phrase "LIES abroad" implies, had they attempted to describe the nature of some of the services in which they were engaged.* But the nice distinction of the politicians of those days, "that an ambassador acts not in a personal but in a ministerial capacity," generally settled all qualms of conscience; and, in reference to this observation, every man acquainted with the private history of Sir Ralph Winwood and Sir Dudley Carleton, consecutively ambassadors at the Hague during the religious dissensions in Holland, will lament that two men, so generally estimable and judicious, should have been placed, by their Sovereign or his confidential advisers, in circumstances, in which, on account of the part that they were expected to act, they could not possibly gain any accession to their characters or reputation.

Mr. Scott, however, has mistaken the cause of King James's silence: It was not a token of his consent to the imputation against Grotius, conveyed in "the Historical Preface;" but it was a token of greater prudence than his Majesty usually displayed. For Grotius and his friends were in possession of other letters from King James, which would have put the sincerity of the monarch in a shape somewhat too questionable, had they been contrasted with his subsequent cruel and despicable conduct towards the Dutch Arminians. But Grotius was too noble an adversary, and entertained too high a reverence for the office, if not for the person of his Majesty, to implicate him needlessly in matters in which he had granted his meddling humour an unbounded indulgence: In the "Apology" therefore, which, Dr. Bates tells us, (p. 589,) 66 was the first work published by Grotius after he had regained his liberty" in 1621, King James saw additional reasons for silence on this topic.

This circumstance will likewise serve to explain the cause of the silence about Mr. Scott's renowned "Historical Preface," which was maintained by Grotius's cotemporaries, the English Calvinists. On the publication of the APOLOGY, those eminent men who had been the British Deputies at the Synod of Dort, perceived that all the "authentic" and all "the public records," with which, in this late age of the world, Mr. Scott has been wishful of bedeck

In the letter which Archbishop Abbot sent to Sir Ralph Winwood, his Grace seems to have been aware of the existence of this qualification in the representative of Royalty. But King James did not bestow upon it so gross an epithet as Isaac Walton has done, in his translation of Sir Henry Wotton's Latin line: His Majesty called it "King-craft." After relating the private interview which Grotius and Caron had with King James prior to the departure of the former, Abbot says, "I doubt not but Grotius had his part in this information, "whereout, I conceive, you will make some use, keeping these things privately "to yourself, as becometh a man of your employment. When his Majesty told me this, I gave such an answer as was fit; and now, upon the receipt of your "letters, shall upon the first occasion give further satisfaction."—În what an artful manner did this Calvinian Archbishop hasten the crisis of the religious differences in Holland! He was also the principal cause of this country being involved in bloodshed.

3

ing his beloved Synod's "Historical Preface," belonged exclusively to the elegant and unanswerable production of Grotius. I feel a satisfaction in bearing record to the real love of learning which then prevailed, and to the native force of truth, which prevented every man, whether Calvinist or Augustinian, that made any pretensions to literary eminence or even to common equity, from quoting the narrative of Dutch affairs out of "the Historical Preface," that was then in the hands of every one, in preference to the impartial account which Grotius had given. I never met with a quotation froin "the Preface" in the authors of that period, except in one or two of no reputation. The most unexceptionable man, in whose works I have found a morsel of it, is that voluminous writer, Dr. Thomas Manton. I have also found it quoted in the margin of one or two of the intolerant sermons of the Presbyterian preachers before the Long Parliament, in which short extracts are introduced, as authorities for persecuting the English Arminians. If any men had felt the least inclination to produce the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Scott's "public records," they would have been the five British divines, who had been deputed by King James to the Synod of Dort, of which they formed no inconsiderable portion; they were, indeed, with all their failings, the brightest ornaments of that assembly. But they knew, better than Mr. Scott, the apocryphal origin and the prejudiced composition of that politic exposure, and were extremely shy about any allusion to it in their long controversy with Mountagu and his defenders. Some writers have been pleased to say, about other authorities, "that these good men durst not adduce them, lest they should give offence to the Court." But they who write in this strain, know little about the matter: For, in that controversy, the authors in the Calvinistic interest, though professing due loyalty to his Majesty, treated King Charles himself, on account of his supposed predi❤ lection for Arminianism, in a manner which modern courtesy would consider to be exceedingly indecorous.

