buimus Reginæ, et NE MINIMO QUIDEM APICE DISCESSIMUS E CONFESSIONE TIGURINA;" that, in another letter, dated 7th Feb. 1562, he fays-" NE UNGUEM QUIDEM LATUM ABSUMUS A DOCTRINA VESTRA;" and that, in a letter of the 27th Aug. 1566, Grindal, Bifhop of London, inforins Bullinger, then at the head of the Helvetic churches, that he deemed the controverfy, which at that period was agitated in England, about the facerdotal veftments of no importance, " præfertim quum pura Evangelii Doctrina nobis integra ac libera maneret, IN QUA AD HUNC USQUE DIEM (utcunque multi multa in contraria moliti funt) CUM VESTRIS ECCLESIIS, VESTRAQUE CON

FESSIONE NUPER DEDITA, PLENISSIME CONSENTI

MUS." (Pp. 38, 40.) But all this tends not in the fmalleft degree to prove that we are not to look for the origin of our articles, and, of course, for the fenfe in which they are to be interpreted, where they have already been found by Dr. Laurence. The prefent author proves, by the teftimony of the fame Jewel, and Grindal, and other eminent divines who flourished in the reign of Elizabeth, that what is called the reformation under her, was, in the strictest sense of the words, a refloration of religion to that flate in which it was left by the fixth Edward.

"Religio reftituta eft in eum locum, quo fub Edwardo rege fuerat," fays Jewel to BULLINGER, May 22, 1559. Cox, Bifhop of Ely, writing at the fame time to WOLFGANG WEIDNER, fays Stabilitur apud nos, per omnia regni loca, fincera Chrifti religio, eâdem prorfus ratione, quâ fub Edwardo olim noftro, beatiffimæ memoriæ, promulgata erat." And Grindal, in a letter to ZANCHY, here quoted, fays-" Quo primum tempore Sereniffima Elizabetha fæliciffimis aufpiciis regni gubernacula fufceperat, doctrina cultúque profligato Papiftico, ad eam adminiftrandi Verbi Dei, facramentorúmque et totius religionis normam, quæ, regnante beatæ quidem, fed et luctuofiffimæ memoriæ Ed. wardo fexto, in noftris Ecclefiis defcripta conftitutáque fuerat, omnia revocavit.". Pp. 33, 34, 35

But there is no evidence whatever that Cranmer and his affociates paid any peculiar deference to the Helvetic reformers; while it is incontrovertible that they correfponded on every question of importance with MELANCTHON, and tranfcribed many of the articles, which they established in the Church of England, from his Loci Theologici, and from the Augsburgh and Wirtemburgh confeffions. It is true that, towards the end of Edward's reign, they renounced the Lutheran notions of the Lord's Supper, which, till that period, Cranmer

D

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXXI. jax, 1808.

Cranmer at leaft had entertained; fo that in all things they did not harmonize with the Lutherans; but it is equally true, that in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, the doctrine of the English church did not, in every point, harmonize with the doctrine of the Helvetic churches. It is univerfally known, and acknowledged by this author, that Zuingle, the great Helvetic reformer, carried the fupremacy of the civil magiftrate over the church to the highest pitch, making it indeed abfolute; and fuch was the doctrine inculcated by our eighth Henry and his courtly divines *; but Jewel fays of Elizabeth," Regina non vult appellari aut fcribi Capus Ecclefie Anglicana; graviter enim refpondit, illam dignitatem foli effe attributum Chrifto: nemini autum mortalium convenire."

