« PreviousContinue »
mamely the 17th, “ seems to be framed according to St. Auftin's Doctrine.” ...“ The three cautions that are added to it, do likewise intimate that St Austin's Doctrine was designed to be settled by the Article;” they “ relate very visibly to the fame opinion.” “In England,” adds Mr. Tindal the Historian, “ The Articles of religion are a plain transcript of St. Auftin's Doctrine, in the controverted points of original fin, predestination, justification by faith alone, efficacy of grace, and good works!.” And to produce but one evidence more, from a whole host, So This,” faith the eminent Dr. Ward, another of our Plenipotentiaries at Dort, “ can I truly add for a conclusion, that the Church of England from the beginning of the reformation, and this our famous University, with all those who from thence till now, have with us enjoyed the Divinity Chair, if we except one foreign Frenchman, have constantly adhered to St ustin, in these points";" namely, those just enumerated. But what, however, is more convincing in the case than ten thousand other evidences, we have ocular demonstration in the Works of our Reformers, of their great use of this distinguished Prelate's Writings, and of their high respect for his doctrines. We ftop not here to show precisely what these doctrines are. No Divine can be ignorant of theni. And they who really know them, must know also that they are the very essence of the tenets we are vindicating.
Mr. Daubeny, however, is above following such a Guide; and professedly maintains a different fystem. “ For my own part,” says “ this vigilant guardian of our established faith, this intrepid champion of the doctrines of the Church of England," this zealous opposer of Election, " I do not
(q) Expo. of Arts. p. 168: See also Ibid. p. 114; and Preface, p. 1. (r) Continuation of Rapin, Vol. iii. p. 275. (s) Peter Baro. (t) Concio ad Clerum Cambridge, 1625, p. 45.
(v) See the Homilies; Cranmer's Discourse of faith, &c.; Jewel's Apology; &e. (0) Antijac. Aug. 1800, p. 438.
take my faith from the writings of Luther, Calvin, or the more ancient professor of this doctrine, St. Augustin W."
We would however here ask this Gentleman, by the way, how he can attempt to persuade his reader, that “ by an appeal to historic fact," he has brought him “ acquainted with the circumstances which accompanied the original establishment of our present Church doctrine," and " qualified him to form a decided opinion on the subject *;" when this “ historic fact” consists, of quotations from Books full of Popery, written many years before the regular reformation of our Church commenced y, quotations which affirm that, $6 Good Works be the very service of God, and be MERITORIOUS towards the attaining of everlasting life 2;" of a few detached passages, that are perfectly equivocala ; and of other mere second-hand scraps, taken from avowed partizans in the business b; and, when scarcely one of those great Works we have mentioned, which, beyond all question, were so intimately connected with the “ original establishment of our present Church doctrine,” is even affirmed to exiji ! How is this reconcileable with common integrity? And how is it, that so many of our opponents, in some degree, imitate this writer? Did they never hear of this great use of Austin; of the IVork that paljed the Convocation along with the Articles, and was bound up with them, in 1552; of the writings of our Bishops and Martyrs in Prilon, Nowell's Catechism, Jewel's Apology, and the other authentic, and publicly approved Works of our principal Reformers, at the time of our Reformation ? Why then is this unimpeachable evidence on the question almost wholly suppreljed? And why do they continually weary us with such equivocal and illegitimate testimony ?
(w) Guide p. 91. but see the whole 5th Disc, and his Appendix. (x) Appendix, p. 262. (y: Ibid. p. 169, 187, 203, 329, &c.; and above, p. 57 see. (2) Appendix, p. 329. (a) See ibid. p. 201--209. (b) Heylin, Mr. Fletcher, Dr. Hey, &c. (c) See above, p. 57.
The true interpretation of the Articles further fought from the known PRIVATE SENTIMENTS of our Reformers.
THE last illustration of the genuine sense of our constituted forms of doctrine, I shall mention, is, The known private sentiments of those who compiled and imposed them. These sentiments, we mean to show, were those which are now usually termed Calvinistic. Out of the multiplicity of evidence by which this fact might be established, I will select, as sufficiently decisive, only the following.
