« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Dort-an Assembly destructive of Sacred Peace.” If favoured with health and opportunity, I intend to give a translation of Mosheim's volume, as well as of Balcanqual's Latin Journal, neither of which has ever yet been published in English. So much for Mr. Scott's accuracy about “the neglect of the authentic records,”—a highsounding phrase which, in the commencement of the same paragraph, he has applied to “the Historical Preface !"
V.- In the conclusion of my remarks on a few of Mr. Scott's radical mistakes and rash assertions, I cannot refrain from the expression of my unfeigned regret at beholding an aged and respectable clergyman spend some of the last days of his mortal pilgriinage, in attempting to communicate to an intolerant Dutch Preface an air of validity which it never possessed-except in his own imagination and in that of his admirers. If “the Remonstrants in general,” according to Mr. Scott's declaration, (Preface, vii,) “were far more favourable to Pelagians, nay, to Socinians, than “ to Calvinists,” it was Mr. Scott's duty to have demonstrated the existence of this alleged PELAGIANISM and SOCINIANISM, since he had the full articles of those good men's belief in his possession. The members of the Synod, who assisted in the condemnation of the Remonstrants, formed a judgment of their doctrines-either from the Articles which had been presented by the persons cited, -or, (which was far more agreeable to the Dutch members,) from the unaccredited and private writings of a few pamphleteers, who had adopted some of the doctrines of General Redemption, but had not been admitted into the communion of the Arminians. Yet even this last class of Calvinistic Divines, highly culpable and disingenuous as was their conduct, never attempted, in that Synod, to fasten upon the Arminians the double charge of Pelagianism and Socinianism, from such a paltry and unauthenticated pamphlet as this “ Historical Preface” by Heinsicus. I have already referred my readers to the Tenets of the Remonstrants, translated by Bishop Womack into sterling old English, (pp. 90, 150,) and those were the genuine points which should have attracted the theological or metaphysical skill of all the Dort Synodists, and of Mr. Scott their modern defender. But the good Bishop, in the title-page to his Examination of Tilenus, has very significantly described the conduct which the Synodists pursued: “The Five Articles were voted, stated and imposed, but not disputed, at the Synod of Dort.” This was a safe and prudent course; for if those reverend divines had entered into a regular logical dispute on those Theses separately, in the hands of such a man as the youthful Episcopius, whose literary prowess all admired and the greater portion of them dreaded, they would have suffered such a defeat as would have been injurious to Calvinism, and would have paralysed the politic designs of the Dutch members. It was wise therefore in them, to drive the cited persons from the Synod.
The unguarded manner in which some pious yet ill-informed Arminians praise Mr. Scott's “ Christian moderation," has had the tendency to sanctify and perpetuate the gross and unfounded slanders which he has published respecting some of the best men that ever lived. His “Christian moderation” respecting Arminia anism, I could never yet discover; on the contrary, I have given one instance, (p. clv,) out of many which might be adduced, of his unwillingness either to instruct himself, or to undeceive others, about the real “tenets of the Remonstrants,” in that summary of their scriptural belief which they have always professed. If, in the preceding pages, I have shewn the extreme shallowness of Mr. Scott's acquaintance even with the history of his own favourite opinions, (and I could produce still stronger proofs of his woeful deficiency of knowledge on high Predestinarian matters, on which he has pronounced dogmatically, quasi ex cathedrá,). I would ask, Was such a writer at all qualified to tender correct information to the public, respecting the character or conduct of those whom he accounted his doctrinal adversaries? His conduct will appear the more reprehensible, when it is considered, that the small work, in which these and many as palpable mistakes occur, boasts of being the result of deeper research and more correct information than had been displayed in one of his former publi, cations. In the Preface, he says, “ The author had erroneously " adopted, and aided in circulating, a gross misrepresentation of “ the Synod and its decisions, in his Remarks on the REFUTATION “OF CALVINISH ; and, having discovered his mistake previously " to the publication of a second edition of that work, he was “induced to do what he could to counteract that misrepresenta “ation, and to vindicate the Synod from the atrocious calumnies “ with which it has been wilfully or inadvertently traduced.” These traducers are said, in the Life by his son, to have “repeated “ statements taken upon trust, in a manner little creditable either “ to their DILIGENCE or their cANDOUR!" After a perusal of the preceding pages, I am afraid, all impartial readers will be inclined to award this censure to Mr. Scott and his son. Few of them, I am persuaded, would ever have written, against any of their opponents, such a severe sentence, as the following, which is the conclusion of Mr. Scott's Preface; and though the suggestion, Palmam qui meruit ferat, might arise in the minds of some of them, they would not have given it this form of expression: “ The groundless charges brought by many against the “ whole body, cannot be considered as excusable misapprehen“ sion: They must be either intentional misrepresentation, or the “ INEXCUSABLE PRESUMPTION of writing on subjects which the « writers have never studied, and against persons, and descriptions « of persons, of whose tenets, AMIDST MOST ABUNDANT MEANS “ OF. INFORMATION, they remain wilfully ignorant. A fair and “ impartial opponent is entitled to respect, but I can only pity “ such controversialists.-THOMAS Scott."
