« PreviousContinue »
in the Church. Besides those who reflect on the peculiar condition of the great European family at that juncture, will per. ceive that the Dutch Republic, which had then so lately rendered the most important services to Rigid Predestination, was the only country in which the Calvinists were in a flourishing condition : This was a circumstance which was not forgotten in the harangues and publications of the various Puritanic emigrants who had found an asylum in the United Provinces, and who flocked to England in large companies as soon as they learnt the probability of a commotion being raised in their favour. These men imported into this country all the visionary enthusiasm, to which, after the Synod of Dort, they had been accustomed in the Low Countries.
A hundred instances might be produced of their Calvinistic extravagancies; a few may here suffice: “ The bishops had been about this time voted out of the house of parliament, and some upon that occasion sent to the Tower, which made many covenanters rejoice, and most of them to believe Mr. Brightman (who probably was a well-meaning man) to be inspired when he writ his Comment on the Apocalypse; a short abridgment of which was now printed, cried up and down the streets and cal. led Mr. Brightman's Revelation of the Revelation, and both bought up and believed by all the covenanters. And though he was grossly mistaken in other things, yet, because he had there made the churches of Geneva and Scotland, (which had no bishops) to be Philadelphia in the Apocalypse, that angel that God loved ; and the power of prelacy to be Antichrist, the
good and sufficient reason, applicable to the case of the English Arminians, is given by Grotius in a preceding page, 209; for unless the Calvinists had coustantly infused into the minds of the common people a persuasion, that “ Episcopacy and Arminianism were nothing better than specious modifications of Popery," they could not have inspired them with a belief, that " the prophecies in the Revelations, relative to the subversion of the Antichristian kingdom, are as applicable to Arminianism as to Popery."
Yet I discovered, that, whenever it suited their convenience, these virulent Calvinistic accusers could congratulate themselves on the congruity wbich several of their own doctrines beld with those of the Papists. John Goodwin said, in 1658, to one of his adversaries : “ For doth he not know, that, as the “ market of reproach and disgrace now ruleth in this angle of the world, call “ a man an ARMINIAN, and you have called him constructively, yea emi“ nently, Thief, Traitor, Murderer, Heretic, False Prophet, and whatso“ ever else soundeth infamy or reflection upon men ?-Dr. John Owen ac“ knowledgeth, and doth little less than triumph, that his doctrine of Perse« verance is owned and asserted by the two great Popish Doctors, BELLAR“ MINE and SUAREZ. May not I then, or any other man, upon as reasonable “ an account, stigmatize such a doctrine with the ignominious character “ of Popish or Jesuitical, as the said Doctor, or any other partisan, cast the “ reproach of Arminian upon the tenets argued for by me in these contro“ versies? Yea, the truth is, that such a doctrine of Perseverance as the " said Doctor abetteth, would make a more connatural and suitable member “ in the crazy body of Popish Divinity, than in the body of the doctrine “ maiutained by Protestants."
evil angel which the House of Commons had now so spued up, as never to recover their dignity: therefore did those covenanters rejoice, approve, and applaud Mr. Brightman, for discovering and foretelling the bishops' downfall; so that they both railed at them, and at the same time rejoiced to buy good penny-worths of all their land, which their friends of the House of Commons did afford both to themselves and them, as a reward for their zeal and diligent assistance to pull them down." (Isaac Walton's Life of Bishop Sanderson.) · The next personage introduced does not appear as a prose pective but rather as an encouraging retrospective prophet. « Dr. Owen also,” says the judicious biographer of John Goodwin, “ in a strain of genuine fanaticism, which would have disgraced the most despicable of Cromwell's preaching officers, compared the outrageous proceedings of the Regicides to the valorous achievements of the Man after God's own heart, in subduing the enemies of his country, and in preparing the way for the national glory and prosperity by which the reign of Solomon was distinguished. Speaking of Ireton, the Doctor says, “ He was • an eminent instrument in the hand of God, in as tremendous alterations, as such a spot of this world hath at any time received, since. Daniel saw in general them all.......As Daniel's visions were all terminated in the kingdom of Christ, so all his [Ireton's actions had the same aim and intendment. This was that ' which gave life and sweetness to all the most dismal and black
engagements that at any time he was called out unto. It was all 'the vengeance of the Lord and his temple! A Davidical prepara*tion of his paths in blood, that he might for ever reign in righte*ousness and peace.' Isaac Walton says, in his Life of the venerable Hooker, about some malecontents at an earlier period : Yet these very men, in their secret conventicles, did covenant and swear to each other to be assiduous and faithful in using their best endeavours to set up the presbyterian doctrine and discipline ; and both in such a manner as they themselves had not yet agreed on, but up that government must. To which end, there were many that wandered up and down, and were active in sowing discontents and sedition by venomous and secret mur. murings, and a dispersion of scurrilous pamphlets and libels against the church and state, but especially against the Bishops; by which means, together with venomous and indiscreet sermons, the common people became so fanatick, as to believe the Bishops to be Antichrist, and the only obstructers of God's discipline; and at last some of them were given over to so bloudy a zeal, and such other desperate delusions, as to find out a text in the Revelation of St. John, that Antichrist was to be overcome by the sword.”