In the reign of Elizabeth therefore the Church of England deviated from the doctrine of the Helvetic churches as much as from the doctrine of the Lutherans; while Dr. Laurence has brought fuch evidence as far outweighs the general profeffions of the greatest and best men among our reformers, that the articles in debate between our Calvinifts and AntiCalvinifts, were tranfcribed, not from the Helvetic, but from the Lutheran confeffions. That in every thing, except what relates to the Lord's Supper and the authority of the civil magiftrate in matters purely fpiritual, the harmony of doctrine in the three churches is ftriking, no man will difpute, who fhall read without prejudice our thirty-nine articles, Laurence's Sermons, and the Helvetic Confeffion, which is here publifhed; and the effect of this harmony" to allay the heat of an odious controverfy," which is the object that the prefent author profeffes to have in view, will not be the lefs powerful that our church did not borrow her creed from the Helvetians. To promote this object it ought, on the

It appears (from Burnet's Hift. of the Reform. vol. 1. re. cord. book 3. num. 21. queft. 13, 14.) that Henry wifhed to extort from the clergy an acknowledgement, that, in a cafe of neceffity, of which he was to be the judge, he might, in virtue of his royal authority, ordain priests and confecrate bifhops; and that the two archbishops differed in opinion, Cranmer acknow. ledging that he might, and Lee declaring that he might not. It is but fair to the memory of Cranmer to add, that, when he weighed the force of the arguments the archbishop of York, and thofe who adhered to him, he altered his opinions, " fubfcribing, as Burnet fays, the book that was aftewards set out, which is directly contrary to those opinions.”—Rev.

5

contrary,

contrary, to be the more powerful; for the effential articles of the Helvetic and Lutheran confeffions were established many years before the calviniftic doctrine of predeftination dif turbed the peace of the Chriftian world; and therefore, fince our articles harmonize with thofe confeffions, the fair inference is, that our reformers neither adopted nor explicitly condenafthe peculiar doctrines of Calvin.

In this author's verfion of that chapter of the Helvetic confeffion which treats of the fall of man, of fin, and of the caufe of fin, a very different view is given of the confequences of the first tranfgreffion, from that which is exhibited in Calvin's Institutes and the Westminster Confeffion of Faith. It would indeed be difficult to make a fatisfactory anfwer to him, who fhould alledge that in the chapter, as here tranflated, there are fome paffages exceedingly obfcure, and others which feem to involve contradictions; but the following extracts are extremely perfpicuous, and by them fuch as are obfcure ought furely to be interpreted.

"In the beginning God created man after his own image, in righteoufnefs and true holiness, good and upright: but, by the fuggeftion of the ferpent, and by his own fault, declining from goodnefs and rectitude, he became fubject to fin and death, and to various calamities."

"We acknowledge, therefore, that original fin is in all men ; and that all other fins which spring from this, are to be called, and truly are fins, by whatever name diftinguished, as mortal, or venial, and that too which is denominated the fin against the Holy Ghaft, and which is never forgiven. But we confefs that all fins are not equal, though they all proceed from the fame fountain of corruption and unbelief; but, that fome fins are more heinous than others are. Thus, our Lord faid, It will be more tolerable to Sodom, than to the city which has rejected the word of the Gospel.

"We therefore condemn those who have taught a contrary doctrine; efpecially PELAGIUS, and his followers, who, with the Stoics, reprefent all fins equal-and we reprobate all those who make Gop the author of fin; for it is plainly written, Thou art not a God who willeft iniquity.-And verily, there is fo much depravity and fin within ourfelves, that there cannot be any neceffity to pour into us any new depravity, or to increase the measure of our wickednefs. Therefore, when, in the Scriptures, God is faid to harden, to blind, and to deliver over to a reprobate fenfe, it must be understood that he does it in just judg ment, as a righteous judge and avenger. Lastly, whenever, in the Scripture, God is faid, and feems to do fome evil, it is not fo

D 2

meant,

meant, as if man did not do the evil, but only that God fuffers it to be done, and does not hinder it

; or, he is faid to do the evil, because he uses the wickednefs of men to fubferve fome good purpofe, as he did the wickednefs of Jofeph's brethren; as alfo, because he restrains the wickednefs of men, that it do not break forth, and increase beyond measure.

