in perfect safety. To secure these benefits, it will be neces

:

the whole city. I never disowned having another copy in my possession : I only said that I had no other which was written out fairly enough. Why should I have denied it, when the contents of both the copies were the same, and when I delivered the minutes or rough draft the same day to secretary Heinsius, without being under any obligation so to do? How could I say, that I had no copy, when that which I am charged with denying, lay openly before me on the table, and might have been seen by every one when I was delivering my speech, because the greatest part of my auditors were seated on high benches, so as to overlook me and to see that I reached out another copy with an intention to deliver it?"-Edward Poppius also declared, that he and the rest of the cited Remonstrants who sate near him, and who were in the best situation for hearing what Episcopius said, were ready to testify to the truth of that expression.-Bogerman, however, insisted upon the truth of his own statement, and declared, that he did no injury to Episcopius, but simply related the matter of fact as he was sure it happened; and that all those who remembered it were able to testify the same.-Episcopius immediately desired, that the members who had such a remembrance of his expression, would immediately declare what they heard. But this promptitude of innocence to meet the foul charge, was quite unexpected, and created great confusion among the most violent men in the assembly. Some of the Lay Commissioners seem to have had a portion of honesty and fair-dealing about them; for when Bogerman in a fury was proceeding to interrogate several of the members on their recollection of the exact words which Episcopius had employed, the President of the Lay Commissioners was instructed to interpose his authority, and to order this frivolous discussion to cease.-But, on the second session afterwards, this attempt to impeach the veracity of Episcopius was renewed and it is worthy of observation, that, after the receipt of a docuwent from the Remonstrants, which created great uneasiness in the Synod, and retarded their operations, the memories of several of the members were wonderfully strengthened. For, according to the Synodical Acts, "all of them declared, that they had the sum and substance of Episcopius's words quite fresh in their recollection. Some also said, that they had written with their pens his formal expressions, from which it was impossible to understand any thing else except that he had no other copy; that, when he was urged immediately to exhibit it, he had replied, It is not written with sufficient neatness, but is in a blotted state, and that, after being commanded to deliver it up, whatever might be its condition, he had requested that the original might be restored to him, or an authentic transcript of it, because it was but equitable, as he had none else, that he should retain a copy of his own oration.-All those who could not recollect his formal expressions, testified, that they had comprehended the meaning of Episcopius in the same manner as the President had done." In those Acts there is much more to the same effect; from which it plainly appears, that there were three varying accounts of this matter, which, worded as artfully as their secretaries could compose them, amounted to much uncertainty. Besides, at this distance of time, every impartial man will ask, "What benefit could Episcopius propose to himself by such an assertion?" He had given both copies up to his most inveterate enemies ; and, in all their weighty deliberations about it, they never once mention, that any variation existed between them, or that any thing actually spoken was omitted in either of the copies. If any such discrepancy or omission had been discovered, these mighty men, who were adepts at magnifying trifles, would have recorded it in their Acts, for the instruction of generations then unborn. They, however, had a purpose to answer by it. In the absence of all real cause of blame, they invented this version of an unimportant fact, (which, by their own statement, rested on very doubtful authority,) that by the repetition of it they might injure the cause of the Remonstrants, and asperse their characters as persous altogether unworthy of credit. During

sary for a public pledge to be given to all the members and solemnly observed.

the ulterior proceedings of this grave Synod, the cited Remonstrants were often compelled to receive, with patience, this instance of imputed prevarication, and bad faith, from the lips of their persecutors.

In the same session, (Dec. 10.) after the President had ceased to speak about the two copies of the speech, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed with the chief affair-their explanation and defence of the Five Points. They requested leave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to this; but the Lay President ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard Dwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the Synod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the Acts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause it defended. The FIRST PART declared, that the Remonstrants did not own the members of the Synod for lawful judges, because the great majority of them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed enemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as those whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy schism which was made in the churches of Holland, some of them having been the authors of it, while others had either actually fomented it, or consented to it by their silence, which could be interpreted into nothing less than tacit approbation. They subjoined several irrefragable arguments, expressed in manly and firm language, in support of this first part.-The SECOND PART contained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a well-constituted Synod should consist. This part had been presented, some mouths before, to the States of Holland; and the observance of the stipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the Synod,-averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the Protestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the Papists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. These twelve conditions were fortified by several testimonies from eminent Christian Divines,-from the grievances of the Protestants relative to the Council of Trent, the IRENICUM of Paræus, the ADMONITION of the Neustadt Divines composed by URSINUS, and from the writings of Gentiletus, Musculus, and Festus Hommius. The production of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic persuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against the principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,-gave dreadful offence to that powerful body in the Synod, and especially when they were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. Hales says, it was "a long and tedious speech of two hours at the least," and such it would undoubtedly appear to a young and hot-headed Calvinist. At the close of it, the Remonstrants added: “Most reverend men, we do not propose these articles and conditions for the purpose of imperiously prescribing any thing to your reverences: we do it, that in a matter of such great importance we may free our consciences, as it becomes the pastors and faithful servants of Jesus Christ. If you deign to accede to them, we will betake ourselves with glad and cheerful minds to the matter in discussion........ But if this request be not granted to us, we shall console our spirits with the testimony of an approving conscience, and shall consider that we, in common with the most famous doctors of the Reformed Religion, have proposed most equitable conditions, and that your reverences have not entertained them. Our cotemporaries and posterity will agree with us in this our judgment."

