CALVINISM IN ENGLAND.

337

Calvinistic. Yet it is admitted by candid scholars that at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign "Calvinistic teaching generally prevailed." 2 But through the whole reign of Edward, also, Calvin's personal influence was great in England. His controversy with Pighius, and the expulsion of Bolsec from Geneva in 1551, excited general attention. It was about this time that election and kindred topics began to be agitated in England. Under date of September 10, 1552, Bartholomew Traheron wrote to Bullinger: "I am exceedingly desirous to know what you

1 The particulars in which Calvin varied from Augustine are these. Augustine made the fall of Adam, the first sin, the object of a permissive decree. Calvin was not satisfied with a bare, passive permission on the part of God, and makes statements which tend to the supralapsarian idea. (See supra, p. 202.) This view was developed by Beza and a section of the Calvinists. But infralapsarian or Augustinian Calvinism has had the suffrages of a majority. It is found in the Westminster Confession, and even the creed of the Synod of Dort does not go beyond it. Augustine held to the præterition, instead of the reprobation of the wicked; or rather to their reprobation, not to sin, but to the punishment of sin. (For the passages see Münscher, Dogmengeschichte, i. 402.) High Calvinists held to a positive decree of reprobation, analogous to that of election; yet denied that God is the author of sin. Calvin differed from Augustine in holding to the perseverance of all believers; that is, that none but the elect ever exercise saving faith. Augustine attributed to the sacraments a greater effect on the non-elect. Thus he held that all baptized infants are saved. This sacramental tenet is often declared to be a feature of the Anglican system, as opposed to that of Calvin. (See, e. g., Blunt, Dict. of Doctr. and Hist. Theol., p. 103.) But Calvin teaches, not indeed that a saving measure of grace is given to all baptized children; but still that all such are "engrafted into the body of the church," "accepted as His [God's] children by the solemn symbol of adoption," and that "God has his different degrees of regenerating those whom He has adopted." Inst., IV. xvi. 9, 31. He teaches that grace is imparted, to some extent, to non-elect adults, who are thus rendered more inexcusable. The ex opere operato theory of the sacraments, the theory of their intrinsic efficiency, independently of the feeling of the recipient, is denied — in the XLII. Article, expressly and "the wholesome effect or operation" of them is confined "to such only as worthily receive the same." Article XVII. affirms that "we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture." This is sometimes said to be anti-Calvinistic. But Calvin says that "the voice of the Gospel addresses all men generally," and that "the promises are offered equally to the faithful and the impious." Inst., III. xxii. 10, and II. v. 10. The Article implies the Calvinistic or Augustinian distinction between the "secret will," or purpose, and "that will of God" which is expressly declared.

2 Blunt, Dict. of Doctr. and Historical Theol., art. "Calvinism," p. 105.

and the other very learned men, who live at Zurich, think respecting the predestination and Providence of God." "The greater number among us, of whom I own myself to be one, embrace the opinion of John Calvin as being perspicuous, and most agreeable to Holy Scripture. And we truly thank God that that excellent treatise of the very learned and excellent John Calvin against Pighius and one Georgius Siculus should have come forth at the very time when the question began to be agitated among us. For we confess that he has thrown much light upon the subject, or rather so handled it as that we have never before seen anything more learned or more plain."1 At this time, as Bullinger indicates by his reply, even he was not satisfied with the supralapsarian tenet, the modification of Augustinism, which Calvin had broached; the theory that the first sin is the object of an efficient decree.2 After the accession of Elizabeth, the Institutes of Calvin "were generally in the hands of the clergy, and might be considered their text-book of theology.' "3

But while it is true that the Anglican divines of the sixteenth century may be said to be Calvinistic in their opinion respecting the divine decrees, it is also true that they were, as a rule, not rigid in the profession and maintenance of this dogma. On this topic, they shared in the prevailing belief of the Protestants of that age. But they combined in their theology other elements which stood 1 Original Letters, p. 325.

2 After Peter Martyr took up his residence at Zurich (in 1556), Bullinger went farther than before in his assertion of predestination. See Herzog, Real-Encycl., art. "Bullinger."

3 Blunt, ut supra. We find explicit proofs that Jewel, Nowell, Sandys, Cox, professed to concur with the Reformers of Zurich and Geneva in every point of doctrine. Hallam, Const. Hist., ch. vii. Archbishop Grindal (then Bishop of London), writing June 6, 1552, says, in reference to certain Lutherans at Bremen: "It is astonishing that they are raising such commotions about predestination. They should at least consult their own Luther on the 'bondage of the will.' For what else do Bucer, Calvin, and Martyr teach, that Luther has not maintained in that treatise?" (Zurich Letters, 2d ed., p. 142.) It was considered that these leading Reformers were substantially united on this subject.

