SECTION II.
Arminianism charged and proved on the Church of Rome.
Mr. Sellon acknowledges his absolute fine quality to the task he has undertaken. "I know nothing at all," says he, "how to fence or push:"1 i. e. he can neither attack, nor defend. A very proper person to set up for a champion, and to style himself a vindicator! But there was no need of such an explicit confession. His production sufficiently demonstrates that its producer can neither fence nor push. Witness the opening of his very first assault, in page 3, where I am presented with a tierce, not of blunderbusses, but of blunders. "In that point," says the blunderer, "which you stickle so mightily for, viz. the doctrine of absolute, irrespective predestination, though all the members of the Church of Rome do not fall in with it, because they are not compelled to it, as all the members of the Church of Geneva do, because they are compelled to it; yet, if the testimony of Dr. Potter, some time dean of Windsor, be to be depended upon, there are ten Catholics, that hold this point of Genevan doctrine, for one that is so much an Arminian as to deny it." Such a cluster of glaring untruths deserves no answer. By way, however, of shewing, what an honest and accurate opponent I have to deal with, I'll give the paragraph a thorough sifting,.
1. "All the members of the Church of Geneva are compelled to fall in with" the doctrine of predestination. So far is this from being true, that the doctrine itself, of predestination, has been expelled from Geneva, for very considerably more than half a century back. Geneva, which was once dreaded by Papists, as one of the head quarters of Calvinism, and termed, by them, for that reason, "The Protestant Rome," is now, in that happy respect, Geneva no longer. The once faithful city is become an harlot. The unworthy son of one of the greatest divines that ever lived (I mean Benedict, son, if I mistake not, of the immortal Francis Turretin) was a principal instrument of this doctrinal revolution. And, to the everlasting dishonour of bishop Burnet, he, during his exile, contributed not a little to the inroads of Arminianism at Geneva, by prevailing with the leading persons there to abolish the test of ministerial subscriptions, about the year 1686.2 After his return to England, and his advancement to the episcopal bench, there is great reason to believe, that he would very willingly have played the same game here; and lain the Church of England under a similar obligation to "his warmth and the weight of his character," by releasing (to continue the language of his filial biographer) our clergy too from the folly and ill consequence of such subscriptions." But, through the goodness of Providence, the people of England were not such implicit trucklers to his lordship's "eloquence and credit," as were the citizens of Geneva. No "alteration, in this practice" crowned his wish.3 The time for the destruction of our establishment was not yet come: and, I trust in God, it is still very far off. To the unspeakable mortification of such as Mr. Sellon, the fence is, hitherto, undemolished. Should our governors in church and state ever suffer the fence to be plucked down, farewell to the vineyard. But, till the barrier of subscription (that stumbling-block to Arminians, who, nevertheless, for divers good causes them thereunto moving, make shift to jump over it) actually he taken out of the way, let no man of common knowledge or of common modesty, call our Calvinistic doctrines the tenets of Geneva. If it be any real honour, or dishonour, to drink of the Lemain lake, the Arminians, as matters stand, have it all to themselves.
2. Our author pompously appeals to the authority of "Dr. Potter, dean of Windsor." He should have said, dean of Worcester. Potter was, indeed, promised a canonry of Windsor; but never obtained it.4 This Christopher Potter, in the noviciate of his ministry, had been lecturer of Abingdon, where he was extre melypopular, and regarded as a zealous Calvinist. But, as Wood observes, "when Dr. Laud became a rising favourite in the royal court, he [Potter] after a great deal of seeking, was made his [Laud's] creature."5 The editor or editors of the Cambridge Tracts, published in 1719, affect to think,6 that Laud paid his court to Potter, instead of Potter's being a suitor to Laud. To me, Mr. Wood's account more than seems to prove the contrary. Besides, the archbishop was eminently stiff and supercilious; but the lecturer was as remarkably supple and obsequious. The prelate could have very little advantage to hope for from the acquisition of the lecturer, but the latter had much to hope for from the good graces of the prelate. I conclude therefore, that Potter was a cringer at Laud's levee, and "after a great deal of seeking," i.e. in modern style, after long attendance and much servility, being found very7 ductile and obsequious, he was entered on the list of the archbishop's dependants.
