Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

represents it, greatly preferable to that of Adam under the first covenant. As these notions were indifputably the no. tions of the Catholic church for the four first centuries, and feem to be countenanced by various paffages of Scripture, he is therefore at fome pains to recommend them to the fe rious confideration of all who do him the honour to confult him, how they may acquire diftin&t notions of the fall and redemption of man; but, as they are only illuftrative of what is neceffary to be believed, he would refift to the utmoft of his power any attempt to impofe them as articles of faith to be fubfcribed ex animo by every clergyman. As Bishop Bull was certainly one of the moft eminent divines that ever adorned the Church of England, fo may Bullinger have been one of the most eminent divines that ever adorned the churches of Helvetia, and as fuch he may challenge an equal attention to his writings both in those churches and in our's; but he has no claim whatever to any thing beyond this. From Strype, indeed, the author of this book brings evidence, that, by one of the articles brought into the convocation, which began to fit Oct. 16, 1566, it was, "for the better increase of learning in the inferior minifters," enacted that,

"Every minifter having cure, and being under the degree of A. M. and (or) LL. B. and not licensed to be a public preacher, fhall, before the second day of February next, provide a Bible and Bullinger's Decades, in Latin or English, and a paper book: And shall every day read over one chapter of the Scriptures, and note the principal contents thereof briefly in his paper-book; and fhall every week read over one fermon of the faid Decades, and note likewife the chief matters therein contained, in the faid paper-book: And fhall once in every quarter, fhew his faid notes to fome preacher near adjoining to be affigned for that purpose." P. 81.

By this enactment the convocation certainly conferred a high honour on Bullinger, but not a higher than a convoca. tion of liberal-minded Arminians might confer on Calvin. It was to the clergy that the Decades of Bullinger were thus powerfully recommended for the exprefs purpose of increafing their theological learning; and for the fame purpose the convocation might, with equal propriety, have enjoined the clergy to read the Inftitutes of Calvin, and to note the chief matters therein contained, together with their own remarks on those matters, in their paper-books. Such an injunction would have been complete proof that by the convocation Calvin was locked upon as a great man, which unquestionably he was; but it would have been no proof that all his opinions

were

were adopted by the Convocation, unlefs it follow that all the opinions of Cicero must be adopted by every student of theology, who may be enjoined, for the fake of increasing his learning, to read his writings, and note in a paper-book the chief matters contained in them.

Had the Convocation, indeed, enjoined every clergyman, having cure, and not licensed to be a public preacher, to read the Decades of Bullinger in the church, their authority would have been much greater. We must then have confidered them as on the fame footing with our own Homilies. and containing, like them, a godly and wholefome doctrine, for all times, and particularly neceffary for those times in which the injunction was made; but there is no evidence that they were ever read in the church by public authority. The prefent author indeed informs us, that the extract which he has published from the tenth Sermon of the third Decade, and which contains many excellent reflections, was "tranfcribed from a copy lately found in an obfcure, enclosed corner of a veftry in a parifh-church in Leicestershire; and that on the title-page is written Church-book, and the name of the parish." We are forry that he did not publish the name of the parish; for after the impofitions practifed by Chatterton and others, we are afraid that little credit will be given to the teftimony of an anonymous author, refpecting the infcription on the titlepage of an ancient book, found in an obscure corner of the veftry of the church of an anonymous parish. We are, however, very willing ourselves to receive this report as correct and authentic; but we can infer nothing from it, but that the clergyman, who used this copy of the Decades as a churchbook, judged himself at liberty to read in the church, for the edification of his audience, what he was enjoined to read at home for the increase of his own learning. As far as the authority of Bullinger's Decades can be urged, if it can be urged at all, in this controverfy, it certainly tends to ftrengthen our author's argument; but that argument is in truth conclufive, and therefore ftands not in need of foreign aid. Grindal and Jewel, two witneffes indifputably competent, declare the Confeflions of the Churches of England and Helvetia to be in perfect harmony; but the Helvetic Confeffion is obviously not Calviniftical, whence it follows that the Confeffion of the Church of England is Jikewife not Calviniftical.

