CHAP. XIX. Of the first great breach which was made in the Doctrine of the Church, by whom it was made, and what was done towards the making of it up.

IT was not long that Queen Mary sate upon the Throne, [ I] and yet as short time as it was, it gave not only a strong interruption for the present to the proceeding of the Church, but an occasion also of great discord and dissention in it for the time to come. For many of our Divines, who had fled beyond the Sea of avoid the hurry of her Reign, though otherwise men of good abilities in most parts of Learning, returned so altered in their principals, as to points of Doctrine, so disaffected to the Govern∣ment, Forms of worship here by Law established, that they seem'd not to be the same men at their coming home, as they had been at their going hence: yet such was the necessity which the Church was under, of filling up the vacant places and preferments, which had been made void either by the voluntary discession, or positive deprivation of the Popish Cleergy, that they wer fain to take in all of any condition, which were able to do the publick service, without relation to their private opinions in doctrine or discipline, nothing so much regarded in the chice of men for Bishopricks, Deanries, Dignities in Cathedral Churches, the richest Benefices in the Countrey, and places of most command and trust in the Universities, as their known zeal against the Papists, together with such a sufficiency of learning as might enable them for writing and preaching against the Popes Supremacy, the carnal presence of Christ in the blessed Sa∣crament, the superstitions of the Mass, the half Communion, the celebrating of Di∣vine service in a tongue not known unto the People, the inforced single life of Priests, the worshipping of Images, and other the like points of Popery, which had given most offence, and were the principal causes of that separation.

On this account we find Mr. Pilkington preferred to the See of Durham, [ II] and Whitting∣ham to the rich Deanry of the Church; of which the one proved a grear favourer of the Non-conformists, as is confessed by one who challengeth a relation to his blood and family; the other associated himself with Goodman, as after Goodman did with Knox, for lanting Puritanism and sedition in the Kirk of Scotland. On this account Dr. Law∣rence Humphrey a professed Calvinian, in point of doctrine, and a Non-conformist, (but qualified with the title of a moderate one) is made the Queens Professor for Divinity in the University of Oxon; Thomas Cartwright, that great Incendiary of this Church, preferred to be the Lady Margarets Professor in the University of Cambridge: Sampson made Dean of Christ-church, and presently propter Puritanismum Exacutoratus,* turned out again for Puritanism, as my Author hath it: Hardiman made one of the first Pre∣bends of Westminister of the Queens foundation, and not long after deprived of it by the high Commissioners for breaking down the Altar there, and defacing the ancient utepsils and ornaments which belonged to the Church. And finally upon this ac∣count, as Whitehead, who had been Chaplain to Queen Anne Bullain, refused the Archbishoprick of Canterbury, before it was offered unto Parker and Coverdale to be re∣stored to the See of Exon, which he had chearfully accepted in the time of K. Edward; so Mr. John Fox of great esteem for his painful and laborious work of Acts and Monu∣ments (commonly called the Book of Martyrs) would not accept of any preferment in the Church, but a Prebends place in Salisbury, which tied him not to any residence in the same. And this he did especially (as it after proved) to avoid subscription, shew∣ing a greater willingness to leave his place, than to subscribe unto the Articles of Re∣ligion, then by Law established, when he was legally required to do it by Arch-bishop Parker. Of this man there remains a short discourse in his Acts and Monuments of Pre∣destination, occasioned by a Letter of Mr. Bradfords before remembred, whose Ortho∣dox doctrine in that point he feared might create some danger unto that of Calvin, which then began to find a more general entertainment than could be rationally ex∣pected in so short a time: And therefore as a counter-ballance he annexeth this dis∣course of his own with this following title, viz.

Notes on the same Epistle, and the manner of Election thereunto appertaining.

