124

HISTORICAL VIEW

Church of Rome, on account of doctrine as well as abusive practices. That council was assembled in the year of our Lord 1545, to settle the disputes between the Catholic Church and the reformers; and to establish the doc-. trines of that Church. Among other things, that council denounced a curse on all who affirm that works, done before justification, inwhat way soever they are done, are properly sins, and deserve the displeasure of God.

Again, "If any shall say, the ungodly are justified by faith only; and that it is, by no means, necessary for them to prepare, and dispose themselves, by the motion of their own. wills; let such an one be accursed... : #41 10

I "If any man shall affirm, that the Grace of justification does not accrue to any, but to those who are predestinated unto life; and that all the rest are called indeed, but do not receive Grace, on account of their being predestinated to evil; let such an one be accursed.

T

"If any shall affirm, that the man who is once justified, cannot thenceforth sin, nor lose Grace, and consequently that he who falls and sins, was never really justified; let such an one be accursed."*

It is evident, that the doctrines of the Refor mation were condemned in this council; and that those which the council endeavored to establish, were included in the Pelagian and

Toplady.

Semi-Pelagian system. They denied the necessity of a special influence of the Holy Ghost, predestination, and the final perseverance of all believers; and, in opposition to the reformers, they asserted the merit of works.

We have exhibited, from Haweis, a sum mary of the reformed doctrines. He asserts, that this appears, from their conferences at Marpurg, to have been their system of bellef...

2. We are to consider, whether they were agreed in this doctrine. This will be admitted, by all, to have been the system which Calvin-taught; but it appears to be a prevailing opinion, that this was peculiar to Calvin, and that the other reformers did not harmonize with him. Perhaps such an opinion has prevailed, by the circumstance that it has gone in Calvin's name.

It is true, there was a division between the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches; but this was not, at first, a division on the ground of doctrine, but the nature of the Eucharist. The Lutherans supposed, that those who received the bread and wine in the Eucharist, did receive the real body and blood of Christ; while the Calvinists considered them as symbols only, calculated to bring to remembrance the body of Christ broken, and his blood shed for the remission of sins. After the Reforma-tion had made considerable progress, and the→

Protestant Church had obtained a quiet establishment, the Lutherans did not assent to all the doctrines of Calvin; but at first they were agreed.

The reformers had a conference at Marpurg, as observed before. It was in the year *1529. Those who met, were Luther and Melancthon, the German reformers; and Zuingle and Ecolampadius, of Switzerland. Zuingle was at first charged with Heresy by Luther, respecting the divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the divine word, original sin, and some other points of doctrine.

Dr. Mosheim informs us, that Zuingle clear'ed himself with the most triumphant evidence; and in such a manner as appeared entirely satisfactory to Luther. The same author considers the dissension respecting the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, as the proper and only ground of separation between Lutherans and Calvinists."

We have already produced evidence, that the first reformers were agreed in the belief, that, by the apostacy, all mankind are involved in sin; that they have lost the inclination to choose holiness, and are wholly inclined to evil. No one doubts that the French and Genevan reformers, Zuingle, Calvin, and Beza, taught this doctrine. As little can we doubt that Luther, Carlostadt, and Melancthon, taught the same. This appears, as we have seen, from the conference at Marpurg; and

also from the dispute between Eckius, the Pope's legate, and Luther.

3

We have observed, that the principal reformers in England, were Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley. These, with others associated with them; drew up the thirty-nine articles, in the reign of Edward VI. about the year of our Lord 1550. The reader will recollect, that those articles are continued to this day, as s the faith of the English Church. If they are not ́a representation of the doctrines now taught in that Church, they prove, beyond dispute, what were the doctrines of the English reformers.

ง

The tenth article proves, that they agreed with Calvin, and the other reformers, respecting depravity, and the necessity of divine influence. "The condition of man, after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength, and good works, to faith: wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant to God, without the Grace of God, by Christ, preventing us, that we may have a good will; and working with us, when we have that good will."

I'

In the second article, they assert the divinity of Jesus Christ, in connection with the design of his atonement, in which they declare their belief in the doctrine of original sin." The Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly

suffered; was dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us; and to be a sacrifice, not only for. original guilt, but also for actual sins."

It is manifest, that the reformers were agreed respecting the ground of a sinner's justification, and acceptance with God. No one will doubt that Calvin, with his associates, in the Helvetic Church, believed that a sinner is justified only by the meritorious righteousness of Christ, received by faith; and that this faith is the gift of God. The second article of the Church of England, before quoted, implies that this was the faith of the English reformers. Did Luther and his associates in Germany, believe the same? It appears that they did; and, as we have seen, this was one point, on which it became necessary to separate from a the Church of Rome......

3

Dr. Mosheim intimates; that the Antinomian sentiment arose from Luther's denying any merit in good works. It should be remembered, that Mosheim was a Lutheran of a different stamp from this great reformer. He has given us intimation of this.* The truth is, the Antinomian sentiment was an abuse of Luther's doctrine. He says, "While Luther r was insisting upon the necessity of imprinting deeply upon the minds of people, that doctrine of the Gospel which represents Christ's merits as the source of salvation; and while he was eagerly employed in censuring and re

Ecc. His. Vol. IV. page 303.