presses concerning the SYNOD OF DORT."-After recounting several instances of intemperance and impetuosity in the judgments of the Foreign and Provincial Members of the Synod, Mosheim says: "But, this warmth of spirit, with which the Fathers of the Synod were inflamed against the Arminians, was so far from abating, that, on the contrary, some of them proceeded to such a length as to determine that they should be punished by the sword, with penalties and exile. Omitting the decisions of those who gave similar directions but in a manner somewhat more obscure, I will here quote the suffrages and judgment of the Deputies of South Holland, and those of the Guelderland Divines, from both of which this fact will be rendered very apparent. The former of them address the Representatives of the States General who were present at the Council, in these words: We turn to you, illustrious delegates, and by the precious name of Jesus Christ we beseech you strongly to insist before their High Mightinesses, who are your Lords and ours, that those persons who have thus, like unskilful husbandmen or destructive hirelings, audaciously mixed tares with the good seed, may be restrained by ecclesiastical censures, and may be visited with a lighter or more severe degree of punishment, in proportion to the extent of each of their offences.' (ACTs of the Synod, pt. iii, 330.)— Those of Guelderland in like manner suggest inflicting on them the punishment of perpetual exile, or something still more grievous: (Ibid. 325.) We are fully persuaded, that, unless all and each of these Five Articles and those who teach them be ordered into perpetual banishment from the Dutch Churches, it will be impossible for any Christian peace to be estab'lished among us, or, if once established, to be long preserved. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I would they were even cut off which trouble or have hitherto troubled you! (Gal. v, 9, 12.)'—I mentioned, in a preceding passage, that only some of the Fathers of the Synod wished the Arminians to be visited with punishment:' But the man who may attribute such a disposition to the WHOLE ASSEMBLY, will be guilty of no great error. For, omitting all mention of the actual issue of the matter, (which is a sufficient proof of the wishes in which all the members indulged,) it has been placed beyond all doubt or controversy, that JOHN BOGERMAN who presided over that Synod, and several others who were present, entertained the same sentiments as Beza and Calvin,-that the attempts of perverse teachers must be avenged by fire and faggot. Since therefore all these individuals accounted the Arminians to be little superior to the worst of heretics, there is no reason for proposing this enquiry, Did they [the Synodists] ⚫ desire to have a capital punishment inflicted on the Arminians?' We have, besides, an eminent authority in Sir Dudley Carleton, at that period Ambassador from the King of Great Britain to the States General, from whom we learn, that, a long time before judgment was pronounced on the doctrines of the Arminians, the punishment of exile with some other mark of infamy had been determined against the principal Divines of the Arminian party.” After having quoted the Ambassador's letter to Dr. Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Mosheim thus proceeds: "It will now be the duty of Protestants, and especially of those among the Reformed who are more celebrated than their brethren for wisdom and moderation, to form from their own feelings an estimate of ours when we read these expressions, and at the same time reflected, that the men from whom these rigid decrees proceeded were still accounted characters in no respect inferior to THE AMBASSADORS OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR! These are not the sayings of private persons, but of a Council which represented the whole of their Church, and the decrees of which they considered inviolable and on no account to be contemned. We do not deny, that some persons among us [the Lutherans] have acted with greater vehemence and warmth than was proper, (which concession has probably been made by the individuals themselves,) but their violent conduct will not be ascribed to the whole of our body; and I do not think, there is one even among the violent of our Divines who will conclude, that men are to be molested and tormented on account of the doctrines which they hold in common with the Calvinists. But that Assembly of the gravest and most respectable Divines, who were collected together from the whole of their Church, expelled men [from their communion] merely in consequence of those Five Points which nearly coincide with our

