Page  28

CHAP. XVIII. A Declaration of the Doctrine in the Points disputed under the new establishment made by Queen Elizabeth.

1. THese Obstacles being thus removed, I shall proceed unto a Declaration of the Churches Doctrine under this new establishment made by Queen Eliz. And, first, all Argu∣ments derived from the publick Li∣turgie, and the first book of Homi∣lies being still in force; we will next see what is delivered in the Homilies of the second part, establisht by a special Article, and thereby made a part of the doctrine here by law established: And, first, as touching the doctrine of Predestination, it is declared in the Homily of the Nativity,

—For the accomplishment whereof, to the intent he might more fully and perfectly make satisfaction for man-kinde: which is as plaine as words can make it, and yet not more plaine then that which followeth in the Ho∣mily of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, Fol. 200.

2. Nor doth the Homily speak lesse plainly in another* place concerning universal Grace, then it doth speak to this in reference to universal redemption, as appears evidently by the first part of the Sermon against the perill of Idolatry, in which it is declared in the way of paraphrase on some pas∣sages in the 40. Chapter of the Prophet Isaiah,

And there∣fore by the light of the same instruction (had they not shut their eyes against it) they might have come unto a further Page  31 knowledge of the will of God; and by degrees to the per∣formance of all moral duties required of them before Christ coming in the flesh. And in the third part of the same Sermon there are some passages which do as plainly speak of falling from God, the final alienation of the soul of a man once righteous, from his love and favour. Where it is said, And what can here be understood, by the souls which are so precious in the sight of God, but the souls of the elect, of justified and righteous per∣sons, the souls of wicked men being vile and odious in his sight, hated by God, as Esau was, before all eternity, as the Calvinians do informe us. And what else can we under∣stand by being perished and lost, but a total or final alienati∣on of those precious souls, from his grace and favour: more* plainly speaks the Homily of the Resurrection, in which the Church represents unto us, what shame it should be for us, then which there can be nothing more direct and positive to the point in hand. And as for the co-operation of mans will with the grace of God either in accepting or resisting it, when once offered to him, besides what may be gathered from the former passages; it is to be presumed as a thing past question in the very nature of that book, for what else are those Homilies but so many proofs and arguments to e∣vince that point. For to what purpose were they made, but Page  32 to stir up the mindes of all men to the works of piety: And what hopes could the Authors of them give unto themselves of effecting that which they endeavoured, had they not pre∣supposed and taught that there was such a freedome in the will of man, such an assistance of Gods grace, as might en∣able them to performe these works of piety, as in all and e∣very one of the said Homilies are commended to them. More for the proof of which points, might be gathered from the said second Book of Homilies, established by the Arti∣cles of Queen Elizabeth's time, as before is said, were not these sufficient.

3. Proceed we therefore from the Homilies, and the pub∣lick monuments of the Church to the judgement of particu∣lar persons, men of renown and eminent in their several places, amongst which we finde incomparable Jewell, then Bishop of Sallsbury, thus clearly speaking in behalf of universal redemption, viz. Certo animis nostris persuademus, &c.

Now as Bishop ewell was a principal mem∣ber of the House of Bishops, so Mr. Powell was the Prolocu∣to• for the House of the Clergy, in which the Articles were debated and agreed upon. In which respect his favour is much sought by those of the Calvinian party, as before was shown. But finding no comfort for them in his larger Ca∣techisme, let us see what may be found in his Latine Cate∣chisme, authorized to be taught in Schools, and published by his consent in the English tongue, Anno 157•. And first he sheweth, that as God is said to be our Father for Page  33 some other reasons, so most specially for this; quod nos di∣vine per spiritum sanctum generavit, & per fidem in verum* suum, a•que naturalem filium Iesum Christum nos el git, sibique Filios, & regni •oelestis, atque sempiternae vitae heredes per eundem inj•ituit; that is to say, because he hath divinely regenerated us (or begotten us again) by the Ho∣ly Ghost, and hath elected us by faith in his true and natural son Christ Jesus, and through the same Christ •ath adopt∣ed us to be his children and heires of his heavenly Kingdom and of life everlasting. And if election come by our faith in Christ, as he saith it doth, neither a Supra-bapsarian, nor a Sub-•ap•arian, can finde any comfort from this man, in favour of that absolute and irrespective decree of Predesti∣nation, which they would gladly father on him in his lar∣ger Catechisme. And then as for the method of predesti∣nation, he thus sets it forth, viz.

