doctrine of Calvin, while the predestination taught in this Article is that which is full of comfort.

Of the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, Bishop Tomline wrote, 'I am ready to acknowledge that in my judgment, notwithstanding the authority of former times, our Church would have acted more wisely and more consistently with the general principles of mildness aud toleration if it had not adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed. Though I firmly believe that the doctrines themselves of this creed are all founded on Scripture, I cannot but consider it to be both unnecessary and presumptuous to say ""except every man do keep them whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."'

The Evangelical or Methodist clergy said a great deal about the necessity of regeneration or being born of God. This language conflicted with the idea of regeneration in baptism. The baptismal service distinctly says that the baptised are regenerate by the Holy Ghost. If this be the same thing which the Evangelical clergy mean by regeneration, they were mistaken in speaking of the necessity for baptised persons being born again. Bishop Tomline thought he had settled the question by confining the term regeneration to the baptismal act, and calling what the Evangelicals called regeneration by the name of renovation or renewal. This distinction was supposed to have the authority of many Fathers, Reformers and Theologians of the Church of England. The Charge of 1800 lamented the 'rapid growth of atheism and infidelity.' But it appears that a worse enemy than either of these, or both of them together, was found in the Methodists. These 'fanatics,' while they believed the doctrines of the Church, renounced its authority and reviled its ministers.

At the close of the eighteenth century, the oldest bishop on the bench was Barrington of Durham. His life extended far back into the last century, and his influence may be said to have reached to our time. He is remembered as the princely and munificent Prelate, and few bishops have had the opportunity of dispensing so much patronage or of bestowing it on so many eminent men. It is enough to mention Paley, Phillpotts, Sumner and Stanley Faber.

'works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Spirit are not pleasing to God, but have the nature of sin.' The Bishop's interpretation of this, is that such works are not 'perfectly pleasing to God,' or that they do not rise to the standard of merit. It is added that though all the actions of all persons who have not been brought to the knowledge of Christ, are here pronounced to have the nature of sin, it by no means follows that their actions will, in all cases, exclude them from pardon and salvation. Millions who have never heard the name of Jesus, and have been a law unto themselves, will be redeemed and blessed for ever through the merit of His death.' This was very rational theology, but whether or not it is agreeable to the Articles of Religion we need not try to determine. Art. XVIII says that 'Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ whereby men can be saved,' so it is not enough that a man frame his life according to the light of nature.' This is explained, that no one is saved in virtue of his religion, whatever it may be, without the merits of Christ, that the Article does not confine salvation to any sect of Christianity, nor exclude those who have not heard the gospel. This again is very rational theology, but the Article reads as if it meant that men must hear of the name of Jesus and believe in it before they can be saved.

6

To make an Arminian bridge over Art. XVII was a work worthy of the most ingenious pontiff. This Tomline attempted. He was not content with the ordinary interpretation that the Article only taught moderate Calvinism, or that it could not be Calvinistic because it was guardedly silent on reprobation. Notwithstanding the solemn manner in which it introduces the subject of 'predestination to life,' speaks of 'a counsel secret to us' and of vessels made to honour,' the bishop says that it only means the election to privilege of those to whom God had made known the gospel. So this is the election of which the Article says that the godly consideration' of it is full of sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons,' but a most dangerous downfall for curious and carnal persons to have before their eyes this sentence of God's predestination.' The Bishop gets over the difficulty by

doctrine of Calvin, while the predestination taught in this Article is that which is full of comfort.

Of the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, Bishop Tomline wrote, 'I am ready to acknowledge that in my judgment, notwithstanding the authority of former times, our Church would have acted more wisely and more consistently with the general principles of mildness aud toleration if it had not adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed. Though I firmly believe that the doctrines themselves of this creed are all founded on Scripture, I cannot but consider it to be both unnecessary and presumptuous to say ""except every man do keep them whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

The Evangelical or Methodist clergy said a great deal about the necessity of regeneration or being born of God. This language conflicted with the idea of regeneration in baptism. The baptismal service distinctly says that the baptised are regenerate by the Holy Ghost. If this be the same thing which the Evangelical clergy mean by regeneration, they were mistaken in speaking of the necessity for baptised persons being born again. Bishop Tomline thought he had settled the question by confining the term regeneration to the baptismal act, and calling what the Evangelicals called regeneration by the name of renovation or renewal. This distinction was supposed to have the authority of many Fathers, Reformers and Theologians of the Church of England. The Charge of 1800 lamented the 'rapid growth of atheism and infidelity.' But it appears that a worse enemy than either of these, or both of them together, was found in the Methodists. These 'fanatics,' while they believed the doctrines of the Church, renounced its authority and reviled its ministers.