No one can form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading of this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the Lay President and the Commissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the succeeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Some account of the discussion will be found at the close of this oration, immediately after the reprint of Bishop Womack's pamphlet. Bogerman laboured hard to

429

In this council the subjects of discussion will not be, the

shew, that, by denying the competency and impartial constitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in reality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had appointed and convened the Synod; and that, by charging the majority of the members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect accused the Prince of Orange and the States General, because those great personages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the latter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland divines, he said, "The proper time has not yet arrived for discussing it. But when it shall have been proved to the Synod, what kind of doctrine is sanctioned by the Church, those who have departed from it, and who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true colours. There are seasons in which it may be necessary for the people to separate from some of their pastors. If any heresy is publicly taught, it is the duty of a faithful ministry to give warning to the flock, that they may be upon their guard. But when the people have separated from such false teachers and begin to desire instruction and comfort, as was the case at the Hague, then it is the proper time to grant them a supply. And those who officiated to them ought not on that account to be divested of their privileges, or disqualified from judging of the doctrines in dispute." Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in behalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority of the States, and held the Synod in due estimation, yet it was as lawful for them to challenge this Synod, as for several of the Christian Fathers who challenged some of the ancient Councils, and their ancestors that of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to challenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law allowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had previously separated from the Remonstrants, should sit in the Synod to try them, after they had by such separation prejudged their doctrine and entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation.-Episcopius then said, "Mr. President, if you were in our places and we in yours, would you submit to our judgment?" Bogerman replied, "If it had so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has ordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with patience." Episcopius rejoined, "It is one thing to acknowledge a person for a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which he may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be persuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you are our sworn adversaries and have churches totally separated from ours."-The history of this separation will be found in Appendix P; and the confederacy to which both Niellius and Episcopius allude, will be seen in the long note appended to the conclusion of this

oration.

Before they

This prolonged discussion, even as given in the highly-coloured and exparte language of the Acts, was a most animated one, and is exceedingly interesting: In it the Remonstrants felt, that they had the mastery both in regard to temper and argument.-On the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, after being called in, were urged by the Synod to present their objections in writing against the Confession and Catechism. proceeded to do that, they craved permission to read another document: After some demur, leave was granted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: "The celebrated Paræus, in his Irenicum, prudently observes, that he would advise no man to approach any Council in which the same persons had to appear in the character of both adversaries and judges." The rest of the paper was occupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in the four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their want of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They declared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to the Synod, (as the States General had intended,) and such men as had

jurisdictions, honours, and rights of precedence on the part of

never been concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they would have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a Synod. This document concluded with the following protest: "Wherefore, to argue no longer about this matter, all and each of us do by this express and solemn protest declare and make known to the whole of this Synod and to all Christendom, that, for the before-mentioned reasons, which are contained in a writing delivered by us and fortified by arguments, we do not own or account the present Synod, or the majority of it, for a lawful judge of our controversies, and that its decisions will possess no weight with us or our churches. Having thus previously made this protestation, we will now prepare ourselves for the business before us, on account of which we believe that we have been cited. We likewise request, that this writing, which contains our protest, may be inserted in the Synodical Acts."-On hearing this document read, and seeing the magnanimity of the Remonstrants under all the disadvantages which they encountered and the studied insults which they received, Professor Barlæus, who was among the spectators of this scene, exclaims in one of his letters, "When I heard these things, I admired the courage of the men. They were really intrepid, and spoke in the Synod, as equals with their equals. Their countenances were unruffled and serene, and they were prepared, as they confessed, to endure all extremities."

