and moreover, having been summoned before this Synod, of intolerable obstinacy against the decrees of the supreme authority made known by this Synod, and also "against the venerable Synod itself, be accounted convicted and guilty persons.

For which causes, in the first place, the Synod interdicts the before cited persons from every ecclesiastical service, and abdicates them from their offices, and judges them even to be unworthy of academical functions, until by earnest repentance, abundantly proved by words and deeds, and contrary exertions, they satisfy the church, and be truly and fully reconciled with the same, and received to her communion; which for their own good, and for the joy of the whole church, we peculiarly (unice) desire in Christ our Lord. But the rest, of whom the knowledge hath not come to this national Synod, the Synod commits to the Provincials, the Classes, and the Presbyteries, after the received order; that they may take care that the church at present receive no detriment, nor fear it hereafter. Let them discriminate with the spirit of prudence, the followers of these errors; Let them abdicate the refractory, the clamorous, the factious, the disturbers, as soon as possible, from ecclesiastical offices, and those of the schools which belong to their knowledge and care: and let them be admonished that, without any interposed delay, after the reception of the decision of this national Synod, having obtained the authority of the magistrate, in order to it, they assemble (for this purpose) lest the evil should increase and be strengthened by delay. Let them, with all lenity, by the duties of love, by patience, excite those who have fallen or been carried away, by infirmity and the fault of the times, and perhaps hesitate in lighter matters, or are even dissentient, but quiet, of blameless life, tractable, to true and perfect concord with the church: yet so, that they may diligently take care that they do not admit any to the sacred ministry, who refuse to subscribe these synodical constitutions of the declared doctrine, and to teach it: that they even retain no one, by whose manifest dissention the doctrine approved with such agreement in this Synod may be violated, and the tranquillity of the churches again disturbed.

Moreover, this venerable Synod seriously admonishes all ecclesiastical assemblies, most diligently to watch over the flocks committed to them, and maturely to go and meet all innovations privily springing up in the church, and pull them up, as it were tares, out of the field of the Lord: that they attend

to the schools, and the conductors (moderátoribus) of schools, lest any things, from private sentiments and depraved opinions, having been instilled into the youth, destruction should afterwards be produced to the church and the republic.

Finally, thanks having been reverently given to the most Illustrious and very powerful the States General of Belgium, because they in so necessary and seasonable a time, clemently gave succour to the afflicted and declining interests of the church, by the remedy of the Synod; that they received the upright and faithful servants of God under their protection, and willed that the pledge of every blessing and the divine presence, the truth of his word should be, in a holy and religious manner, preserved in their dominions; that they spared no labor or expense, to promote and complete such a work; for which extraordinary benefits, the Synod, with its whole heart, prays for the most abundant recompense on them from the Lord, both publicly and privately, both spiritual and temporal. And the Synod indeed most strenuously and humbly asketh the same most clement lords, to will and command that this salutary doctine, most faithfully expressed according: to the word of God, and the consent of the reformed churches, be alone, and publicly heard in these regions; to drive away all privily springing up heresies and errors, and repress unquiet and turbulent spirits, that they would go to approve themselves the true and benign nursing fathers and tutors of the church; that they would determine that the sentence, according to the ecclesiastical authority confirmed by the laws of the country,. be valid against the persons before spoken of; and that they would render the Synodical constitutions immoveable and perpetual, by the addition of their own decision (calculo.) On this conclusion a few remarks may be useful.

Conceding, that there were things unjustifiable in the decisions made, and the measures adopted by the Synod, I would inquire, whether all the blame in the whole of that lamentable contest, was on one side? Whether the conduct of the Remonstrants were not as remote at least from a conciliatory spirit, as the members of the Synod? And whether, in case the Remonstrants had been victorious, they would have made a more Christian use of their victory and authority than the Synod did? I never yet knew or read of an eager and pertinacious contest, in which both parties were not greatly culpable; and in many instances, it is not easy for an impartial observer to determine on which side the greatest degree of criminality rests only where other motives or prejudices do not counter

act, the suffering party is generally favored and excused; and still more, when the motives, sentiments, or prejudices of the persons concerned are on his side. The Remonstrants, and all who ever since have favored them, throw the whole blame of the contest, both of the management, result, and consequences of it, on the Synod; and as the Remonstrants were, in the first instance at least, the chief sufferers, and as their tenets are generally more favored than those of the Synod, the public mind has greatly favored the cause of the suffering party. Yet the Synod and its supporters seem very confident, that the Remonstrants exclusively were in fault, and consider their conduct as intolerably haughty and pertinacious. But will not an impartial judge, would not one, who had no sympathy with either party, no partiality or prejudice, as to the five points of doctrine, on either side, (if such a man can be found on earth,) would he not fairly divide the criminality? At least would he not allot nearly one half of it to the one, and one half to the other? Nay, might he not allot the greater part to the Remonstrants? Thus, in all other contests, which have terminated in incurable separations, the charge of schism has been brought with the utmost confidence (if not bitterness) by each party against its opponent; and, except in one solitary instance, nearly with equal justice. I say, one instance excepted; for beyond all doubt, on the broad ground of scripture, in the separation of protestants from the Roman church, all the guilt of schism rested with that corrupt body, which excluded from its communion all those, who would not worship creatures, or conform to Anti Christian observances; and, in many ways, made it the duty, the absolute duty, of all the true worshippers of God through Christ Jesus, to come forth and be separate. But perhaps this is the only exception.

