Dorough, and Mr. Daubeny, Archdeacon of Sarum, on the other; and each party seem to understand the Articles exclusively in their own sense. But as some of our reformers were inclined to Calvinism, and others to Arminianism, it is perhaps more natural to believe, with some of our ablest divines,† that the Articles are framed with comprehensive latitude, and that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism was meant to be exclusively established. No.-To the Church of England is "sua opinio, suus honor." Properly speaking, (if an obscure individual might presume to speak on so delicate a subject) she is not in her doctrines, any more than in her discipline, Calvinistic, Arminian, Lutheran, or Romish; but, combining the perfections of all those persuasions, and avoiding their faults and defects, she stands as distinguished in a religious view, as the state, to which she is allied, does in a political one.‡

To adopt the language of Mr. Faber, in his

* Mr. O. in his True Churchman Ascertained, takes the Calvinistic side, and the other is warmly supported by Dr. K. in his Articles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistic, and by Mr. D. in his Vindicia Ecclesia Anglicana.

† Bishop Burnet, Dr. Waterland, &c.

See also Mr. Gray's Bampton Lect. p. 265. Note.

"Our Church is not Lutheran, it is not Calvinistic, it is not Arminian, it, is Scriptural.-It is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone."

Bishop Pretyman's Charge for 1803, p. 23.

Thoughts on the Calvinistic and Arminian Controversy, to which the reader is referred;—" To the Calvinist the Articles declare the doctrine of Universal Redemption;-to the Pelagian they assert the existence of Original Sin; to the Antinomian they declare that good works are a sine qua non of Salvation, though not the meritorious cause of it;to the Latitudinarian they avow, that they are to be had accursed who presume to say that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature;-while they teach the Romanist, that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and neither for our own works or deservings, nor for the supererogatory works of Saints."

It is always to be lamented when private animosities obstruct the discharge of public duties; nor can the flock prosper while the shepherds are at variance. The church, whether Catholic or National, must continue to receive her members, distinguished by the diversities of human character; and that perfect agreement of opinion, which can result only from perfect knowledge, it were fruitless on earth to expect. The vesture of Christ's Church, or of any sound branch of the Church, may still exhibit its variegated colours, if, like his own, having no seam, it be not rent. And one of the parties in this controversy, as if assuming the character of an umpire, has well

observed that "the peculiarities of Calvinism do not belong to the essence of Christianity ;-they are not necessary Catholic verities, but merely matters of opinion, in which a man may err, or be ignorant, without danger to his soul."-"In the number of those who have held them, and those who have held them not, are to be found some of the most spiritual members of the church. Calvinism, therefore, may be considered as containing opinions, with respect to which the best of Christians may be allowed to differ without any forfeiture of their Christian character, provided they break not the bond of charity in so doing."—

Why may not our hearts be united though our heads do differ? and, above all, why do we not as Christians forbear all capital censures either way; which must needs involve many holy souls, many Catholic bishops of the ancient church, many learned and godly doctors of our own; all of whom have differed in their opinions on these points, at the same time that they have been closely united in their affections?""*

WORSHIP, RITES, AND CEREMONIES.-In this Church divine service is conducted by a Liturgy, entitled, The Book of Common Prayer and

* Mr. Daubeny's Introductory Chap. to his Vindicia Eccles. Angl. P. 12. 13.

"Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissim. atque optimi regulæ Catholicæ doctores salvâ fidei compage non consonant."-August. C. Jul. 1. 2. p. 8.

Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the usè · of the Church of England.

Before the arrival of Austin in Britain, the Church of England used the pure Liturgy of the Old Gallican Church; and until the Reformation, her Liturgy was only in Latin: but when the nation, in King Henry the Eighth's time, was disposed to a reformation, something was done in liturgical matters for the better edification of the people. Her first reformed Liturgy may be said to have commenced in the year 1537, when Henry VIII. permitted the Convocation to set forth the Lord's Prayer, Ave Maria, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Seven Sacraments in the vulgar tongue; but it was not completed in any degree before the year 1547, the 2d year of King Edward the Sixth, when the first Book of Common Prayer was drawn up and composed from the King's Primer, and other formal rituals, by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, together with eleven other eminent divines. It was revised and altered in 1551, when it was again confirmed by Parliament; but both this and the former act, made in 1548, were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary, as "not being agreeable to the Romish superstition, which she was resolved to restore."

But upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was reversed; and the second Book of King Edward, with several alterations,

re-established.* In this state the Liturgy continued, till the first year of King James I., when it underwent another review; and the next and last revisal, in which any alteration was made in it by public authority, took place in 1661, the 13th of Charles II.†

Many applications have been since made for a review, and particular alterations were proposed in 1689, by several eminent and excellent divines,‡ acting under a commission of government issued for that purpose, in conformity with the articles transmitted to Convocation by Archbishop Sancroft, and the advice of Dr. Tillotson.

The ten bishops and twenty other divines, who prepared a draft of the work, agreed in twenty points, some of which at least deserved regard; but the purpose of the commission at that time, and also some subsequent attempts, entirely failed.

*This second Prayer Book of Edward VI. had never, I believe, any ecclesiastical authority to support it till the revision of the work under Charles II., but, during that period, subsisted on authority purely regal and parliamentary.

† A clear and neat account of the progressive formation of the present Liturgy, from the Primer of Henry VIII. to this last revision of Charles II. may be seen in the Introduction to Mr. Shepherd's Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Morning and Evening Prayer.-See also concerning it Mr. Wheatley's excellent Illustration of it, and Strype's Memor. vol. ii. p. 85.

Archbishops Tillotson and Tennison, and Bishops Pa trick, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Kidder, &c.