But

served; and therefore it is the business of the Civil society to take care that they be observed, which is effected by fear of temporal punishment and death. In a word, the power of the Civil society hath the bodies of men for its object, but the authority of the Ecclesiastical regards their souls. Wherefore, seeing bodies are subject to force and compulsion, it is their office who are governors of the Civil society, to punish offenders and put them to death. since force cannot touch the souls of men, it must follow that the Ecclesiastical society hath no power to use external force, nor to reduce sinners in any other way from their sinful courses, but by prayers and precepts, which, if they will not obey, it can inflict no other punishment upon them but excommunication, by which they are denounced unworthy of the Church's society and eternal life. In the last place, the laws of Civil societies regard the good and tranquillity of the Commonwealth; but contrariwise, there is no other end of Ecclesiastical laws but to keep the sanctity and purity of Christian Doctrine and Discipline sound and undefiled.

"From these principles, which are most evident and sure, it follows that the Power of the Church is wholly spiritual, and does not in the least reach the temporal rights or goods of Kings or other men; so that neither Kings can be deposed, nor private persons be deprived in any manner of what they have, by mere Ecclesiastical power. Wherefore a great difference is to be observed between the power and him that useth and exerciseth the

power. For it may so happen, that he who useth the power, may be subject to another power, though that power which he exerciseth is subject to no power. The same man may at the same time be a member both of the Civil and Ecclesiastical society, and therefore by different personal relations be subject both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil power: but then it doth not follow from hence, in the least, on this hand, that the Civil power which he may have is subject to the Ecclesiastical, or, on the other, that the Ecclesiastical is subject to the Civil. Thus Bishops are subject to the Regal power in Civil matters, but so that the Episcopal power is not subject to the Civil power. And therefore a King or Emperor cannot constitute or depose a Bishop by Civil authority and force. In like manner Kings are subject unto Bishops and the Chief Pontiff in matters Spiritual; but they cannot be made or deposed by Ecclesiastical authority.

Wherefore, though it is out of all doubt that Kings are subject to the Spiritual, and Bishops to the Temporal power; yet we must not from hence assert, that the Ecclesiastical power is subject to the Civil, or the Civil to the Ecclesiastical; because both these powers are of a sundry different nature, and wholly dependent upon God, by whom they are so instituted that neither of them can do any thing against the other, notwithstanding the Spiritual is more noble than the Temporal power."

According to this statement of M. Dupin, it will readily be perceived, that the Civil and Ecclesiasti

cal powers, however combined in the person of the same officers, are essentially distinct: that this distinction arises from no nicely drawn fancy, but from the broadest and most obvious principles; and that the dependence of the officers of the Church on the State, in respect of that part of their ministry which is civil, in no way implies total dependence, nor interferes with their fullest liberty in matters Spiritual.

It is true, indeed, that in this country, under the existing laws, a recognition of this liberty would cause the inconveniences of imperium in imperio : but this does not arise out of the nature of Ecclesiastical power, the independence of which (though admitted to the fullest extent) could lead to no collision between the officers of Church and State while they adhered strictly to their respective commissions. What it does arise from is the perplexed character of the English law, by which the officers of the Church are in every ministerial act compelled to exceed their commissions. Jesus Christ never commissioned His Apostles or their Successors to give to children civil privileges, by admitting them into His Kingdom; but a Clergyman of the Church of England can neither baptize without conferring civil privileges, nor refuse to baptize without withholding them. Thus, in the first place the law compels him to exceed his commission, and in the second makes this an excuse for controlling him in the exercise of his commission.

If this and similar matters were simplified, as

they might easily be, Erastianism would probably become less common, or at least Erastians would have less excuse for their errors.

Calvinism, such as it existed in the 16th century, amidst all its errors had two truths. Though its Articles of Faith were erroneous, yet it asserted that a true faith was necessary to salvation: and though its discipline was a human invention, yet it asserted that Church authority was from God.

Against these two truths of Calvinism were forged the doctrines of Arminius and Erastus; the former asserting that mere opinions were matters of indifference, the latter that the Church was a mere creature of the State.

It is a remarkable fact, that from the restoration of Charles II. to the present day, Calvinism, Erastianism, and Arminianism, have, like Herod and Pontius Pilate, been made friends together to carry on a joint war against Apostolical Christianity. In this war the last acts of Convocation are a very important stage; and at the present crisis deserve particular attention, especially considered in connexion with the previous history of the contending parties......

3. The Arminians.

It is commonly, but [inconsiderately] asserted, that Archbishop Laud and those who thought and acted with him, were Arminians. Certainly they did agree with the Arminians in some points in

which these differed from the Calvinists, but then, these points were neither characteristic of the Arminian system nor yet peculiar to it; and what is more, there existed at that time in England, a party who did hold all the characteristic tenets of the Arminians, and corresponded with them, and who, though during the reign of Charles I. they sided with the Archbishop, yet afterwards showed themselves very warm and constant opponents of his surviving friends and their followers. To group two such parties together under a common name, is an unnecessary confusion; and to avoid it I shall call the Archbishop and his friends the Apostolical party. With this preface, I proceed to the history of the party properly called Arminians.

James Van Harmin, otherwise called Arminius, was born at Oudewater in Holland, in 1560. He received his early education from a Catholic Priest, but afterwards studied at Utrecht, Leyden, and Geneva; he then visited Padua, and travelled in Italy. In 1588, he became a distinguished preacher at Amsterdam, and three years afterwards made himself generally notorious by the opinions which have since gone by his name. In 1603, he was elected Professor, at Leyden, and died in 1609. The following year, his followers presented to the States of Holland, a Remonstrance against certain of the Calvinists, from whence they are sometimes called Remonstrants. Conferences were held between them and the Calvinists in 1611 and 1613, and in 1618 was convoked the famous Synod of