'Deus

Adamum illis hono∣ris insignibus ornavit, ut ea cum sibi tum suis, id est, toti* humano generi, aut servaret, aut amitteret, &c. God (saith he) indued Adam with those ornaments (that is to say, those ornaments of grace and nature, which before we speak of) that he might have them or loose them for himself and his, that is to say, for all man-kinde. And it could not other∣wise be, but that as of an evil tree, evil fruits do spring: so that Adam being corrupted with sinne, all the issue that came of him, must also be corrupted with that original sin; For delivery from the which there remained no remedy in our selves, and therefore God was pleased to promise that the seed of the woman, which is Jesus Christ, should break the head of the Serpent, that is, of the Devi, who deceived our first parents, and so should deliver them and their posterity that believed the same. Where first we have mans fall. Secondly, Gods mercy in his restitution. Third∣ly, this restitution to be made by Jesus Christ; and, fourth∣ly, to be made to all, which believe the same.'

4. Proceed we next to a Sermon preached at St. Pauls crosse, Octob. 27. 1584. by Samuel H•rs•et then fellow of P•mbrooke Hall in Cambridge and afterwards Master of the Page  34 same, preferred from thence to the See of Chichester, from thence translated unto Norwitch, and finally to the Archie∣piscopal See of York. For the Text or subject of his Sermon, he made choice of those words in the Prophet Ezekiel, viz. As I live (saith the Lord) I delight not in the death of the wicked, chap. 33. v. 11. In his discourse upon which text, he first dischargeth God from laying any necessity of sinning on the sons of men, and then delighting in their punishment because they have sinned: he thus breaks out against the absolute decree of reprobation, which by that time had been made a part of the Zuinglian Gospel, and generally spread abroad both from Presse and Pulpit.

'First, that it is directly in opposition to this Text of holy Scripture, and so turnes the truth of God into a lye. For whereas God in this Text doth lay and sweare, that he doth not delight in the death of man; this opinion saith, that not one or two, but millions of men should frie in Hell; and that he made them for no other purpose then to be the children of death and hell, and that for no other cause but his meer pleasures sake; and so say, that God doth not onely say, but will sweat to a lye. For the oath should have runne thus, as I live (saith the Lord) I do delight in the death of man.

'Secondly, it doth (not by consequence but) directly make God the Authour of sin. For, if God without eye to sin did designe men to hell, then did he say and set down that he should sinne: for without sinne he cannot come to hell: Page  35 And indeed doth not this opinion say, that the Almighty God in the eye of his Councel, did not only see, but say that Adam should fall, and so order and decree, and set down his fall, that it was no more possible for him not to fall, then it was possible for him not to eat? And of that when God doth order, set down and decree, (I trust) he is the Author, unless they will say, that when the Right honoura∣ble Lord Keeper doth say in open Court, we order, he means not to be the Author of that his Order.

