not denouncing "custards," "* but evincing the same

* We can account for the puritanical abhorrence of most of the deadly sins of "malignants," but I have not been able to find a clue to their

"BLASPHEMING CUSTARD through the nose."

We can easily account for their fasting at Christmas! Because all other Christians rejoiced, but what sin there should be in custard, more than any other dish? I can find no better reason than that custard was anciently distinguished as "ROYAL!" This fact I learn from Wood's History of Oxford. George Nevill, of Baliol, brother to the great Earl of Warwick, took his Master of Arts degree, when an entertainment more sumptuous than the University had ever witnessed, was given. Among the dishes of the first course "the borehead and the bull, brawne and mustard, furmenty and venyson, fesant in bran, fawn and capon, hernshaw," we have, eo nomine,

"CUSTARD ROYAL!"

This, probably, was a transmitted name, and, being connected with the word "Royal," was quite sufficient to excite the abomination of all whose religion was so anti-royal and antiepiscopal. It is well known that, soon after the Parliamentary Visitors came to Oxford, they had a meeting every week to consider cases of conscience, which was therefore, not unaptly, nicknamed "THE SCRUPLE-SHOP." The religious scruples were generally of this trifling nature; but, as to lying, murdering, there was no " scruple" at all, nor was the " Shop" ever troubled with a question of the kind. So in all ages are found those who place the essence of religion in "STRAINING AT GNATS AND SWALLOWING CAMELS." These nominal Christians sat or stood at the Lord's Supper, because those whom they opposed knelt. They would have knelt if the others had sat. The cap was idolatrous because it was square, and the bread of the Church of Rome idolatrous because it was round! *

* History of Bremhill.

abhorrence of those schools that nurtured the piety and learning of Ken, Sherlock, and Lowth, &c., and looking on Cathedral Service as little better than idolatry!

God's Commandments are ten! Puritanism, from the times of Ames to Prynne, and the modern Evangelists, has THREE great commandments: "1. Thou shalt not read or see a play! 2. Thou shalt not touch a card, whether in the spirit of gaming or not! 3. Thou shalt not go to a dance, however regulated!"

Not in the spirit of uncharitableness are these remarks made, but to show that the assumption of infallibility is the great cause of the want of charity among Christians!

* Seth Ward wrote "Vindicia Academiarum.”

254

GENERAL

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.

Of all the anomalies in that melancholy medley of "strife," "envyings," "variance," "murder," -the reign of Presbyterian and Cromwellian Puritanism-the most extraordinary circumstance was the Creed professed by both parties, of absolute, unalterable predestination from all eternity—that the Being who thus decreed was not to be moved -and yet this Lord of Fate was constantly "sought" in prayer, and not only so, but a conviction was expressed that particular Ministers had an especial “influence," so as to prevail with this immoveable Deity, at their request, and for their especial purposes, to change that ETERNAL DECREE which, upon their own principles, was unchangeable!

How do the most elaborate systems fall to pieces before a few plain axioms of common sense. The Almighty, in his dealings with such a creature as man, could have decreed otherwise, or he could not. If he could have decreed otherwise, then there could be no necessary immutable decree from

* See account of the death of Cromwell.

all eternity. If he could not have decreed otherwise, then there is no GOD, BUT FATE! Argue as long as you will, you must be reduced to this point at last.

--

There are two great schemes or philosophical views on this subject. The two schemes, in the pedantic language of what are called the schools, are Supra-lapsarian, and Sub-lapsarian. Now common sense says if it were destined before the fall that man must fall, and it could not have been otherwise, the Supreme Power could not surely be pronounced ALL-MIGHTY! The heart instantly revolts from this conclusion, and therefore other scholastic dialecticians argue, that predestination was after the fall!* Now this stultifies the other for, if Adam was free, and might have stood, but fell, there is no reason, à priori, why those who came after him might not stand or fall, and then the question reverts-is it God or Destiny that rules the universe?

The Stoics felt this dilemma, and said of Jupiter, "semel jussit, semper paret." Jupiter first commanded, and afterwards for ever was obedient to his own commands: but, if he had power to command either one or the other, then there is NO DESTINY. The half-destiny is such utter nonsense, that nothing but being lost in scholastic subtleties, and dialectic

This does not affect the reasoning, that God willed the restoration of man to immortality through our Redeemer.

verbiage, could have imposed on the understanding of Davenant or Baxter; and the whole of Calvin's horrible deductions must be admitted-or none.

If there be an Almighty Power, which created a sensible being, to live for a short period, and then for countless and countless ages to survive in torments without end! and if it was owing to the WILL of an Almighty Power, that man should be created for no other purpose than that he should be thus destined to eternal torments, (called, scholastically, "REPROBATION,") the thought of which seems to have delighted the imagination of him who in later days most learnedly systematized the doctrine-then this Almighty ought to be called by his right name-TON AIABOAON KOZMOKPATEPA*-from the Oriental idea in which the creed originated-that the GOD OF EVIL was the maker of the world! So delighted, indeed, seemed the Geneva Doctor with this idea, that he does not seem to see the utter inconclusiveness of his own arguments, astute as he was. God made man and the ass, he tells us; and the ass being destined to a life of sufferings, why should not the same God destine millions of human beings to abide for ever and ever in sufferings? But the reasoning, such as it is, is inconclusive; for there is no comparison

* Irenæus.

+ This is Calvin's argument, to the best of my recollection. BISHOP HORSLEY shall not persuade me to look at the book again.