Such is this author's conclufion, which no man can refuse without bidding defiance to the laws of logic; but it extends, he thinks, no farther than to the doctrine of the divine decrees of election and reprobation.

"This doctrine did indeed give a tincture or colouring to Calvin's explanation of the doctrine of original fin and of freewill; but with this exception only, it may truly be said of Calvinifts alfo what Bishop Jewel faid of Zuinglians and Lutherans only: "Illi quidem, quos illi contumeliæ caufâ appellant Zuinglianos et Lutheranos (te autem verâ funt utrique Chriftiani, et inter fefe amici ac fratres) non de principiis aut fundamentis Religionis noftræ, non de Deo, non de Chrifto, non de Sancto Spiritu, non de ratione Juftificationis, non de æternâ vitâ ; tan. tum de una, nec ea ita gravi aut magna queftione, inter fe dif fentiunt."

"There are, however, certain doctrines, which, in the pre fent day, are called Calvinistical tenets; and from which we need not attempt to clear the Helvetic Church; for they are no part of that fyftem, which is properly or peculiarly the doctrine of Calvin; but were equally maintained by LUTHER and MELANCTHON, by ZUINGLIUS and ECOLAMPADIUS, by CALVIN and BEZA, by CRANMER, and RIDLEY, and LATIMER, and by JEWEL, SANDS, and other reformers in the reign of Q. ELIZABETH. I particularly mean the doctrines of Original Sin, of Free-Will, of Juftification by Faith, and of Good Works, as they were held and maintained by the English Reformers in the reign of EDWARD VI. and of Q. ELIZABETH in the early part of her reign.

"Whether they explained thefe doctrines agreeably to the true interpretation of the facred fcriptures, or not, is no part of our prefent enquiry: but that they taught and explained these doctrines in the fame fenfe in which they were maintained by the Helvetic Church, and by the other reformed churches. And this is what Bishop Jewel affirms in the paffage juft now quoted from the Apology of the Church of England.” P. 264.

That the doctrines of Original Sin and Free-Will, &c, were tanght and explained in the fame fenfe by all the early reformers, Bishop Jewel does not affirm, either in the paffage juft now quoted, or in any other paffage of his far-famed Apology. He affirms, indeed, that the Zuinglians and Lutherans did not difagree concerning the fundamental principles of our religion-concerning GOD, CRHIST, the HOLY GHOST, the METHOD of JUSTIFICATION, and ETERNAL LIFE; but he fays not one word of CALVIN in the whole Apology, nor one word of original fin or free. will in the paffage juft now quoted. It is indeed ftrange that the prefent author fhould with us to believe, that Calvin taught and explained in the fame fenfe with the Helvetic Church the doctrines of original fin and free-will immediately after he had candidly acknowledged, that the explanation of these doctrines by that reformer had received a tincture or co louring

louring from his notions of the divine decrees of election and reprobation! That the reader may form his own judgi ment of this tincture or colouring, we shall give him an opportunity of comparing Calvin's doctrine of original fin with the fame doctrine as it is here ftated in the Helvetic Confeflion. *

Calvin fays exprefsly, "Nec abfurdum videri debet quod dico, Deum non modo primi hominis cafum, et in eo pofterorum ruinam prævidiffe; fed arbitrio quoque fuo difpenfaff-Lapfus eft primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire cenfuerat: cur cenfuerit nos latet. Certum tamen eft non aliter cenfuiffe nifi quia videbat nominis fui gloriam inde meritò illuftrari. Ubi mentionem gloriæ Dei audis illic juftitiam cogita. Juftum enim effe opportet quod laudem meretur. Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia fic ordinante, fed fuo vitio cadit *.

