in 1632, that the Remonstrants were sound and orthodox on the doctrine of the Sacred Trinity. The Calvinistic author of that scurrilous pamphlet, the Real Remonstrant, which was answered by Episcopius, states this fact with a sort of reluctant approbation, thus: "But it must first be made known, that this expression of Vedelius, in the second part of his first book, particularly declares, that it was not his design to accuse the Remonstrants of openly pro· fessing these blasphemies. For,' he says, in their writings, and especially in their letters and petitions in the year 1630, but most openly of all in their • Confession of Faith, they testify, that on the point of the Sacred Trinity they 'entertain one and the same opinion with us, as well as with the other Churches that adore God in Three Persons.' Wherefore he [Vedelius] asserts plainly, that they profess the orthodox doctrine of the Sacred Trinity, even in those very articles which are attacked by Anti-Trinitarians,'-under which title are distinguished the enemies of the Holy Trinity."

2. When reading the translation of the Synodical Account of the Conference of Delft, in 1613, which was convened for the purpose of promoting peace and union, I had expected to see a note, fraught with strong animadversions on the disingenuous conduct of the Calvinistic party, from such a zealous friend to religious liberty as Mr. Scott wishes occasionally to appear. For when it was granted, that all the disputes between the Arminiats and Calvinists related only to the famous FIVE POINTS, the Calvinistic representatives in that Conference refused to return an answer to the Arminians concerning their Toleration of those Points, until they had extorted from the latter their sentiments on above thirty Articles which had been craftily drawn up, to render the Arminian tenets objects of popular odium and suspicion. The Arminian representatives, though averse to such palpable evasions, did not account this conduct of their adversaries a sufficient reason for refraining from all further intercourse with them, but, like honest men who cherished hopes of producing some practical scheme of toleration for their doctrines, desired to have time allowed for considering the new articles. The Calvinists with apparent frankness, told them to take six or eight weeks for this purpose, and promised in the mean time not to divulge those articles to any person: Yet that very day, they gave away copies to certain individuals, who, after circulating them in manuscript, soon had them printed, to the manifest prejudice of the Arminians. Festus Hommius was on this occasion one of the Calvinistic representatives, and had as early as 1605 drawn up certain questions in the Consistory of Leyden, which, he thought, ought to be subscribed by every minister; and in the year 1600, at the provincial Synod held at Haerlem, some of the ministers wished to propose an annual subscription, on the part of every pastor, to the Confession and Catechism, as a test to try whether any of them had changed their sentiments in the course of the twelve months preceding.-These facts prove, that such new impositions were at that period favourite expedients with the Calvinists :-On this subject what says the Historical Preface which is prefixed to the Acts, and which Mr. Scott has been at such immense pains to render into English and to elucidate?-It informs us, that Uitenbogardt by courtly cunning had a private audience before the States of Holland, and that, in the absence of Festus Hommius, who had been previously heard in behalf of the other party," he traduced the actions of the rest of the pastors, and represented "them as men, who, by requiring a declaration [from the Arminians on "thirty articles,] attempted to introduce into the Churches a new Inqui"sition that was on no account to be endured. He also obtained an order "from the States, to interdict them [the Calvinistic pastors] from requiring "such a declaration from the Remonstrants."-This Historical Preface afterwards states, that, in complying with the requisition of the States, these Calvinists took an opportunity "to shew that the Theses, concerning which "they had required a declaration, were extant in so many words both in the "Confession and Catechism of the Dutch Churches; and that the Counter"Theses to them had been delivered in different publications by many per"sons with whom the Remonstrants had great intercourse in these provinces."