1. What Gods Election is, and what the cause thereof. 2. How Gods Election Page  610proceedeth in working our salvation. 3. To whom Gods Election pertaineth, and how a Man may be certain thereof.—Between Predestination and Election this difference there is, Predestination is as well to the Reprobate as to the Elect, Election pertaineth only to them that be saved. Predestination in that it respecteth the Re∣bate, is called Reprobation; in that it respected the saved, is called Election, and is thus defined. Predestination is the eternal decreement of God, purposed before in himself, what shall befal all men, either to salvation or damnation; Election is the free mercy and grace of God, in his own will through faith in Christ his Son, choosing and preferring to life such as pleaseth him. In this definition of Election first goeth before (the mercy and grace of God) as the causes thereof, whereby are excluded all works of the Law, and merits of deserving, whether they go before faith, or come after; so was Jacob chosen, and Esau refused before either of them began to work, &c. Secondly, in that the mercy of God in this Definition is said to be (free) thereby is to be noted the proceeding and working of God not to be bound to any ordinary place, or to any succession of choice, nor to state and dignity of person, nor to wor∣thiness of blood, &c. but all goeth by the meer will of his own purpose, as it is writ∣ten, spiritus ubi vult spirat, &c. And thus was the outward race and stock of Abraham, after flesh refused (which seemed to have the preheminence) and another seed after the Spirit, raised by Abraham of the stones, that is of the Gentiles. So was the out∣ward Temple of Jerusalem, and Chair of Moses, which seem'd to be of price for∣saken, and Gods Chair advanced in other Nations. So was tall Saul refused, and little David accepted: the Rich, the Proud, and the Wise of this world rejected, and the word of salvation daily opened to the poor and miserable abjects, the high Moun∣tains cast under, and the low valleys exalted, &c.

although they never did that obedience themselves which was in him, Rom. 5.

Page  611

Such is the judgment and opinion of our Martyrologist, [ IV] in the great point of Pre∣destination unto life; the residue thereof touching justification, being here purposely cut off with an &c. as nothing pertinent to the business which we have in hand. But between the Comment and the Text there is a great deal of difference, the Comment laying the foundation of Election on the Will of God, according to the Zuinglian or Calvinian way; but the Text laying it wholly upon faith in Christ (whom God the Fa∣ther hath Predestinate in Christ unto eternal life) according to the doctrine of the Church of England. The Text first presupposeth an estate of sin and misery, into which man was fallen, a ransom paid by Christ for man and his whole Posterity, a freedom left in man thus ransomed, either to take, or finally to refuse the benefit of so great mercy: and then fixing or appropriating the benefit of so great a mercy (as Christ and all his merits do amount to) upon such only as believe. But the Comment takes no notice of the fall of man, grounding both Reprobation and Election on Gods absolute plea∣sure, without relation to mans sin, or our Saviours sufferings, or any acceptation or re∣fusal of his mercies in them. As great a difference there is between the Author of the Comment and Bishop Hooper, as between the Comment and the Text: Bishop Hooper telleth us, cap. 10. num. 2. that Saul was no more excluded from the promise of Christ, than David; Esau than Jacob; Judas than Peter, &c. if they had not excluded themselves: quite contrary to that of our present Author, who having asked the question, why Jacob was chosen, and not Esau; why David accepted, and Saul refused, &c. makes answer, that it cannot otherwise be answered, than that so was the good will of God.

And this being said, [ V] I would fain know upon what authority the Author hath placed Nachor amongst the Reprobates, in the same rank with Esan, Pharaoh and Saul; all which he hath marked out to reprobation; the Scripture laying no such censure on Nachor, or his Posterity, as the Author doth: Or else the Author must know more of the estate of Nachor than Abraham his Brother did; who certainly would never have Page  613chosen a Wife for his Son Isaac out of Nachors line, if he had looked upon them as reprobated and accursed of God. I observe, secondly, that plainly God is made an accepter of persons by the Authors doctrine. For first, he telleth us that the elder Son had a better will to tarry by his Father, and so did indeed, but the fatted Calf was given to the younger Son that ran away; and thereupon he doth infer, that the matter goeth not by the will of man, but by the will of God, as it pleaseth him to accept. I observe, thirdly, that Vocation, in the Authors judgment, standeth upon Gods Election, as the work thereof; whereas Vocation is more general, and is extended unto those also whom they call the Reprobate, and therefore standeth not on Election, as the Author hath it. For many are called, though out of those many which are called, but a few are chosen. Fourthly, I observe, that notwithstanding the Author builds the do∣ctrine of Election on Gods absolute will and pleasure, yet he is fain to have recourse to some certain condition, telling us, that though the mercy of God, his Grace, Election, Vocation, and other precedent Causes do justifie us; yet this is upon condition of believing in Christ. And finally, it is to be observed also, that after all his pains taken in defen∣ding such a personal and eternal Election, as the Calvinians now contend for; he ad∣viseth us to wrap up our selves wholly, both body and soul under Gods general promise, and not to cumber our heads with any further speculations, knowing that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish. &c.