I have called “the Historical Preface” intolerant, and the proof is to be had in every section of its multifarious contents.* Both the parties concerned were Presbyterians. The Remonstants were patronized by the chief men in the Republic, even by Prince Maurice himself: But a political difference, respecting a truce with Spain, separated Olden Barneveldt and the Prince, and made the latter their enemy. (Pp. 586, 594.). It should, however, never be forgotten, to the praise of the Arminians, that it was during the many years of their having the political ascendancy in the State, they requested their bigotted opponents to allow them barely a toleration.t This, "the Historial Preface” itself plainly intimates, they could with difficulty obtain while the rulers were in their favour: But as soon as Prince Maurice united himself with the Calvinists, and received promises of succour from our King James, the Remonstrants were no longer permitted to enjoy the free exercise of their religion, but were in every direction persecuted and tormented. An open avowal of the persecuting principle is frequently made in the work which Mr. Scott has translated; and it forms a part of his ingenious occupation in the notes, to shew, as usual, without any authentic data, how richly the Arminians deserved such treatment.
In a succeeding page (573) I have written a few remarks on one of Mr. Scott's unfounded palliations of Dutch Intolerance.
Let the reader examine even tbe partial statements of the Historical Preface itself, in pages 67, 69, 72, 75, &c., and he will soon discover the native intolerance of Calvinism. So far only as any man recedes from the rigidity of that doctrinal system, so far, in general, his principles of Toleration seem to assume a milder and more Christian aspect.
+ See, in page 567, the speech delivered by Grotius in the year 1616. # Perhaps a worse instance cannot be adduced than the following, in whiclt, by something beyond a tacit assent, Mr. Scott has identified his opinions on this subject with those of the Bishop of Peterborough, of which, however, all men of moderation grievously complain, whether such“ inquisitions” be instituted by Calvinists or reputed Arminians. After relating the audience which the States of Holland granted to Vytenbogart, and in which “ he had odiously traduced the proceedings of the rest of the pastors as the persons, who, by the demand “ of a declaration, endeavoured to bring a new inquisition into the Churches, and
one by no means to be endured, he obtained that the same persons should be “ forbidden any more to demand this declaration from the Remonstrants,” the HISTORICAL PREFACE gives some account of the proceedings of the Calvinists, who “ explained in writing their counsel on the best way of peace, and concerning " the conditions by which they thought a Toleration should be circumscribed ; "and that the proposed Theses, concerning which a declaration had been “ demanded, were extant, in so many words, in the Confession and Catechism of “the Belgic Churches ; and that the Anti-theses themselves had been delivered “ in public writings, by many persons with whom the Remonstrants had much “ communication in these regions.". These Calvinistic excuses are the same as are adopted by the friends of the Bishop of Peterborough. The reader will find a long note on this topic in the Works of Arminius, (vol. i, p. 512,) in which, much as I dislike this species of " inquisition,” I have demonstrated the superiority of the Bishop's plan to that of the dominant Dutch Presbyterians.