doctrine, and classed them not only with heretics, but with malefactors and the worst of crimmals. What would the Reformed [the Calvinists] have said, if we [the Lutherans] had not only ordered off to the shades, but had also sanctioned an order for punishing, the followers of Jansenius, when they deserted the communion of the Papists and placed themselves under our protection,—although the Calvinists are aware that the dogmas of the Jansenists are not on many points much dissimilar to their own? The Calvinists have also plainly and without any ambiguity confessed, that not only the cause of the Arminians, but ours [the Lutherans] likewise, was adjudged and condemned by the members of the Dort Synod. At the very period when that Synod was sitting, Peter du Moulin became the bearer of the conditions on which peace and harmony were to be concluded between the Calvinists and the Lutherans: But John Bogerman, the President of that Assembly, did not think it proper that even a word should be mentioned about any such concord. Of this fact John Hales is witness, who related to the Ambassador of the King of Great Britain that such was the answer which was given to him by Bogerman. It was scarcely possible, therefore, that peace could have been refused to the Arminians, if the Lutherans were received into covenant and sacred alliance. That President was not ignorant or unconscious of the kind of disposition which the members of the Synod felt toward us. It is certain, that it was in the power of the Dort Fathers to repel from themselves a great part of that hatred which they incurred, if, after having rejected and condemned the disciples of Arminius, they had manifested a disposition inclined to cultivate amity with our body: For the Remonstrants had always asserted, that their cause and ours were identified together. Since, therefore, those Fathers acted differently, and chose to procure for themselves a greater portion of envy, in preference to the cultivation of a friendly affection for us, there can hardly be the shadow of a doubt that the hatred which they evinced towards the Arminians belonged also to us in no inferior degree. The same fact is rendered evident from the violent molestation which the Bremen and British Divines received in the Synod from the rest of the Fathers, and especially from those of the United Provinces, who treated them with discourtesy, abuse, and contumely, because, on the doctrines of Predestination and of the Grace and Merits of Christ, they were more favourable to our sentiments than to those of Calvin.

Although they [the Calvinists] may believe, that the difference is very little betwixt themselves and us on those matters which contain the foundation of religion, what man will engage on their behalf, that, if at a future period they obtain the supremacy, the same punishment will not be inflicted on us as on the Arminians, for sentiments which they at present number among errors of minor importance? The fate of the Arminians will be understood from the following paragraph, which is inserted in the Preface to their own Synodical Acts: Those of the Remonstrants who were cited before the Synod are commanded either to be silent like dumb dogs, or to be banished with their wives and children out of their native country. On the rest of their pastor, nearly to the amount of two hundred, perpetual exile is imposed, or they are reduced to a monstrous silence in a free country. That nothing may be wanting to gratify the hatred of their adversaries, public edicts are issued, which forbid any man from supplying these exiled and silenced ministers even with a farthing, with which they may prolong a miserable existence in banishment, may satisfy the cravings of hunger or avoid the disgrace of beggary. A reward of Five Hundred 'Guilders is placed on the head of each of the Remonstrant Ministers, and they are prohibited from returning to the land of their birth under the penalty of perpetual imprisonment,-beside other culpable instauces of Albanian cruelty which are at this juncture brought into exercise!'—If the Calvinists consider it right thus to wreak their vengeance on those who are separated from them by a few errors of trifling importance, we, whom they consider as involved in error, should deservedly appear foolish and entirely devoid of reason, by displaying any degree of solicitude to embrace that fellowship which they offer. And we must be permitted to imagine, that they consider their persecuting conduct extremely proper, as long as they persist to call the Synod of Dort A MOST HOLY ASSEMBLY!"

In a preceding paragraph, Dr. Mosheim had said: "The sentiments which the Arminians defended, at the commencement of these controversies, were,

L

ELECTION proceeding from faith which was foreseen by God, the GOOD-WILL and LOVE OF GOD towards ALL MEN whatever, the DEATH OF CHRIST which possesses SAVING EFFICACY for ALL MEN unless they resist it, the GRACE which changes and converts no man except him whose WILL it is to be so converted. and the Loss OF FAITH AND GRACE. If these opinions, and others which are contained in their well known FIVE POINTS, be simply regarded by themselves, no man can deny the fact that they are the same as those which we [the Lutherans] embrace for DIVINE VERITIES THAT ARE CLEARLY REVEALED. Since, therefore, it is certain, that the Synod of Dort not only rejected and trampled upon these doctrines, but reckoned them in the number of impious dogmas that are prejudicial to salvation and of a most dangerous description, where cau the man be found who will not confess, that we [the Lutherans] were wounded, condemned, and excluded from salvation, through the sides of the Arminians?' But that this was really the case, is a fact placed beyond all controversy."-For this assertion the learned Mosheim quotes authorities from the judgments of the Synodical Divines, both foreign and provincial.

