« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
But Cameron, who was a man of vast comprehension, exceeded Piscator in his endeavours to render Calvinism popular, if not invulnerable. It was not because he did not understand Arminianism, but because he wished to avoid the fate of Arminius, that he and his famous disciples in France chose to misinterpret some of the tenets of the Leyden Professor, in order to prepare a way for their own inventions. Cameron was the founder of that theological system which in England is generally known under the name of “ Baxterianism :" He borrowed the doctrine of General Redemption and the Universal Offer of Grace from Arminius, but it will be subsequently seen that these points were completely neutralized by the other appendages of his amended scheme of Calvinism.* Baxter says, in the Preface to his Saints' Rest : “ The middle way which Camero, L. Crocius, Martinius, Amyraldus, Davenant, with all the Divines of Britain and Bremen in the Synod of Dort go,-I think, is nearest the truth of any that I know who have written on those points of Redemption and Universal Grace.". In this manner Baxter quotes Cameron perpetually, as the inventor of this reputed “middle way."
Amyraut, or Amyraldus, of whom some mention is made in a preceding page, (16,) was in France the great patron of this more specious mode of Calvinism. He had studied Divinity under Cameron at Saumur, and had imbibed from his great master the principles of his religious and political creed. On the latter subject it is a pleasure to quote the following paragraph from Bayle: "In the Apology which Amyraut published in 1647 in behalf of the Protestants, he excuses, as well as he can, the civil wars of France : But he declares at the same tiine, that he by no means intends to justify the taking up of arms against one's lawful sovereign upon any pretence whatever; and that he always looked upon it as more agreeable to the nature of the gospel and the practice of the primitive church, to use no other arms than patience, tears, and prayers. · And whenever I reflect,' says he, on the history of our an-.
• This epithet seems to be contradictory to the following remark by Dr. Mosheim : " The more I examine this reconciling system (of the French Universalists], the more I am persuaded, that it is no more than ArmiNIANISM or PELAGIANISM artfulis dressed up, and ingeniously covered with a half-trausparent veil of specious but au.biguous expressions; and this judgment is confirmed by the language that is used in treating this subject by ihe modern followers of Amyraut, who express their sentiments with more couraye, plainness, and perspicuily, than ihe spirit of the times permitted their inaster to do."
But both these statements are reconcilable ; for the Doctor's observation applies only to those Universalists who were the succeísors of Amyraut, and who had been gradually liberated from the frammels imposed upon them by the Dort Synodists and their intemperate French Partizans.
Mosheim's description is also confirmatury of the results, which Professor Poelenburgh bas ably detailed, page 226.
cestors, I cannot avoid being grieved that they have not • crowned so many other noble virtues, which they have pro
posed for our example, with the imitation of the primitive • Christians in the invincible patience with which they bore 'the persecutions of the Emperors.'' These were the political principles of all the Universalists or Cameronists of France; and they were under no small obligation to Grotius for his Wishes for the Peace of the Church, and others of his apologetical pieces, which taught them a more excellent way than that which their turbulent predecessors had trodden. After the Revocation of the Edict of Nantz, they carried these and their enlarged religious principles into Holland, much to the regret of the rigid Dutch Calvinists, who openly complained, that the French Refugees had imported into that country a refined species of Arminianism.
But, on examination, the scheme of Cameron will not be easily mistaken for Arminianism. After Grotius had been appointed the Queen of Sweden's Ambassador to the Court of France, he informs his brother, that several of the French Protestant ministers had waited on him and given him a pressing invitation to join their communion in Paris. Among the rest, he states, M. Rivet's brother had called upon him, and then adds: “ Amyraut, a Pastor and Professor at Saumur, has also written in a most honourable manner concerning me to Marbaud, and has subjoined a hope that I will produce some degree of moderation in these controversies. He has written on those questions which have been discussed in Holland. He says, that the design of God in the creation of man, was, to bless 'man by the knowledge of himself; that Christ died simply • for all men ; and that it is the will of God that all men be "saved, but under the condition of faith.'—Yet this doctrine is weakened in no small degree by his asserting, that faith itself is • bestowed through a decree which has in it no condition, and no respect to any thing that either is in man or from him ; and that, when this faith has been once imparted, it cannot be over• thrown.'—He adopts the sentiment of Cameron, as do also many others, that the actions of the will in determining de'pend, by an inevitable necessity, upon a mode of the under
standing ;' from which flows this consequence, acknowledged by himself, “that the first man did not possess powers sufficient to repel the suggestions of the devil.' With this likewise agrees this other consequence, which he does not express, that even the fall of the devil was inevitable. It is difficult to con. ceive, how the men who hold such sentiments can explain the sins against conscience, and particularly that which is called the sin against the Holy Ghost."