At the close of the eighteenth century, the oldest bishop on the bench was Barrington of Durham. His life extended far back into the last century, and his influence may be said to have reached to our time. He is remembered as the princely and munificent Prelate, and few bishops have had the opportunity of dispensing so much patronage or of bestowing it on so many eminent men. It is enough to mention Paley, Phillpotts, Sumner and Stanley Faber.

In the life of Barrington we read the complex character of the Church of England. He was descended on both sides from Puritan families, who had stood by the Commonwealth and the Westminster Confession. His father, Lord Barrington, was a Presbyterian, and like his friends, Locke, Collins, and Lord Somers, a zealous advocate of toleration. Shute Barrington was Bishop of Llandaff at the time of the Feathers' Tavern Petition for the relaxation of subscription to the Articles of Religion. The petition found in the Bishop a strenuous opponent. He maintained that Articles of Faith were indispensable in an Established Church. His opposition incurred severe reproach. He was reminded of his Puritan ancestors, the Shutes and the Barringtons. His conduct was contrasted with the tolerant and liberal principles of his father, from which he had departed, at a time when his influence might have helped to bring the Church into harmony with the spirit and progress of the nation. The Bishop, however, was no enemy to liberal principles. In his first Charge as Bishop of Salisbury he spoke in high terms of commendation of his predecessors in the see, mentioning especially Burnet, Hoadly and Sherlock. It was with a feeling of awe that he took the seat once occupied by such men.

Beilby Porteus,' Bishop of London when the century began, might be called an Evangelical, that is, so far as he had any party character. In him we may mark the transition from the learned and leisurely prelates of former days to the active bishops of the present time. Porteus first became known beyond the University by a sermon in answer to a tract called 'The man after God's own heart,' which was intended to ridicule the religion of the Jews. His argument was that David was not so called for his private virtues, but for his public conduct, not for the purity of his life, but for his abhorrence of idolatry.

In 1722, Porteus had been the promoter of a private petition to the bishops for a revision of the Liturgy, 'particularly those parts which all reasonable persons agreed stood in need of amendment,' and in the hope that 'moderate and welldisposed persons of other persuasions' might be brought over to the Established Church. The bishops decided that it was

more prudent to let the Liturgy remain without revision, and Porteus acquiesced in the decision, being satisfied that he had expressed his judgment. The Bishop favoured a Bill to relieve Protestant Dissenters from Subscription to the Articles of Religion. It was enough that persons licensed to preach should make a declaration that they were Christians and Protestants, and that they held the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The position of some other bishops, though less eminent than those we have mentioned, may be briefly noticed. John Randolph was consecrated Bishop of Oxford in 1799. He was translated to Bangor in 1807, and succeeded Porteus in the See of London in 1809. In 1870 he preached a sermon at the consecration of Bagot, Bishop of Bristol, from which we learn his views of ecclesiastical polity. The Christian Church being a society, in the nature of things it must have government. The New Testament gives no definite polity. It must therefore often be inferred from passages difficult of interpretation. As in a civil state, the government may be a monarchy or a republic, and obedience is proper in either case. too in the Church, we read of deacons, presbyters, and a higher class endowed with authority. In the Church of England we retain these three orders, but pass no judgment on those who have a different polity. Our Reformers were careful not to unchurch the foreign Protestants.

So

Like all the bishops of his time, Randolph was greatly alarmed by the increase of Dissenters. Under this term he embraced the Evangelical clergy. He could understand the old Nonconformists who had a reason for their dissent, but not those who were separate and had no plea for separation. The Bishop was, however, still more displeased with those who, holding the same doctrines as the Methodists, remained in the Church. They are described as seeking the Church's orders, sheltering themselves under her wing and making great efforts to purchase livings, that they might be filled with clergy of their own type. In London they were getting into their hands all the Lectureships in the city churches. Their motives were vanity and ambition, and their idea of conversion was subversive of the Church's order as well as of her