« PreviousContinue »
6 spicere possit, et potest. Quid enim prodest ab ho
mine aliquid esse secretum ? Nihil Deo clausum est. • Interest animis nostris, et cogitationibus mediis inter• venit. Sic intervenit dico non tanquam aliquando
discedat. Hæc Seneca. Quis quæso hanc fidem in “ cor hominis hujus scripsit? Neque quisquam putet “ ista in evacuationem Christi tendere, ut quidam nos “insimulant; amplificant enim illius gloriam. Per “ Christum enim accedere oportet, quicunque ad Deum “ veniunt, de qua re paulo post. Unde socerum Mosis
ne suspicamur quidem alia via, quam quæ dicit, · Ego sum via, veritas, et vita,' ad Deum pervenisse, qua et “ Moses et omnes veniunt. Hoc enim qui non credide• rit, condemnabitur,' nullatenus est absolute intelligen“ dum, sed de his, qui, audito Evangelio, credere nolue
runt. .... Non ergo imputatur ignoratio his, ad quos
nemo venit, ut mysterium Christi prædicet; Domino 6 stant et cadunt.” Ibid. p. 118.
« Credimus ergo, “ animos fidelium protinus, ut ex corporibus evaserint, “ subvolare cælo, numini conjungi, æternoque gaudere. “ Hic tibi sperandum est, O piissime Rex, si modo in6 star Davidis, Ezechiæ, et Josiæ rerum summam a 66 Deo tibi creditam moderatus fueris, visurum esse pri-. “ mum numen ipsum in sua substantia, in sua specie, "cumque universis dotibus opibusque illius, fruiturumque “ his omnibus non parce, sed ad satietatem, non ad fasti“ dium, quod ferme comitatur saturitatem, sed ad ju“cundam impletionem. . . . . Deinde sperandum est o tibi visurum esse sanctorum, prudentium, fidelium, “ constantium, fortium, virtuosorum omnium, quicunque “ a condito mundo fuerunt, sodalitatem, cætum, et con6 tubernium. Hic duos Adam, redemptum ac redem
ptorem ; hic Abelum, Enochium, Noam, Abrahamum, " Isaacum, Judam, Mosen, Josuam, Gideonem, Sa“ muelem, Heliam, Heliseum, Isaiam, ac deiparam Virginem, de qua ille præcinuit, Davidem, Ezekiam,
“ Josiam, Baptistam, Petrum, Paulum : hic Herculem, “ Theseum, Socratem, Aristidem, Antigonum, Numam, “ Camillum, Catones, Scipiones ; hic antecessores tuos, " et quotquot in fide hinc migrarunt, majores tuos videos bis. Et summatim non fuit vir bonus, non erit mens “ sancta, non fidelis anima, ab ipso mundi exordio usque 6 ad ejus consummationem, quem non sis isthic cum “ Deo visurus. Quo spectaculo quid lætius, quid ame“nius, quid denique honorificentius vel cogitari poterit?” Ibid. p. 559.
The principles, upon which he grounded his position, were these; that as Christ died for all men, and as God is no respecter of persons, all are elected, whether Christians or Heathens, who possess faith or genuine piety; that is, who truly love and fear God; “ signum enim electionis est Deum amare et timere. “ In adultis ergo sic requiritur fides." Opera, vol. i. p. 383. Accordingly therefore, he thus laid down the rule of election, although not the cause of it, which he in every instance attributed to the free and unconditional will of the Almighty: “Non est personarum respectus “ apud Deum per Anthypophoram Gentibus occurrit,
quæ se excusabant, nec damnatos existimabant. Et “ in hoc judicio, inquit Paulus, nemo excipitur: qui"cunque bonum ex fide operatus est, recipiet præmium: “ qui malum ex incredulitate, is recipiet pænam. Nihil “ agit Deus odio aut favore, nihil ex affectibus ; nam
hujusmodi in Deum non cadunt.” In Rom. cap. 2. Opera, vol. iii. p. 411.
The doctrine of Zuingle upon this head, as P. Simon remarks, in his observations upon the Commentaries of Conrad Pellican, was embraced by all his immediate followers: 6 En un mot, Pellican avec toute l'école
Zuinglienne d'alors a établi des graces générales de la “ bonté de Dieu à l'égard de toutes les nations." Bibliotheque Critique, vol. jii. p. 298.