Laud's plan of civil and religious tyranny is well known; and the only way for Potter to preserve the favour he had taken so great pains to acquire, was by a round recantation of the Calvinistic doctrines ; which were, at all events, to be discountenanced and smothered, as a necessary pre-requisite to our union with Rome; an union which Heylin himself once and again frankly acknowledges to have been one of the grand objects in view.8
To promote this design, and still further to ingratiate himself with his patron, Potter writes a treatise entitled, A Survey of the New Platform of Predestination: the manuscript copy of which fell into the hands of the learned Dr. Twisse, who gave himself the needless trouble of refuting it.
Upon the credit of this renegado Calvinist and pretended dean of Windsor,9 we are told,
3. That "there are ten Papists, who hold the doctrine of predestination, from one that denies it." Every man who knows what Popery is; every man, who is at all acquainted either with the ancient or present state of that Church; must consider such an assertion, as the most false and daring insult that can be offered to common sense. Have not the doctrines, called Calvinistic, been condemned in form, and the assertors of them pronounced accursed, by the Council of Trent? Did any man ever read a single Popish book of controversy, written within a century after the Reformation, in which the Protestants are not universally charged (as we still are by the Arminians) with making God the author of sin, only because they universally held predestination? And, for the modern Popish books of controversy, I have hardly seen one, in which the writers of that communion do not exult, and impudently congratulate the Church of England on her visible departure from those doctrines. And, God knows, the Church of Rome has, in this respect, but too much reason for triumph. Many nominal Protestants are saving Papists the trouble of poisoning the people, by doing it to their hands. What Heylin quotes, from a Jesuit who wrote in the time of Charles I., is in great measure true of the present times: "the doctrines are altered in many things: as for example, the Pope not antichrist; pictures; free-will; predestination; universal grace; inherent righteousness; the merit" [which Heylin softens into, or reward rather] of good works. The Thirty-nine Articles seeming patient, if not ambitious also, of some Catholic sense; limbus patrum; justification not lay faith alone, &c."10
The thirty-nine Article themselves are neither patient nor ambitious of what the Jesuit called a Catholic sense. How patient, or even ambitious, of a Popish sense, some of the subscribers to those Articles may be, is another point. Stubborn experience and incontestible fact oblige us to distinguish, with Dr. South, between the doctrines of the Church, and of some who call themselves churchmen.
Studious as I am of brevity, I cannot dismiss the shameless objection, drawn from the pretended Popery of Calvinism without additional animadversion. The slander does, indeed, carry its own refutation stamped upon his forehead: which refutation the following detail of facts may serve to confirm.
I shall demonstrate, in its proper place, that the principles of John Wickliff, and of his celebrated proselyte John Huss, were the same with what have since acquired the name of Calvinistic. An extract from the bull of pope Martin V. fraught with anathemas against the memories of those holy men, and published A.D. 1418, will evince the detestation and the alarm with which the attempted revival of these doctrines was received by the Church of Rome. Some of the Articles, against which his Holiness inveighed so fiercely, were as follow:11
"There is one only universal Church, which is the university" [or entire number] "of the predestinate. Paul was never a member of the Devil, although" [before his conversion] "he did certain acts like unto the acts of the church malignant."
"The reprobate are not parts of the" [invisible] "Church; for that no part of the same finally falleth from her: because the charity" [or grace] "of predestination, which bindeth the Church together, never faileth."
"The reprobate, although he be sometimes in grace according to present justice" [i.e. by a present appearance of outward righteousness], "yet is he never a part of the Holy Church" [in reality]: "and the predestinate is ever a member of the Church, although sometime he fall from grace adventitiā, but not from the grace of predestination: ever taking the Church for the convocation of the predestinate, whether they be in grace or not, according to present justice:" i.e. whether they be converted already, or yet remain to he so, the predestinate, or elect, constitute, as such, that invisible Church, which God the Father hath chosen, and God the Son redeemed."
