an examination as this, the doctrine of the Church "will be called in question; which is neither an act of propriety "nor of duty.

"I. Because this doctrine has obtained the approbation and suffrages of many respectable and learned men; and has been strenuously defended against all those who have offered it any opposition.

II. Because it has been sealed with the blood of many thousand martyrs.

"III. Because from such an examination will arise, within the Church, confusion, scandal, offences, and the destruction of consciences; and, out of the Church, ridicule, calumnies and accusations."

To all these I answer:

1. It would be much better, not to employ such odious forms of speech, as to call in question, and others of that class, when the conversation is only respecting some human composition,

* This was also the case with our own excellent Articles and Liturgy: For, (to make no mention of the "Articles devised by the King's Highness Majesty" ju 1536, the "Bishop's Book" in 1537, or the "King's Book" in 1543,) certain judicious alterations were made in our present public formularies, between their first promulgation in 1553 and their final ratification in 1571.-See also, in a succeeding page, an account of the examinations to which the Dutch Confession itself was subjected.

In all these observations, the reader must bear in mind, that the formu laries of the Dutch Churches were then only in their infancy; that the Heidelberg Catechism, which the Dutch Calvinists prized for its bias towards their doctrines, was, as its name imports, the work of a foreign Church and but a temporary expedient, much like that of the Nuremberg Catechism in England till our own was formed many years afterwards; and that none of the arguments employed by Arminius can by any ingenuity be made to apply to the alteration of our own existing formularies, which have bravely stood the test of experience during 250 years, and will maintain their venerable authority as long as scriptural verity and catholic charity, in this their happy combination, are relished by the Professors of our common Christianity.

648

which is liable to have error intermixed with its contents. For with what right can any writing be said to be called in question or in doubt, which was never of itself unquestionable, or ought to be considered as indubitable?

2. The approbation of divines, the defence of a composition against its adversaries, and the sealing of it with the blood of Martyrs, do not render any doctrine authentic or place it beyond the limits of doubt: Because it is possible both for divines and martyrs to err,-a circumstance which can admit of no denial in this argument.*

These and the subsequent remarks of Arminius, concerning the Protestant martyrs, are very appropriate. Yet there were a few of our English Martyrs about the period of the Reformation, who considered themselves to be dying witnesses for a mild species of Irrespective Predestination, among other more important doctrines, in opposition to the equally evangelical tenets of some of their fellow-sufferers that were favourers of General Redemption. That very learned, acute and indefatigable Divine, Richard LAURENCE, LL.D. published, in 1819, a small treatise on this subject which possesses uncommon interest. As the reader will already have learnt, that my plan has been to collect, in this first volume of our Author's Works, as many notices as possible of the rise and increase among Protestants of those scriptural doctrines which are properly included under the distinguishing term of ARMINIANISM, I here give a few apposite quotations from the reverend Doctor's very able work, and recommend a perusal of the entire production to those who desire to obtain more ample information. It bears the title of "AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS relative to the Predestinarian Controversy, which took place among those who were imprisoned, for their adherence to the doctrines of the REFORMATION, by Queen Mary: Containing, &c. With an Introduction by Richard LAURENCE, LL.D., Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Hebrew," &c., [in the University of Oxford.]

In the Introduction, Dr. Laurence says:

"The two tracts, now for the first time published, relate to disputes upon the subject of Predestination, which arose among those, who were imprisoned for their adherence to the principles of the Reformation, and many of whom subsequently suffered martyrdom, in the short but sanguinary reign of Queen Mary. The first of the two, which is upon the Predestinarian side of the question, was written by John BRADFORD, (a name distinguished by Fox in his Martyrology,) who undertakes to answer in it a certain paper under the form of "Enormities," drawn up by the other party. The second tract under the form of a narrative was composed by John TREWE, an Anti-Predestinarian ; and contains an account of the origin and progress of the whole dispute.

It has been generally supposed, that every authentic document respecting differences of opinion, so singular under such circumstances and at such a juncture, has utterly perished.

"Notwithstanding however this strong and general persuasion, I some years since discovered, among the manuscripts of Bodley, in the public library at Oxford, one, which appears to contain the principal documents upon the subject on both sides. I have since taken the pains to transcribe what I conceived to be the most important parts of it, and have comprised them in the present publication.

"In my Bampton Lectures and tracts upon Baptism, I have adduced various documents to prove, that the great promoters of our Reformation, and authors of our church formularies, especially Archbishop CRANMER, the prime mover in all things, did not hold the doctrine of absolute Predestination. Had they indeed held it, still om their general character and conduct we might have

3. A distinction ought to be made matters contained in the Confession.

between the different For while some of them

presumed that they would have been moderate upon the point in the formation of our public creed; but if they did not hold it, it is absurd to suppose that they could have been otherwise. The present publication I apprehend will shew, that among those who relinquished the faith of their ancestors for that of the Reformation, when first established, even the Predestinarian party itself proceeded not to the full extent of the Calvinistical system, while the AntiPredestinarian party contemplated the whole of that system with unqualified abhorrence.