'Which said, he tells us Thirdly, that it takes away from A∣dam (in his state of innocency) all freedom of Will and* Liberty not to sin. For had he had freedom to have al∣tered Gods designment, Adams liberty had been above the designment of God. And here I remember a little witty solution is made, that is, if we respect Adams Will, he had power to sin, but if God Decrees, he could not sin. This is a silly solution; And indeed it is as much as if you should take a sound, strong man that hath power to walk, and to lye still, and bind him hand and foot, (as they do in Bedlam) and lay him down, and then bid him rise up and walk, or else you will stir him up with a whip; and he tell you, that there be chains upon him, so that he is not able to stir; and you tell him again, that, that is no excuse, for if he look upon his health, his strength, his legs, he hath power to walk, or to stand still; but if upon his Chains, indeed in that respect he is not able to walk. I trust he that should whip that man for not walking, were well worthy to be whipt himself: Fourthly, As God do abhor a heart, and a heart, and his soul detesteth also a double minded man: so himself cannot have a mind and a mind; a face like Ja∣nus, to look two wayes. Yet this opinion maketh in God two Wills, the one flat opposite to the other: An Hidden Will by which he appointed and willed that Adam should sin; and an open Will by which he forbad him to sin. His open Will said to Adam in Paradise, Adam thou shall not eat of the Tree of good and evil: His Hidden Will said, Thou shalt eat; nay, now I my self cannot keep thee from eating, for my Decree from Eternity is passed, Thou shalt eat, that Page  36 thou may drown all thy posterity into sin, and that I may drench them as I have designed, in the bottomless pit of Hell. Fifthly, Amongst all the Abominations of Queen Jez•bel, that was the greatest (1 King. 21.) when as hunt∣ing after the life of innocent Naboth, she set him up amongst the Princes of the Land, that so he might have the greater fall. God planted man in Paradise, (as in a pleasant Vineyard) and mounted him to the world as on a stage, and honoured him with all the Soveraignty, over all the Crea∣tures; he put all things in subjection under his feet, so that he could not pass a decree from all Eternity against him, to throw him down head-long into hell: for God is not a Je∣zabel, Tollere in altum, to lift up a man, ut lapsu graviore ruat, that he may make the greater noise with his fall.'

6. But he goes on,

7. The absolute de•ree of Reprobation being thus discharg∣ed, he shews in the next place, that as God desireth not the death of man without relation to his sin, so he desireth* not the death of the sinfull man, or of the wicked sinfull man, but rather that they should turn from their wickedness, and live.

The stating and canvasing of which points, so plainly, curtly to the Doctrines of the old Zuinglian Gospellers, and the modern Calvinians; as they take up the rest of the Ser∣mon, so to the Sermon I refer the Reader for his further sa∣tisfaction in them. I note this only in the close, that there is none of the five Arminian Articles (as they commonly call them) which is not contained in terms express, or may not easily be found by way of Deduction in one or more of the six consequences before recited.

8. Now in this Sermon there are sundry things to be consi∣sidered, as namely, first, That the Zuinglian or Calvinian Gospel in these points, was grown so strong, that the Preacher calls it their Goliah; so huge and monstrous, that many quaked and trembled at it, but none, that is to say, but few or none, vel d•o, vel n•mo, in the words of Persius, durst take up Davids sling to throw it down. Secondly, That in canvasing the absolute Decree of Reprobation, the Preacher spared none of those odious aggravations which have been charged upon the Doctrines of the modern Calvinists by the Remonstrants, and their party in these latter times. Thirdly, That the Sermon was preached at St. Pauls Cross, Page  39 the greatest Auditory of the Kingdom, consisting not only of the Lord Major, the Aldermen, and the rest of the chief men in the City, but in those times of such Bishops, and other learned men as lived occasionally in London, and the City of Westminster, as also of the Judges and most learned Lawyers, some of the Lords of the Counsel being for the most part present also. Fourthly, That for all this we cannot find, that any offence was taken at it, or any Re∣cantation enjoyned upon it, either by the high Commission, or Bishop of London, or any other having authority in the Church of England, nor any complaint made of it to the Queen, or the Counsel-Table, as certainly there would have been, if the matter of the Sermon had been con∣trary to the Rules of the Church, and the appointments of the same. And finally we may observe, that though he was made Arch-Bishop of Yorke in the Reign of King Charls, 1628. when the times are thought to have been inclinable, to those of the Arminian Doctrines; yet he was made Ma∣ster of Pembrook hall, Bishop of Chichester, and from thence translated unto Norwitch, in the time of King James. And thereupon we may conclude, that King James neither thought this Doctrine to be against the Articles of Religion, here by Law established, nor was so great an enemy to them, or the men that held them, as some of our Calvinians have lately made him.

