moderation, the reserve, and the alleged latitude which characterise it, would have had his cordial approbation.

That, up to the assembling of the Synod of Dort, the Churches of England and Scotland alike adhered to the socalled Calvinistic tenets, is proved by the assent given to its decrees by the British divines who assisted at that synod. Among those who subscribed and attested its Articles, are found the names of George Carleton, Bishop of Llandaff; John Davenant, Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and afterwards Bishop of Salisbury; Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney College, Cambridge; Thomas Good, Precentor of St. Paul's; and Walter Balcanqual, a Scotch Presbyter. It is clear, also, from the history of those transactions, that there was not at that time supposed to be any essential difference between the doctrine of the Church of Geneva, and that of the other Reformed churches. The only mention made of Calvin, in the History published by order of the StatesGeneral, is, along with others, as an eminent doctor of the Reformed churches. Thus, Arminius is accused of having vehemently attacked the reputation and authority of the most illustrious doctors, Calvin, Zanchius, Beza, Martyr, Ursinus, and others; and his disciples are represented as glorying in the profession of an entirely new theology. The term Calvinist is never used in this document. The main dispute, indeed, between the orthodox pastors and the remonstrants, related not to Predestination, but to articles confessedly of greater importance.*

The English monarch had joined his influence with that of the House of Orange in the convocation of this synod; but it was not long before political events occasioned a revolution upon this point in the sentiments of the King and of his bishops; and there can be no doubt that the disgust which James early conceived against the Presbyterian discipline,

In the Conference held at the Hague, Feb. 1613, the orthodox pastors renewed the declaration of their readiness to come to an amicable adjustment of their differences with the Remonstrants, provided the latter would assure the churches, "that they thought differently from those Reformed churches on no other heads of doctrine except the five Articles" concerning Predestination.-See Scott's "Synod of Dort," p. 71.

paved the way for the change in his theological sentiments. In the reign of Charles I., the countenance of the Court was confined to the divines who favoured the Arminian system; and the supposed connexion between the Arminian theology and Episcopacy, the Calvinistic doctrines and Presbyterianism, was rivetted in the prejudices of the nation by the transactions of the succeeding reigns. Thus, the theological differences between the Churches of England and Scotland have resulted mainly from political causes.

Within the pale of both churches, however, there exists a wider diversity of theological tenets than separates the two communions. Although the rigid Calvinism of the Scottish symbol has never been questioned, the "moderate" party within the Established Church of Scotland are believed to entertain notions much more nearly allied to the Arminian school; * while the very dispute raised in the Anglican Church, respecting the true character of its Articles, attests the discrepancy between the "orthodox" and " the evangelical" tenets,—the Arminianism of Tomline, and the Calvinism of Scott. "In the English Church," according to the admission of one of the boldest asserters of its claims, "may be found differences as great as those which separate it from Greece or Rome. Calvinism and Arminianism, Latitudinarianism and Orthodoxy, all these sometimes simply such, and sometimes compounded together into numberless varieties of doctrine and school; and these not merely each upholding itself as true, but, with few exceptions, denouncing all the rest as perilous. Such is its state even among its appointed ministers and teachers." But this reproach is not, as we have shown, peculiar to Protestantism. The boasted unity of the Roman Church is broken by diversities of doctrine and school still more heterogeneous and irreconcileable.

The Moderate party is the most numerous, reckoning six hundred ministers out of ten, or three-fifths of the whole; but the Evangelical party is on the increase. Newman on Romanism and Popular Protestantism, p. 311. See also Ib. pp. 394-397.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PROTESTANT NONCONFORMISTS.

Sect. i. The Three Denominations.-Their origin.-Agreement of the English Presbyterians with the Church of Scotland.-Spirit of the Presbyterian polity.— Rise of the Independents.—Comparative view of the Presbyterian and Independent parties of the seventeenth century.-The Congregational scheme of Church-government.—Rise of the Baptists.-The Baptist Confession.-The Savoy Confession.-Three Points of Difference between the Presbyterian and the Independent ministers.-Union of the Two Bodies.-Declaration of Faith issued by the Congregational Union.-Controversy relating to the Voluntary Principle.-Numbers of the Dissenters.-Amount raised for religious objects. -Theological Academies.-Missions.-Spirit of Dissent.

Sect. ii. The Scottish Dissenters.-United Associate Synod.-Origin of the Secession.-Division into Burghers and Anti-Burghers, and Re-union.-Relief Synod.-Cameronians and Bereans.-Origin of the Glassite or Sandemanian Dissenters.-Congregationalists and Baptists.-Episcopalian Dissenters.

