Page images
PDF
EPUB

namely the 17th, "feems to be framed according to St. Auftin's Doctrine." ... "The three cautions that are added to it, do likewife intimate that St Austin's Doctrine was defigned to be fettled by the Article;" they "relate very vifibly to the fame opinion!." "In England," adds Mr. Tindal the Hiftorian, "The Articles of religion are a plain transcript of St. Auftin's Doctrine, in the controverted points of original fin, predeftination, justification by faith alone, efficacy of grace, and good works." And to produce but one evidence more, from a whole hoft, "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 thofe who from thence till now, have with us enjoyed the Divinity Chair, if we except one foreign Frenchman, have conftantly adhered to St uftin, in these points;" namely, thofe juft enumerated. But what, however, is more convincing in the cafe than ten thousand other evidences, we have ocular demonstration in the Works of our Reformers, of their great use of this diftinguished Prelate's Writings, and of their high respect for his doctrines. We stop not here to show precisely what these doctrines are. No Divine can be ignorant of them. And they who really know them, must know also that they are the very effence of the tenets we are vindicating.

Mr. Daubeny, however, is above following fuch a Guide; and profeffedly maintains a different fyftem. "For my own part," fays " this vigilant guardian of our established faith, this intrepid champion of the doctrines of the Church of England," this zealous oppofer 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.

[ocr errors]

take my faith from the writings of Luther, Calvin, or the more ancient profeffor of this doctrine, St. Auguftin ". We would however here afk this Gentleman, by the way, how he can attempt to perfuade his reader, that " by an appeal to hiftoric fact," he has brought him "acquainted with the circumftances which accompanied the original establishment of our prefent Church doctrine," and "qualified him to form a decided opinion on the fubject *;" when this "historic fact" confifts, of quotations from Books full of Popery, written many years before the regular reformation of our Church commenced, quotations which affirm that Good Works be the very service of God, and be MERITORIOUS towards the attaining of everlasting life;" of a few detached paffages, that are perfectly equivocala; and of other mere fecond-hand fcraps, taken from avowed partizans in the bufinefs; and, when fcarcely one of thofe 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 exijt! How is this reconcileable with common integrity? And how is it, that fo many of our opponents, in fome degree, imitate this writer? Did they never hear of this great use of Austin; of the Work that paffed the Convocation along with the Articles, and was bound up with them, in 1552; of the writings of our Bishops and Martyrs in Prijon, Nowell's Catechifm, 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 almoft wholly fuppreffed? And why do they continually weary us with fuch equivocal and illegitimate teftimony?

(w) Guide p. 91. but fee the whole 5th Difc. and his Appendix. (x) Appendix, p. 262. (y) Ibid. p. 169, 187, 203, 329, &c.; and above, p. 57 fee. (z) Appendix, p. 329.

p. 201-209.

above, p. 57.

(b) Heylin, Mr. Fletcher, Dr. Hey, &c.

(a) See ibid.

(c) See

1

SECTION II.

The true interpretation of the Articles further fought from the known PRIVATE SENTIMENTS of our Reformers.

THE laft illuftration of the genuine fenfe of our con

ftituted forms of doctrine, I fhall mention, is, The known private fentiments of those who compiled and impofed them. These fentiments, we mean to fhow, were those which are now usually termed Calvinistic. Out of the multiplicity of evidence by which this fact might be established, I will felect, as fufficiently decifive, 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 Auguftinian. For, however Calvin might express himself more decifively on fome points of doctrine than Austin had done, or might even differ from him, those who now only adhere to Auftin are called Calvinists. "When this doctrine," faith Mr. Daubeny, " now diftinguished by the title of Calviniftic, was first broached by Austin, it was reckoned an herefy"." So alfo in the paffage already cited, reprobating Election, &c. as taught by "Luther" and "Calvin," he says, " or the more ancient profeffor of this doctrine, St. Auguftin."-All" other differences," except those which respect Baptism, Bishop Burnet teaches, tween St. Auftin's Doctrine, and that of the Sublapfarians, are but forced strains to represent him and the Calvinists as of different principles ."-" Calvin," Bishop Pretyman accordingly adds, "nearly followed Austin and the Latin Church ."-But our witneffes fhall fpeak directly to the

'.'

