Dort, in which they were excommunicated, their religious assemblies suppressed, and their ministers deprived of their benefices.

The original difference between the Arminians and Calvinists was professedly confined to what are called the five points, relative to the doctrines of predestination and grace. "But," says Mosheim, "after the Synod of Dort, their system underwent a remarkable change, and assumed an aspect that distinguished it entirely from that of all other Christian Churches. For then they gave an explanation of these five articles, almost equivalent to a denial of the necessity of divine succours in the work of conversion and in the paths of virtue. Nay, they went still farther, and bringing the greatest part of the doctrines of Christianity before the tribunal of reason, they modified them considerably......Arminius was undoubtedly the inventor of this new form of doctrine, and taught it to his disciples, but it was first digested into a regular system by Episcopius......The great and ultimate end the Arminians seem to have in view is, that Christians, though divided in their opinions, may be united in fraternal charity, and thus formed into one community, notwithstanding the diversity of their theological opinions." So far Mosheim'. According to Le Clerk, their definition of Christian excludes only the following persons: (1.) qui sunt idolatriâ contaminati, (2.) qui minime habent Scrip

1 History, Cant. 17, § 2, p. 2, ch. 3.

turam pro fidei normâ, (3.) qui impuris moribus sancta Christi præcepta conculcant, (4.) aut qui denique alios religionis causâ vexant.

The opinions of Arminius were first introduced into England by the well-known JOHN HALES, whose followers have designated him by the title, "the ever memorable." Mr. Hales, who had been bred a Calvinist, attended the Synod of Dort, in company with Sir Dudley Carlton, the English Ambassador, and there contracted an intimacy with Episcopius, the effects of which are discernible in the following extracts from his writings.

"It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of Faith which God and the Scriptures have expressly afforded us......but upon pretence of Church authority which is none, or tradition which for the most part is but a figment, they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon others, a necessity of entertaining conclusions of that nature, and to strengthen themselves have broken out into divisions and factions... Hence arose all those ancient and many separations among Christians occasioned by Arianism, Eutychianism, Sabellianism, &c., which, indeed, are but names of Schism, howsoever in the common language of the Fathers, heresies......Can any man avouch that Arius, Nestorius, and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity or the person of our Saviour, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall upon it by error

and mistake? Till that be done, and upon good evidence, we will think no worse of all parties than needs we must; and take these rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schisms upon matters of opinion." (Tract on Schism, p. 212.)

Again, "Were Liturgies and public forms of service so framed, that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree, Schisms on opinion were utterly vanished. For consider of all the Liturgies that either are, or ever have been, and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party, and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the event shall be, that the public service and honour of God shall no wise suffer. Prayer, confession, thanksgiving, reading of Scriptures, exposition of Scripture, administration of the Sacraments in the plainest and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion or of Church pomp, &c. did interpose itself." ibid. p. 215.

Again, "They do but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us that Bishops, by Christ's institution, have any superiority over other men, farther than of reverence." p. 224.

Again, in a tract on "The Lord's Supper," having argued against the necessity of using any words of consecration, he proceeds: “And in truth, to speak my opinion, I see no great harm that would ensue, were the words of institution quite omitted. Certainly, thus much good would

follow, that some part (and not a little one) of the superstition that adheres to that action, by reason of an ungrounded conceit of the necessity and force of the words in it, would forthwith pill off and fall away." p. 47.

His opinion concerning the nature of this Sacrament he sums up as follows :—

"(1.) In the Communion there is nothing given but bread and wine. (2.) The bread and wine are signs indeed, but not of any thing there exhibited, but of something given long since, even of Christ given for us upon the Cross, sixteen hundred years ago and more. (3.) Jesus Christ is eaten at the Communion Table in no sense, neither spiritually, by virtue of any thing done there, nor really, neither metaphorically nor literally. Indeed that which is eaten (I mean the bread) is called Christ by a metaphor; but it is eaten truly and properly. (4.) The spiritual eating of Christ is common to all places as well as the Lord's table.

66

Lastly, the uses and ends of the Lord's Supper can be no more than such as are mentioned in the Scriptures, and they are but two. (1.) The commemoration of the death and passion of the Son of God; specified by Himself at the institution of the ceremony. (2.) To testify our union with Christ, and communion with one another; which end St. Paul hath taught us.

"In these few conclusions the whole doctrine and use of the Lord's Supper is fully set down, and

whoso leadeth you beyond this doth but abuse you. Quicquid ultra quæritur non intelligitur1."

After this exhibition of Mr. Hales's opinions, the reader will doubtless wonder how he obtained preferment from Archbishop Laud: of this Dr. Heylin gives us a curious account. He says, that on the circulation of Hales's tract on Schism, the Archbishop sent for him to Lambeth, in hopes to gain the man, whose abilities he was well acquainted with. About nine o'clock in the morning he came to know his Grace's pleasure, who took him into his garden, giving orders not to be disturbed upon any occasion. There they continued in discourse till the bell rang to prayers; and after prayers, till dinner was ready; and after that, too, till the coming of the Lord Conway and some other persons of honour put a necessity upon some of his servants to give him notice how the time had passed away. So in they came, high-coloured, and almost panting for want of breath, enough to show that there had been some heats between them, not then fully cooled. "I was chance," says Heylin, "to be there that day, and found Hales very glad to see me, as being himself a mere stranger there, and unknown to all. He told me afterwards that he found the Archbishop (whom he knew before for a nimble disputant) to be as well versed in books as business, and that he had been ferretted by him from one hole to another, till there was none left to

1 Tracts published in 1677, p. 62.