preparatives for a war against the King, that they retired unto their houses, but still continued undissolved, and were in a capacity of acting as a convocation, whensoever they should

agreed the Bremenses and the Professors.-On the contrary, the Helvetians and South-Hollanders concluded, that the infants of Ethnic parents OUGHT < NOT TO BE BAPTISED, till they came to be of years to declare their faith.'Their chief reason was, 'Because baptism was a sign of the covenant: But the infants of Ethnic parents are not born within the covenant, and there'fore they cannot be partakers of this sign.'" After a further account of the debate, he thus states, on the 6th of Dec., the final determination of that Assembly:"Then followed the decree of the Synod concerning the question moved by those of Amsterdam about the baptism of children born of Ethnic parents. The decision consisted of two parts. The first concerned the adulti, and it was this: That such as were of years and capacity should be diligently taught and catechized, and then, if they did desire it, they should 'be baptized.' The second concerned infants, and it was, 'That till they came to years of discretion, they should by no means be baptized.' A strange decision, and such as, if my memory or reading fail me not, no church either ancient or modern ever gave. When it was objected, What, if they were in danger of death? their answer was, that THE WANT OF BAPTISM would not 'prejudice them with God, except we would determine, as the Papists do, that baptism is necessary to salvation.' Which is as much to UNDERVALUE the necessity of baptism, as the Church of Rome doth OVERVALUE it." The concluding brief remark, by Hales, is an accurate exposition of the GOLDEN MEAN observed by the Church of England.

Allusion has been made (page ) to an excellent modern work, on the Lutheran or Melancthonian complexion of our public formularies, a topic which has elicited the energies of other eminent writers: And the COMMON SCRIPTURAL ORIGIN of the creed of the English and Saxon Churches, as well as their agreement with the stream of Christian Antiquity, are on no point more obvious than on that of baptism. The Ninth Article of the Augsburgh Confession says: "Our churches teach concerning baptism, that it is necessary to salvation, as a ceremony instituted by Christ; that the grace of God is offered through baptism; that infants must be baptized; and that, when infants have been commended to God by baptism, they are received into the favour of God, and become his children; as Christ himself testifies when he speaks of the little ones in his Church, (Matt. xviii, 14,) It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones perish." The Saxon Confession is still more express; the following is an extract from the Fourteenth Article: "Let those whose age capacitates them for understanding the doctrine, retain such a sense of this covenant; and, being confirmed by this attestation, let them believe that their sins are remitted to them, and that they really are the members of the Church of God, and let them with true faith call upon the true God," &c.

In further confirmation of these remarks, I translate the following long note from an approved Lutheran author, the judicious MOSHEIM, who, in his comment upon the last quotation from Hales's letter, says: Though the Calvinists are commonly, and certainly not without good reason, accused of teaching, that the sacraments have no efficacy on the minds of men, and that they are only invested with the power of serving as signs;' yet it is evident, that various dissensions have arisen among them concerning the effect of the sacraments, and that, while some of them have made a near approximation to our [the Lutheran] opinion, particularly in the doctrine of baptism, others of them have receded from it to a still greater distance. Peruse the learned disputations and collections of Peter Jurieu in his Justification of the Morality of the Reformed, (pt. ii, p. 8,) and of J. CLAUDE, in his Posthumous Works, (tom. v, p. 79,) both of whom were among the most respectable and renowned men of their body. It is therefore neither matter of surprize that the opinions of the Dort Fathers were not unanimous concerning the baptism of those infants who are descended from parents that are aliens from Christ, nor that they confirmed the opinion of those members who thought that the children of heathens ought not to be baptized in their infan

be thereunto required, and might do it with safety. But, being for the most part well affected to the church of England, they were not to be trusted by the Houses of Parliament, who then de

