66

himself to be endued, are so well known, that I shall
enter (o) directly on the evidence of his Calvinism.
On his examination, before the cardinal archbishop
of St. Andrews, he was accused of representing God
Thou, false heretic, saidest,
as the author of sin.
that man hath no free-will, but is like to the Stoics,
who say,
that it is not in man's will to do any thing;
but that all concupiscence and desire cometh by God,
Mr. Wishart in his
whatsoever kind it be of (p)."
answer, utterly denied that the doctrine of salvation
by grace is pregnant with so blasphemous a conse-

(0) The description of Mr. Wishart's person, dress, and demeanor, drawn by one who had been his pupil at Cambridge (for Mr. Wishart received his education, and spent some years, in that university), presents us with an artless, but lively picture of antique "He was a man of tall simplicity, too singular to be overlooked. stature, pold-headed, and on the same a round French cap of the best judged to be of a melancholy complexion, by his physiognoBlack haired, long bearded, comely of personage, well my. spoken after his country of Scotland, courteous, lowly, lovely, glad to teach, desirous to learn, and was well travelled. Having on him, for his habit, or clothing, never but a mantle, or frieze gown to the shoes; a black millian fustian doublet; plain black hosen ; coarse new canvass for his shirts; and white falling bands, and cuffs at his hands. All the which apparel he gave to the poor; some weekly, some monthly, some quarterly, as he liked: saving his French cap, which he kept the whole year of my being with him. He was modest, temperate, fearing God, and hating covetousness for his charity had never end, night, noon, nor day. He forbore one meal in three, one day in four, for the most part; exHe lay hard, upon a puff of cept something to comfort nature. straw; and coarse new canvass sheets, which, when he changed, he gave away. He had commonly by his bed-side, a tub of water: in the which (his people being in bed, the candle put out, and all quiet), as I being very young, being assured, often heard him; and, in one light night, discerned him. He taught with great modesty and gravity; so that some of his people thought him severe, and would have slain him: but the Lord was his defence. And he, after due correction for their malice, by good exhortation amended them, and went his way. His learning was no less sufficient, than his desire always prest and ready to do good in that he was able, both in the house privately, and in the school publicly; professing See Fox, vol. ii. 521. and reading divers authors." (p) Ibid. 524.

p.

say, that as

quence: "My lords, I said not so. I many as believe in Christ firmly, unto them is given liberty; conformably to the saying in St. John, If the Son make you free, then shall ye verily be free. On the contrary, as many as believe not in Christ Jesus, they are bond-servants of sin. He, that sinneth, is bound to sin (q)." What is this, but to say? 1. That man's will is not free to good, until after he is converted to the faith of Christ. 2. That, prior to conversion, and in a state of nature, man cannot but offend God. 3. That man can only be made free indeed, by the grace of Christ, breathing faith into his heart.-If this be not Calvinism, I am at a loss to know what is.

A clause, occurring in one of Mr. Wishart's last supplications to God, shall conclude this section : "We desire thee heartily, that thou conserve, defend, and help thy congregation which thou hast chosen before the beginning of the world; and give them thy grace, to hear thy word, and to be thy true servants in this present life (r)."

SECTION XIII.

The Judgment of our English Reformers.

VERY little need be said, to prove the Calvinism of those illuminated divines, who were made by providence, the instruments of extending and fixing the English reformation. The whole series of our public service, the uniform tenor of our articles, and the chain of doctrine asserted in each book of homilies, are a standing demonstration, that the original framers and compilers believed in, and worshipped, the God of their fathers, after that way which papists and Arminians term heresy.

Even Mr. Sellon does not, in his 7th page, so much as attempt to call in question the Calvinism of our reformers. Finding himself hard drove, he fairly gives up the point: exclaiming, however, at the same time, that the reformers brought their Calvinism with them from the church of Rome. "Let me tell you," says the angry conceder, "that our first reformers, in the point of predestination, did say over those lessons which they had learned in the Roman schools." I agree with my adversary, in acknowledging, that the reformers were predestinarians; but I pity his weakness in venturing to assert, on the lame authority of Christopher Potter, that those excellent men imported their doctrine of predestination from Rome. I have already shown, that it has, for ages and ages back, been the ruling endeavour of popery, to stifle, demolish, and exterminate, the whole system of Calvinism both root and branch. You might as reasonably affirm, that the glory which beamed from the face of Moses, was kindled at hellfire; as insinuate, that we are indebted to Rome for any of our Thirty-nine articles.-Mr. Sellon's concession, however, induces me to offer him a plain query. To what end have you scribbled a libel, with a professed view to Arminianize the liturgy, articles, and homilies, which you yourself acknowledge to have been composed by Calvinistic divines? Can any man in his senses, really believe, that a set of predestinarians would draw up a plan of national faith and worship on the Arminian model? Impossible. Your quotation, therefore, from Christopher Potter, which you have adopted for your own, has stabbed the whole hypothesis of your pamphlet to the very heart.