(d) Appendix, p. 400. (x) Elements, Vol. ii, p. 312.

"be

(z) page 68.
(y) On Arts. p. 149.
See alfo Bishop Watfon's Charge,

1795. p. 68.

point. We will begin with a man equally unprejudiced in favour of any system of revealed doctrines,

The celebrated hiftorian Mr. Hume. "The firft Reformers in England," he fays, " as in other European countries, had embraced the moft rigid tenets of predestination and abfolute decrees, and had compofed upon that system, all the articles of their religious Creed." And in another place, fpeaking of the fame doctrines, "All the firft Reformers," he says, "adopted these principles f."

Hear next the equally well-known Dr. Mofheim 8, whose exprefs object it was to make a faithful record of fuch particulars." After the death of Henry," relates this learned Church Hiftorian concerning our nation," the Univerfities, Schools, and Churches, became the oracles of Calvinism.... Hence it happened, that, when it was propofed, under the reign of Edward the fixth to give a fixed and stable turn to the doctrine and difcipline of the Church, Geneva was acknowledged as a Sifter-Church, and the theological fyftem 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 fentiment he repeats a little after in these words: "It is certain that the Calvinistical doctrine of predeftination prevailed among the first English Reformers, the greatest part of whom were at least Sublapfarians.'

[ocr errors]

The depofitions of another clafs of hiftorians, the conductors of the New Annual Regifter, run thus: Speaking of the precife periods when our articles were agreed upon in convocation, and confirmed by Parliament, "The tenets," they fay, "commonly received then, and indeed fupported by the 39 Articles, were thofe commonly called Calviniftical.

(f) Ibid.

(e) Hift. of Eng. Vol. vi. p. 273. p. 166. (g) "For an account of this controverfy" (the Calvinian) Bishop Pretyman fays "fee Mofheim." Elements, Vol. ii. p. 312.

(h) Eccles.

[blocks in formation]

In these opinions there was fuch an almost universal concurrence that we meet with only one perfonk of any confideration in this reign, who advanced fentiments approaching to what afterward went under the name of Arminianifin; and fuch was the clamour raifed against him, that he retired from his Profefforihip.

"The opinion of Calvin," the Critical Reviewers fay, "was the doctrine of the early Fathers of the Church; and was generally maintained till the time of Bifhop Burnet, by the members of the Church of England"."

"Of all the Reformed Churches," adds the elegant Dr. Robertfon," that of England has deviated leaft from the ancient inftitutions. ... Though the Articles to be recognized as the fyftem 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 teftimony is equally fhort and decifive: "In England," faith his lordship, "the FIRST REFORMERS were GENERALLY in the Sublapfarian hypothefis; but Per kins and others afferted the Supralapfarian way "d

The fame, in effect, fay Maclaine, Strype, Wilfon P, Smollett, and numberlefs others. In fhort, as the learned

(k) Peter Baro, Lady Margaret's Profeffor of Divinity at Cambridge. (1) New Annual Regifter for 1789. (z) Hiftory of America, p. 163.

(y) June, 1800, p. 223. (m) Expof. of Arts. p. 151.

The Sublapfarians fuppofe, that the elect were chofen, and the rest of mankind paffed by, as fallen creatures, or sinners; 'and attempt not to account for the difficulties which attend the fubject when pursued beyond a certain limit. The Supralapfarians proceed further, fpeak more decifively refpecting the Divine Decree in the fall of Adam, &c. and fuppofe that in the Act of Election, &c. God merely confidered men as creatures. This feems agreeable to his Lordship's account. They were in common, however, he fays, called "Calvinifts." Ibid. (n) Note on Mofheim's Hift. Vol. ii. (0) Eccles. Mem." and Annals. (p) Vol. ii. p. 753. (q) Hïft. Vol, vii. p. 80.

p.

571.

« PreviousContinue »