1. First, The UNANIMOUS TESTIMONY of men of all fentiments, and of the utmost respectability.-Upon this point bear the arguments which we have already adduced to prove the articles Augustinian. For, however Calvin might express himself more decisively on some points of doctrine than Austin had done, or might eyen differ from him, those who now only adhere to Austin are called Calvinists. “When this doctrine,” saith Mr. Daubeny,“ now distinguished by the title of Calvinistic, was first broached by Austin, it was reckoned an herefyd.” So also in the passage already cited 2, reprobating Election, &c. as taught by “ Luther” and “ Calvin,” he says, " or the more ancient professor of this doctrine, St. Augustin.”-Al! “ other differences,” except those which respect Baptism, Bishop Burnet teaches, “ between St. Austin's Doctrine, and that of the Sublapfarians, are but forced strains to represent him and the Calvinists as of different principles y.”—“ Calvin,” Bishop Pretyman accordingly adds, “ nearly followed Austin and the Latin Church."-But our witnesses shall speak directly to the
(d) Appendix, p. 400. (z) page 68. (y) On Arts. p. 149, (x) Elements, Vol. ii, p. 312. See also Bishop Watson's Charge, 1795. p. 68.
point. We will begin with a man equally unprejudiced in favour of any system of revealed doctrines,
The celebrated historian Mr. Hume. " The first Reformers in England,” he says, “ as in other European countries, had embraced the most rigid tenets of predestination and absolute decrees, and had composed upon that system, all the articles of their religious Creed.” And in another place, speaking of the fame doctrines, “ All the first Reformers," he says, “ adopted these principles f.”
Hear next the equally well-known Dr. Mosheim, whose express object it was to make a faithful record of such particulars.--. After the death of Henry,” relates this learned Church Historian concerning our nation, the Uniyersities, Schools, and Churches, became the oracles of Calvinism. ... Hence it happened, that, when it was proposed, under the reign of Edward the fixth 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. This, however, was done, without any change of the form of Epifcopal Government." The fame sentiment he repeats a little after in these words : “It is certain that the Calvinistical doctrine of predestination prevajled among the first English Reformers, the greatest part of whom were at least Sublapfariansi.”
The depofitions of another class of historians, the conductors of the New Annual Register, run thus : Speaking of the precise periods when our articles were agreed upon in convocation, and confirmed by Parliament, " The tenets," they say, “commonly received then, and indeed supported by the 39 Articles, were those commonly called Calvinistical.
(e) Hift. of Eng. Vol. vi. p. 273. (f) Ibid. p. 166. (g) “ For an account of this controversy” Tthe Calvinian) Bishop Pretyman says “ fee Mofheim.” Elements, Vol. ii. p. 312. (h) Eccles. History, Vol. iv. p. 87. (i) Ibid. p. 88..
In these opinions there was such an almost universal concurrence that we meet with only one personk of any confideration in this reign, who advanced sentiments approaching to what afterward went under the name of Arminianisın; and fuch was the clamour raised against him, that he retired from his Profefforthip?." ..,
" The opinion of Talvih," the Critical Reviewers fay, " was the doctrine of the early Fathers of the Church; and was generally maintained till the time of Bishop Burnet, by the members of the Church of England." .
"Of all the Reformed Churches," adds the elegant Dr. Robertson, “ that of England has deviated" least from the ancient institutions. ... Though the Articles to be recognized as the system of national faith were framed conformable to the doctrines of Calvin, his notions with respect to Church government and the mode of worship were not adopted.”
Bishop Burnet's testimony is equally short and decisive: “ In England,” faith his lordship, “the FIRST REFORMERS were GENERALLY in the Sublupsärian hypothesis ; but Perd kins and others allerted the Supralaplaridn'wäy "*2.1.
The fame, in effect, fay Maclaine'a, Strypeo, Wilson P, Smollett 9, and numberless others. In short, as the learned
· (k) Peter Baro, Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. (1) New Annual Regifter for 1789. . (y) June, 1800, p. 223. (Z) History of America, p. 163. (m) Expof. of Arts. p. 151.
The Sublapfarians suppose, that the elect were chosen, and the rest of mankind paffed by, as fallen creatures, or finners;'and attempt not to account for the difficulties which attend the subject when pursued beyond a certain limit. The Supralapfarians proceed further, speak mòre decisively respecting the Divine Decree in the fall of Adam, &c: and fuppose that in the Aet of Election, &c. God merely contidered men as creatures. This seems agreeable to his Lordship's account. They were in common, however, he says, called " Calvinijs." Ibid. (n) Noté on Mofheim's Hift. Vol. ii. p. 571. (0) Eccles:Mem.' and Annalş. (p) Vol. ii. p. 753. (q) Hift. Vol. vii. p. 80.