Note 9b — SERMON.

See Overton, p. 71, 72, 82, 92. Robertson observes, in his History of America, p. 163, “Of all the Reformed churches, that of England has deviated the least from the ancient institutions . . . Though the Articles to be recognized as the system of national faith were framed conformable to the doctrines of Calvin, his notions with respect to church government and the mode of worship were not adopted.” See the same testimony in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 87, 88. Bishop Burnet says, “In England, the first Reformers were generally in the sublapsarian hypothesis; but Perkins and others asserted the supralapsarian way.”—Exposition of the Articles, p. 151. Dr. Heylin, a zealous Arminian, has the following testimony. “Of any men who publicly opposed the Calvinian tenets in this University” (Oxford) “till after the beginning of King James’s reign, I must confess that I have hitherto found no good assurance.” Buckridge, tutor to Abp. Laud, and Houson, are all he can name. Quinq. Hist. Works, p. 626. When Laud preceded about suppressing Calvinistic doctrines, he could not “venture the determining of those points to a Convocation,” so general was the disposition of the bishops and clergy in favour of them. Heylin’s Life of Laud, p. 147. Bishop Burnet’s honest observations, in the close of his discussion of the Seventeenth Article, will not be forgotten. “It is not to be denied, but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin’s doctrine.” . . . “Since the Remonstrants do not deny but that God, having foreseen what all mankind would, according to all the different circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, He upon that did by a firm and eternal decree lay that whole design in all its branches, which He executes in time; they may subscribe this Article without renouncing their opinion as to this matter. On the other hand, the Calvinists have less occasion for scruple; since the Article does seem more plainly to favour them.”