9. But against this it is objected by Mr▪ Prin in his book* of Perpetuity, &c. printed at London in the year 1627. 1. That the said Mr. Harsnet was convented for this Sermon, and forced to recant it as heretical. 2. That upon this Sermon, and the controversies that arose upon it in Cam∣bridge between Baroe and Whitacres, not only the Articles of Lambeth were composed (of which more hereafter) but Mr. Wotton was appointed by the University to confute the same. 3. That the said Sermon was so far from be∣ing published or printed, that it was injoyned by Authority to be recanted. For Answer whereunto, it would first be known, where the said Sermon was recanted, and by whose Page  40 Authority. Not in or by the University of Cambridge, where Mr. Harsnet lived both then, and a long time after; for the Sermon was preached at St. Pauls Cross, and so the University could take no cognisance of it, nor proceed against him for the same. And if the Recantation was made at St. Pauls Cross, where the supposed offence was given, if would be known by whose Authority it was en∣joyned. Not by the Bishop of London, in whose Diocess the Sermon was preached: for his Authority did not reach so far as Cambridge, whither the Preacher had retired after he had performed the service he was called unto: And if it were injoyned by the High Commission, and performed accordingly, there is no question to be made, but that we should have heard of in the Anti-Arminianism, where there are no less then eight leves spent in relating the story of a like Recantation pretended to be made by one Mr. Barret on the tenth of May, 1595. and where it is affirmed, that the said Mr. Harsnet held and maintained the same errors for which Barret was to make his Recantation. But as it will be proved hereafter that no such Recantation was made by Barret; so we have reason to believe that no such Re∣cantation was imposed on Harsnet. Nor, secondly; Can it be made good, that the Controversies between Doctor Whitacres and Dr. Baroe were first occasioned by this Ser∣mon, or that Mr. Wotton was appointed by the University to confute the same. For it appears by a letter written from the heads of that University to their Chancellour, the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, dated March 18. 1595. that Baroe had maintained the same Doctrines, and his Le∣ctures and Determinations above 14. years before, by their own account, for which see Chap. 21. Num. 80. which must be three years at the least before the preaching of that Sermon by Mr. Harsnet. And though it is probable enough that Mr. Wotton might give himself the trouble of confuting the Sermon, yet it is more then probable that he was not re∣quired so to do by that University. For if it had been so appointed by the University, he would have been reward∣ed for it by the same power and authority which had so ap∣pointed, Page  41 when he appeared a Candidate for the Professor∣ship on the death of Whitacres, but could not find a party of sufficient power to carry it for him, of which see also Chap. 21. numb. 4. And thirdly, as for the not printing of the Sermon, it is easily answered; the Genius of the time not carrying men so generally to the printing of Sermons as it hath done since. But it was printed at the last, though long first: And being printed at the last, hath met with∣none so forward in the Confutation, as Mr. Wotton is af∣firmed to be, when at first it was preached. And there∣fore notwithstanding these three surmises which the Author of the P•rpetuity, &c. hath presented to us, it may be said for certain, as before it was, that Mr. Harsnet was never called in Question for that Sermon of his, by any having Authority to convent him for it, and much less, that he ever made any such Recantation, as by the said Author is suggested.

10. In the next place we will behold a passage in one of the Lectures upon Jonah delivered at York, Anno 1594. by the right learned Dr. John King (discended from Ro∣bert King, the first Bishop of Oxon) afterwards made Dean of Christ Church, and from thence preferred, by the power and favour of Arch-Bishop Bancroft to the See of London; A Prelate of too known a zeal to the Church of England to be accused of Popery, or any other Heterodoxies in Re∣ligion of what sort soever, who in his Lecture on these words, Yet forty dayes, and Nineveh shall be overthrown, cap. 3. verse 4. discourseth on them in this manner.