What are Mr. Scott's remarks on this novel method of proceeding? In a note he says, "Mosheim and many (indeed most) other writers on the sub"ject, represent the Contra-Remonstrants as aiming to impose the creed of "Geneva, or of Calvin, on the Remonstrants in Belgium. Let the impartial "reader judge whether this was the real case." He does not utter one note of disapprobation, on the introduction of such a new inquisition into the Dutch Churches. This is the more wonderful, because some of his most intimate friends have heaped contumely and reproach on my Lord Bishop of Peterborough for proposing to the candidates for holy orders certain ques⚫ › tions drawn up from the formularies of the Church of England. It is no part of my intention to become a party in this affair, or to offer an opinion respecting the usefulness or expediency of such questions; his Lordship is well qualified to understand his own measures, and to engage in their defence. I would only observe, that the Calvinistic innovators of 1613 required a categorical answer from men who had been some time in the ministry,and who (according to the parity of the pastoral order in Presbyterianism,) were perfectly on an equality with their turbulent and unconstitutional examinants. His Lordship is in very different circumstances, since he belongs to a church that, besides a truly Catholic amplitude of sentiment, acknowledges "a gradation of rank in the office ministerial," the highest order of which is that of Bishops, who have the oversight of all inferior pastors. One of the most important of Episcopal duties, according to the scriptures, is, to prevent the introduction of improper persons into the pastoral office: And it was in the exercise of this, one of his legitimate functions, that his Lordship devised a number of questions, which in an examination for ordination might act as a kind of touch stone to detect Autinomian candidates, and others of whom his Lordship did not approve. After knowing this test, to which the greatest degree of publicity has been given, no one is compelled to offer himself at Peterborough for ordination. But if a man have previously consulted his conscience respecting the answers which ought to be returned, and find that they do not accord with those which his Lordship may expect to find in candidates for holy orders, he is not left without remedy: A young man, who, on application for Deacon's orders in that particular diocese,may have been refused, has it still in his power to obtain ordination from other Bishops, unless he prove himself to be utterly devoid of the requisite qualifications for the sacred office.-This, therefore, is a case widely differing from that of a factious company of presbyters endeavouring to impose an ever varying yet galling yoke on the neck of their worthy co-pastors, many of whom had exercised the functions of the ministry much longer than the arrogant men that erected themselves into an arbitrary tribunal to try the spirits of their brethren. To each of these self-elected inquisitors might have been appropriately addressed the question once propounded to Moses, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? But no such interrogation can apply to his Lordship, who vexes no man already inducted to a benefice, or excludes him from his station in the church, but only makes the terms of communion straiter than they had been to a certain class of religionists in his diocese.-I compare these two modes of interrogation together in a few points, to shew that while the milder instance is made the subject of continued public reprehension, the more flagrant one obtains something more than tacit approval. Notwithstanding all its large professions to the contrary, therefore, modern Calvinism retains, in the hearts of some of its professors, all its native bigotry and intolerance; and that which is vehemently denounced when transacted at Peterborough, is accounted perfectly lawful and praiseworthy when emanating from Holland, that classic ground for Calvinism! For, the only misrepresentation concerning the narrative which Mr. Scott rectifies, is, that "the Contra-Remonstrants did not aim to impose the creed of Calvin," but only "the Confession and Catechism of the Belgic Churches; between which and the former," he acknowledges, "there was indeed some coVOL. I. LL

incidence." But still not one word escapes him, in vituperation of the act itself or of the principles on which it proceeded.