cy. The Dutch divines, and those who are attached to the Heidelberg Confession, generally indulge this belief, That the virtue of baptism is only two-fold, (1.) to adumbrate or betoken the Divine benefits which are pro'cured for us by Christ, and (2.) to make us assured that those benefits are truly conferred upon us,' or, in the phrase of their own choice, 'to seal unto us the Divine covenant.' The Thirty-Fourth Article of the Belgic Confession, though in some parts it does not express itself with sufficient perspicuity, explains baptism in such a manner as still to appear favourable to our sentiments, and to ascribe to baptism true regeneration and renovation: Which was undoubtedly the cause why the [Dutch] Professors differed from the rest of their countrymen, the latter of whom preferred to follow that doctrine of the Heidelberg Catechism which we have already stated. See the Catechetical Explanations of Zach. URSINUS, (p. 357,) and the smaller Dutch Cate chism in BENTHEIM'S Hollandischen Schulund Kirchen-Staat. (P. 1, c. vii, p. 218.) Wherefore when Hermian WITSIUS, who was in other respects endowed with much moderation, had perceived that Peter Jurieu, Louis Le Blanc, and some others were inclined to our opinions on this point, he undertook their refutation, and, in his Dissertation on the Efficacy of Baptism in Infants, he openly taught, that all the efficacy of baptism consists in the Confirmation and assurance of the grace that had been promised, such efficacy being only [moralis] formal, and entirely distinct from that which is 'real.' (Miscel. Sacr. com. ii, p. 648.) See also Elias SAURIN'S Examination of M.Jurieu's Theology, in which M. Jurieu is strongly reprehended.

"Since therefore this opinion [of the unreal efficacy of baptism] was espoused by many of the members of the Dutch Synod, they could not do otherwise than decree, that baptism must not be conferred on infants, whose case was at that time under discussion. For if the power of baptism was only such as to serve for a seal or ratification of the covenant, what man is there who does not instantly perceive, that this benefit is to be imparted to none except those who have been previously united to God in covenant? But it is a matter placed beyoud all controversy, that the infants, descended from Iparents who have turned aside from Christ, cannot possibly be considered as any part of God's covenant-people.' In compliance with the design of my subject, I refrain at present from displaying the difficulties in which the Calvinists are involved by means of this their sentiment. The immense disadvantage which they must experience in their attempts to defend infantbaptism, so long as they adhere to this opinion,-has already been demonstrated by other writers. This circumstance does not escape the observation of the Mennonites or Anabaptists, [who entirely deny the administration of the rite to infants,] as may be seen by consulting one of the most recent defenders of that sect, Herman SCHYN, in his Historical Account of the Mennonites. (C. iv, p. 88, 102.)

"On the contrary, the greatest portion of the British divines confess, 'that the sacraments, in which baptism is included, are the instruments of 'Divine Grace.' This doctrine they are commanded to teach, by the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-seventh Articles of the English Confession. It may be proper here to quote a part of the Twenty-fifth Article: 'Sacraments

ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profes'sion, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and of God's good-will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only QUICKEN but also STRENGTHEN and CONFIRM our faith in him.' It would be too great a labour and foreign to my purpose, to collect together all the testimonies of the English divines that have strenuously inculcated this doctrine of their National Confession; it will be sufficient to notice, that Samuel WARD and John DAVENANT, both of whom were present at the Synod of Dort, have contended for this doctrine in their published writings. Concerning Ward, the fact is obvious enough from the copious Disputation about the Force and Efficacy of Infant-baptism, which was maintained between him and Thomas Gataker, and which is published in the

signed the hammering of such a reformation both in doctrine and discipline, as might unite them in a perpetual bond and confederation with their Scottish brethren. And that they

Appendix to the Second Volume of GATAKER'S Critical Works. (P.79-160.)For, in that production, Ward contends for this efficacy, while Gataker in some measure defends the contrary opinion, which I have stated to be the that of the Dutch Divines. From Gataker's Preface to that Disputation it is evident that Davenant and Ward agreed in sentiment.

"Such being the conflicting opinions of the two parties, the reason must be apparent to every man, why Hales blames with such severity the decree of the Synod on this subject, and why the British divines thought baptism ought by all means to be conferred on those infants. Because if baptism be an instrument of regeneration and renovation, it ought to be denied to none except to those whom it is manifest God is unwilling to receive into his covenant. But this unwillingness cannot be ascertained by us concerning any individual, because God makes an offer of his grace to all men. Neither is it necessary that he who wishes to be made a partaker of baptism should previously be in the covenant, because according to this opinion [of the Church of England] baptism itself concludes for us a covenant with God, and constitutes us partakers of its benefits. It would not be difficult to prove, from the writings of Louis Crocius and of others of the members, that the divines of Bremen, and others who were at that time in the Dutch Synod, propounded the same doctrine as the British: But the proof of this assertion would require too much space.

