NOTE D
3. THE SHORTER CATECHISM
On the same page, viz. 301, Strype says, “There wanted now nothing, but a shorter Catechism, for the use of the younger sort of scholars: which the dean, (Nowell,) in his epistle to the bishops, promised to draw up,
contracting this larger one. And thus fine church was furnished by the archbishop’s furtherance and care, with this good and useful work.”
Numerous writers in the Episcopal church in England, and among them some of the dignitaries of the church, have labored to prove that the English reformers were hostile towards Calvin, and that their Confession of Faith and Catechisms, were opposed to his theological works and opinions. That no such opposition existed, says Waterman in his letter to Mr. Johnson, but that an entire harmony prevailed between those
venerable reformers, and that pre-eminent minister of Christ, is beyond question evinced from the Catechism itself, which runs parallel with his, and scarcely varies from it, except in a more diffusive illustration of the doctrinal points. It is an incontrovertible fact, that at that very time, and for about fifty years after, to the arch-prelacy of William Laud, the
Institutes of Calvin were publicly read and studied in both Universities, by every student in divinity. And the Pope, in his Bull, excommunicating and deposing the queen, in 1569, alleges against her this offensive charge, “that she received herself and enjoined upon her subjects, the impious
sacraments and institutes according to Calvin.” Every historical fact that
has fallen under my observation, enforces upon my mind the conviction, that the doctrinal system of Calvin, in 1562, and in 1570, was cordially received by the bishops of the English church. In proof of this, not to rest on the circumstance, that archbishop Parker presented to the University of Cambridge the Institutes, Commentaries, and other writings of Calvin, I may adduce the following paragraph of the 17th Article of Faith, as being very closely copied from Calvin’s Institutes: “Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.” f103 — For this fact and the references, I am indebted to the Christian Observer, from which very candid and evangelical work, I beg leave to give the following statement: f104 That Dr. Randolph, bishop of Oxford, a few years before, republished “The whole of king Edward’s Catechism, the declaration of doctrines in Jewell’s Apology, and the Catechism commonly called Dr.
Nowell’s, in a collection of tracts for the use of students in divinity.” The learned editors of the Observer then say, that they shall republish these
“three works, which will most clearly define THE SENSE OF THE CHURCH, IN ALL MATTERS NECESSARY TO SALVATION; and by which sense we wish our own sentiments to be inferred.”
It will, I apprehend, be conceded, without the least restriction, that bishop Jewell was the most learned and influential divine among the dignitaries of his day; and that his writings were the standard of orthodoxy in the English church. He was the scholar and companion of Peter Martyr. In his exile he drank long and deep, at the theological fountains of Switzerland, Germany, and Geneva; and Lawrence Humphrey, in his life of this great man, states as all instance of his uncommon powers of memory, “That he knew Calvin’s Institutes as well as he knew his own fingers; quas, tanquam digitos suos probe noverat;” f104a and, that he very much recommended that work to his friends. Bishop Jewell himself gives the most decided
testimony of his very high estimation of Calvin, in his defense of his APOLOGY, against the papist Harding, who called him a disciple of Calvin.
Jewell does not deny the charge, but says, “Touching Mr. Calvin, it is a great wrong untruly to report so great a father, and so worthy an ornament of the church of God. If you had ever known the order of the church of Geneva, and had seen four thousand people or more, receiving
the holy mysteries together at one communion, ye would not, without your great shame and want of modesty, thus untruly have published to the world, that by Mr. Calvin’s doctrine the sacraments of Christ are superfluous.” f105
To bring the evidence on this part of the subject to a close, I will quote from Humphrey’s Life of Jewell, what I consider as conclusive testimony, to prove the agreement on the essential doctrines of the gospel, among all the reformed and Protestant churches. For the sake of brevity, I will omit the Latin and give it in a translation. — “In 1562, was published the Apology of the English church, which was approved by the consent and authority of the queen, published by the counsel of all the bishops and other clergy, as it was also composed and written by the author, as the public confession of the catholic and Christian faith of the ENGLISH
CHURCH, in which is taught our agreement with the GERMAN, HELVETIC, FRENCH, f107SCOTCH, GENEVESE, and other pure churches.” f108
Now, that which consummates this argument, is the fact, that Jewell’s Apology, the Thirty-nine Articles, and Nowell’s Catechism, were all passed and sanctioned by the same venerable convocation, in 1562. They were all designed alike to support one cause, and to establish and perpetuate the same doctrines; and of course they must be in agreement among
themselves. Bishop Jewell’s Apology was designed as the defensive armor of the church, against the calumnies of the papists; the Articles, to preserve her internal union in doctrines and worship; and the Catechism, to imbue the minds of youths, with pure principles, which was by no means the least important concern of the reformers.