It is evident then, that when the Zuinglians represented congruous works as sinful, because not proceeding from faith, they considered not Heathen piety as of that description, but, like our own, as acceptable to God through the merits of Christ. In this sense Bullinger. seems to have particularly alluded to the subject: “De“inde interrogatur, ' An opera quæ faciunt Gentiles, ac • speciem habent probitatis vel virtutis, peccata sint, an bona opera. Certum est Deum et inter Gentiles ha« buisse suos electos. Si qui tales fuerunt, non caruerunt “ Spiritu Sancto et fide. Idcirco opera ipsorum facta ex " fide bona fuerunt, non peccata.” Sermonum Decades quinque, p. 174. In condemning congruous works,' they solely condemned that merit of human virtue, which the Papists inculcated, as in itself entitled to divine acceptance, without the mercy of God, and the atonement of Christ: “ Ergo si qui ex Gentibus sunt “ salvati, non per opera naturæ aut merita propria sunt “ salvati, sed per misericordiam Dei in Christo Domino “ nostro. Neque vero lex naturæ insita est hominibus “ a Deo, ut salvet homines sine gratia et Christo, sed “magis ut doceat quid bonum sit, quid malum, ut evin“cat nos esse peccatores, et inexcusabiles coram Do“ mino.” Ibid. p. 38. Of the same opinion with Zuingle, or at least with Luther, upon the point of Heathen salvation, was Erasmus; who was patronised by Cranmer, and beloved by Latimer, (Camerarii Vita Melanct. p. 340.) and of whose labours, even to the last, our Reformers were not unmindful; see the Injunctions of Edward and Elizabeth in Sparrow's Collection.
6 Ubi nunc agat anima Ciceronis fortasse non est humani * judicii pronuntiare. Me certe non admodum adver“sum habituri sint in ferendis calculis, qui sperant illum " apud superos quietam vitam agere... ... Verum hac “ de re liberum esto suum cuique judicium.” Preface to the Tusculan Disputations.
Page 101, note (3). “ Oblatio Christi, semel facta, perfecta est redemptio,
propitiatio, et satisfactio pro omnibus peccatis totius “ mundi tam originalibus quam actualibus.” Art. 31. This part of our Article (as I have observed in note 12. Serm. II.) was in a great measure taken from the following in the Augsburg Confession, “ Passio Christi 6 fuit oblatio et satisfactio non solum pro culpa originis, o sed etiam pro omnibus reliquis peccatis.” Art. de Missa. When they adopted this passage, our Reformers, we perceive, introduced an idea, not to be found. in the Confession, asserting the oblation of Christ to have been not only a satisfaction as well for actual as original sins, but a perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the actual and original sins of the whole world. To what can we more properly attribute their introduction of such an idea, than to their predilection for the universality of Christ's sacrifice in the Zuinglian sense? Bullinger in his Decades of Sermons published in 1550, and dedicated to Edward VI. thus expresses himself upon the same subject. “ Itaque re“ linquitur jam indubitatum Christum Dominum plena« riam esse propitiationem, satisfactionem, hostiamque, “ ac victimam pro peccatis (pro pæna, inquam, et pro “ culpa) totius mundi, et quidem solam. Non est enim « in alio quoquam salus. Nec enim aliud nomen est “ datum inter homines, in quo oportet nos salvos fieri.” p. 17. Our Reformers indeed might not have had this particular quotation in their eye; it is nevertheless certain, that they adopted a similar mode of expression, most probably with a similar intention.
It should likewise be remarked, that in our Communion service, language precisely the same was inserted in that part of the prayer of Consecration, which was originally composed at the time, at least, which is neither to be found in the Canon of the Mass, nor the form of
Cologne: “ Who made there, by bis one oblation of “ himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient " sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the " whole world.”
It must indeed be confessed, that the words under consideration, although they clearly admit, do not necessarily imply, the sense alluded to; at least that they might have been chiefly directed to another object. The following extracts however from the writings of Cranmer sufficiently evince, that the principal compiler of our Articles and Liturgy maintained an opinion upon the subject, which it seems still more difficult to distinguish from that of Zuingle. " This is the honour and “ glory of our High Priest, wherein he admitteth neither “ partner nor successor. For by his own oblation he " satisfied the Father for all men's sins, and reconciled “ mankind into his grace and favour. .... And as he “ dying once was offered for all, so, as much as pertained “ to him, he took all men's sins unto himself.” Answer to Gardiner, p. 372. “What ought to be more certain " and known to all Christian people, than that Christ “ died once, and but once, for the redemption of the “ world?” Ibid. p. 393. “For Almighty God, without “ respect of persons, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice “ of priest and lay-person, of king and subject, of man “and woman, of young and old, yea, of English, French, « Scot, Greek, Latin, Jew, and Gentile, of every man, “ according to his faithful and obedient heart unto him, " and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Jesus “ Christ." Defence of the True Doctrine of the Sacrament, p. 1 14.
But liberal as appears to have been the opinion of our Reformers upon this point, some have erroneously conceived, that our 18th Article is directly levelled against it. “ Sunt et illi anathematizandi, qui dicere audent, “ unumquemque in lege aut secta, quam profitetur, esse