And so I take my leave of our Martyrologist, [ VI] the publishing of those discourse I look on as the first great battery which was made on the Bulwarks of this Church, in point of doctrine by any member of her own, after the setling of the Articles by the Queens Authority, Ann. 1562. the brables raised by Crowley in his Book against Campneys, though it came out after the said Articles were confirmed and published, being but as hail-shot in comparison of this great piece of Ordnance. Not that the Arguments were so strong as to make any great breach in the publick Doctrine, had it been pub∣lished in a time less capable of innovations, or rather if the great esteem which many had of that man, and the universal reception which his Book found with all sorts of People, had not gained more authority unto his discourse, than the merit or solidness of it could deserve. The inconveniencies whereof, as also the many marginal Notes and other passages, visibly tending to faction and sedition in most parts of that Book, were either not observed at first, or winked at in regard of the great animosities which were ingendred by it in all sorts of People, as well against the persons of the Papists, as against the doctrine; Insomuch that in the Convocation of the year, 1571. there passed some Canons, requiring that not only the Deans of all Cathedrals should take a special care that the said Book should be so conveniently placed in their several Churches, that people of all conditions might resort unto it; but also, that all and every Arch-Bishop, Bishops, Deans, Residentiaries, and Arch-Deacons should choose the same to be placed in some convenient publick room of their several houses, not only for the entertainment and instruction of their menial servants, but of such strangers also as occasionally repaired unto them.

If it be hereupon inferred that Fox his doctrine was approved by that Convocation, [ VII] and therefore that it is agreeable to the true intent and meaning of the Articles of the Church of England; besides what hath been said already by Anticipation, it may as logically be inferred, that the Convocation approved all his marginal Notes; all the factious and seditious passages; and more particularly the scorn which he puts upon the Episcopal habit, and other Ceremonies of the Church. Touching which last (for the other are too many to be here recited) let us behold how he describes the diffe∣rence which hapned between Hooper, Bishop of Glocester on the one side, Cranmer and Ridley on the other, about the ordinary habit and attire then used by the Bishops of this Church, we shall find it thus, viz.*

Here have we the Episcopal habit affirmed to be a contumely and reproach to that godly man, [ VIII] slighted contemptuously by the name of trifles, and condemned in the marginal Note for a Popish attire; the other ceremonies of the Church being censured as more ambitious than profitable, and tending more to superstition than to edification; which as no man of sense or reason can believe to be approved and allowed of by that Con∣vocation; so neither is it to be believed that they allowed of his opinion in the present point. For a counterballance whereunto there was another Canon passed in this Con∣vocation, by which all Preachers were enjoyned to take special care, •ne quid unquam do∣ceant, pro concione; quod à populo religiose, teneri, & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinae veteris aut novi testamenti quodque ex'illa ipsa doctrina Cathotici Patres & veteres Episcopi Collegerint; that is to say, that they should maintain no other doctrine in their publicki Sermons to be believed of the People, but that which was agreeable to the do∣ctrine of the Old and New Testament, and had from thence been gathered by the Ca∣tholick (or Orthodox) Fathers, and ancient Bishops of the Church. To which rule, if they held themselves as they ought to do, no countenance could be given to Calvines Doctrines, or Fox his judgment in these points maintained by one of the Catholick Fa∣thers, and ancient Bishops of the Church, but St. Augustine only, who though he were a godly man, and a learned Prelate, yet was he but one Bishop, not Bishops in the plural number, but one father, and not all the fathers, and therefore his opinion not to be maintained against all the rest.