After the delivery of this protest, the Synod invented various methods to vex the cited Remonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause, the sum of which will be related in another part of these notes. Among those methods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and not in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers. They had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they thought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the Synod, without the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the individuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who had represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference in 1611, only three were summoned to the present Synod; and though those who appeared on this occasion, were generally men of good natural talents and sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under discussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a ready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be suddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent degree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had time for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons with those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be viewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without exception refused. In one of the discussions between them and the blustering President, Hales says, "Niellius excepted against this proceeding with them capitatim,[singly,]and required that they might consult in common what answer to give. For myself, saith he, I am a man of no ready speech and unfit for sudden disputation. Too great advantage is taken against men by this kind of proceeding. Many members of the Synod, were they thus singled out to give a sudden answer, might easily peradventure be put to some distress. Nullam esse causam tam justam &c. There is no cause so just, as not to be easily overcome, in case it be treated only at the option or according to the pleasure of the adverse party." Having presented to the Synod their opinions relative to the FIVE POINTS and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession, the Remonstrants wished to enter on the proposing, explanation and defence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary, according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited; but the Synod, in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to enter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was accounted an act of great injustice, by the Remonstrants, who also

princes, the wealth, power, and 'privileges of Bishops,-the

alleged, that "they did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of Election, but that it was Reprobation in which the chief difficulty lay." They were very desirous, therefore, of having Reprobation discussed in the first instance: But their enemies, the Calvinists of those days, like the same race in this age, wished to keep UNCONDITIONAL REPROBATION enshrined in the dark penetralia of their temples, only to be produced, as opportunity might serve, for their own private purposes, either to terrify the careless among their hearers, or to quicken the occasionally sluggish current of congregational benevolence. This desecrating shrine of their God Moloch, who, (according to their preposterous statement,) created, nourished and brought up children, that they might pass through the fire to him and be doomed to eternal misery, only because such was his pleasure,-this desecrating shrine might not be touched by other hands than their own; and any man who was hardy enough to drag it forth to the light of day, was sure of being reckoned a heinous heretic. This studied suppression or concealment, is a strong argument, were there not others of still greater potency, either that Unconditional Reprobation is no part of the revealed verities of the Christian religion, all of which are commanded to be published to all men, and presented for universal acceptance; or, if it be one of those verities, that the Calvinist teachers who suppress it, are unfaithful stewards. It was not to be expected, therefore, that the Calvinists of the Synod would allow the Remonstrants to give Reprobation that prominence in their discussions to which it was justly entitled.-In one of the debates which these two questions produced, Bogerman again took advantage of the disingenuous trick which we have just exposed, and asked Pynakker, one of the cited ministers, "Do you imagine the Synod will suffer the Remonstrants to examine the doctrine of Reprobation?" Pynakker replied, "Yes, I do : Because, as this is the chief source of the troubles of the Church, it ought to be first discussed." Perceiving either that his meaning was not correctly understood or that he had expressed it in an imperfect manner, he immediately explained himself by adding, that by FIRST he meant CHIEFLY, (both of which significations the Latin word conveys,) and by acknowledging, that Election ought to have the precedence of discussion. When relating this occurrence, Poppius remarks, “This being received in a wrong sense, was imputed to all of us, as though we were unanimously of opinion, that the discussion of the doctrine of Reprobation ought to precede that of Election. Upon this question the Foreign Divines and others were desired by the President to deliver their sentiments. However, the expression imputed to us was employed by none of us, much less by all.-But this was their manner: If one of us, in the name of all, said any thing that proved advantageous to the rest, the President seemed to be much displeased at our unanimity: Then we were told, that we were cited singly and personally, and that we did not compose a society or corporation. But when any of us happened to employ a word that was capable of being wrested to our common injury and misconstrued, then what was said by one was certain to be imputed to all !!" After gaining a favourable opportunity like this, Bogerman always hastily dismissed the cited persons; and on this occasion he dwelt largely, in their absence, on Pynakker's expression, and persuaded the Foreign Divines that the proposal of the Remonstrants, to treat of Reprobation before Election, was a sine qua non, and that without it was granted to them they would not proceed. This alarmed all the Caivinistic brotherhood, who considering the honour of their craft concerned, rose vi et armis, delivered seriatim their objections to such a bold proceeding, and thought, with the Professor of Heidelberg, "that it was unreasonable for the Remonstrants to disturb the consciences of the ELECT on account of God's judgments against the Reprobated, and to plead the cause of the latter, as though they had been hired to undertake the defence of those who had by the just judgment of God been rejected; and that for these reasons the Synod neither could nor ought to grant the Remonstrant brethren