In another letter to his brother, Grotius communicates the following most interesting information : “ I had with me to
day (Aug. 2, 1635,) three of the most learned of the Reformed Pastors,-Foucheur of Montepelier, and Mestrezat (Metresatus] and Daillé of this church Cat Paris]. They intreated me to join their communion; and said, that the resolutions of the • Synods of Alez and Charenton had been altered by new • decrees, and that communion had been offered to the Luther
ans. They hoped we accounted theirs to be a Christian Con• fession; they entertained this opinion about that of the • Remonstrants. They recollected this expression of mine in answer to Sibrandus-If St. Chrysostom or Melancthon were to come to them [the Calvinists], I wonder whether they would . deny them the right of communion. They had read my book on * The Truth of the Christian Religion, and my last counsels for
concord, both of which excited their high approval.-In reply, I commended these sentiments as being most consonant to the designs which I had always cherished, and said, that I had never concealed the wonderful pleasure which I derived from the opinions of Melancthon. In reference to the peace of the churches, I knew that it ought not to be disturbed by violent modes of acting, and that the conferences between learned men ought to be unfeltered.—They said, “ that they
were labouring for the reception of the Dutch Remonstrants • into communion with them, and had written to Rivet : Since. they had themselves been rendered more prudent by time, they hoped the Dutch (Calvinists] would do something in 'their favour, after they had maturely considered their reasons.' -When this conversation had passed between us, I added, that I was prepared, by those external symbols which had been instituted for this purpose, to testify the communion of spirit which I had always neld with them; and that I had at no period determined to abstain from communion. If I should go into a country, in which the Lutherans might be desirous to admit me to communion with them after knowing my sentiments on the Lord's Supper, I would act there in the same manner.–Of this mode of procedure they also approved.-I thank God, that the counsels of moderation have been so far of service, as to cause gentle breezes to blow from that quarter from which in former days the most furious blasts proceeded. I have no doubt, that not a few of these men entertain similar sentiments to ours on this subject. You will be able to speak about this affair with those of the Remonstrants who contain themselves within the bounds of modesty and of wishes for a fair and honourable concord; communicate it likewise to Uitenbogardt; that both he and they may may understand, that what I do is done for the most equitable reasons,—these reasons indeed are of such a description as, were I not to comply with them, would cause the crime to recoil upon me from those persons (the Dutch Calvinists] by whom we had been unjustly
condemned. The [French] Pastors requested me to publish my notes on the New Testament."
No person in modern times can form a just idea of the viru-, lence with which Amyraut was attacked, by the rigid chiefs of Calvinism, when he began to propound and explain the doctrines of his deceased preceptor. Those who did not approve of his hypothesis were alarmed at it as a novelty, particu. larly when they saw Peter du Moulin enter into a contest with him, for teaching doctrines contrary to the Synod of Dort and favouring Arminianism.* Not content with defaming Amyraut
* The intelligent reader will require no assurance from me respecting this fact,--that the history of these contests is, in the perusal, exceedingly irksome to a benevolent mind. Yet irksome as such an employment is, one cannot fail of being occasionally amused on instituting a few comparisons between the combatants.-The Remonstrants had stated their sentiments at the Synod of Dort, and they are recorded in a former part of this pamphlet: Du Moulin the quondam pacificator, to whom an allusion is made in page 153, com, posed a refutation, which he entitled “The Anatome of Armivíanism," and in which he bestowed the most opprobrious epithets on bis unoffending victims. This was the reward wbich'the Arminians obtained for asserting the Universal Good-will of God to man.-Amyraut and his Cameronists arose, and taught the same doctrine in appearance, --but with such a cunning salvo in favour of Calvinism, as, when properly understood, leaves that rigid system in the state in which it was from its commencement. They too decried Arminiavism ; and, as a proof of their predestinarian orthodoxy distorted its doctrines. Du Moulin became again a combatant, and, because his co-pastors would not express their Calvinism in the very terms which he employed he became far more furious against them thar against the Arininians.