I would by no means exclude schism from the vocabulary of sins, of great and grievous sins, as many seem disposed to do. Pride, ambition, obstinacy, and self-will, and other very corrupt passions, powerfully influence both those, who by spiritual tyranny, would lord it over other men's consciences, and impose things not scriptural, if not directly anti-scriptural, as terms of communion, or even of exemption from pains and penalties; and also on those, who on slight grounds refuse compliance, where the requirement is not evidently wrong; and then magnify by a perverse ingenuity, into a most grievous evil, some harmless posture, or garb, or ceremony. If the one party would, humbly and meekly, without desiring to arrogate a power not belonging to man, desist from peremptorily

requiring such things as are doubtful, and liable to be misunderstood, and so scrupled by upright, peaceable, and conscientious persons: and if the other party would determine to comply, as far as on much previous examination of the scripture, with prayer, and teachableness, they conscientiously could do it; the schism might be prevented, and all the very bad effects of the church of Christ being thus rent and split into parties prevented. For these several parties are generally more eager in disputing with each other, than "contending for the faith once delivered to the saints;" in making proselytes, than in seeking the conversion of sinners; and in rendering their opponents odious and ridiculous, than in exhibiting our holy religion as lovely and attractive to all around them. In these things, their zeal spends itself to no good purpose.

As to the existing divisions, it appears to me, on long and patient investigation, that they originated from very great criminality on both sides; nor am I prepared to say, on which side it was the greater; and that there is criminality on both sides, in the continuance of them, and still more in the increase of them; in which the heaviest lies on those who hastily, and on very doubtful or inadequate grounds, make new separations. Yet as to the general division of the Christians in England, into churchmen and dissenters, it appears to me, that in present circumstances neither individuals, nor public bodies, can do any thing to terminate it; nor till some unforeseen event make way for a termination, by means, and in a manner, of which little conception can previously be formed. In the mean while, it seems very desirable to abate acrimony and severity, and to differ, where we must differ, in a loving spirit; and to unite with each other in every good work, as far as we can conscientiously. It is in my view in this case, precisely the same as it was with the Synod of Dort and the Remonstrants; each party throws the whole blame on the other; but impartiality would, I think, nearly allot half to the one, and half to the other. True Christians of every description, live, surrounded with ungodly men, nay, such as are profane, and immoral, and contentious, yet they generally are enabled to live peaceably with them all. How is it then, that they cannot, on the same principles, bear with each other, when differences in merely the circumstances of religion are the only ground of disputations, bickerings, and contests? "Whence come fightings among them?"

2. A large proportion of that, which at present woulb de disapproved, if not reprobated, in the concluding decision of

the Synod of Dort, and in its effects, must be considered, by every impartial and well informed person, as pertaining to that age, and those which had preceded it. The authority of such conventions to determine points of theology, to enforce their decisions by ecclesiastical censures, interdicts, and mandates, such as this conclusion contains, had not been called in question, at least in any great degree, by any of the reformers or reformed churches. It was the general opinion, that princes and states ought to convene councils or assemblies, when needed; and, as far as hope was given of such councils being convened, they generally acted on this principle. They considered the ruling powers as invested with the right of authorising these conventions, to cite before them the persons whose tenets and conduct gave occasion of convening them; and of animadverting on them as contumacious, if they refused to appear, or to submit to the decisions of the majority. And they regarded it as a great advantage, when the secular power would concur in carrying into effect, their censures, exclusions, or requirements. These points had been almost unanimously assumed as indisputable, from the dawn of the reformation, to the time of this Synod, both on the continent, and in Britain; and little had been advanced, in direct opposition to the justice of proceeding still further to punish the refractory with pains and penalties. The vanquished party indeed generally complained, and remonstrated with sufficient acrimony, yet, when the tables were turned, and they acquired a victory, they used their superiority in the same manner, and sometimes even with still greater severity. How far all this was criminal, unscriptural, unreasonable, or not, is by no means the present question; but how far the Synod of Dort went beyond the precedents of former times, and of other countries.

3. Thus far as it seems to me at least, the case is clear, and to an impartial mind not difficult: but how far the whole of this procedure, either in this Synod or in other similar cases, on the continent and in our land, was wrong, in toto or in parte: whether the whole must be reprobated together, or only some part of it; or where the line should be drawn, are questions of greater difficulty, on which men in general will decide according to the prevailing sentiments of the day, and those of that part of the visible church to which they belong. Yet, I would venture, with a kind of trepidation, and with much diffidence, to drop a few hints on the subject: the result of very much reflection, during a long course of years, with what other aid I could procure, in addition to the grand standard of truth and duty, of principle and practice, to men of all ranks,