Sect. iii. The Wesleyan Methodists.

Sect. iv. The Calvinistic Methodists.
Sect. v. The Irish Dissenters.

In the preceding chapters, we have been chiefly occupied with the creeds and symbols of ecclesiastical communions whose political organization, as national churches, gives to them respectively the compact form of societies governed by legislative authorities, and approaching to the character of corporate bodies. We have now to ascertain and develop the distinguishing tenets and discipline of religious denominations altogether detached from the State, and rejecting the principles of ecclesiastical polity upon which all national churches are founded.

Under the vague appellation of Dissenters, are popularly confounded a variety of denominations and sects, the offsets of different communions, whose names perplex the minds of persons unaccustomed to discriminate between the terms which designate distinct communions, and those which denote merely some nicer shade of opinion, or some sectarian subdivision. But the Protestant Dissenters of English History, to whom the appellation properly attaches, consist of the

Three Denominations which have branched from the original Nonconformists to the prelatical government of the Church of England, as established by Elizabeth and the Stuart dynasty; viz. the Presbyterian denomination, the Independent or Congregational denomination, and the Baptist or Antipædobaptist denomination. These unitedly form the Protestant Dissenting body, in whose favour the provisions of the Toleration Act were originally intended to operate; and whose ministers residing in and near the metropolis, enjoy, in common with the London clergy and the two Universities, the privilege of access to the sovereign on the throne.* It is to the history and characteristic opinions of these three denominations that we shall first address ourselves.

SECTION I.

THE THREE DENOMINATIONS.

The

The English Presbyterians, who formed the bulk of the original Nonconformists, differed only in their political predicament from their brethren of the Church of Scotland. Westminster Assembly, composed chiefly of Presbyterian divines, were exceedingly desirous, in alliance with Scotland, of establishing Presbyterian uniformity throughout the kingdom; and the Confession, Directory, and Catechism, agreed upon by this synod in 1647, were adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, of which they are still the acknowledged standards; they are also adhered to by the various bodies of orthodox Presbyterians in both parts of the kingdom, who have seceded from her communion. The

In the reign of William and Mary, it would seem that the London dissenting ministers of the several denominations addressed the throne as separate bodies. In 1702, Dr. Calamy states, "they made an address to Her Majesty in a large body, made up of the three denominations of Presbyterians, Independents, and Antipædobaptists; and this being the first time of their joining together in an address at court, it was much taken notice of, and several were surprised, and commended their prudence."—Calamy's Life, vol. i. p. 460. On the recent occasion of her present Majesty's happy accession, the Unitarian ministers, who have seceded from the General Body of the Three Denominations, were allowed to present a separate address to the throne in the character of Presbyterian ministers.

divines of the Independent denomination, who sat in the Westminster Assembly, did not exceed ten or twelve in number, deriving their weight chiefly from their acknowledged talents and learning. Dissenting from their Presbyterian brethren on no points of theology, they were strenuously opposed to their notions and principles of church-government, as not less intolerant than those of the prelatists. They therefore threw every possible obstacle in the way of establishing Presbyterian uniformity; and though out-voted by numbers, they succeeded, with the aid of the friends of religious liberty in parliament, in preventing the ascendancy of a party which, had it obtained sufficient power, would have shown no more respect to the rights of conscience, than had the displaced hierarchy.

Presbyterianism, viewed as a scheme of polity, though admirably suited to the exigencies of the times in which it originated, partakes of the essential defectiveness of the incipient Reformation of the sixteenth century; imbodying those erroneous principles which were adopted by the founders of most of the Protestant churches, and which soon proved not less fatal to the cause of scriptural truth, than to the internal peace of the Christian communities. At that period, the rights of the people were as ill understood by the one party as by the other. The Reformation was an insurrection against spiritual despotism, but almost exclusively in defence of the rights of the clergy; and the people took part in it, as the cause of the spiritual leaders to whom they had attached themselves. It was the cause of ecclesiastical independence, rather than of civil freedom; and national attachments and jealousies came in aid of the struggle. The Presbyterian polity is essentially theocratic. In times when the infant spirit of municipal freedom was too weak to wrestle with either imperial despotism or sacerdotal domination, it was a fortunate error which enlisted on the side of resistance, if not of liberty, the pretensions of the Church to a mixed power, which trenches alike upon the prerogatives of the civil magistracy and upon the rights of conscience.

Presbyterianism, at once theocratic and republican in its

BB