It must be remembered that it is ordination, and not nomination, that makes a bishop or congregational priest. It is, therefore, nothing, that the King in England, and other countries, nominates the one, and lay patrons the other since, if an improper person is nominated, a bi shop ought to suffer any extremity sooner than yield compliance. Kings and emperors interfered! to prevent the broils and bloodshed which attended the popular election of bishops: and lay patronage is coeval with established Christianity itself, as it encouraged the building and endowing of churches. In Independent congregations, the popular election is the call; and the laying on of hands is designed only to make it public.

God, who is the God of peace and order, could never direct pastors to be elected by popular choice; a mode of appointment which would split the church into ten thousand fractions: for, if the people, have an unalienable right to elect, each disappointed minority, without end, in contested elections, has likewise an unalienable right to elect. In Dr. Seaman's church mentioned by Sherlock, the small number of thirty electors, after prayer, fasting, and sermons, were unable to agree. But suppose the pastor even unanimously elected, and living twenty years among the people, in this period one half of the electors die; and a new congregation have a right, an unalienable right, to a fresh election,, Take this principle in conjunction with the independence of

congregations on each other, the absence of all general jurisdiction or bond of connexion, and what system can be conceived more destructive to Christian unity* ?

As the ancient Independents and Presbyterians, together with a large body of the church ministers, were doctrinal Puritans, or, in other terms, Calvinists; and as a considerable number of religious descendants of each of these classes, together with some other sects, exist at this time in England, professing the same tenets, we now seem to have arrived at the proper part of our work for examining the quinquarticular controversy.

है

* It is worthy of remark, that Calvin himself was by no means consistent in his professed attachment to Presbyterianism. In the fourth book of his Institutes, ch. iv. § 1, after stating, that although the episcopal canons contain some things not to be assented to; nevertheless he adds, "cautione totam suam œconomiam composuerunt, ad unicam illam veram Dei normam, ut facile videas nihil fere hâc parte habuisse à verbo Dei alienum."-" Quemadmodum tradidimus triplices ministros nobis commendari in Scriptura, ita quicquid ministrorum habuit vetus ecclesia, in tres ordines distinxit. Nam ex ordine Presbyterorum partim eligebantar pastores ac doc tores; reliqua pars censuræ morum et correctionibus præerat Diaconis commissa erat cura pauperum, et eleemosynarum dispensatio. Itaque Hieronimus ubi quinque proposuit ecclesia ordines, enumerat episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, fideles, catechumenos, &c." See the whole section, where it is plain that the two latter are not ecclesiastical offices.

TE

I. Calvinists: Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian; high and moderate.-II. Arminians.-III. The Five Points examined the first, absolute Predestination; the seon.cond, partial Redemption; the third, the total Depra-vation of Man; the fourth, the special Call of the - Elect; the fifth, the Perseverance of the Saints.-IV. Were the early English Reformers, Calvinists ?---V. Are the Articles Calvinistic ?-VI. Is the Liturgy? VII. Are the Homilies?-VIII. Were the Formularies deemed Calvinistic at and after their Appearance ?IX. Comparison of the Formularies with those of other Churches, avowedly Calvinistic.

I. THE Protestants agreed, in general, in rejecting the Romish doctrines which related to the Papal, supremacy, the traditions of the church, transubstantiation, purgatory, penance, auricular confession, image-worship, invocation of saints, masses for the dead, monastic vows, and the admission of more sacraments in the church than

On other points, however, soon after the

Reformation, many of the reformed churches were at open variance and no subjects were more warmly contested than those which involved the doctrines of predestination, faith, and spiritual influence.

As Zuinglius was the father of the doctrines, and Calvin of the church discipline of Geneva, the term Calvinist was originally applied chiefly to the advocates of Presbyterian ordination and govern→ ment; but since the synod of Dort, the name has been confined to all who embrace the views of the Gospel entertained by Calvin, and as a mark of opposition to the disciples of the Arminian school.

The Calvinists, however, were not wholly agreed amongst themselves. They were either sublapsarians or supralapsarians. the former asserting that Adam was free to stand in paradise; while the latter held that God had decreed his fall from all eternity, and that he could not possibly have avoided his sin or its consequences. As this dispute seems matter of mere speculation, and has little or no bearing on the characters and fate of mankind, it needs not long arrest our attention. The sublapsarian scheme is, comparatively speak-. ing, more favourable to the attributes of God, than the horrible hypothesis of the opposite party: but it is defective in analogy, by ascribing to Adam a free will, a moral agency, and to his posterity, none. The supralapsarians are more shocking, but more consistent, in their opinions,

VOL. II.

1

X

by representing Adam, and every son of Adam, as. all machines together.

Another distinction is drawn between high and moderate Calvinists: the former accompanying Calvin to the furthest extent of his positions, while the latter yield him only a partial accordance. The moderate Calvinists admit the doctrine of universal redemption, and by consequence of spiritual influence unlimited in regard to persons; holding that every man may be saved, unless he is wanting to himself. It is clear, however, that this principle, if closely pursued, is totally incompatible with the whole of the five points. A moderate Calvinist is a contradiction in terms; it is an universal particularist; and too great an absurdity to stand the test of reason. Baxter, indeed, admitted the positive election of a certain number, and denied the absolute reprobation of any: meaning that the salvation of all the rest is contingent by depending on their voluntary improvement or rejection of sufficient grace vouchsafed. This, however, strikes at the root of every one of the five points; of the 1st, by omitting the passing-by system; of the 2d, by asserting the universality of Christ's merits; of the 3d, by supposing some portion of inward rectitude in man ; of the 4th, by making man himself, in part, the agent in the work of salvation; and of the 5th, by destroying all the others. Neither is this what is meant precisely by moderate Calvinism in the