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 ()." 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 (0).” 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, together 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. (o) Heylin's Life of Laud, Introd. p. 3.

Such an

liturgy] to be revised and corrected (p)." acknowledgment, from an historian of Guthrie's principles, must have decisive weight with every rational enquirer.

So must the testimony that follows. "Calvin advised Bucer how to conduct himself before king Edward VI. He [i. e. Calvin] corresponded with the duke of Somerset" (who was the king's uncle, protector of the realm, and, in concert with Cranmer, the main instrument in conducting the reformation) "and gave him his opinion how the reformation should be carried on. In one of his [i. e. of Calvin's] letters to the lord Protector, he expressed his dislike of praying for the dead.-Calvin, in his epistolary correspondence with the Protector, was instrumental, not only in pushing some severity against the papists, but in some advances towards bringing the church of England to a nearer conformity with the churches abroad, where the worship was more plain (q)." The church, therefore, stood indebted for part of her purity and simplicity, to the discreet and friendly offices of this most eminent divine, "whose decisions, "whose decisions," as an elegant modern historian truly observes, "were received among the protestants of that age, with incredible submission (r)."

Even bishop Burnet takes some notice of Calvin's correspondence with Somerset. "Calvin wrote to the Protector, on the 29th of October (1548), encouraging him to go on, notwithstanding the wars, as Hezechias had done, in his reformation. He [i. e. Calvin] lamented the heats of some that professed the gospel: but complained, that he heard there were few lively sermons heard in England, and that the preachers recited their discourses coldly. He much approves a set form of prayers, whereby

(p) Rolt's Lives of the Reformers, p. 116. (g) Rolt, ibid. p. 134.

(r) Robertson's Hist. of Scotland, vol. i.

p.

249. octavo.

the consent of all the churches did more manifestly appear. But he advises a more complete reformation. He taxed the prayers for the dead, the use of chrism, and extreme unction, since they were no where recommended in scripture. He (Calvin) had heard, that the reason why they (the English reformers) went no further, was, because the times could not bear it but this was to do the work of God by political maxims; which, though they ought to take place in other things, yet should not be followed in matters in which the salvation of souls was concerned. But, above all things, Calvin complained of the great impieties and vices that were so common in England; as swearing, drinking, and uncleanness and prayed him (the lord Protector) earnestly, that these things might be looked after (s).”

Calvin did not remonstrate in vain. The communion office underwent a farther reform, in 1550: as did the whole liturgy, in 1551; when among many other alterations, the chrism in baptism, the unction of the sick, and prayers for the dead, were totally expunged (†).

(s) Burnet's Reform. vol. ii. p. 83.—Dr. Fuller gives a much more satisfactory abstract from Calvin's letter, than does his lordship of Sarum." Master Calvin," says Fuller, "is therein very positive for a set form: whose words deserve our translation and observation. Formulam precum [saith Calvin], et rituum ecclesiasticorum, valde probo, ut certa illa exstet; à quâ ne pastoribus disedere in functione fuâ liceat: 1. Ut consulatur quorundam simplicitati et imperitia. 2. Ut certius constet omnium inter se ecclesiarum consensus. 3. Ut obviam ineatur desultoriæ quorundam levitati, qui novationes quasdam affectant. Sic igitur statum esse catechismum oportet, statam sacramentorum administrationem, publicam item precum formulam. That is: I do highly approve that there should be a certain form of prayer, and ecclesiastical rites; from which it should not be lawful for the pastors themselves to discede. 1. That provision may be made for some people's ignorance and unskilfulness. 2. That the consent of all the churches among themselves may the more plainly appear. 3. That order may be taken against the unsettled levity of such as delight in innovations. Thus there ought to be an established catechism, an established administration of sacraments, as also a public form of prayer." Fuller's Church Hist. book vii. p. 426.

(t) See Strype, Burnet, Downes, &c. sub annis 1550 et 1551.

That the reasonings and representations of Calvin had great influence on the protector, and on the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs in England, is evident, amidst a multiplicity of additional proofs that might be offered, from what is observed by the candid and learned Mr. Hickman: than whom, no person, perhaps, was better acquainted with the religious history of this kingdom. "Bucer, at Cambridge," says that excellent writer, "understood that Calvin's letters prevailed much with Somerset: and therefore intreats Calvin, when he did write to the protector, to admonish him not to suffer the churches to be left void of preachers (u)."

Heylin himself, in his History of the Reformation, virtually contradicts what he elsewhere delivers, concerning the "no-respect" which, he would have us believe, was shown to Calvin. Speaking of king Edward's first liturgy, he says, "And here the business might have rested," [i. e. the liturgy would not have been reviewed and reformed] "if Calvin's pragmatical spirit had not interposed (w)." The concession is important, though maliciously expressed: for, what is this, but allowing, that the church of England was obliged to "Calvin's interposition," for her deliverance from the alb, the cope, the introits, the exorcism, the trine immersion, the unction, prayers for souls departed, &c. which were all retained by the first liturgy? Surely, if Heylin's complaint be justly founded, that if Calvin's pragmatical spirit had not interposed," the first liturgy might have stood as it did; it will follow, 1. That the protestant religion in England is under the highest obligations to Calvin, for his successful

(u) Hickman's Animadvers. on Heylin, p. 149.

(w) Heylin's Hist. of the Reform. Pref. p. 3.—Mr. Whiston, likewise, honestly confesses, that king Edward's first liturgy was then" [i. e. in the year 1551] "plainly altered out of human prudence, and out of compliance with Calvin and other foreigners." Whiston's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 423.

VOL. I.

L L