A footnote by found in this volume (from
http://books.google.com/books?id=6z4DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA295&dq=Thomas+Cranmer&output=text#c_top . We quite agree.
What follows below is from this book. The English Reformers were, repeat, were Calvinists until Mr. Laud arose.
-------------------
Numerous writers in the Episcopal church in England, and among them some of the dignitaries of the church, have laboured to prove that the English reformers were hostile towards Calvin, and that their Confession of Faith and Catechisms, were opposed to his theological works and opinions. That no such opposition existed, says Waterman in his letter to Mr. Johnson, but that an entire harmony prevailed between those venerable reformers, and that pre-eminent minister of Christ, is beyond question evinced from the Catechism itself, which runs parallel with his, and scarcely varies from it, except in a more diffusive illustration of the doctrinal points. It is an incontrovertible fact, that at that very time, and for about fifty years after, to the arch-prelacy of William Laud, the Institutes of Calvin were publicly read and studied in both Universities, by every student in divinity. And the Pope, in his Bull, excommunicating and deposing the queen, in 1569, alleges against her this offensive charge, "that she received herself and enjoined upon her subjects, the impious sacraments and institutes according to Calvin." Every historical fact that has fallen under my observation, enforces upon my mind the conviction, that the doctrinal system of Calvin, in 1562, and in 1570, was cordially received by the bishops of the English church. In proof of this, not to rest on the circumstance, that archbishop Parker presented to the University of Cambridge the Institutes, Commentaries, and other writings of Calvin, I may adduce the following paragraph of the xvii. Article of Faith, as being very closely copied from Calvin's Institutes : "Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God."— For this fact and the references, I am indebted to the
Christian Observer, from which very candid and evangelical work, I beg leave to give the following statement: That Dr. Randolph, bishop of Oxford, a few years before, republished " The whole of king Edward's Catechism, the declaration of doctrines in Jewell's Apology, and the Catechism commonly called Dr. Nowell's, in a collection of tracts for the use of students in divinity."
Page 214ff.
That Calvinistic sentiments were held by the clergy during the reign of Edward VI. there can be no doubt. Mosheim says, "that after the death of Henry (VIII.) the universities, the schools, and the churches, became the oracles of Calvinism; and that when it was proposed, in Edward the Sixth's reign, to give a fixed and stable turn to the doctrine and discipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the theological system there established by Calvin was adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith in England." That the doctrines of the church of England were deemed, by many of the reformers themselves, to be not at variance with Calvin's Institutes might easily be shown. A remarkable testimony to this effect will be found in Fox's detail of the examination of the martyr Philpot, the
first protestant archdeacon of Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. "Which of you all," said he to his popish judges, "is able to answer Calvin's Institutions, who is minister of Geneva?" "I am sure you blaspheme that godly man and that godly church, where he is minister, as it is your church's condition, when you cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them with blasphemies and false reports: for in the matter of predestination he (Calvin) is in no other opinion than all the doctors of the church be, agreeing with the Scriptures." On another examination, he said, "I allow the church of Geneva and the doctrine of the same; for it is una, catholica, et apostolica, and doth follow the doctrine which the apostles did preach: and the doctrine taught and preached in king Edward's days was also according to the same." (Fox, Volume III. see Philpot's Examinations.)
Bradford wrote a treatise on the doctrine of election, proving its truth from the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. This work was approved by Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, as appears from the following extract from Strype's Life of Cranmer, p.350:
"One thing there now fell out which caused some disturbance among the prisoners. Many of them that were under restraint for the profession of the gospel were such as held free-will, tending to the derogation of God's grace, and refused the doctrines of absolute predestination and original sin."—" Divers of them were in the King's Bench, where Bradford and many other gospellers were."—" Bradford was apprehensive that they might now do great harm in the church, and therefore wrote a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, the three chief heads of the reformed (though oppressed) church in England, to take some cognizance of the matter, and to consult with them in remedying it. And with him joined bishop Ferrar, Rowland Taylor, and John Philpot. Upon this occasion, Ridley wrote a treatise of God, election and predestination. And Bradford wrote another upon the same subject, and sent it to those three fathers, in Oxford for their approbation: and Their's Being Obtained, the rest of the eminent ministers in and about London were ready to sign it also.