"I will therefore only add this single consideration-that I do not comprehend how the English, the Bremen, and the rest of the patrons of this opinion, should notwithstanding have declared, that some distinction ought to be observed with regard to infants; and why they denied the administration of the rite of baptism to those infants that had been obtained in an unlawful manner. For God has never said, that he has confined his grace and its salutary effects within any such conditions, laws or restrictions. If my suspicions be correct, beneath this very sentiment lurked some mystery which had its origin in the opinion of those who were desirous of holding baptism merely as a seal of the covenant."-This conjecture on the part of Mosheim is very plausible; for the British deputies at that Synod, being of a mild and conciliating disposition, would seize upon any slight distinction, such as that of heathen children that had been kidnapped, in order to bring their decisions as nearly as possible within the doctrinal boundaries of their Calvinistic compeers. Of this their love of concord, many instances will occur to the recollection of those who are acquainted with the anomalous proceedings of the Dutch Synod.

XI. The Eleventh Motion contains the chief grievances in the whole catalogue: Let the modern Calvinists disguise the representation of these matters as they choose, their ancestors employed all means, lawful and unlawful, to have" Arminian books called in question," and to compel the Church of England" to be bound by the decisions made at the Synod of Dort," after a new Calvinistic" Confession of faith had been framed" for her, according to the tenour of the Fourth Motion. The artful and obnoxious mention of Popery, in connection with Arminianism, has been a subject of animadversion in another portion of this volume.

The manner in which the elder Du Moulin procured the adoption of the Dort decrees in the French Churches, is detailed in page 290; no surprize therefore can exist at this attempt, on his part and that of his son, to impose the Canons of Dort on the Church of England. In the Works of Arminius, (vol. i, pp. 417, 486,) I have exposed some of the designs of King James in that Quixotic enterprize, and have corrected the mis-representations which have been generally circulated respecting the British divines sitting in that Calvinistic Synod as the accredited representatives of the Church of England. To prove King James of blessed memory" to have had no intention that the Church of England afterwards should be bound by the decisions made at the Synod of Dort," which is Du Moulin's erroneous assertion, it is only neressary to quote the following passage from Balcanqual's Latin Journal of the

might be furnished with such men, the Knights of every Shire must make choice of two to serve as members for that County; Acts of the Synod, which he regularly transmitted to the King's Ambassador at the Hague. In the discussions which arose in the 133d Session, on the 22d April, 1619, it is stated: "To save time, therefore, and to preserve peace, the British signified their acquiesceuce [in the unreasonable prejudices of the Dutch divines, who would not allow to be added to their list of REJECTIONS this heretical dogma,—a man can do no more good than that which he actually does at the same time they reminded the Synod, that this clause,'the doctuine contained in these Canons is to be considered as that of the Reformed Churches,' must be entirely altered: For they declared, that they, being deputed by his Most Serene Majesty, and NOT BY THEIR CHURCHES, had no authority committed to them by which they were empowered to explain the Confessions of their Churches; that they had delivered only their own private judgments, which they thought to be true; and that in the Canons they had concluded many things as true, concerning which not a single expression occurs in the Confessions of their churches, &c.; but that they know nothing is contained in those Canons which is contrary to their Confessions," &c.Here then is put in a regular public disclaimer on the part of the British di'vines themselves, before the whole Synod, that they were not the representatives either of the Church of England or of Scotland; that they delivered only their own private sentiments; and that not a single expression occurs, in the Confessions of their churches, concerning several of those matters which are decided in the Canons of the Synod of Dort. What can be more explicit than this disavowal of their implied consent as the deputies of the National Church? Yet, though published in the year 1659, in HALES'S Golden Remains, this express description of the unofficial character which they bore has been studiously concealed or suppressed by almost every Calvinistic writer, who, from the days of Du Moulin and Owen down to those of Augustus Toplady and Thomas Scott, have pretended to favour the world with correct and authentic information respecting that venerable Synod, and the obligations which it imposed on the Church of England in regard to doctrinal matters. The British Deputies received directions through Sir Dudley Carlton to make this solemn declaration, as soon as the main purposes were fulfilled for which they had been sent to Dort; and King James afterwards plumed himself on the grand "piece of king-craft" which he had been enabled to exhibit on that extensive theological arena, but which the brief limits of this note will not allow me to particularize.