"The grace of predestination is the band, wherewith the body of the Church, and every member of the same, is indissolubly joined to Christ their Head."
Nothing can be more innocent and scriptural than these positions. But the religion of the Bible is not the religion of Rome. Hence, in the bull above mentioned, the Pope thus fulminates against those doctrines and their abettors: "certain arch heretics have risen and sprung up, not against one only, but against divers and sundry documents of the Catholic faith: being land-lopers, schismatics, and seditious persons; fraught with devilish pride and wolvish madness, deceived by the subtilty of Satan, and, from one evil vanity, brought to a worse. Who, although they rose up and sprang in divers parts of the world, yet agreed they all in one, having their tails as it were knit together; to wit, John Wickliff, of England; John Huss, of Bohemia; and Jerom, of Prague, of damnable memory, who drew with them no small number to miserable ruin and infidelity. We, therefore, having a desire to resist such evil and pernicious errors, and utterly root them out from amongst the company of faithful Christians, will and command your discretions, by our letters apostolical, that you that are archbishops, bishops, and other of the clergy, and every one of you by himself, or by any other or others, do see that all and singular persons, of what dignity, office, pre-eminence, state, or condition soever they be, and by what name soever they are known, who shall presume, obstinately, by any ways or means, privily or apartly, to hold, believe, and teach the articles, books, or doctrine of the foresaid arch-heretics, John Wickliff, John Huss, and Jerom of Prague; that then, as before, you see and cause them, and every of them to be most severely punished; and that you judge and give sentence upon them as heretics, and that, as arrant heretics, you leave them to the secular court or power. Furthermore, we will and command, that, by this our authority apostolical, ye exhort and admonish all the professors of the Catholic faith, as emperors, kings, dukes, princes, marquisses, earls, barons, knights, and other magistrates, rectors, consuls, pro-consuls, shires, countries, and universities of the kingdoms, provinces, cities, towns, castles, villages, their lands and other places, and all other executing temporal jurisdiction, that they expel out of their kingdoms, provinces, cities, towns, castles, villages, lands, and other places, all and all manner of such heretics; and that they suffer no such, within their shires and circuits, to preach, or to keep either house or family, or to use any handy-craft or occupations, or other trades of merchandize, or to solace themselves any ways, or to frequent the company of Christian men. And furthermore, if such public and known heretics shall chance to die, let him and them want Christian burial. His goods and substance also, from the time of his death, according to the canonical sanctions, being confiscate; let no such enjoy them to whom they appertain, 'till, by the Ecclesiastical judges, sentence upon his or their crime of heresy be declared and promulgate." The reader, who is desirous of perusing the whole of this bull, may see it in Fox, vol. i. from p. 737 to 742. But the sample here given may suffice to shew that Calvinism appeared as dreadful to the eyes of Popery, as it can to those of John Wesley or Walter Sellon.
The see of Rome relished these doctrines no better in the century that followed. Three years after the rise of Martin Luther, another flaming bull was issued against that reformer, by Leo X.: of this bull these were some of the roarings: "Rise up, O Lord, and judge thy cause, for foxes are risen up, seeking to destroy thy vineyard. Rise up, Peter, and attend to the cause of the holy Church of Rome, the mother of all churches; against which, false liars have risen up, bringing in sects of perdition, to their own speedy destruction, whose tongue is like fire, full of unquietness, and replenished with deadly poison; who, having a wicked zeal, and nourishing contentions in their hearts, do brag and lie against the verity. Rise up, Paul, also: we pray thee, who hast illuminated the same Church with thy doctrine and martyrdom, for now is sprung up a new Porphiry, who, as the said Porphiry did then unjustly slander the holy Apostles, so semblably doth this man" [meaning Luther] "now slander, revile, rebuke, bite, and bark against the holy bishops, our predecessors. Finally, let all the holy universal Church rise up, and, with the blessed Apostles, together make intercession to Almighty God, that the errors of all schismatics being rooted up, his holy Church may be conserved in peace and unity. We, for the charge of our pastoral office committed unto us, can no longer forbear, or wink at the pestiferous poison of these foresaid errors; of which errors, we thought good to recite certain here, the tenor of which is as followeth" A long catalogue of pretended heresies is then given: among which, are these two;
In every good work the just man sinneth.
