said five heads of doctrine is explained, and the false opinion, and that discordant with the word of God is rejected, should be promulgated.

REMARKS OF THE TRANSLATOR.

On this preface, I would make a few remarks: 1. If the expectations, which the persons constituting this Synod, and of those who were concerned in convening it, as to the useful tendency and beneficial effects of such assemblies, were indeed ill grounded, and of course the measure improper; the fault was not exclusively their's, but that of the age in which they lived, and indeed of almost all preceding ages. Not one of the reformers, or of the princes who favoured the Reformation, can be named, who did not judge, either in a general council, or national councils or Synods of some kind, proper measures for promoting the cause of truth and holiness, and counteracting the progress of schism, heresy, and false doctrine and in every place, where the reformation was established, assemblies of the rulers and teachers of the church, under one form or other, were employed, either in framing, or sanctioning, the articles of faith, adopted in each church, and in regulating the several particulars respecting the doctrine to be preached, the worship to be performed by those who constituted each church, and the terms of officiating as ministers, in their respective societies. The system of independency, and individuality, so to speak, either of separate congregations, or ministers, or Christians, without any such common bond of

union or concert, had not then been thought of, at least in modern times. And at this day, while numbers suppose that they steer their course at a distance from the rocks which endangered the first reformers, as well as the whole church in former ages, it may well be questioned whether they do not run into the opposite extreme. Solomon says, or God himself by him, " In the "multitude of counsellors there is safety;" yet who does not know, that through the evil dispositions, and selfish conduct of those, who constitute the counsellors, and senates, and parliaments of different nations, such abuses often occur in them, as form a manifest exception to this general maxim? Yet who does not also see, that parliaments, and counsellors, and laws, are in themselves very desirable; and far preferable to every thing being settled by the sole will and caprice of every one, who by any means obtains authority? or, that every man should do that which is right in his own eyes, as when there was no king in Israel? The abuse alone is the evil, and to be guarded against the thing itself is allowedly beneficial.

The apostles themselves, when consulted by Paul and Barnabas, did not settle the question proposed to them by their own direct authority: but "the apostles and elders came together for "to consider of this matter." (Acts xv. 6.) It is evident that some, even in that first general 'council,' as it is very improperly called, had strong prejudices against the measure which was finally decided on: yet its decrees proved a blessing of no small magnitude to the churches of Christ, whether constituted of Jewish or Gentile

converts. Now, a measure thus sanctioned, cannot be evil in itself: though General councils and synods should have in many or most instances, been productive of far greater evil than good. The fault lay in the motives, the corrupt passions, and wrong state of mind and heart of those who convened, and of those who constituted them, (that is, in the abuse of the thing,) not in the thing itself.

The apostles by their own authority might have decreed the same things, and have said, "It "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, &c:" but they were not led by the Spirit of inspiration, to adopt this method: they did nothing by absolute authority; it does not appear that any thing directly miraculous, or of immediate revelation, concurred in their decision. It was the result of arguments drawn from facts, and from the holy scriptures, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not materially differing from what uninspired men, of the same character and heavenly" wisdom, "without partiality and without hypocrisy" might have formed, under the mere ordinary teaching and superintendence of the same Spirit. Now, it is not impossible for God to raise up elders and teachers, bearing this holy character, and endued with this heavenly wisdom, in other ages and nations, who, coming together to consider of those things which corrupt the doctrine, worship, and purity, or disturb the peace of the church, may form and promulgate decisions, so evidently grounded on a fair interpretation of the sacred oracles, and so powerfully enforced by the character and influence of those concerned, as, by the

divine blessing, may produce the most extensively beneficial effects.

General councils, so called, convened by the concurring authority of many princes and rulers, over rival nations, are not likely to come to any such seriptural decisions; and the history of general councils is certainly suited exceedingly to damp our expectations from them. But the history of the Reformation, both on the continent and in this land, produces many instances of conventions, under one name or other, in which the rulers and teachers of the church, under the countenance of princes who favoured the cause of truth and holiness, came to such decisions, in the most important matters, as proved very extensive and permanent benefits to mankind, and which could not have been expected without united deliberations and determinations of this kind. The ministers and members of the establishment, in this land, at least, must be allowed to think that this was the case, in the framing of our articles, liturgy, and homilies.

It is true that afterwards, convocations became useless, or even worse than useless, and so sunk into disuse: but this was not until the spirit of wisdom and piety, which actuated our first Reformers, had most grievously declined, and made way for a political and party spirit, in the persons concerned. Thus the abuse of the measure, not the measure itself, must bear the blame.

2. I observe from this preface, that the members of the Synod of Dort, in the most solemn manner, and in the language at least of genuine piety, declare the awful obligations under which they

brought themselves, to decide the controverted questions according to the holy scriptures alone, and their full consciousness that they had discharged this obligation in an upright manner. The names annexed to their decisions certainly include among them a great proportion, of the most able protestant and reformed theologians in Europe: and who can doubt the sincerity of these professions, when coming from such men as Bishops Davenant and Ward, and those with whom they thus cordially united ?-Prejudices, mistakes, and faults of many kinds may be supposed in them; but the candid and pious mind recoils from the idea, that the whole was direct and intended hypocrisy.

In fact, I must give it as my opinion at least, that they did fulfil their solemn engagement; and must confess, that fewer things appear to me unscriptural, in these articles, than in almost any human composition which I have read upon the subject. Of course I expect that Anticalvinists will judge otherwise, and even many Calvinists: yet surely every candid man will allow, that they honestly meant thus to decide, and thought that they had thus decided.

It may also be seen in the course of this work, that their doctrine accorded with the Belgic articles before in force among them, to which the Contra-Remonstrants had all along appealed.

3. I would observe, that they seem to have aimed at too much in their deliberations and decisions; not too much for an ordinary controversial publication, but too much for an authoritative standard, to be entirely received and