"Thofe other questions, Whether God wille fall of Adam? Whether he forced him to fall? or, Why he did not prevent his falling? and all questions of this fort, we place among thofe of curious inquiry; contenting ourselves with knowing, that the LORD had ftrictly commanded Adam, that he should not eat of the forbidden fruit, and that God punished his disobedience." Pp. 47, 48, 49, 50.

That this is not the doctrine of Calvin or Calvinifts will be admitted by every one, who has looked into the Inftitutes or the Weftminster Confeffion of Faith; but it must be acknowledged on the other hand, that it is the doctrine not of Calvin, but of the Stoics and of Pelagius that is here expli citly condemned by the Helvetic reformers. On the fubject of free-will, after obferving that, before the fall, man was upright and free; able to continue in that ftate, but capable of declining from it, thofe reformers thus exprefs their fentiments of his abilities after the fall.

"He was not," fay they, "fo deprived of understanding, nor was the power of willing fo taken from him, as that he was changed into the condition of a stock or a tone. But thefe powers are fo altered and weakened in man, that they cannot any more perform their functions, as before the fall. For the under

tanding is obfcured; and the will, which before was truly free, is now become fervile; for it ferves fin, not by constraint, but willingly. It is ftill called The Will, and not by a term expreffing reluctance, or constraint, or force of any kind. Therefore, in regard to moral evil, or fin, man is not compelled to it, either by God or by the Devil; but he doeth evil of his own accord: and, in this refpect, his will is moft free." P. 50.

Whether, in the opinion of the Helvetic churches, this alteration of the human intellect and will, which renders them incapable of performing their functions, as before the fall, confifts of a pofitive depravity of thefe faculties, or refults, as Bifhop Bull taught, from the withdrawing of thole fupernatural graces of the Holy Spirit which were bellowed on Adam to fit him for heaven and immortality, is not very evi dent. It appears, however, from the following paragraph, that the functions which the intellect and will are unable to perform, relate to fpiritual and heavenly things, of which it

is not easy to conceive how the natural man could, in any ftate, form a correct judgment.

"As to good and virtuous actions, continues the Confeffion, the mind of man never of itself judges rightly of them in their relation to fpiritual and heavenly things. For the gofpels and writings of the Apoftles infift on the neceffity of regeneration to every one's falvation. By which it is evident, that our first birth from Adam does not confer any thing by which we may be faved. And St. Paul affirms, that the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, &c.; and that we are not fufficient of ourselves alone, even to think what is good." P. 51.

Nothing is here faid of the utter inability of fallen man to perform the moral duties of civil fociety. His inability refpects a future flate of everlåfting happinefs in heaven, which no moral work that man ever could perform is of fuf. ficient value to purchase; and for which we do not believe that Adam before his fall could have fitted himself, but under the gracious guidance of God's good fpirit, which, in the opinion of the Helvetic churches, is fill fufficient for every Chriftian, who is not wanting to himself.

"In regeneration," fay they, "the understanding is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, fo that it can apprehend both the mysteries and the will of God. And the will itfelf is not only changed by the Holy Spirit, but has fuch renewed powers, that it can will and do that which is good of its own accord. If this be not allowed, we deny Chriftian liberty, and introduce the legal bondage. But the Prophet reprefents God faying, I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts will I write them.-The Lord alfo, in the Gofpel, fays, If the Son make you free, then are ye free indeed.-Paul alfo, writing to the Philippians, fays, To you it is given, through Chrift, not only that you may be able to believe in him, but also to fuffer for his fake.-And again, I am perfuaded, that He, who has begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of the Lord Jefus.-Alfo, It is God who works in you, both that you may will and that you may perform.

"In which regard, we teach that two things ought to be dif tinctly obferved. First, that the Regenerate, in willing and doing what is good, not only work possively, but actively. They are acted upon by God, that they themselves may act in doing what they do. And St. Auguftin very properly cites the faying, that God is our Helper; for it is not poffible, that any one thould be helped, who is not doing, or endeavouring to do fomething."

P. 52.

How different is this from the doctrine of Calvin! who reprobates

D 8