Freewill, after sin [i.e. ever since original sin], is a title and name only [i.e. a mere empty word, without reality or foundation in truth].
On these and the other articles asserted by Luther, pope Leo thus continues to descant: "all which errors, there is no man in his right wits, but he knoweth the same, in their several respects; how pestilent they be, how pernicious, how much they seduce godly and simple minds, and, finally, how much they be against all charity, and against the reverence of the holy Church of Rome, the mother of all faithful, and mistress of the faith itself; and against the sinews and strength of Ecclesiastical discipline, which is obedience, the fountain and well-spring of all virtues, and without which every man is easily convicted to be an infidel. Wherefore, by the counsel and assent of the said our reverend brethren, upon due consideration of all arid singular the premises; by the authority of Almighty God, and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own, we do condemn, reprove, and utterly reject all and singular the articles or errors aforesaid, respectively: and, by the tenor hereof, we here decree and declare, that they ought of all Christian people, both men and women, to be taken as damned, reproved, and rejected. And therefore forbidding here under pain of the greater curse and excommunication; losing of their dignities, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal; and to be deprived of all regular orders and privileges; also of losing their liberties to hold general schools, to read and profess any science or faculty; of losing also their tenures and feoffments, and of inability for ever to recover the same again, or any other; moreover, under pain of secluding from Christian burial, yea and of treason also: we charge and command all and singular Christian people, as well of the laity, as of the clergy, that they shall not presume, publicly or privately, under any manner of pretence or colour, colourably or expressly, or how else soever, to hold, maintain, defend, preach, or favour the foresaid errors, or any of them, or any such perverse doctrine."12 This instrument, of which I have hardly retailed the tenth part, is dated June 15, 1520.
Honest Luther laughed at this Ecclesiastical thunder and lightning. He published an answer, whose purport did equal honour to his integrity and intrepidity. "A rumour reached me," says the adamantine reformer, "that a certain bull was gone forth against me, and circulated almost over the world, before I had so much as seen it: though, in right, it ought to have been transmitted first and directly to my hands, I being the particular object at whom it was levelled." The fact was, the Pope's bull (somewhat like Mr. Wesley's Abridgment of Zanchius) was, as Luther expresses it, of the owl or bat kind; it flew about surreptitiously and in the dark. Noctis & tenebrarum filia, timet lucem vultus mei, says Luther; hunc tamen ipsam noctuam vix tandem, multem adjuvantibus amicis, in imagine suā datum est videre: "this bird of night sought to elude my view; the owl was, however, though with some difficulty, caught by my friends, and brought to me, that I might survey the creature in its proper form." "I do," adds Luther, "hold, defend, and embrace, with the full trust of my spirit, those articles condemned and excommunicated in the said bull: and I affirm, that the same articles ought to be held of all faithful Christians under pain of eternal malediction; and that they are to be counted for Antichrists, whosoever have consented to the said bull: whom I also, together with the spirit of all them that know the truth, do utterly detest and shun. And let this stand for thy revocation, O bulla, verč bullarum filia, O thou bull, which art the very daughter of all vain bubbles."13 The Pope got nothing by stigmatizing Luther with heresy and schism. The German reformer treated the Italian pontiff with no more ceremony than, Come out, thou ass-headed Antichrist; is not thy whorish face ashamed? I am far from applauding the violence of Luther's temper, and from approving the coarseness of his language. But the good man was heated; and, l suppose, thought it needful, on some occasions, to answer fools according to their folly, lest they should be wise in their own conceit.
Endnotes: