lemn formula, (the right hand of fellowship) known in the church of God for receiving and acknowledging each other as brethren in Christ and in the gospel of Christ-the most sacred pledge of Christian and ministerial communion. Can a shadow of doubt remain after the testimony of such a fact? Is it a tolerable question, whether such men, or the ministers and members of the churches they represented, would sit down together at the Lord's table?

As to the church of Holland, it is well known, that she practised the liberal communion of which those illustrious deputies sanctioned the principle, and set an example. For her members before this communicated with the BROWNISTS, the English independents who fled from ecclesiastical oppression in their own country; although, by a singular inconsistency, the Brownist teachers would not consent to reciprocate the communion any further than in prayer and hearing the word: and that in the face of their own protestation wherein they say, "We account the reformed churches as true and genuine; We profess communion with them in the sacred things of God; and, as much as in us lies, we cultivate An inconsistency which, it is heartily

it."*

* Ecclesias reformatas pro veris et genuinis habemus; cum iisdem in sacris Dei communionem profitemur; et, quantum in nobis est, co

to be wished, had stood alone; and, deeply to be regretted, has been kept in countenance by the professions and practice of later days: but which, at that time, was equalled only by the inconsistency of the government of England, in supporting, cherishing, comforting, honouring the non-episcopal churches abroad; and discouraging, harrassing, crushing the very same sort of churches at home.

The church of Holland was not only ready to communicate in the sacraments with the English dissenters, as well as with the establishment, but actually appointed one of the former, the learned and excellent Dr. WILLIAM AMES, a professor of theology in the university of Franeker. The same honour proffered thirty years after, i. e. in 1651, to that holy man of God, SAMUEL RUTHERFORD, of St. Andrews in Scotland, when she invited him to the professor's chair in the city of Utrecht.* In fact, the churches of Holland and Scotland, like the reformed churches on the continent, considered and treated each other as parts of a common whole; and furnished, by their connexion and intercourse, as they had opportu

limus.-ROBINSON's declaration in NEALS' history of the PURITANS. Vol. I. 487, 433. 4to. 1754.

* CROOKSHANK's History of the Church of SCOTLAND. Vol. I. p. 116. Lond. 1749. 8vo.

nity, a sample of that catholick communion to which the obligation is so clearly asserted in their confessions.

The aspect of the British churches was much less inviting. Even in the early part of the reign of ELIZABETH, Untender, not to say violent, measures were adopted toward those who had conscientious objections to some observances in the establishment. But still the great Protestant principle of communion was not renounced; it was not the nature, but the application of that principle, which produced so much scruple on one side, and so much oppression on the other. With all their coercive zeal toward their own dissentients, neither the civil nor ecclesiastical government of England thought of denying the lawfulness and the duty of communion between the Protestant churches, notwithstanding their variations from each other in smaller things. This was sufficiently manifest, as has been noticed, by their conduct relative to the Synod of Dordt. Their errour lay in making matter of .compulsion toward their own people, what was matter of forbearance toward all others-in supposing that certain diversities found, by experience, to be innocent on the continent, must necessarily be criminal, if not fatal, in England. And they carried so far their passion for unity, as

to destroy it by indiscreet means of enforcing it. All this was an abuse, gross indeed, but still an abuse of a sound and salutary principle. It was reserved for the times, the temper, and the influence of bishop LAUD, to reject the principle itself. That able and intrepid, but fierce and unpitying prelate, set himself to pervert the faith of the church of England; to break off her connexion with foreign Protestants; to corrupt her worship by assimilating it, in every possible manner, with the Popish ritual; and, by dint of power, to effect an external uniformity over the island, at the expense of producing real division, bitter feuds, publick weakness, and private misery. The very next year after his elevation to the see of Canterbury, (1634) Lord Scudamore, instead of going to the Protestant church at Charenton, as had been the previous practice of the English ambassadors at the French courts, "furnished his chapel after the new fashion," (Laud's) “with candles upon the altar, &c.; and took care to publish, upon all occasions, that the church of ENGLAND looked not on the Huguenots as a part of their communion."*

This was the first instance in which one of the reformed churches openly renounced the fellow

Lord CLARENDON, as cited by NEAL. Vol. I, 582.

ship of another. It was a melancholy deed, and a melancholy day. The alarm which it created among foreign Protestants in England, and the indignation which it excited on the continent, proved how well established had been the doctrine of Protestant communion, and how precious it was in the eyes of Protestant churches. By that fatal act, England forfeited her pre-eminence as the "bulwark of the reformation," and became an object of disgust to the foreign churches; insomuch, that in her subsequent tribulations, she could scarcely command their pity: whereas, before this infatuated act of selfishness and schism, she held the first rank in their respect and affection.

To those who are acquainted with the history of this disastrous period, it would be superfluous to detail the mercies of Laud, and the mysteries of the Star-chamber. To those who have not such an acquaintance, our limits do not allow us to present even an imperfect sketch: and perhaps the nature of this volume forbids the attempt. Suffice it to observe, that the contests in the church of England between the high-handed conformists and their demurring brethren, furnished proof, and not refutation, of the doctrine here advanced in favour of catholic communion. No whim, nor abuse, nor corruption, which they