In a subsequent chapter he states, that "the dogmas of the Supra-lapsarians are injurious to the Holiness, and to the rest of the Perfections of the Supreme Being." He then adds: "I know, there are some among the Caivinists, who admit of scarcely any difference between the Sub-lapsarians and the Supra-lepsarians, and who assert, that, if we have regard to the foundation, they are both sufficiently at unity. This is the judgment of FRANCIS JUNIUS, [the predecessor of ARMINIUS in the Divinity Chair at Leyden, one of the most celebrated Divines of the Calvinistic School. His words are these: Those who entertain different sentiments from each other on the object of Predestination, do not differ with regard to the circumstances so much as many people suppose. For when the latter [the Sublapsarians] declare, that man ALREADY FALLEN was considered by God as the object of his predestination, they have not properly any regard to the cause of Election and Reprobation, but to the order and series of causes upon which DAMNATION is consequent. But when the latter [the Supralapsarians] assert, that, in the act of predestinating God regarded man as not then created, they do not on that account exclude God from the consideration of man as fallen, but the only object which they wish to obtain 'is,—to find every cause of predestination IN GOD, and none out of God IN Thus, THEY AGREE AS TO THE MATTER ITSELF, while they differ in their mode of explanation.' (Theses de Predest., Cap. x.)-Similar to these are the sentiments delivered by Andrew Rivet in his Orthodox Catholic: (Tract. iv, Quæst. 9.)-And in the article Paulicians' [or Manichees] in his Historical and Critical Dictionary, that very clever and acute man, Peter Bayle, seems to be of the same opinion."

'MAN.

It is remarkable, that three great Divines, differing so much in sentiment as did JUNIUS, (who was viewed by the Dutch Calvinists as much too moderate in bis Predestinarian notions,) ARMINIUS, and Dr. TWISSE, the famous English Supralapsarian, should all agree in regarding the two schemes as most intimately allied: The only difference between them which Dr. Twisse could perceive, was, that the Supralapsarians are more honest and manly in boldly avowing their high notions, than their timid brethren. After recounting some of these high but unhallowing notions, Mosheim thus proceeds: "I declare, that unless the mau who wishes to entertain the doctrine which I have now exposed, desire likewise to be completely at variance with himself; he must first lay aside all the ideas about God, justice, holiness, equity, and other matters, which we have derived from reason and the Sacred Scriptures. This is not my own solitary opinion, but that of many others, even of the Calvinistic school, who are in high and deserved repute for their wisdom. I will give a quotation equal to all of them in the words of that very ingenious and most eloquent man, James SAURIN, who says: 'I frankly confess, that I cannot sufficiently wonder to perceive some men, who, with much coolness and gravity, tell us, God has formed this world with the design of saving one man and damning a hundred thousand. No supplications or prayers, tears or sighs, which they utter, can possibly cause this decree to be revoked: It is necessary to submit to the sentence of God, whose glory required him to create all these nations for eternal destruction. I canbe sufficiently astonished when I hear these people maintain their

'not

⚫ propositions in a manner thus crude and rigid, and without the least mitigation or exception; and when they immediately add, that there is nothing difficult in any of these sentiments, and that all those objections which can be urged in opposition are futile and unworthy of an answer. (Sermons, T. 1, ser. 4.) Peter POIRET, [the famous French Mystic,] who certainly was not deficient in shrewduess and acumen, asserts, in his Divine Economy,' (Tom. vii, chap 13,) that the notion of the DEITY which the Supralapsarians obtrude upon us, is rather that of an INFERNAL DEMON. To the preceding extract from Saurin I would subjoin Poiret's entire expressions, were I not afraid that he would be immediately rejected as a fanatic;—although, in reference to this particular affair, he is any thing rather than a fanatic.