In vain do Messieurs Wesley and Sellon disconsolately walk arm in arm, round about our established Zion, surveying her walls, and shaking their heads at her bulwarks; but unable either to find, or to make a breach, whereat to enter. Happy would they deem

themselves, could they prove that the reformers were Arminians. But, alas! the church of England was settled under king Edward VI. long before Arminius himself was born; and afterwards resettled by Elizabeth, when the same Arminius was an infant in his cradle. Pelagians were (if I may so phrase it) the Arminians of those times and pelagians are, expressly and by name, branded for "vain talkers," in the ninth article. It clearly follows, 1. That the original compilers of the articles were not pelagians. And, 2. That they could not be Arminians: for Arminius was then unborn and unbegotten (s).

Bishop Burnet himself, as I have elsewhere observed, was compelled to grant, that, "In England, the first reformers were generally Sublapsarians (t)" tacitly admitting, that the rest of those apostolic men were (dreadful news to Mr. Sellon!) Supralapsarians (u). I could corroborate this assertion, if need required, from other very plain and conclusive passages, scattered through Burnet's bistoric writings. Waving, however, at present, the farther testimonies of that prelate; I shall adduce the attestations of two more modern historians: neither of whom can incur the remotest suspicion of leaning toward Calvinism. These are, Mr. Tindal, the reverend continuator of Rapin; and David Hume, Esq.; whose history, considered merely as a compo(s) He was born at Oudewater, in 1560,

(t) Expos. of the 17th Article.

(u) The Supralapsarians suppose, that, in the decree of election and preterition, God did not consider mankind either as fallen or unfallen; but chose some, and rejected others, considered merely as beings that should infallibly exist.-The Sublapsarians suppose, that the elect were chosen, and the reprobate passed by, not merely as creatures; but complexly as sinners. Each hypothesis has been adopted by some of the best and greatest men that ever lived. Calvinisin is the general name, under which, the partizans of both are comprehended. The church of England system, as I shall show hereafter, is, strictly speaking, formed on the Sublapsarian principle: though with such moderation, as not to exclude the former.

sition, does honour to the author and the age. I begin with the former.

"In England, a middle course was steered:" [i. e. we admitted the doctrines, but rejected the discipline of Geneva.] Though the articles of religion are a plain transcript of St. Austin's doctrine, in the controverted points of original sin, predestination, justification by faith alone, efficacy of grace, and good works; yet are they composed with such a latitude." No quibbling, good Mr. Tindal. If the articles of the church of England, respecting those tenets, are "a plain transcript of St. Austin's doctrine;" it irresistibly follows, that they only, who believe as St. Austin did, can honestly subscribe to Austin's articles. For, of what value is a fence, whose chasms and apertures are of "such a latitude," as to admit the very persons, whom it was professedly planted to exclude? To imagine, that the reformers, who had, themselves, gone so heartily and strongly into the doctrines above-mentioned; and who, moreover, digested those doctrines into a national creed, to continue as the standing test of ministerial orthodoxy; to imagine that these identical reformers would leave such loopholes of evasion, as would counteract the very design of that test, and render the test itself null and void; is equivalent to supposing, that a man would first fortify the door of his house with as many bolts and bars as he can, and then purposely leave his door on the latch, that every intruder, who pleases, may enter in.

Mr. Tindal proceeds. "The most rigid Calvinist can give his assent to all the thirty-nine articles, except three, which relate to the discipline of the church." Thirty-six, then, out of the thirty-nine, are most rigidly Calvinistic: else, the most rigid Calvinist could not "give his assent to all the articles except three." And even those three may be both assented and subscribed to, with full purpose of heart,