close as possible to the holy scriptures, and to the most uncorrupt ages of the church: but, however, they could not go so far, as to believe, that the substance of religion was affected by the clothes we wear; and they thought things of this nature altogether indifferent, and left to our liberty by the word of God (f)."-Thus, it incontestably appears, that these two learned Calvinists, Bucer and Martyr, were church of England men, not in word and tongue only, but in deed and in truth.

Before I conclude this section, I beg leave to subjoin an observation, that would more properly have fallen under the immediate article of Bucer; but which, though omitted in its due place, is too important to the design of this undertaking, to be entirely passed over. It has been affirmed (and what is there, which some Arminians will not affirm?) that Bucer held the doctrine of justification by works, and believed human obedience to be meritorious in the sight of God.

That he was once of this opinion, is not at all wonderful, when we consider that he was born and educated in the bosom of the Romish church, with whom the tenet of legal justification is a fundamental principle. And, for a considerable time after God had called him out of papal darkness, his improvements in divine knowledge were progressive. His spiritual growth resembled the gradual vegetation of an oak; not the rapid prosiliency of a mushroom. Bucer seems to have expressed himself the most incautiously, in the disputation at Leipsic, A. D.

(f) Rolt, ibid. p. 96.-N. B. Two of Bucer's letters, viz. one to Hooper, and the other to A. Lasco, both in vindication of the received modes, are extant in Strype's Eccl. Mem. vol. ii. Appendix, from p. 118. to p. 132. The whole letter to A. Lasco was (says Mr. Strype, p. 225.) “translated into English, and set forth, not far from the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign, for the use of the church, that then was exercised afresh with the same controversy."

1539; yet, even then, he roundly declared, that "those good works, to which so great a reward is given, are themselves the gifts of God (g)." And that passage, which Vossius quotes from Bucer, falls extremely short of proving that the latter was, even at the early period in which he penned it, an asserter of justification by performances of our own. Impartiality obliges me to subjoin that celebrated passage, which so many Arminians and merit-mongers have since caught at, as if it made for the popish doctrine of justification. "I cannot but wish," said Bucer, in the year 1529, "a more sound judgment to some persons, who have disturbed many in this our age with this paradox, that we are saved by faith only though they saw the thing was carried so far, as to confine righteousness only to the opinion of the mind, and excluding good works. Where is their charity, who refuse to cure this evil, by one word or two? It is only to say, that, when faith is formed, we are justified; and that, through faith, we obtain a disposition to good works, and, consequently, a righteousness: or, that faith is the foundation and root of a righteous life, as Augustin said (h)." Is there a single sentence in this paragraph, to which the strictest Calvinist would not consent? Observe the order in which Bucer arranges faith, justification, and obedience. Faith goes before; justification follows faith; and practical obedience follows justification: we first believe; we no sooner believe, than we are justified; and the faith, which justifies, disposes us to the after performance of good works: or, in other words, justifying faith is the root and foundation of a righteous life." Says not every Calvinist the same?

As Bucer advanced in years and experience, he learned to express his idea of justification with still greater clearness and precision, than he had done on (h) Rolt, p. 88.

(g) Rolt, ibid. p. 88.

some past occasions. Finding that the enemies of grace had greedily lain hold of some inadvertent phrases, and taken ungenerous advantage of some well meant concessions, which he had made, before his evangelical light was at the full; he deemed it necessary, to retract such of his positions as countenanced the merit of works; and to place justification on the scriptural basis of the Father's gratuitous goodness, and the Son's imputed righteousness : still, however, taking care to inculcate, that the faith, by which we receive the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ, is the certain source of all good works. For being thus honest to his convictions, he was loaded, by his adversaries, with accumulated slander and reproach. How modestly and forcibly he vindicated his conduct, may be judged from the following passage: "The Lord," says Bucer, "has given me to understand some places [of scripture] more fully than I formerly did: which, as it is so bountifully given to me, why should I not impart it liberally to my brethren, and ingenuously declare the goodness of the Lord? What inconsistency is there, in profiting in the work of salvation? And who, in this age, or in the last, has treated of the scripture, and has not experi enced, that, even in this study, one day is the scholar of another (i)?”

Indeed, no stronger proof need be given of Bucer's soundness in the article of justification, than the rapture and admiration with which he mentions the English book of homilies. "No sooner," says Mr. Strype, "were the homilies composed, and sent abroad; but the news thereof (and the book itself, as it seemed, already translated into Latin) came to Strasburgh, among the protestants there: where it caused great rejoicing. And Bucer, one of the chief ministers there, wrote a gratulatory epistle

(i) Rolt, p. 89.

hereupon to the church of England, in November 1547 which was printed the year after. Therein that learned and moderate man showed, how these pious sermons were come among them, wherein the people were so godily and effectually exhorted to the reading of the holy scriptures; and faith was so well explained, whereby we become Christians; and justification, whereby we are saved; and the other chief heads of Christian religion so soundly handled. And therefore, as he added, these foundations being rightly laid, there could nothing be wanting in our churches, requisite towards the building hereupon sound doctrine and discipline. He commended much the Homily of Faith, the nature and force of which was so clearly and soberly discussed; and wherein it was so well distinguished from the faith that was dead. He much approved of the manner of treating concerning the misery and death we are all lapsed into, by the sin of our first parent; and how we are rescued from this perdition, only by the grace of God, and by the merit and resurrection of his Son (k)."

No wonder, that this excellent man was, soon after, called into England, to assist in perfecting that reformation, whose beginnings he so heartily approved. When here, vast deference was paid to his judgment and advice, by Cranmer and the other protestant bishops. This is confessed, even by Burnet himself; whose words are, "About the end of this year (1550), or the beginning of the next, there was a review made of the Common Prayer Book.Martin Bucer was consulted in it: and Alesse translated it into Latin for his [i. e. for Bucer's] use. Upon which, Bucer wrote his opinion; which he finished the 5th of January in the year following:-And, almost in every particular, the most material things, which Bucer excepted to,

(k) Strype's Memorials Ecclesiastical, vol. ii. p. 31, 32.

were corrected afterwards (1)." This acknowledgment of bishop Burnet's confirms what is delivered by Guthrie: who, in his English History, observes, concerning Bucer and Peter Martyr, that their authority was great in England (m).”

SECTION XV.

Of the Share which Calvin had in the Reformation of the Church of England.

To what has been already observed, concerning our principal reformers, a word or two must be added, relative to that grand ornament of the protestant world, Dr. John Calvin. It has been furiously affirmed, by more than one Arminian, that Calvin had not the least hand, directly or indirectly, in any part of our English reformation. Old Heylin, plays to this tune: "Our first reformers had no respect of Calvin (n)." And again: they "had no regard to Luther or Calvin, in the procedure of their work (o).” To Heylin's pipe, dances Mr. Samuel Downes; with the same reverential glee, as poor Wat Sellon squeaks to the quavers of Mr. John Wesley. Let us, however, examine for ourselves, and attend to facts. Mr. Rolt informs us, from Guthrie, that Bucer's "remonstrances, to

gether with those of Martyr and Calvin, prevailed with archbishop Cranmer, and the other prelates of the reformation, to suffer it [i. e. to suffer the

(7) Burnet's Hist of Reformat. vol. ii. p. 147, 148.

(m) See Rolt, p. 115.

(n) Peter Heylin's Historic. and Miscell. Tracts, p. 548. (0) Heylin's Life of Laud, Introd. p. 3.