IV. My next quotation from Mr. Scott's astonishing production, is one of the most amusing attempts that can possibly be imagined, to enhance the reputed validity of "the Historical Preface:"- -"Neither Mosheim, nor his translator Maclaine, men"tion this history, while they refer to a variety of authorities on "both sides of the question, in their narrative of these transac"tions: So that, it is even probable, that they had never seen "it. Whether the severe measures by which the decisions of this Synod were followed up; and especially the strict prohibition "of printing or vending any other account in Latin, Dutch, or "French, in the Federated Provinces, during seven years, with"out a special licence for that purpose; did not eventually con"duce to this, may be a question. The measure, however, was "impolitic, if not unjustifiable."

1. Mr. Scott thinks it "probable," that "neither Mosheim, nor his translator Maclaine, had ever seen this History." The truth is, both of them had seen it; and the silence about its momentous contents, which is observed by Maclaine, who was as determined a Calvinist as Mr. Scott himself, must have seemed very surprising to one who placed upon it such a high value, while, to every man besides, this fact will be an additional evidence of the low estimation in which all well-informed Calvinists hold that paltry production. The Ecclesiastical Historian and his excellent Translator "refer to a variety of AUTHORITIES, on both sides of the question, in their narrative of these transactions," but (sad oversight!) they never once formally "mention this History" as an AUTHORITY, because they knew they would in that case have exposed themselves to the derision of all the learned in Europe. Many are the palliations for the intolerance of the Synod, which Dr. Maclaine introduces; but not a single expression does he quote from what Mr. Scott calls "the public records," because such quotation would have destroyed the semblance of impartiality, which both he and Mosheim wished to preserve.

But Mosheim does mention it, with several other as important documents as those which he has quoted. It was Mosheim's manner, when he commenced the history of any large denomination of Christians, to refer his readers, (generally in the first note,) to some well-authenticated and common publication, in which a complete list would be found of the works relating particularly to that denomination. In the fifth volume of his History, from which Mr. Scott's information about the Arminians is derived, Mosheim has made such a copious reference respecting three or four other Churches. Had he not adopted this method, in some instances the mere enumeration of the title-pages of the several works written on that subject, would have occupied almost as much space as he has been able to devote to the history itself. According to his usual method, therefore, Mosheim, at the commencement of that part of the article on the ARMINIANS which relates to the Synod of Dort, refers his readers at once to an ample collection of documents in FABRICII Bibliotheca Græca,*

* Mosheim's note reads thus :-"The writers who have given accounts of the Synod of Dort, are mentioned by Jo. Albert. Fabricius, in his Biblioth. Græc. vol. xi. p. 723. The most ample account of this famous assembly has been given by Brandt, in the second and third volumes of his History of the Reformation in the United Provinces; but, as this author is an Arminian, it will not be improper to compare his relation with a work of the learned Leydekker, in which the piety and justice of the proceedings of this Synod are vindicated against the censures of Brandt. This work, which is composed in Dutch, was published in two volumes in 4to, at Amsterdam, in the year 1705 and 1707, under the following title: Eere van de Nationale Synode, van Dordrecht voorgestaan en bevestigd tegen de beschuldingen van G. Brandt. After comparing diligently these two productions, I could see no enormous error in Brandt; for, in truth, these two writers do not so much differ about facts, as they do in the reasoning they deduce from them, and in their accounts of the causes from whence they proceeded. The reader will

Vol. xi, p. 723. Now, I should consider it a dreadful imputation on a learned man's character, were it even insinuated that this work by Fabricius was not in the possession of such a diffuse commentator on the Holy Scriptures, as Mr. Scott has been, though his notes are said (by his admirers themselves) to be more remarkable for strong sense and fertile imagination, than for the sound learning which they display. In the exact page and volume of the work to which Mosheim despatches all his readers for information about the Dutch Synod, the first article that presents itself is, "DORDRACENE SYNODI ACTA," of which an able literary notice is there given.* Mr. Scott's famous "History" is the

do well to consult the Letters of the learned and worthy Mr. John Hales, of Eaton, who was an impartial spectator of the proceedings of this famous Synod, and who relates, with candour and simplicity, what he saw and heard.”

• Having given a critical description of the various Councils which the Roman Catholic authors had collected, Fabricius presents the following account of the Synod of Dort:

"It commenced on the 13th of Nov. 1618, and continued to the 9th of May, 1619. Let no one look for the Acts or Decrees of the Synod of Dort among the collectors of Councils, although they have not hesitated to insert in their volumes also many small Councils of those whom they denominate Heretics. Yet, since, from the dignity of the subject, and from the number and authority of those by whom the business was transacted, this may possibly seem equal or superior to many Synods, and since it is even now confirmed by most of the Reformed Churches, I was unwilling to omit the mention of it. It was held, in the ninth year after the Conference at the Hague, by the Reformed Calvinians against the Arminian Remonstrants, the latter of whom complain, that it condemned them without a hearing.