The same spirit was alive and in mighty operation during the Civil Wars: Grotius has alluded to it in a preceding page. (209.) On the 16th of February, 1641, in a letter to his brother, Grotiu3 writes thus concerning the imprisonment of Archbishop Laud :-“ I pray God in behalf of the Archbishop, that he may obtain more favourable judges than we the Dutch Arminians, 7 did formerly. It is beyond the range of human prudence to foresee every thing that may afterwards occur. Yet God mani. fests a regard towards us; and he solaces with a better hope those who are treated injuriously." In a letter addressed to his brother, a week afterwards, he repeats the same pious wishes, and adds :-" I think the Archbishop's purpose has been such, as ought to cause him not to be afraid of having God for the Judge of his intentions. But, if in any age, undoubtedly in this all things are manuged by factions. Those persons sport too much with Divine subjects, who suppose that they discover, in the name of the Archbishop, the number which is expressed in the Revelations : After the same manner, Feuardent * has declared that the same number expresses Martin LAUTER.—Respecting the Synod of Dort, I think those persons are of the third order who attempt that which you describe: But, as far as I have been able to understand the affair by comparing the judgment of many persons together, I am inclined to believe, that neither the major part of the Bishops nor the Nobility will approve of that scheme,t but that all things will be brought back to the same form as that which was established in the days of Elizabeth. It was this Queen who stifled in their very origin the Lambeth Articles, which were a kind of prelude to the Synod of Dort.”— To shew that some of those passages in the New Testament which were then interpreted, for party-purposes, to apply to the Papal tyranny, had been otherwise applied by many great and good men, Grotius wrote his Commentatio de Antichristo; in which he offers a conjecture, that ULPIUS, the cognomen of the Emperor TRAJAN, as it answered in Greek numerals to 666, was the person there signified. He refers to Eusebius for proof, that this Emperor in the tenth year of his reign revived the persecutions against the Christians; and quotes Augustine’s City of God, Sulpitius Severus, and Orosius, as authorities for calling Trajan's cruel measures the Third Persecution of the Christians. He adds, “ both Irenæus and Arethas consider it a matter placed beyond
• Fenardent was a Franciscan Friar, and one of the most virulent adver. saries that ever wrote against the early Protestants. Daillé says, that “ he was highly deserving of his name,"-Feuardent signifying in French a brisk or blazing fire. Like all other dabblers in prophetic matters, he was not very scrupulous about the alteration of a few letters in LUTHER's name, in order to adapt it to the sacred number.
+ This is an allusion to the Committee of Accommodation appointed by the Long Parliament at the close of 1640, sonie account of which will be given in the subsequent pages. The persons whom Grotius calls of the third order, were, I suppose, the Sub-committee of Divines, who were ein powered to prepare matters of debate for the other Committee, which consisted of ten earls, ten bishops, and ten barons.
all controversy, that a Roman Emperor was designated by this number.” This pamphlet was answered in 1640, by Samuel Marets, Professor of Divinity at Boisleduc in Brabant, who vin. dicated in a passionate style the common interpretation of those passages of scripture. Contrary to his usual practice, Grotius did not make any mention of the name of Marets in the Appendir to his tract De Antichristo, which he published early in 1641; but, sporting with the French mode of pronouncing this man's name, which is exactly the same as that of marais, “a swamp," Grotius styled his malevolent adversary Borborita, “ dirty fellow," in allusion to the Greek word Bopßopos, and its French derivative bourbe, “mud” or “ slime.” The reader may judge how well this term suited Marets, by perusing the first sen. tence of his Preface, which originally commenced in the following manner, till the Amsterdam printer refused to prostitute his types by giving publicity, in the very first sentence, to what he regarded as an un truth: “A small work on Antichrist has lately “ been printed, the author of which is he who was the editor of “ the book of those two Socinians, Crellius and Volkelius.” Marets is the person who had the famous dispute with Voetius, whether the Synod of Dort decided in favour of the Supralapsarians or the Sub-lapsarians. He was a man of good sense, yet rather deficient in classical learning, as may be seen by his mistaking Borborita for a word of Latin extraction: Grotius says in one of his private letters, “ that, when he heard of the course of life which Marets had pursued in France, he perceived that this Greek appellative was not misapplied.” In his two works against Grotius, he was assisted by the rest of the Calvinian brotherhood - a practice very usual with the French pastors of that age. But, though professedly a reply to Marets, and to an author who had written against him under the fictitious name of FRONTO, this Appendix, it will be seen by the following extract of a letter to his brother, was designed by Grotius to operate as a check to the English and Scotch Puritanic Levellers, who, according to the prophetic annunciation of their own seers, had begun to hail the arrival of the days when they could reward Babylon double according to her works, in the persons of the English Arminians. This letter is dated January 5, 1641 : “I am now afraid lest, through the tardiness of the printer, a longer delay should be disagreeable to those who with the greatest justice expect a sight of my answer to Marets and Fronto. Since this answer was due from me, the very necessity of the argument led me to shew that many things are placed among the marks of Antichrist, which can plead antiquity in their favour. But this very circumstance smooths the way to concord, if at any period Kings and Bishops be wishful to indulge serious considerations about it. In completing this work, it was necessary incidentally to demonstrate, that the party which thus severely chastises other people, is not
itself without fault: Yet I have shewn this with such modera. tion, as not even to subjoin the names of those whom I intend to point out by this description. But though that turbulent spi.