"Nor were the latter party insignificant in numbers or in talents. This appears not from the vain estimate of its own importauce, but from the impartial testimony of is adversaries. In a memorial preserved by STRYPE, entitled, 'A Confession and Protestation of the Christian Faith written by me John 'CLEMENT, Anno Dom. 1556,' the writer remarks, ' I perceive, that there is a 'wonderful sort of the Pelagians sect swarming every where, which do maintain, teach, and defend, that all men, having faith or not, being regenerate or not regenerate, [no very fair representation, by the way, of the opposite 'opinion,] have power, choice, and free-will to choose life and to keep the 'commandments of God in such wise, as the law of God requireth.' Again: I perceive that not only Papists, but divers others, that be Professors of God's Word, being [rather] moved of an earnest zeal, than of any true knowledge 'of the Scriptures, do, with words and writings, impugn the most pure, hea'venly, sweet, comfortable, and true doctrine of God's firm Predestination and free Election of us in Christ.'

"By the same industrious historian also is recorded another declaration of the like tendency in A Letter to the Congregation of Free-willers, by one that had been of that persuasion but come off, and now a prisoner for religion.' In this the new convert thus expresses himself: Truly, my dearly beloved in 'the Lord, so oft as I behold the misery and calamity of this realm of Eng'land, it so much lamenteth my soul, that I cannot express it by tongue or < pen. And I protest before God, and his elect angels, that it is the sins of < us all, that have professed the gospel here in England of late. But I doubt not but that it shall be to our salvation, notwithstanding our fall. And one because we were not sound in the Predestination of God, but we were rather enemies unto it, God forgive us!'

6

cause was,

"But by talents, as well as numbers, was the Anti-Predestinarian party said to be distinguished. I have previously alluded to a letter in the Bodley MSS. signed C. P. and addressed to the ministers with all that congregate in the name of Christ.' Touching upon the doctrine of predestination, the author of this letter makes the following applicable reflections: 'It is both to 'be much marvelled at, and likewise to be lamented, that this, being one of "the principal points of our faith, and the very foundation of our salvation, is 'so greatly obscured and insincerely handled in the writings, not only of a C great number of the mean sort, but also of the most excellently learned.'". Part of a dialogue is then given between Dr. Martin a celebrated Popish examiner and CARELESS who has already been mentioned (page 605,) and who figures, towards the close of Trewe's Narrative, as the "Chief of the Predestinarian company :" After which, the Introduction thus proceeds:

"From this account recorded by Fox it appears, that, although Careless charged, unfairly I apprehend, the Free-willers of his day with making Predestination dependent on good works, as a meritorious cause, according to the principles of the Church of Rome, yet he did not accuse them, as some of his party had done, with teaching Anabaptistical extravagancies, or of maintaining the absurd opinion of universal Predestination. And it also appears, that Dr. Martin, his examiner, who seems to have been well informed of what had passed, represented the Predestinariau disputes, not as limited to the prison of

make a near approach to the foundation of salvation and are fundamental articles of the Christian Religion, others of them

the King's Bench, but as pervading the whole Reformed Church, which in consequence of its divisions he sneeringly denominated the Congregation. But, what the sentiments of Trewe and his party really were, the present publication will enable us more correctly to determine from their own declarations.

"When the controversy commenced, both parties clearly contemplated their respective opinions as perfectly conformable with the recently-established doctrines of the Reformed Church of England. Hence it happened, that, as the 17th Article of our Church was supposed only to contain a general doctrine common to both parties, neither party appealed to it as decisive of the question between them. Notwithstanding however this dilemma, the Predestinarians thought of an expedient to bear down their opponents by the weight of authority. Bradford drew up a treatise upon the subject in answer to certain allegations on the other side, (the same which is contained in No. 4, Bodley MS. now published,) and sent it to Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, for their approbation, "as they might think good,” stating that the prisoners under confinement in the same prison agreed with him in opinion, and were ready to signify that agreement, if those three Reformers themselves would set them an example. "Signatures surely would never have been withholden from it, nor would it for a single moment have been kept back from the public, had not some apprehension been entertained, that the persons, whose approbation of it was solicited, might not contemplate in a favourable point of view, either its object or its argument, or both. That Cranmer and his associates had not in the formularies of the Reformed Church established the points in debate to the satisfaction of the Predestinarians, seems from this letter incontrovertible; for Bradford in the most solemn and earnest manner adjures them to do something than they had already done in this respect; so to express their sentiments upon the doctrine of Predestination, that posterity might receive and preserve the truth, ut veritas doctrinæ maneat apud posteros, precisely as they had acted in the extinction of Papal errors.

more,

"The application then of Bradford to the 'Chief Captains of Christ's Church' clearly comprises two distinct requests; first, that they would bestow what approbation they thought meet upon his treatise, and secondly, that they would make some public declaration of their own opinions. But what was the answer which he received?