That Calvinistic sentiments were held by the clergy during the reign of Edward VI there can be no doubt. Mosheim says, “that after the death of Henry (VIII) the universities, the schools, and the churches, became the oracles of Calvinism; and that when it was proposed, in Edward the Sixth’s reign, to give a fixed and stable turn to the doctrine and discipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the theological system there established by Calvin was adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith in England.” That the doctrines of the church of England were deemed, by many of the reformers themselves, to be not at variance with Calvin’s Institutes might easily be shown. A remarkable
testimony to this effect will be found in Fox’s detail of the examination of the martyr Philpot, the first Protestant archdeacon of Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. “Which of you all,” said he to his popish judges, “is able to answer Calvin’s Institutions, who is minister of Geneva?” “I am sure you blaspheme that godly man and that godly church, where he is minister, as it is your church’s condition, when you cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them with blasphemies and false reports: for in the matter of predestination he (Calvin) is in no other opinion than all the doctors of the church be, agreeing with the Scriptures.” On another
examination, he said, “I allow the church of Geneva and the doctrine of the same; for it is una, catholica, et apostolica, and doth follow the doctrine which the apostles did preach: and the doctrine taught and preached in king Edward’s days was also according to the same.” (Fox, Volume 3, see Philpot’s Examinations.)
Bradford wrote a treatise on the doctrine of election, proving its truth from the first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. This work was
approved by Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, as appears from the following extract from Strype’s Life of Cranmer, p. 350:
“One thing there now fell out which caused some disturbance among the prisoners. Many of them that were under restraint for the profession of the gospel were such as held free-will, tending to the derogation of God’s grace, and refused the doctrines of absolute predestination and original sin.” — “Divers of them were in the King’s Bench, where Bradford and many other gospellers were.” — “Bradford was apprehensive that they might now do great harm in the church, and therefore wrote a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, the three chief heads of the reformed (though oppressed) church in England, to take some cognizance of this matter, and to consult with them in remedying it. And with him joined bishop Ferrar, Rowland Taylor, and John Philpot. Upon this occasion, Ridley wrote a treatise of God’s election and predestination. And Bradford wrote another upon the same subject, and sent it to those three fathers, in Oxford, for their approbation: and THEIR’S BEING OBTAINED, the rest of the eminent ministers in and about London were ready to sign it also.”
The notes to the Bible, to which archbishop Parker wrote a preface, are highly Calvinistic. These notes, as we are informed by Strype, in his Life
of Archbishop Parker, p. 400, were drawn up by the bishops, but chiefly by the archbishops. As a specimen of these notes, we insert that on Ezekiel 18:23. “Have I any desire that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God?” The note is as follows: “He speaketh this to commend God’s mercy to poor sinners, who rather is ready to pardon than to punish, as his long suffering declareth. Albeit God in his eternal counsel appointed the death and damnation of the reprobate, yet the end of his counsel was not their death only, but chiefly his own glory.” In the same volume was inserted, under the same authority, viz. that of the bishops and archbishops of the church of England, the well known Calvinistic Catechism, entitled, “Certain Questions and Answers touching the
doctrine of Predestination, the use of God’s Word and Sacraments.” In this Catechism, not only the doctrine of election, but that of reprobation also, is plainly and explicitly affirmed and defended.