CALVINISM IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

339

out in more distinct relief. And the tendency to go back to antiquity, to seek for moderate, and to avoid obnoxious conceptions of doctrine; in a word, the peculiar spirit fostered by the whole Anglican system, tended more and more to blunt the sharpness of doctrinal statements on this subject. The contrast is marked, in this particular, between Whitgift, a strenuous Calvinist, and Hooker, who approved, in general, of the Calvinistic system, but represents in his whole tone the school of distinctively Anglican theologians which was acquiring an increasing strength. As late as 1595, the Lambeth Articles, containing the strongest assertion of unconditional election, and of reprobation also, were subscribed by Whitgift, then Archbishop of Canterbury, by the bishops of London and Bangor, and with slight verbal amendments, by the Archbishop of York, and transmitted by Whitgift to the University of Cambridge; these Articles being, he said, an explication of the doctrine of the Church of England. At this time dissent from Calvinism had begun distinctly to manifest itself; and gradually the Arminian doctrine spread in England until, during the next reign, it became prevalent in the established Church.3

The great and almost the only topic of doctrinal con

1 Hooker, in the copious Preface to his Treatise, lauds Calvin, whom he pronounces "incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy, since the hour it enjoyed him." He praises Calvin's "Institutes” and Commentaries, and has no contest with his doctrinal system. At the same time, Hooker's work is tinged throughout with the characteristics of the Anglican school. Principal Tulloch has interesting remarks on what he terms "the comprehensiveness and genial width of view" of the Anglican Calvinists, such as Jewel and Hooker. English Puritanism and its Leaders, pp. 5, 7, 41.

2 The Lambeth Articles may be found in Neal, History of the Puritans, i. 209, and in Cardwell, History of the Articles (App. v.) p. 343. Cardwell prints the Articles, both as written by Whitaker and as subscribed. If Art. V. asserts perseverance in the exercising of true and justifying faith of the elect only, Art VI. affirms that all who are possessed of this faith have a full assurance and certainty of their everlasting salvation. The Articles of the Episcopal Church adopted in Ireland in 1615, were decidedly Calvinistic. Archbishop Usher, who became Primate of the Irish Church in 1624, was a most learned advocate of this type of theology.

troversy among Protestants in the early stages of the Reformation, was the Lord's Supper. On this subject, the Church of England allied itself to the Reformed or Calvinistic branch of the Protestant family. It must be remembered that Bucer and Calvin had struck out a iniddle path between the Lutheran idea of the local presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and the idea of a mere commemoration, which was the original view of Zwingle. This middle doctrine denied the Lutheran hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ's body, asserted that it is now confined to heaven, but at the same time affirmed a real, though mysterious and purely spiritual reception of Christ by believers alone, by virtue of which a vitalizing power is communicated to the recipient, even from His body. With this hypothesis of a real, but spiritual presence and reception of Christ, the Zwinglians were satisfied. Even Zwingle and Ecolampadius were not disposed to contend against it; and it formed the basis of union between Calvin and his followers, and the Zwinglian Churches. At the outset, after giving up transubstantiation, Cranmer adopted the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation; but Ridley embraced the Swiss doctrine, in its later form, and Cranmer avowed himself of the same mind. On the 31st of December, 1548, Bartholomew Traheron writes to Bullinger of the Disputation which had just been held in London, on the Eucharist," in the presence of almost all the nobility of England." He says: "the Archbishop of Canterbury, contrary to general expectation, most openly, firmly, and learnedly maintained your opinion upon this subject. His arguments were as follows: The body of Christ was taken up from us into heaven. Christ has left the world. 'Ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always,' etc. Next followed the Bishop of Rochester" [Ridley]. "The truth never obtained a more brilliant victory among us"- that is, in conflict with the Papists.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

341

"I perceive that it is all over with Lutheranism, now that those who were considered its principal and almost only supporters, have altogether come over to our side." 1 The exiles who fled from England on the death of Edward, were inhospitably received in Germany on account of their Calvinism. In 1562, after the readoption of the Articles under Elizabeth, Jewel wrote to Peter Martyr: "As for matters of doctrine, we have pared everything away to the quick, and do not differ from your doctrine by a nail's breadth; for as to the ubiquitarian theory" — the Lutheran view" there is no danger in this country. Opinions of that kind can only gain admittance where the stones have sense." 2 But there is no need of bringing forward further evidence on this point, since the Articles explicitly assert the Calvinistic view. In speaking of the English Reformers as Calvinistic, it is not implied that they derived their opinions from Calvin exclusively, or received them on his authority. They were able and

1 Cranmer himself says, referring to his translation, in the first year of Edward, of the Lutheran Catechism of Justus Jonas, in which it is affirmed that the body and blood of the Saviour are received by the mouth: "Not long before I wrote the said Catechism, I was in that error of the real presence, as Iwas many years past, in divers other errors, as transubstantiation "— - here he enumerates other papal doctrines which he had once held. Cranmer, Treatises on the Lord's Supper (Parker Soc.), p. 374. In the discussions respecting the Sacrament, prior to the preparation of the XLII Articles of 1553, Bucer thought Martyr too Zwinglian. See C. Schmidt, Peter Martyr Vermigli: Leben u. ausgewählte Schriften, p. 103 seq.; Baum, Capito u. Bucer, Leben, etc., p. 555; Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 96. But this led to no serious disagreement. Bucer and Martyr were both substantially Calvinistic. The idea that Cranmer was disinclined to the "Swiss doctrine" is contradicted by his own words: "Bucer dissenteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zwinglius," The Lord's Supper (Parker Soc.) p. 225. The changes in the Order of Communion, in the Revision of 1552, are Zwinglian is their tone. See Cardwell, History of Conferences and other Proceedings connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer, pp. 4, 5. King Edward's Catechism for all schoolmasters to teach, is definitely anti-Lutheran. The commemorative side of the Eucharist is emphasized. Faith is described as the mouth of the spirit for receiving Christ. See Liturgies of King Edward (Parker Soc.) pp. 516, 517. Bishop Coverdale, the friend of Cranmer, translated a writing of Calvin on the Sacrament.

2 February 7, 1562. Zurich Letters (2d series), p. 124.