He there says, that the Toleration, for which the Arminians pleaded in Holland when their friends were at the helm of government, “is entirely different from any thing known in Britain.” I have briefly proved, that such a Toleration is exactly similar to that which is now allowed in the Episcopal Church of England ; and I know it to be a fact, admitting of most abundant confirmation, that, in those days which, since the Reformation from Popery, have generally been depicted as the worst and most tyramical, an Arminian sermon might frequently be heard, on a Sunday morning, from the vicar of the parish; while, in the afternoon of the same day, a Calvinistic Lecturer, was permitted to deliver to the parishioners a high Predestinarian discourse. The case of Travers and Hooker is one, out of many, to the point, and is thus related by Isaac Walton: “But Mr. Travers had taken orders by the Presbytery in Antwerp, and, with them, some opinions that could never be eradicated,) and if in any thing he was transported, it was in an extreme desire to set up that government in this nation: For the promoting of which he had a correspondence with Theodore Beza at Geneva, and others in Scotland, and was one of the chiefest assistants to Mr. Cartwright in that design. Mr. Travers had also a particular hope, to set up this government in the Temple; and, to that end, used his most zealous endeavours to be Master of it: And his being disappointed, by Mr. Hooker's a imittance, proved the occasion of a public opposition betwi: t them, in their sermons. Many of which concerning the Doctrines* and CEREMONIES of this Church: Insomuch that,
I am aware, that Mr. Scott has tried most ingeniously to prove HOOKER a Calvinist : But, by a far less display of ingenuity, one might prove ARMINIUS himself to have been a Calvinist! For every quotation which Mr. Scott has made from that able writer, in his “ Force of Truth,” I will engage to produce a corresponding one from Arminius, that shall equal it in evangelical purity and doctrinal correctness,
On this subject, Dr. WORDSWORTI's Ecclesiastical Biography, (vol. iv, p. 269,) contains an excellent note, an extract from which I here subjoin :* At the time when Hooker wrote, Calvinism, doctrinal as well as disciplinarian, ! had made considerable progress in England ; and Hooker's, unhappily for his own peace of mind, were almost the only works of great extent which were calcu-' lated to arrest the progress of the doctrinal Calvinists. In the year 1599, a tract was published in 4to. entitled, A Christian Letter of certaine English Prolestants, unfair , ed favourers of the present state of Religion, authorised and professed in England, unto that reverend and learned man, Mr. R. Hooker, requiring resolution in certaine matters of doctrine, (which seeme to overthrow the foundation of Christian Religion, and of the Church among us,) expresslie contained in his five books of Ecclesiasticall Pollicie. ' This book is one of the earliest productions of those mal-contents, who were afterwards called doctrinal Puritans. It is the doctrines of Hooker with which they quartel ; and they profess (in contradistinction to the abettors of the Geneva Discipline,) an unfeigned Attachment to the external establishments of the Church of England. The work is further deserving of notice, as exhibiting, I believe, the earliest example, both in the matter and manner of the argument, of those numerous publications in which some Calvinistic writers have thoughtlessly and intemperately indulged themselves, from the days of this Christian Letter, and rom Prynne and Hick. man downwards, to Edwards, and Toplady, and Bowman, and Sir Richard Hill,
as St. Paul'withstood St. Peter to his face,' so did they withstand each other in their sermons; for, as one hath pleasantly expressed it, • The forenoon sermon spake CANTERBURY, and the afternoon, Geneva. In these sermons, there was little of bitterness; but each brought all the reasons he was able, to prove
his adversary's opinion erroneous.”—This was not a solitary instance, even in those days when Arminianism was not known by that appellation, though “ the matter signified” was aetually contained in the formularies of the Church, and preached by eminent divines. When acting in the capacity of a moderator between them, Archbishop: Whitgift had a very delicate office to perform,-he had to decide between his love for Calvinism and his love for Episcopacy; but the latter eventually prevailed. Considering the great difference between that period and the reign of Charles the First, his Grace was a much stricter disciplinarian than Archbishop Laud. In the days of the latter, even when he was Bishop of London, Arminian and Calvinian doctrines were delivered, in the same churches, throughout the Metropolis, as frequently as they are at present. The eventful history of that period abounds in proofs of this fact ; and we have a remarkable confirmation of it, in a preceding page, (live) in which a man well acquainted with city affairs, the Rev. William Jenkyn, “ Minister of Christ Church, London," commu« nicates the following information to his noble audience, the House of Peers : “Painful zealous ministers, that will tell us of our sins
are now looked upon as busy men, as those that meddle with the “ State: They are bid to keep to their texts; as if that preaching “ which is a coming close up to your lusts, were a going away “ from our texts. În the Bishops' times, we were suffered to preach
any thing so we came not near their sins: And this Prelacy is still and Overton.-Can it be believed, the Authors of the
Letter in question tax the meek, the wise, the virtuous, the saint-like Richard Hooker, with betraying and renouncing the doctrines to which he had solemnly subscribed ? They charge him with designs of bringing back Popery. They accuse him of a wanton attack on the memory of Calvin. They condemn him of unsoundness of doctrine respecting Grace, and Free-will, and Justification, and Predestination, and the conditions of the Christian Covenant, and the Sacraments of the Christian Church. It is curious to see the Thirty-nine Articles, the Liturgy, the Homilies, Bishop Jewel's Apology, Dean Nowell's Catechism, and the writings of many others of Hooker's Protestant predecessors, solemnly cited against him, and confronted in due form with extracts from the Ecclesiastical Polity, for the purpose of convicting him of deserting and denying the principles of that Church of which he was a Minister, in whose cause he toiled day and night, and in the defence of which, I believe, it may truly be said, that it was God's good pleasure that he should die.”
The dispute between Travers and Hooker is another illustration of the remark in page 686 : “ With very few exceptions, the most violent Puritans and the greatest sticklers against the prescribed ceremonies, from the dispersion under the persecuting Mary down to the commencement of the reign of King James, were the highest Predestinarians; and their best and most successful opponents were generally learned and pious individuals, who were as conspicuous for their attachment to the doctrines of General Redemption as to the decent rites and obser-, vances of the Ancients."