XII & XIII. The order in which this pamphlet details the work of reformation, is exactly that which was subsequently pursued by the levellers in Church and State, who were thus goaded on to deeds of cruelty and oppression by one of the most violent Calvinists of that age. This very man and his family felt no scruple whatever about receiving liberal support from the Church of England; though, like other vile ingrates, as soon as he had an opportunity, he raised his envenomed weapon and plunged it into the vitals of his benefactress. (See page 282.) Arminianism was the first object on which his vengeance and that of his Calvinistic associates wished to wreak itself; and they finally sated their fury on Episcopacy and Monarchy. All these things were accomplished, and in the very order which is here prescribed, even down to the expression in the Thirteenth Motion, "that a certain number of deputies from the National Synod [the Westminster Assembly of Divines] be assisting both in the higher and lower House, for delivering their advices upon any clauses of Acts that may intrench upon the Church's privileges, or are contrary to doctrine or good manners.' -Those who are acquainted with the private history of Hugh Peters, Stephen Marshall, John Owen, and other republican divines remarkable chiefly for the warmth of their expressions, the violence of their gesticulations, or the strength of their lungs, will recollect how frequently they performed the office suggested in this quotation from the prophecies of Du Moulin, and tendered their sage counsel to the legislature at particular junctures, either from the pulpit or in the solemn acts of social

prayer.

I know of no part of the advice of the Du Moulins, which in the subsequent acts of desolation was neglected by the Calvinists,-except it be the part

most of them Presbyterians, some few Royalists, four of the Independent faction, and two or three to represent the Kirk of Scotland: Which ploughing with an ox and an ass, (as it was no other,) was anciently prohibited by the law of Moses.† And yet these men, associated with some members of either House, as

which attempted to elevate the ecclesiastical power exercised by the novel presbyters, to a higher pitch than that to which it had ever attained under the King, as Head of the Established Church. The civil rulers, vile as they generally were in many respects, prevented this extraordiuary assumption of church-power; and kept the triumphant predestinarian ecclesiastics, as far as practicable, within regular Presbyterian limits.

"About this time he became a membur of the convocation called with the short parliament in 1640; as after this he was named to be of the Assembly of divines; his invincible loyalty to his prince and obedience to his mother the church not being so valid arguments against his nomination, as the repute of his learning and virtue were on the other part to have some title to him." FELL'S Life of Dr. Hammond.

"What Bear-garden Synods must we expect, if God permits our enemies to triumph in the silence of our Convocation, and in the ruin of our churchdiscipline?-What a hotch-potch of heresy and ignorance conspired in the composition of an Assembly of Divines, in the late times of usurpation?Their character take in the words of the noble Lord Clarendon : So that of about one hundred and twenty of which that Assembly was to consist, they were not above twenty who were not declared and avowed enemies to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England; some of them infamous in their lives and conversations, and most of them of very mean parts in learning; if not of scandalous ignorance, and of no other reputation than that of malice to the Church of England.' (Volume First, page 415.) And much the same character is likewise given of them by the incomparable Archbishop Laud, whose first martyrdom was his living to see this Assembly convened. A great part,' saith he, if not the greater part of them, were Brownists or Independents, or New England ministers, if not worse; or at best refractory persons to the doctrine, or discipline, or both, of the Church of England established by law, and now brought together to reform it: An 'excellent conclave! This, without God's infinite mercy, will bring forth a schism, fierce enough to rend and tear religion out of this kingdom.'(Comp. Hist. vol. iii. p. 135.)

"Such was the English Assembly of learned and godly divines, the like to which certainly had never met in the christian world before! especially if it be considered, that the Assembly began with a manifest invasion of the rights of the Clergy, as well known as any other laws of the kingdom: was substituted in the room of a regular and legal Synod, at that time in being, to which they were, on all accounts of life and learning, utterly inferior: That they submitted (contrary to their own private opinions of that matter) to be called together in such a manner, and on such ignominious conditions, as destroyed the very essentials of a Synod, and were at last their own destruction, and, in effect, that of Christianity itself, as making religion a pure matter of state, and all this to complete the ruin of that very order of bishops which had always composed the first and greatest councils of the Christian Church, and presided in all the other Synods of it for fifteen centuries of years together; that they were interspersed with Brownists, Independents and others of such strange opinions and principles, as I believe were never before brought into a Synod of the Christian Church. Add to this, that the greater part of them had not only been refractory and disobedient to all the orders of their spiritual governors, but had also their hands stained with the blood of a most wicked and execrable rebellion, and some of them afterwards in that of their prince also; that they were not countenanced with the authority or presence of one single Bishop, (without which the christian world never saw a Synod for fifteen hundred years,) who sat among them in any other capacity than that of a private divine. That they were never permitted to do the very thing for which, it was pretended, they were summoned, but despised,