According to Calvin, therefore, Adam was, by the will or determination of God, laid under the neceffity of falling; for he fays exprefsly, Voluntatem Dei effe rerum neceffitatem; but we have feen that the queftion, " Whether God willed the fall of Adam ?" was placed among those of curious inquiry by the Helvetic Reformers, who " contented themfelves with knowing that the Lord had ftrictly commanded Adam that he fhould not eat of the forbidden fruit; and that God punished his difobedience." It is undeniable, therefore, that thefe Reformers and Calvin did not explain the cause of man's fall in the fame way; neither did they explain its confequences in the fame way.

We have already feen the Helvetic Reformers admitting, as we fuppofe every Arminian admits, the phrafe original fin, and acknowledging that it is in all men; but in the very fame fentence they clearly enough diftinguish between it and all other fins, which, they fay, are to be called, and truly are, fins. Accordingly, we are told, that

"ZUINGLE held the doctrine of original fin, and other doctrines, which are utterly repugnant to the opinions of PELACIUS. Bul. linger, in one of his Decades, informs us, that Zuingle, when he had occafion to speak of original fin, chofe to call it a disease rather than fin; becaufe by the name of fin people generally understand some overt act of wickednefs committed by their own confent and will against the law of GoDt: but by the name of difcafe

* Inftit. Lib. 3. ch. 23. § 7, 8.

+ An overt af, as that phrafe is understood by lawyers, is not neceffary to conftitute fin in the fight of God: "He that

looketh

difeafe or fickness they understand fome certain corruption or de pravation of the nature, which was created good, and the miTerable bondage into which it is brought," which he explains to be" a neceffity of dying." P. 242.

We do not apprehend that there is one genuine fon of the Church of England, except the true churchmen, who would offer the fmalleft objection to this view of original fin. They might indeed differ about the nature or feat of the difeafe, fome holding it to be a pofitive depravation of the mental faculties, and others, with Bifhop Bull at their head, confidering it as the lofs of thofe fupernatural graces which, being vouchfafed to Adam to guide him to heaven and immortality, were, of courfe, withdrawn when immortality was forfeited *; but they would all admit, that the mind of the mere natural man is in a state of disease, when compared with the mind of Adam before his fall. Let us now fee what were Calvin's views of original fin.

"Videtur ergo peccatum originale hæreditaria naturæ noftræ pravitas et corruptio, in omnes animæ partes diffufa; quæ primum facit reos iræ Dei, tum etiam opera in nobis profert quæ fcriptura vocat opera carnis. Atque id eft propriè quod a Paulo fæpius peccatum nominatur. Quæ verò inde emergunt opera, qualia funt adulteria, fcortationes, &c. fructus peccati fecundum hanc rationem vocat, quanquam, et peccata, cum in fcripturis paffim, tum etiam ab ipfo nuncupantur. Hæc itaque duo diftinétè obfervanda: nempe, quod fic omnibus naturæ noftræ partibus vitiati perverfique, jam OB TALEM DUNTAXAT CORRUPTIONEM DAMNATI MERITO CONVICTIQUE CORAM DEO TENEMUR, cui nihil eft acceptum nifi juftitia, innocentia, puritas. Neque ifta eft ALIENI DELICTI obligatio, quod enim dicitur, nos per Adæ peccatum obnoxios effe factos Dei judicio: non ita eft accipiendum ac fi infontes ipfi et immerentes culpam delicti ejus fuftineremus: fed quia PER EJUS TRANSGRESSIONEM MALEDICTIONE INDUTI SUMUS OMNES, dicitur ille nos obftrinxiffe. Ab illo tamen non fola in nos pœna graffata eft, fed INSTILLATA AB IPSO LUES IN NOBIS RESIDET, CUI JURA PŒNA DEBETUR. Quare Auguftinus, utcunque alienum peccatum fæpe vocat (quo clarius oftendet propagine in nos derivari) fimul tamen ET PROPRIUM

looketh on a woman to luft after her," faith our Saviour," hath already committed adultery with her in his heart;" and, as we have elsewhere obferved Adam was as truly guilty of in the moment that he refolved to eat the forbidden fruit, as after the evert act was committed; because in the volition confifts the virtue or vice of every act.-Rev.

See Brit, Crit. Vol. XXI, pp. 595-603.

« НазадПродовжити »