The divines deputed by king James, to attend the synod of Dort, were bishops Hall, Davenant, and Ward, who were all eminent and decided Calvinists. King James himself, held the same theological opinions, and strongly disapproved of Arminius and his sentiments. That the divines above named, were Calvinists, is evident from the fact, that they individually and collectively subscribed to all the acts of that synod, in condemnation of the Arminians. King James, in his declaration against Vorstius, calls Arminius, “that enemy of God;” “who was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresy.” And, speaking of “seditious and heretical preachers,” he adds, “our principal meaning was of Arminius, who though himself were lately dead, yet had he left too many of his disciples behind him.” “It was our hard hap not to hear of this Arminius before he was dead, and that all the reformed churches of Germany had with open mouth complained of him.” King James’ Works, (p. 350, 354, 355.) In a meditation upon the Lord’s prayer, king James says, “the first article of the apostles’ creed teaches us, that God is Almighty, however Vorstius and the Arminians think to rob him of his eternal decree and secret will, making many things to be done in this world whether he will or not.” (Works, 581.) It is remarkable, that the synod of Dort was expressly assembled at the persuasion of king James: and even Dr. Heylin admits that the king “had labored to condemn those, viz. (the Arminian) opinions at the synod of Dort.” — Life of Laud, p. 120.
The archbishops Whitgift, Hutton, and Parker, were all Calvinists, and approved of the Lambeth articles. The predestinarian controversy, which led to the composition of those articles, began at Cambridge in the year 1595; certain individuals of name in the university having about that period publicly denied some of the doctrines usually denominated
Calvinistic. For the purpose of allaying the ferment thus excited, the heads of colleges deputed Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Tyndal to wait upon the
archbishop at Lambeth, there to confer upon the subject with his Grace, and other learned and eminent men. At this conference the Lambeth Articles were drawn up and approved; and a copy of them was soon after sent to Cambridge by the archbishop, with a letter and private directions to teach the doctrine contained in them, in that university.
The reader will find, (in Fuller’s Church History, book 9. p. 229,) in the account of the Lambeth Articles, the following sentence: — “Now also began some opinions about predestination, free-will, perseverance, etc., much to trouble both the schools and pulpit; whereupon archbishop Whitgift, out of his Christian care to propagate the truth, and suppress the opposite errors, caused a solemn meeting of many grave and learned divines at Lambeth; where (besides the archbishop,) Richard Bancroft, bishop of London, Richard Vaughan, bishop elect of Bangor, Humphrey Tyndal, Dean of Ely, Dr. Whitaker, queen’s professor in Cambridge, and others, were assembled. These, after a serious debate and mature
deliberation, resolved at last on the now following Articles.”
“1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life: certain men he hath reprobated unto death.
“2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the persons predestinated, but only the good-will and
pleasure of God.
“3. There is a predetermined and certain number of the predestinate, which can neither be augmented nor diminished.
“4. They who are not predestinated to salvation, shall necessarily be damned for their sins.
“5. A true, living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, faileth not, vanisheth not away in the elect, either finally or totally.
“6. A man truly faithful, that is, such a one as is endued with justifying faith, is certain, with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins and his everlasting salvation by Christ.
“7. Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will.
“8. No man can come unto Christ unless it be given unto him, and unless the Father draw him: all men are not drown by the Father, that they may come to the Son.
“9. It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved.”
With respect to the principles contained in these Articles, we are assured by Whitgift that they were generally recognized: — ”I know them,” says he, “to be sound doctrines, and uniformly professed in this church of England, and agreeable to the Articles of Religion established by authority:
and therefore I thought it meet that Baret should in more humble sort confess his ignorance and error; and that none should be suffered to teach any contrary doctrine to the foresaid propositions agreed upon.” So just are the observations of bishop Horsley, “Any one may hold all the theological opinions of Calvin, hard and extravagant as some of them may seem, and yet be a sound member of the church of England and
Ireland”…“Her discipline has been submitted to, it has in former times been most ably and zealously defended, by the highest supralapsarian Calvinists. Such was the great Usher; such was Whitgift; such were many more burning and shining lights of our church in her early days, when she shook off the papal tyranny, long since gone to the resting place of the spirits of the just.”
Indeed, it must be considered as a little extraordinary, that any person acquainted with the history of those times, should mistake the real nature of the question between the Established church and the Puritanical party:
it was not a question of doctrine, but of discipline.