The only matter of Question herein, is how it may stand* with the constancy and truth of eternal God to pronounce a Judgement against a place which taketh not affect within one hundred years: For either he was ignorant of his own time, which we cannot imagine of an omniscient God, or his mind was altered, which is unprobable to suspect. For •• the strength of Israel a man that he should lye, or as the* son of man that he should repeat? Is he not yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever? that was, that is, and that which Page  42 is to come? I mean not only in substance, but in Will and Intention; Doth he use lightness? Are the words that he speaketh yea and nay? Doth he both affirm and deny too? Are not all his Promises, are not all his Threat∣nings,* are not all his Mercies, are not all his Judge∣ments, are not all his words, are not all the tittles and jots of his words, yea and amen? so firmly ratified, that they cannot be broken: Doubtless it shall stand immuta∣ble, When the heaven and the earth shall be changed, and wax old like a garment, Ego Deus & non mutor, I am* God that am not changed. The School in this respect hath a wise distinction, It is one thing to change the Will,* and another to will a change, or to be willed that a change should be. God will have the Law and Ceremony at one time; Gospel without Ceremony at another, this was his Will from Everlasting, constant and unmovable, that in their several courses both should be. Though there be a change in the matter and Subject, there is not a change in him that disposeth it. Our Will is in winter to use the fire, in summer a cold and an open air; the thing is chang∣ed according to the season; but our Will whereby we all decreed and determined in our selves so to do, remain the same.

11. Sometimes the Decrees and purposes of God con∣sist of two parts, the one whereof God revealeth at the first, and the other he concealeth a while, and keepeth in his own knowledge; as in the Action enjoyned to A∣braham, the purpose of God was two fold; 1. To try his Obedience. 2. To save the Child. A man may im∣pute it inconstancy to bid and unbid: but that the Will of the Lord was not plenarily understood in the first part.* This is it which Gregory expresseth in apt terms, God chan•eth his intent pronounced sometimes, but never his Counsel intended. Sometimes things are decreed and spoken of according to inferiour cause, which by the highest and over-ruling cause are otherwise disposed of. One might have said, and said truly, both wayes, Lazarus shall Page  43 rise again, and Lazarus shall not rise again: if we esteem it by the power and finger of God it shall be; but if we leave it to nature, and to the arme of flesh it shall never be. The Prophet Esay told Hezekias the King, put thy house in order* for thou shall die: considering the weaknesse of his body, and the extremity of his disease, he had reason to warrant the same; but if he told him contrariwise, according to that which came to pass, thou shalt not die, looking to the might and mercy of God who received the prayers of the King, he had said as truly. But the best definition is, that in most of these threatnings there is a condition annexed unto them, either exprest or understood, which is as the hinges to the* Doore, and turneth forward and backward the whole mat∣ter. In Jeremy it is exprest, I will speak suddenly against a Nation or a Kingdome, to pluck it up, to root it out, and to de∣stroy it; But if this Nation, against whom I have pronounced,* turn from their wickednesse, I will repent of the plague which I thought to bring upon them. So likewise for his mercy, I will speak suddenly concerning, a Nation, and concerning a Kingdome, to build it, and to plant it; but if ye do evil in my sight, and heare not my voice, I will repent of the good I thought to do for them. Gen. 20. it is exprest, where God telleth Abimeleck, with-holding Abrahams wife, Thou art a dead man, because of the woman which thou hast taken: the event fell out otherwise, and Abimileck purged himself with God, With an upright minde, and innocent hands have I done this. There is no question but God inclosed a con∣dition within his speech, Thou art a dead man, if thou re∣store not the woman without touching her body, and dis∣honouring her husband.