"That which above all other things renders the cause of the Supralapsariaus infamous and odious, is this,-It makes God the sole Cause and Author of all moral evil and sin. For this consequence flows so manifestly from their sentiments, that it has often seemed most surprising to me how it was possible for men of learning to allow themselves to contend, that such a consequence has no connection whatever with their opinions.' I am fully persuaded, that no man would be so dull or clownish, (provided this doctrine were correctly explained to him,) as not instantly to perceive that the origin of all wicked actions must be sought in the Supreme Being, whom, notwithstanding, reason itself teaches us to consider as endowed with the greatest benignity and holiness. For if the glory of God demanded an immense multitude of men to be adjudged to eternal punishment, that same glory likewise required God to be the Author of sin to men, without which,' these persons say, it would be an act of injustice to punish them,' Therefore, if we receive these men as interpreters, to cause men to sin, is so far from being an act derogatory to God, that, on the contrary, (unless it had been his pleasure, for his glory to remain in concealment,) he could not possibly have done otherwise than instigate men to the perpetration of 'crimes and offences. Is not he the cause and author of the deed which is 'done, who is concerned that it be done, or who aptly disposes every circumstance for its accomplishment? But it was of consequence to [the glory of] God, that a great number of mortals should fall into sin and should 'never be delivered from that calamity; wherefore,' if we may give credit to this sect,He likewise ordained [or disposed] all things in such a way, that neither could our first parents by any means whatever avoid sin, nor could the greater portion of their posterity clear themselves from the stain which they had contract.'-What therefore remains, but that we refer this, if there be any truth in it, to God, as the origin and cause of all sin? Unless perhaps we may wish to state, what appears to me most absurd and inconsistent,-that he who desires the death of an enemy and lays poison before him, who also persuades or even compels him to receive that deadly 'poison into his stomach as a salutary medicine, in all this does nothing amiss, nor is the cause of the death of that person who against his own inclination kills himself.' I feel a pleasure in elucidating this topic by a similitude which that illustrious individual, the late G. W. LEIBNITZ, whose testimony the Supralapsarians are less likely to reject, because some of them have expressed their confident persuasion that he was favourable to the sentiments of their faction. He says, I can by no means comprehend, how he can possibly be acquitted of all blame and criminality, who not only makes it possible for man to full, but who likewise disposes of all circumstances in such a manner as to cause them to conduce towards his fall!' (Essais de Theodicée, p. 418.)"

The reader who is acquainted with the high character for candour and impartiality which this eminent ecclesiastical historian has obtained, will know how to appreciate the preceding statements and remarks: They are all corroborated by authentic documents, and were written above a hundred years after the occurrence of the transactions to which they allude. They will be recognized as the just and obvious reflections of a cool and accurate observer, who calmly looked back upon the events connected with the Synod of Dort, which, whether regarded as matters of history or of theology, reflect merited and lasting disgrace on the chief actors in that memorable Assembly.-EDITOR.

IN

JACOBUS ARMINIUS,

ARTICULIS PERPENDENDIS, SAITH AS FOLLOWETH.

1. THAT opinion which denies, that "true believers can or ever do fall from faith totally and finally,"-was never accounted for Catholick from the times of the Apostles to these our times; nor was the contrary opinion esteemed heretical; yea, the affirmative part had ever more for it.

2. "That a believer can be assured, without special revelation, that he shall not fall from faith,"-and "that a believer is bound to believe that he shall not fall from faith," are two points, which were never accounted for Catholick in the Church of Christ; nor was the denial of them ever judged heresy by the Catholick Church.

3. That persuasion, whereby a believer doth certainly persuade himself that he cannot or shall not fall from faith, serves, not so much for comfort against despair, as for to breed security, directly contrary to that most wholesome fear, wherewith we are commanded to work out our salvation, and which is very needful in this place of temptation.*

4. He that thinks he may fall from faith, and thereupon fears lest he should fall therefrom, is neither destitute of needful comfort, nor tormented with anxiety of mind: + It being sufficient for comfort and freedom from anxiety to know, that he shall not by any power of Satan, sin, and the world, or by any affec tion and imfirmity of his own flesh fall from faith, unless himself shall willingly, of his own accord, yield to temptation and neglect conscionably to work out his salvation. ±

This doctrine (according to the undeniable consequence thereof) will uphold the necessity of an industrious duty, and the usefulness of a settled Ministry, and the peace of a good Conscience.

And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God! Gal. vi, 16.

See Heb. xii, 15; Rom. xi, 20; 1 Cor. x. 12; 1 Thess. v, 3; Heb. vi, 11; Gal. vi, 1; Phil. ii, 13; 1 Peter i, 17; Rev. iii, 11; Job ix, 28; 1 Cor. ix, 27 I Cor. iv, 4.

He that gives comfort and security upon any other terms doth sew pillows, as in Ezek. xiii, 18; &c. See Jerem. vi, 14; Ezek. xiii, 10.

See John x, 28; Rom. viii, 35, to the end; 1 John v, 18; James iv, 7; Rom. vi, 16; 2 Peter ii, 19.