"For the publication of the ACTS, the Divines chosen out of various districts of the United Provinces were, John Polyander, Anthony Walaus, Anthony Thysius, Daniel Heinsius, Festus Hommius, Daniel Colonius, and John Laets: But Dr. Wm. Bates informs us in his Life of A. Walaus, ' that the chief merit of the publication is due to Festus Hommius, who was a ready and elegant writer, and, as secretary to the Synod, had noted with greater diligence than 'the others, the matters that had been transacted.'-These ACTs were published at Dort in the year 1620, in folio, in the neat types of the Elzevirs at Leyden; and were soon afterwards executed with greater correctness, in the same year, at Hanover, in quarto, with the addition of a copious index.

"Prefixed to the ACTS stand, the EPISTLE of their High Mightinesses the States General, addressed to the Monarchs and Kings, to the Princes, Counts, Cities, and Magistrates, [of the Christian world], and vouching for the fidelity and authority of these ACTS,-and likewise the ample PREFACE of Daniel Heinsius, addressed to the Reformed Churches of Christ, concerning the origin and increase of the Dutch controversies, for the purpose of appeasing which, the Synod had been convened.

"The ACTs themselves consist of three parts: (1.) The rules for holding the Synod; the form of the Synodical oath; decrees and judgments concerning the translation of the Bible, catechizing, candidates for the sacred ministry, and concerning the removal of the abuses of printing; the Canons against the Five Points of the Remonstrants; the Confession of the Dutch Churches; the approbation of the Palatine Catechism; the judgment passed on the doctrine of Conrad Vorstius; a writing of the Remonstrants respecting the conditions on which the Synod ought to be held; the Theses of the Remonstrants on the Five Points,

Preface described by Fabricius, as the production of Daniel Heinsius, who had been lay-secretary to the Commissioners, chosen out of the States General to preside over the deliberations of the Synod. Not a word occurs in Fabricius concerning the avouched "fidelity and authority" of this Historical Preface: Those government-attributes are properly ascribed to the Acts alone, while the ample Preface," lately extolled as such a precious morsel of authentic church-history, is awarded to its final reviser and polisher, Daniel Heinsius. Had Mr. Scott consulted the article in Fabricius to which Mosheim referred him, he would have found a list of ten Calvinistic publications in support of the Synod, and fifteen against it; some of the former of which were more worthy of being translated, than the universally-neglected document which Mr. Scott has, unfortunately for himself, chosen for the exercise of his powers.

2.-Had he consulted that article, he would not have committed the strange mistake into which he has fallen in the 112th page of his performance. He has there informed his readers of his former state of ignorance concerning "the real Articles of the Synod," and that his "literal translation of them" was made from a copy " contained in the Sylloge Confessionum, OXFORD, 1804."-He has afforded many proofs, beside this, of his knowing very little about the contents of the bulky volume, "the Historical Preface" to which he has so painfully tried to explain. In the Account of his Life, which has been lately presented to the world by his son John, and which is highly creditable to his talents and filial affection, it is said, "The translation [of the Historical Preface] is made from "the Acts of the Synod, published by authority, in a Latin quarto "volume." That is the edition which, according to Fabricius, and as every learned man knows, contains an index, accurately denoting the very page in which those Articles might be found. Unfortunately, however, they are there_denominated "The CANONS of the Synod concerning the Five Points of the Remonstrants;" and as Mr. Scott does not seem to have been aware, that they are indiscriminately (and in some respects improperly) designated by even good writers Canons, Decrees, Articles, Sententia,] Sentiments, and Judgment, he could find no mention of ARTICLES in the original work, but was compelled to look for them in the Sylloge Confessionum, in which they offered themselves to his perusal under the more intelligible and familiar title of Sententia.

and the various exceptions and protestations against the Synod; a writing by Simon Episcopius, in which he defends himself; the confession of the two brothers Geisteeren; and, lastly, the orations of those very celebrated men, Balthasar Lydius, Martin Gregory, Joseph Hall, John Polyander, John Acronius, and of the memorable Episcopius.-(2.) The Judgments of the Foreign Divines on the Five Points of the Remonstrants.-(3.) The Judgments of the Dutch Divines on the same Points."