"Mildly, but unmoved, Ridley replied, that he had made some brief remarks upon the texts of Scripture relating to the subject, which had been suggested to him; but not one word is to be found of a concurrence in opinion with Bradford. Nay, to check the overweening confidence of his correspondent, and to exhibit his own good sense and moderation, he breaks ont into the following grave and emphatical style of dignified rebuke: Sir, in these matters I am so fearful, that I dare not speak farther, yea almost none otherwise, than 'the very text doth (as it were) lead me by the hand.'

After much conclusive reasoning and several elucidatory quotations, Dr. Laurence adds:

"It appears then from the whole of the correspondence, as it has come down to us, that Bradford received no answer whatsoever to his application from Craumer and Latimer, and that those, which he did receive from Ridley, rather tended to silence than to encourage him.

"The doctrine, which seems to have been a principal point of controversy, between the Predestinarian and Anti-Predestinarian party, and to have proved most offensive to the latter, was that which is usually called the indefectibility of grace. This would naturally become an object of enquiry and solicitude to those, who daily expected to suffer martyrdom."

Trewe's very excellent narrative thus commences:

are built up as a superstructure on the foundation, and of themselves are not absolutely necessary to salvation. The doctrines

"JOHN TREWE, the unworthy marked servant of the Lord, being in bands for the testimony of Jesu, signifieth the cause of contention in the King's Bench, as concerning sects in religion, the 30th of January, A. D. 1555. "Hitherto I have suffered much injury, and borne many a slanderous report of such, as were the beginners of this lamentable contention, rather than I would disclose their rash and uncharitable behaviour in writing, thinking ever, that they would have repented and amended it, and have come to an unity in the truth with us: which was like three or four times, but most likest at Christmas last, and yet it brake again by me, as they untruly report. For which cause I am now constrained briefly to write the beginning and continuing of this contention with the breaking of the unity, that now was begun, that it might be seen, who was in the fault thereof, that men might leave speaking evil of that they know not. God that seeth the secrets of all hearts, knoweth that I lie not. They [the Predestinarians] did give such occasion of evil and offence to the weak by their using of gaming, that we could do no less but gently admonish them to leave it, and to exhort them after the Scriptures to redeem the time, seeing the days are evil, and to leave such vain things, and to mourn with us, that did mourn for the great misery that is fallen on this land, and for the lamentable perplexity that many of our weak brethren (that were not able to bear the cross) were in, and to watch and pray continually, that God might mitigate his wrath, and strengthen us and our brethren in his truth to stand, that our lives and deaths might glorify his holy name.

"With the which they were not content, but defended it by the Scriptures, and because we would not give them place, but disproved them by the word, they were somewhat displeased with us; insomuch that in process of time they began to pick out matter against us, and because we did use abstinence and prayer, they reported us to be JUSTIFIERS OF OURSELVES, and such like : To the which we answered, that our justification came by faith in Christ's death and bloodshedding; but that we did, we did it that God might make us able to bear his cross, and that he would cease these sharp storms of persecution, the which (through this our sloth) was like to drive many one from God unto the devil, to their utter destruction both of body and soul. After other talk, in conclusion they did affirm, that none of them that God ordained 'to be saved, could be driven from him by persecution, nor yet by any other 'occasion or means. For all such as shall be saved,' say they, were elect and predestinate thereunto before the foundation of the world was laid, and 'none of them can be damned, do what wickedness they can.' And whereas we brought against them the Apostle Paul, which affirmeth that all were damned in Adam and destitute of the glory of God, and that the reward of sin is death, &c., that would not serve; for they most stiffly affirmed, without any authority of the holy Scriptures, that if the Elect did commit never so great offence or sin, they should not finally perish. Whereby they do not only make St. Paul a liar, but also they destroy the fear of God, which is the beginning and right science of wisdom; and, that being frustrate, there is a great gate set open to carnal liberty; unto the which we saw that many did fly to their utter destruction, by the means of the said false doctrine.

"Moreover we saw that it did put out of credit and unplace all those pithy places and sentences in the holy Scriptures, that at these troublesome days doth cause men to forsake evils, and to stand to the truth, as their own words did manifestly declare. For when we asked them what was meant by the sentences written in Joshua xxiv. e; 2 Chron. xv. a; Ezek. xxxiii. e; Matt. x, c; Mark xiii. d; Luke xi. d, xxi. g; Romans xi. c, xiv. d; 1 Cor. iii. d, g, x. d; 2 Cor. vi. a; Gal. iii. a; 1 Tim. iv. a; 2 Tim. ii; Heb. iii. a, iv. a, vi. e, Apoc. ii. a; and such like, which threateneth damnation unto God's Elect if they do wilfully sin against him,-some of them compared

x. e; 2 Pet. ii. a;