The notes to the Bible, to which archbishop Parker wrote a preface, are highly Calvinistic. These notes, as we are informed by Strype, in his Life of Archbishop Parker, p. 400, were drawn up by the bishops, but chiefly by the archbishops. As a specimen of these notes, we insert that on Ezekiel xviii. 23. "Have I any desire that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God?" The note is as follows: "Hee speaketh this to commend God's mercie to poor sinners, who rather is ready to pardon than to punish, as his long suffering declareth. Albeit God in his eternal counsel appointed the death and damnation of the reprobate, yet the end of his counsel was not their death only, but chiefly his own glory." In the same volume was inserted, under the same authority, viz. that of the bishops and archbishops of the church of England, the well known Calvinistic Catechism, entitled, "Certain Questions and Answers touching the doctrine of Predestination, the use of God's Word and Sacraments." In this Catechism, not only the doctrine of election, but that of reprobation also, is plainly and explicitly affirmed and defended.
The divines deputed by king James, to attend the synod of Dort, were bishops Hall, Davenant, and Ward, who were all eminent and decided Calvinists. King James himself, held the same theological opinions, and strongly disapproved of Arminius and his sentiments. That the divines above named, were Calvinists, is evident from the fact, that they individually and collectively subscribed to all the acts of that synod, in condemnation of the Armenians. King James, in his declaration against Vorstius, calls Arminius, "that enemy of God;" "who was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresy." And, speaking of "seditious and heretical preachers," he adds, "our principal meaning was of Arminius, who though himself were lately dead, yet had he left too many of his disciples behind him." "It was our hard hap not to hear of this Arminius before he was dead, and that all the reformed churches of Germany had with open mouth complained of him." King James' Works, (p. 350, 354, 356.) In a meditation upon the Lord's prayer, king James says, "the first article of the apostles' creed teaches us, that God is Almighty, however Vorstius and the Arminians think to rob him of his eternal decree and secret will, making many things to be done in this world whether he will or not." (Works, 581.) It is remarkable, that the synod of Dort was expressly assembled at the persuasion of king James: and even Dr. Heylin admits that the king "had laboured to condemn those, viz. (the Arminian) opinions at the synod of Dort."— Life of Laud, p. 120.
The archbishops Whitgift, Hutton, and Parker, were all Calvinists, and approved of the Lambeth articles. The predestinarian controversy, which led to the composition of those articles, began at Cambridge in the year 1595; certain individuals of name in the university having about that period publicly denied some of the doctrines usually denominated Calvinistic. For the purpose of allaying the ferment thus excited, the heads of colleges deputed Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Tyndal to wait upon the archbishop at Lambeth, there to confer upon the subject with his Grace, and other learned and eminent men. At this conference the Lambeth Articles were drawn up and approved; and a copy of them was soon after sent to Cambridge by the archbishop, with a letter and private directions to teach the doctrine contained in them, in that university.
The leader will find, (in Fuller's Church History, book ix. p. 22) in the account of the Lambeth Articles, the following sentence :— " Now also began some opinions about predestination, free-will, perseverance, &c. much to trouble both the sdhools and pulpit; whereupon archbishop Whitgift, out of his Christian care to propagate the truth, and suppress tha opposite errors, caused a solemn meeting of many grave and learned divines at Lambeth; where (besides the archbishop,) Richard Bancroft, bishop of London, Richard Vaughan, bishop elect of Bangor, Humphrey Tyndall, dean of Ely, Dr. Whitaker, queen's professor in Cambridge, and others, were assembled. These, after a serious debate and mature deliberation, resolved at last on the now following Articles."