Archbishops Grindall, Bancroft, and Abbott were also strict Calvinists.
The doctrinal sentiments of Thomas Fuller, the church historian, are expressed in a brief compass in his Church History, lib. 9. p. 232. He cordially approved of the Lambeth Articles, and considers them as witnesses of “the general and received doctrines of England in that age about the forenamed controversies.” Hutton, archbishop of York,
mentions the Puritans of his time, who were Calvinistic, as agreeing with the English church in doctrine, though they differed as to ceremonies and accidents. And those of king Charles’ time, so far resembled them as generally to approve of such articles as are strictly doctrinal. And the sense which they affixed to the articles was Calvinistic, according the notions which had usually prevailed till Charles’ days, both in and out of the establishment. Baxter furnishes many proofs of this fact, so far as it respects Presbyterians. Life of Baxter, pp. 213-223, etc.
At what period, then, did the members of the church of England generally change their opinions on the subject of doctrinal Calvinism? It is intimated by Mosheim, that the change took place soon after the Synod of Dort: and this change he informs us, which was entirely in favor of Arminianism, was principally effected by the counsels and influence of William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. f109 “As the church of England had not yet abandoned the Calvinistical doctrines of predestination and grace, he (James) also adhered to them for some time, and gave his theological representatives in the Synod of Dordrecht, an order to join in the
condemnation of the sentiments of Arminius, in relation to these deep and intricate points. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, a man of remarkable gravity, and of eminent zeal both for civil and religious liberty, whose lenity towards their ancestors, the Puritans still celebrate in the highest strains, used his utmost endeavors to confirm the king in the principles of Calvinism, to which he himself was thoroughly attached. But scarcely had the British divines returned from Dordrecht, and given an account of the laws that had been enacted, and the doctrines that had been established by that famous assembly, than the king and the greatest part of the Episcopal clergy discovered, in the strongest terms, their dislike of the proceedings, and judged the sentiments of Arminius, relating to the divine decrees preferable to those of Geneva and of Calvin. This sudden change in the theological opinions of the court and clergy was certainly owing to a
variety of reasons,” etc. f110 Here, then, we have Laud described as the first anti-Calvinistic archbishop; and the time distinctly marked when the change of sentiment took place generally in the church of England.
From this period, the Institutes of Calvin, which had till then been so highly appreciated both in England and on the continent, began to be less valued, less read, and less known. Bayle states, from Schultingius, “that as soon as this work of Calvin was published at Strasburg, about the year 1545, Bernard Cincius, bishop of Aquila, carried a copy of it to cardinal Marcellus Cervin, legate of the pope at the court of the emperor; and that these two able men judged it to be a more dangerous book than all the other writings of the Lutherans.” Schultingius was a papist, and canon of Cologne. He undertook to confute the Institutes of Calvin. “This work was considered,” he says, “as the principal fortress of the Protestants.”
He proceeds to give all account of the numerous editions through which it had passed; besides its abridgments and translations into different
languages. He says, that in England they almost gave Calvin’s Institutes the preference to the Bible; that the bishops ordered all the ministers ut pene ad verbum has ediscant, — that they should learn them almost to a word; — and ut tum Anglice exactissime versi, in singulis Ecclesiis a parochis legendi appendantur, — that being most exactly turned into English, they should be kept in all the churches for public use; — that they were also studied in both the Universities; — that in Scotland the young students in divinity began by reading these Institutes; — that at
Heidelburg, Geneva, Herborne, and in all the Calvinistical Universities, these Institutes were publicly taught by the professors; — that in Holland, ministers, civilians, and the common people studied this work with great diligence, even the coachman and the sailor nocturna verset manu, versetque diurna; — that esteeming it as a pearl of great price, they had it bound and gilt in the most elegant manner. This work, Schultingius asserts, was appealed to as a standard, on all theological questions. Such is the account given of the authority of Calvin’s Institutes by a professed papist, who lifted up his mighty arm to destroy this principal fortress of the Protestants, in four large folio volumes, published at Cologne, in the year 1602. f111
The animosity enkindled by the Arminian controversy, supported by the half papist and persecuting archbishop Laud, changed the state of things in