3. The last extract from Mr. Scott, upon which I shall briefly animadvert, is one of his reflections at the close of his book, where he says: " Had the "opponents of the Synod possessed the same authority, they would have acted "in like manner, and so would the rulers of the other countries in Europe.” -When Mr. Scott made this remark, he seems to have forgotten the very document which he undertook to elucidate. For it is very evident from the contents of the Historical Preface, that the intention of those who artfully composed it, was, to demonstrate, after their own manner, the almost unbounded sway which the patrons of Arminianism had obtained in the management of the public affairs of Holland, and particularly in ecclesiastical matters, from the year 1605 to 1617. Take one instance in Mr. Scott's translation of their account for 1812, when, after describing many of the effects that were singularly disastrous to Calvinism, as consequences of the increasing prevalence of Arminianism, they add, And, as in most of the cities they had the Magistrates more favourable to them, and could do every thing through 'J. Uitenbogardus with the Advocate of Holland, they insolently exulted over the churches and their fellow ministers.' Yet during the whole of that period those patrons never attempted to collect together a packed Synod after their own hearts; which, let it be recollected, (if the statements of the Historical Preface be correct,) it would not have been difficult for them to effect, siuce the terms according to which such national assemblies are usually convened, depend almost entirely upon the pleasure of the ruling powers in the State. Even in the Church of Rome, where we might expect to find some uniformity of practice on this point, General Councils have never been convened according to one and the same pattern; but have been varied according to the secular interests which they were severally designed to promote. In the preceding Life of Arminius, as well as in the annexed Declaration, will be seen the equitable terms on which he wished a National Synod to be convened, and the noble manner in which he yielded even to the greatest prejudices of the Calvinists, respecting the omission (in the proposed summons) of the litigated clause about revising the Catechism and Confession. In Appendix X are inserted several testimonies in favour of the philanthropic and tolerant principles of Arminius; and they have never in one instance, either in Holland or Great Britain, been abandoned by those who professed to embrace his gracious doctrines in their original purity. When, therefore, Mr. Scott intimates in an adjoining sentence, that "the measure adopted by "the rulers of Belgium, in respect of the Decisions of the Synod of Dort, "ought not to be judged according to the generally prevailing sentiments of "modern times," he has forgotten to subjoin, that the measures in question ought rather to be judged according to the enlightened and pacific sentiments of Arminius and his early followers.

These three specimens of ex-parte statements and absurd reasoning, are by no means among the most objectionable parts of Mr. Scott's performance: Referring the reader once more to the republication of Bishop Womack's Arcana Dogmatum Anti-Remonstrantium, for a reply to many of these slanderous accusations and iuconsequent arguments, I close the notes by the following quotation, which is almost as applicable to the Calvinistic professors of modern times as to those who enjoyed the supremacy in matters ecclesiastic under the Protectorate: "If we consider that the present Calvinists of all sorts, Creabilitarians, Supralapsarians, Sublapsarians, do all centre in this Synod, as the test of their Anti-Arminianism, (as Master Baxter calls it,) we must conclude that the design of that Synod was not to reduce all those several sects to one opinion, (that being impossible, their differences are so high and irreconcilable,) but their elaborate artifice, in contriving and daubing, varnishing and trimming up the decrees and canons thereof, was used on purpose to calculate them for the meridian of every,

their judgments, and make them serve indifferently the interest of their several opinions. So that this Synod is to men of that persuasion what Manna was to the Israelites, (as some affirm,)-it affords them that relish to which every man's palate is most affected. One man discovers enough therein to encourage him to be a Supralapsarian; another man finds the contrary. To this man's sense they maintain Universal Redemption, to another's apprehension they deny it."