"1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life : certain men he hath reprobated unto death.
"2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the persons predestinated, but only the good-will and pleasure of God.
"3. There is a predetermined and certain number of the predestinate, which can neither be augmented nor diminished.
"4. They who are not predestinated to salvation, shall » necessarily be damned for their sins.
"5. A true, living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, faileth not, vanisheth not away in the elect, either finally or totally.
"6. A man truly faithful, that is, such a one as is endued with justifying faith, is certain, with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins and his everlasting salvation by Christ.
"7. Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men, by which they maybe saved if they will.
"8. No man can come unto Christ unless it be given unto him, and unless the Father draw him: all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son.
"9. It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved."
With respect to the principles contained in these Articles, we are assured by Whitgift that they were generally recognised :— "I know them," says he, "to be sound doctrines, and uniformly professed in this church of England, and agreeable to the Articles of Religion established by authority: and therefore I thought it meet that Baret should in more humble sort confess his ignorance and error; and that none should be suffered to teach any contrary doctrine to the foresaid propositions agreed upon." So just are the observations of bishop Horsley, "Any one may hold all the theological opinions of Calvin, hard and extravagant as some of them may seem, and yet be a sound member of the church of England and Ireland" " Her discipline has been submitted to, it has in former times been most ably and zealously defended, by the highest supralapsarian Calvinists such was the great Usher; such was Whitgift; such were many more burning and shining lights of our church in her early days, when she shook off the papal tyranny, long since gone to the resting place of the spirits of the just."
Indeed, it must be considered as a little extraordinary, that any person acquainted with the history of those times, should mistake the real nature of the question between the Established church and the Puritanical party: it was not a question of doctrine, but of discipline.
Archbishops Grindall, Bancroft, and Abbott were also strict Calvinists. The doctrinal sentiments of Thomas Fuller, the church historian, are expressed in a brief compass in his Church History, lib. ix. p. 232. He cordially approved of the Lambeth Articles, and considers them as witnesses of "the general and received doctrines of England in that age about the forenamed controversies."Hutton, archbishop of York, mentions the Puritans of his time, who were Calvinistic, as agreeing with the English church in doctrine, though they differed as to ceremonies and accidents. And those of king Charles time, so far resembled them as generally to approve of such articles as are strictly doctrinal. And the sense which they affixed to the articles was Calvinistic, according the notions which had usually prevailed till Charles' days, both in and out of the establishment. Baxter furnishes many proofs of this fact, so far as it respects Presbyterians. Life of Baxter, pp. 213—223, &c.
At what period, then, did the members of the church of England generally change their opinions on the subject of doctrinal Calvinism? It is intimated by Mosheim, that the change took place soon after the Synod of Dort: and this change he informs us, which was entirely in favour of Arminianism, was principally effected by the counsels and influence of William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. "As the church of England had not yet abandoned the Calvinistical doctrines of predestination and grace, he (James) also adhered to them for some time, and gave his theological representatives in the Synod of Dordrecht, an order to join in the condemnation of the sentiments of Arminius, in relation to these deep and intricate points. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, a man of remarkable gravity, and of eminent zeal both for civil and religious liberty, whose lenity towards their ancestors, the Puritans still celebrate in the highest strains, used his utmost endeavours to confirm the king in the principles of Calvinism, to which he himself was thoroughly attached. But scarcely had the British divines returned from Dordrecht, and given an account of the laws that had been enacted, and the doctrines that had been established by that famous assembly, than the king and the greatest part of the Episcopal clergy discovered, in the strongest terms, their dislike of the proceedings, and judged the sentiments of Arminius, relating to the divine decrees, preferable to those of Geneva and of Calvin. This sudden change in the theological opinions of the court and clergy, was certainly owing to a variety of reasons," Here, then, we have Laud described as the first anti-Calvinistic archbishop; and the time distinctly marked when the change of sentiment took place generally in the church of England.