-Du Moulin, however, onght not to have been thus severe against his brethren ; for he had, in his Anatome of Arminianism, been guilty of reforming “ the received doctrine.” He thought that Calvinisin would be rendered more attractive when divested of the obnoxious brauch of Absolute Reprobationthe idea of which separation, Calvin himself had before very justly ridiculed. On this topic Du Moulin had used strong expressions :“ How abhorrent," says he,“ is this from the benignity and the justice of God, to give an infinite evil to a creature on whom he had bestowed a finite good, --and to create mau for the sole purpose of destroying him, that he may acquire glory to himself by such destruction !" For this offence he was dreadfully mal-ireated by our celebrated countryman Dr. Twisse, who, in his Vindication of the Grace, Power and Providence of God, reprehends in a most caustic style Du Moulin's scheme, and declares most solemnly, that, by it, “he imported into the " Reformed Churches pure and unsophisticated Arminianism.” Heavier charges than these are urged against him in eight chapters ; beside which he receives occasional flagellation in common with others, whóm the old Doctor attacks for the yearning of their natural affections.-Doctor Twisse bimself has been blamed for some concessions which he made to inuovators in certain parts of bis high Calvinistic production. But this accusation has been preferred by men who have not carefully perused the doctor's huge volume. Por, read in whatever part we may, if we think he has made an important concession, he will not leave us long in doubt, but with a happy inconsistency will resume in another shape what he had previously granted."
Here then are four kinds of prosessing Christians: Those who appear in the eyes of the other three the basest and most ignoble, receive in this instance the mildest species of correction. The petulance and visible irascibility gradually ascend through Amyraut and Du Moulin, till, like a chaplet of ill-scented flowers, they find a station, and rest on the brow of the renowned Dr. Twisse, encircling his learned temples., Palmam qui meruit ferat!How weak aud ignorant is human reason when it begins to frame for itself, as these quarrelsome Calvinists did, a system of Predestination which finds wo countenance in scripture, and concerning which they could uot agree among themselves.
and Mi'letiere, in his book entitled De Mosis Amyraldi Libro Judicium Du Moulin inveighed against the character of their deceased preceptor with all the acrimony of an unregenerate spirit, although Cameron had once been his intimate friend. The following are a few specimens of his objectionable performance: “Cameron was never tired of talking : He was an i Icessant chatterer that would have wearied even Bollanus to death. For if he bad found a man that would give him undivided attention, he would prosecute his discourse from an early hour in the morning till late at night without the least intermission. When I was at Paris, he frequently visited me, and was always accompanied by Milletiere his admirer. Sitting down by my side, he generally commenced a harangue of infinite length, while I listened to him in the deepest silence,for he could not endure any one to interrupt him. When on one occasion I had ventured to speak a few words, wrinkling his brow he exclaimed with indignation, Do not give me such interruption: Allow me to speak! Yet he talked about nothing except his own words or deeds,—what conversations he had held at different times with this or that merchant, counsellor, or divine,-how he composed a copy of verses impromptu after having left one of them, and sent it to him immediately, then would he repeat those verses from memory, to the great weariness of his auditors.” What criminality can be attached to all these circumstances, and to fifty others still more minute, which Du Moulin relates ? Nothing is more natural than for a learned man, after being secluded from society for weeks together, to disclose his mental stores to the first person with whom he meets, and whom he considers to be possessed of sufficient sense to appreciate the value of such a communication. The want of modesty is but in appearance, and the egotism is only temporary ; yet these healthful overflowings of genius are intellectual treats, which no man of letters would willingly forego.-But Du Moulin had more serious charges to produce : “ Cameron was a man of a restless disposition; and was always revolving in his mind and talking about some novelty. Among his friends, of whom I was one, he did not conceal, that there were many things in our [the Calvinistic] religion which he wished to see changed.--He made a similar confession in a letter to Lewis Cappel, in which he says: I have met with many things which I have no wish to disclose, and which the state of the times does not allow me to commit to paper.” He then gives an extract from a letter, which a London Calvinist sent to a French Di. vine at Nerac, and in which, having related that he had seen Cameron pass through the Metropolis, he subjoins,
“ He is a man of profound melancholy, and one that would be capable of defending a heresy." This was the grievance of which Du Moulin had the greatest reason to complain: He thought that