Such is the doctrinal latitude and variety which the Calvinism of the Dutch Synod claims for itself. The difference between the doctrines of Calvin and Arminius, in their practical application to the existing circumstances in which men are found by the gospel, is strongly displayed by the learned editor of Dr. Thomas Jackson's Works, in the following brief extract: "Let us take a Polemo, (a most shamelessly debauched ruffian,) upon this man we desire the work of the Lord by our ministry may be prosperous. We must either tell him, that there is something required of him in this present state, ⚫ unconverted as he is,' and so set him a task; or that nothing at all is · expected from him.' These two be points contradictory diametrally, there is no mean betwixt them. I say, that of this man something is required. The first minimum quod sic, is, reflecting upon his own actions, and the law writ in his conscience. Next, I would apply some of God's words spoken by the Prophets to some sinful people or person; as Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings, cease to do evil, learn to do well. (Isaiahi, 16.) Or that of St. James iv, 8, Draw nigh to God.-Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. [Or I would read to him Ezek. xviii.] And would affirm, that these words signify something, were not empty noises, but precepts; and if precepts, have some duty correspondent to be performed by him to whom I laid them; which is, quod quærimus; that I would have done.-My adversary must say, 'Nothing is to be done; it is to no purpose for me to exhort, or him to try, nothing can be done to purpose.'-Now what will the poor patient say? Men are naturally inclined to believe them that most ease and please their natures best. The least consequent of this doctrine that he will or can make, (and that if he were a good natured man too,) will be this; Why, then, I will betake myself to a negative idleness, wrap my body in my arms, sit still, and wait the good hour when grace shall breathe upon 'me.'-A second will say, Go to then, I will eat my meat with joy, and take my portion of the things of this life, till tastes of a better drop into my mouth from heaven.'-A third may perhaps do worse; wend to a tavern, or worse place, and make work for grace, with a graceless desperate hope, that the more he sins, the more grace, when it comes, may abound; that quò sceleratior ed gratiæ vicinior.—If my adversary says, Nay; he must abstain 'from lewd courses;' we are half agreed: is not that part the same with Isaiah's, Cease to do evil? If he maintain his conclusion, I have no more to say, but to enter an appeal to God, and this protestation to man: That I disclaim all such dispositions, preparations, endeavours, as co-operating to the production of grace, after the manner that temperate behaviour concurreth to produce the habit of temperance; or that natural qualities do, to produce forms merely physical: Aud this will quit me from Pelagianism or Popery; but he shall never be able to free himself from the errors of the Stoic or Manichees that holds it indifferent, what works a man does before he be regenerate." (Works, page 3143.)

A DECLARATION

OF THE

SENTIMENTS OF ARMINIUS,

ON PREDESTINATION, DIVINE PROVIDENCE, THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL, THE GRACE OF GOD, THE DIVINITY OF THE SON OF GOD, AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN BEFORE GOD.

This DECLARATION was delivered before the States of Holland, in a full assembly of their Lordships, on the 30th of Oct. 1608, in their Hall of Session at the Hague. The circumstances which preceded it, are briefly related by Arminius in the commencement of his speech; and as the occurrences there recounted form an important ara in his personal history, I shall add several notes in elucidation.

Arminius pronounced this Oration in the Dutch Language, with such a happy admixture of freedom and modesty, as commanded admiration and applause from all his honourable auditors. It was afterwards translated into Latin, but not by the Author himself,—as is very evident from the striking difference in the style and in several of the epithets employed. But while some persons thought, THAT HE HAD SPOKEN NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO HIS JUST DEFENCE, others, who cannot be reckoned in the number of his friends, accused him of appearing too bold and confident,—such an injurious interpretation did the latter give to the fearlessness of innocence and integrity!-In a letter which Arminius addressed, on the 10th of December, the same year, to Doctor Sebastian Egberts, one of the principal magistrates of Amsterdam, he writes in the following terms concerning this Declaration ; "In my Oration before the States, I am said to have employed not only the shield but the sword, and the latter beyond all the bounds of moderation. The occasion required me to use the sword, because I had to give my opinion about certain dogmas, which I thought to be chargeable with error. I did give that opinion, and expressed my serious disapprobation of the dogma of Predestination, as it is at present taught among us; because while my conscience commands me not to keep silence when that doctrine is made a topic of discussion, it likewise dictates to me, that it is worthy of reprehension. But I observed great moderation; for I suppressed many things on which I might have dilated: And that most noble assembly, I am persuaded, will form a similar judgment respecting my oration. Is it any cause of wonder, if to those who wished me to be quite silent I seem to have been carried beyond the limits of moderation in my speech? But let these persons produce a single word uttered by me, which bears any mark of vehemence or the violation of temperance or discretion. It is necessary that they should do this; because as long as calumny chooses such great latitude for its excursions, it cannot be detected. The words of the man who sits in judgment, who forms an estimate, or who speaks concerning me, are these: 'He is a robber and a scoundrel,' He is a contumacious,

་