* The Calvinists thought that much moderation was displayed in every part of the Appendir, except at its conclusion, a quotation from which is here subjoined:
"I do not deny, that the sayings which are recorded in the Revelations, although they may have been truly fulfilled, are of great service to our own times,-not only by creating within us a more confirmed belief of God's providence and foreknowledge, after we have beheld the predictions and the events which exactly corresponded with them,-but likewise by teaching us to beware of those persons who contract a portion of that spirit which is censured in the Revelations : For, maukind are accustomed frequently to relapse into offences, that are either the very same, or nearly equal. It is my hearty desire, that all the Roman (Catholics), who are placed on the chief watch-towers of their church, may derive this kind of insiruction; and that Borborita (Marets] and his associates may be benefitted by similar reflections. I will not accuse them of idolatry.who much too frequently evince their abhorrence even of rites that are excellent and have been long received; and yet, if the game be deduced from things to tbeir resemblances, there is somethiog allied to idolatry in addicting themselves to the opinions of new masters in such a manner, as veither to venture on an accurate examination of such opiniops themselves, nor permit them to be examined by others. But undoubtedly, many of this party (the Calvinists] cannot clear themselves from the criininal charge of attacking the rights of kings, and of seeking the horns of the bull rather thau those of the lamb,-whether we have regard to the (seditious] dogmas of Junius Brutus and many others, or to the factions, seditions, conspiracies, and the private assumption of arms, under the surreptitious name of the Christian Religion. The kings of France and Great Britain, as well as other kings and legitim
mate a have declared, that such foul deeds seem to have derived their origin from those dugmas, or to have received from them the greatest encouragement. But how is it possible for them to repel the charge of cruelty against those who differ from them, when they are of opmion, that the laws of Moses concerning punishments [against idolaters, &c.] ought to be adopted by Christian princes, wbile, at the same time, they themselves reckon in the number of idolaters all the Pope's adherents? It is unnecessary to state the fatal consequences that would ensue from such a doctrine, if they were possessed of strength equal to their inclinaiion. Besides, how can the very offences objected against others be removed from themselves by the disciples of Beza and Calvin, both of whom have written books on punishing heretics anith the sword ? Beza's book was translated even into the Dutch language by stwo) ministers, [Bogerman and Geldorp,] and recommended to the magistrates : Look also at the comment of this same Beza on Titus iji, 10, in relation to this subject. But when Servetus, prior to his coming to Geneva, bad desired to obtain Calvin's opinion about his writings, Calvin was the person who wrote to Farel.(and his
Farel.(and his own hand-writing is yet extant at Paris,) that, if his authority was of any avail, he would prevent Servetus from returning alive. He adhered to his promise : For, having suhorned bis own baker as the accuser, (of which fact he makes great boasts in his printed correspondence,) by the authority, which he possessed be easily caused Servetus to he burned alive,-a very dangerous example, according to the judgment of the famous Father Paul, [author of the History of the Council of Trent,) and one which might readily be quoted as a precedent against its authors, and recoil upon themselves.
it But it is objected, Servetus held sentiments about the Trinity that were ( not correct in every particular.' This is very possible; because a mistake is easily coinmitted in matters that so greatly transcend the grasp of the human understanding. Is not he, who was the cause of Servetus bcing • burnt, the real burner ? And have all men been satisfied with those - opinions on the Trinity which were held by this burner of Servetus ! _By no means : Many of the doctors of the Sorbonne impute heretical opinions