12. Thus we may answer the scruple by all these wayes. 1. Yet fourty dayes and Nineveh shall be overthrown, and yet fourty and fourty dayes, and Nineveh▪ shall not be over∣thrown. Why? Because Nineveh is changed, and the un∣changable will of God ever was, that if Niniveh shewed a change, it should be spared. 2. There were two parts of Gods purpose, the one disclosed, touching the subversion of Page  44 Nineveh, the other of her conversion, kept within the heart of God. Whereupon he changed the sentence pronounced, but not the councel whereunto the sentence was referred. 3. If you consider Niniveh in the inferiour cause, that is in the deservings of Niniveh, it shall fall to the ground; but if you take it in the superiour cause, in the goodnesse and cle∣mency of Almighty God, Niniveh shall escape. Lastly, the judgement was pronounced with a condition reserved in the minde of the judge, Niniveh shall be overthrown if it re∣pent not. Now he that speaketh with condition, may change his minde without suspition of lightness. As Paul peomised the Corinthians to come to them in his way towards Mace∣donia, and did it not; For he ever more added in his soul* that condition which no man must exclude, if it stand with the pleasure of God, and he hinder me not. Philip threatned the Lacidemonians, that if he invaded their countrey, he would utterly extinguish them; They wrote him no other answer but this, If, meaning it was a condition well put in, because he was never like to come amongst them,

If it were not for conditions and exceptions, every thing would be perfect, but nothing more unperfect then Niniveh, if this secret condition of the goodness of God at the second hand had not been.

13. So far this Reverend Prelate hath discoursed of the nature of Gods decrees, and accommodated his discourse thereof to the case of the Ninevites. Let us next see how far the principal particulars of the said discourse, and the case of the Ninivites it self may be accommodated to the Divine decree of Predestination; concerning which the said Reverend Prelate was not pleased to declare his judg∣ment, either as being impertinent to the case which he had in hand, 〈…〉 out of an unwillingnesse to engage himself in those disputes which might not suddenly be ended. All that he did herein was to take care for laying down such grounds in Page  45 those learned Lectures, by which his judgment might be guessed at, though not declared. As Dr. Peter Baroe (of whom more hereafter) declared his judgement touching the Di∣vine Decrees in the said case of the Ninevites, before he fell particularly on the Doctrine of Predestination, as he after did. And first, As for accomodating the case of the Ninevites to the matter which is now before us, we cannot better do it then in the words of Bishop Hooper, so often mentioned; who having told us that Esau was no more excluded from the promise of grace, then Jacob was, proceedeth thus, viz.*

And that his life and conversation was not as agreeable un∣to justice and equity as Jacobs was, the sentence of God unto Rebecca was not in the fault; but his own malice. Out of which words we may observe, first, that the sentence of God concerning Esau, was not the cause that his conver∣sation was so little agreeable to justice and equity; no more then the judgement denounced against the Ninivites, could have been the cause of their impenitency, if they had conti∣nued in their sinnes and wickednesses without repentance; contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospellers in Queen Maries dayes, imputing all mens sins to predestination. Second∣ly, that Gods threatnings against Esau (supposing them to be tanta-mount to a reprobation) could no more have hin∣dred his salvation; then the like threatning against the Nine∣vites, could have sealed to them the assurance of their pre∣sent distruction; if he had heartily repented of his sinnes▪ as the Ninevites did. And therefore, thirdly, as well the decree Page  46 of God concerning Esau, as that which is set out against the Ninevites, are no otherwise to be understood, then under the condition tacitly annexed unto them, that is to say, that the Ninevites should be destroyed within fourty dayes, if they did not repent them of their sinnes; and that Esau should be reprobated to eternal death, if he gave himself o∣ver to the lusts of a sensual appetite: Which if it be confes∣sed for true, as I think it must, then, fourthly, the promises made by God to Jacob, and to all such as are beloved of God, as Jacob was, and consequently their election unto life eternal, are likewise to be understood with the like con∣dition; that is to say, if they repent them of their sinnes, and do unfainedly believe his holy Gospell. The like may be af∣firmed also in all the other particulars touching Gods de∣crees, with reference to the Doctrine of predestination, which are observed or accomodated by that learned Pre∣late in the case of the Ninevites, had I sufficient time and place to insist upon them.