Book XIV. Fi'om the Year IGOl, to that part of the Seventeenth Century, wherein the Author wrote and conchided his History

A brief Summary, — The excesses of the Reformation, with respect to Predestination and Free Will, discovered in Holland. — Arminius, who owns them, falls into other excesses. — Parties of Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants. — The Synod of Dort, where the excesses of Calvinian Justification are clearly approved, — Monstrous Doctrine on the certainty of Salvation, and the justice of the most wicked persons. — Consequences equally as absurd, concerning Infant Sanctification, decided in the Synod. — The Synod's procedure justifies the Church of Rome against Protestants, — Arminianism, in the main, left entire, notwithstanding the decisions of Dort. — Pelagianism tolerated, and the suspicion of Socianism the sole cause of rejecting the Arminians. — The uselessness of Synodical decisions among Protestants. — The Synod of Dort's connivance at an infinity of capital errors, whilst bent on maintaining the particular Dogmata of Calvinism. — These Dogmata confessed at the beginning for- essential, at last reduced almost to nothing. — Decree of Charenton for receiving the Lutherans to Communion. — Consequence of this decree, which changes the state of Controversies, — The distinction of articles, Fundamental and not Fundamental, obliges Protestants to own, at last, the Church of Rome for a true Church, affording salvation to her members. — Conference of Cassel between the Lutherans and Calvinists. — Their agreement, wherein decisive grounds are established for Communion under one kind. — Present state of Controversies in Germany. — The opinion concerning Universal Grace prevails in France — Is condemned at Geneva and among the Swiss — The question decided by th.e Magistrate. — Formulary established. — The errors of this Formulary with respect to the Hebrew text. — Another decree concerning Faith, made at Geneva. — That Church impeached by Mr. Claude of making a schism from the rest of the Churches by her new decisions. — Reflections on the Test, in which the Reality remains entire. — Acknowledgment of the Protestant Church of England, that the Mass and Invocation of Saints may have a good sense.

XIV.] TIIK VARIATIOXS, KTC. 221

— Intolerable excesses of Calviaisin. — Free-will dedroyed, and God made the author of sin. — Beza^s words.

The subject of Grace and Free-will was carried to such lengths in the Reformation, that it was impossible even Protestants themselves should not be at last sensible of t:hese exorbitancies. In order to destroy Pelagianism, Avhich they were determined to (ix on the Church of Rome, they had cast themselves into the opposite extremes, insomuch that the very name of Free-will excited a horror in them. There never had been such a thing in men or angels ; nay, impossible it should have been : nor had the Stoics themselves ever made Fate more rigid and inflexible. Predestination reached even to sin itself, and God was not less the cause of evd actions than of good ; such were L'.ither's sentiments: Calvin had followed them, and Beza, the most renowned of his disciples, had published " A Brief Exposition of tlie Chief Points of the Christian Religion," where he laid down this principle, " that God does all things according to his determined counsel, even those that are wicked and execrable¹."

— Adam's Sin ordained by God.

He had extended this principle as far as the sin of tlie first Man, which, according to him, was not committed but by God's will and appointment, on account, that " he having ordained the end f," which v.as to glorify his justice in the punishment of the Reprobate, " must likewise have ordained the proportionable causes leading to that end," to wit, sins which lead to eternal damnation, and in i)articular that of Adam, the origin of all the rest; so "that the corruption of the principal work of God," namely, the first Man, " did not happen by chance, nor without the decree and just will of Go(l;|:."

— Inevitable necessity in Adam.

It is true, this author maintains at the same time, "that the will of man, which was created good, made itself evil & :" but then he understands and repeats se\eral times, that what is voluntary, is withal necessary || ; so that nothing hinders the will of sinning from being ever the less the fatal consequence of a hard and unavoidable necessity; and if men will reply,

'^ that they had not the power of resisting the will of God," Beza does not answer them as he ought to do, that God does not move tiiem to sin, but says only, " they must be left to plead against him, who will be well able to defend his own cause."

— This Doctrine of Beza taken from Calvin.

This doctrine of Beza was taken from Calvin, who maintains, in express terms *, " that Adam could not avoid falling, yet was nevertheless guilty, because he fell voluntarily ;" which he undertakes to prove in his Institution, and reduces the Avhole of his doctrine to two principles : the first, that the will of God causes in all things, even in our wills, without excepting that of Adam, an inevitable necessity ; the second, that this necessity is no excuse for sinners. Hereby it is plain, he preserves free will in name only, even in the state of innocence ; and after this there is no room for disf)uting whether he makes God the author of sin, since besides his frequently drawing this consequence, it is but too evident, by the principles he lays down, that the will of God is the sole cause of that necessity imposed on all that sin |.

Nor indeed are Calvin's sentiments, and those of the first reformers, any longer disputed now, as to that point ; and after owning what they have said upon it, *' even that God pushes on the wicked to enormous crimes, and that he is in some sort the cause of sin |," his disciples think they have sufficiently justified the Reformation from these so impious expressions, by reason that " they have not been employed for more than a hundred years § ;" as if it were not a sufficient conviction of the evil spirit she was conceived in, to confess in her very authors such horrid blasphemies.

— The Tenets ivhich Calvin and Bexa superadded to those of Luther.

Such, therefore, was the fatality which Calvin and Beza taught after Luther; and thereto the aforesaid dogmata were added by them regarding the certainty of Salvation and the inamissibility of justice ||. As much as to say, true justifying faith could never be lost : those that have it are surely assured of having it, and thereby are not only assured of their present

;|; Jur. jiigem. sur les mech. Sect. xvii. pp. 142, 143. § Jur, Ibid,

II S. 1, ix. u, 3, et secj.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 223 justice, as spoke the Lutherans, but also of their eternal salvation, and this with an absolute and infallible certainty : assured, by consequence, of dying just, whatever crimes they might commit; and not only of dying just, but also of continuing so in sin itself, because without that, they could not maintain the sense given by them to this text of St. Paul, " the gifts and calling of God are without repentance²."

— Every Believer certified of his Perseverance and Salvation: and this, in Calvinism, the chief foundation of Reliyion.

This is what Beza likewise decided in the same exposition of faith, where he said, " that to the elect alone was granted the gift of faith:" that this faith, which is proper and peculiar to the elect, consists in depending with certainty, each " one for himself, on their election :" whence it follows, ^' that whosoever hath this gift of true faith, ought to rest assure<l of his perseverance." For as he says j, " What does it avail me to believe, if I be not assured (perseverance in faith being requisite) that perseverance will be given me ?" Then he reckons among the fruits of this doctrine, that it alone teaches us to be assured of our faith for the time to come: which he takes to be of such importance, " that those,³" says he, "who oppose this, do certainly overthrow the chief foundation of the Christian religion."

— This certainty of One's own particular Salvation, as great as if God himself had given it us by His own Mouth.

Thus, this certainty, which every man hath of his own faith and perseverance, is not only a certainty of faith, but also the principal foundation of the Christian religion : and to shew that he speaks not here of a moral and conjectural certainty, Beza adds |, '^' that we have it in our power to know whether we be predestined to salvation, and to be assured of the glorihcation which we expect, on account of which all Satan's war is waged against us; yea, say I, assured," continues he, "not by our fancy, but by conclusions as certain as if we had ascended into heaven to hear that sentence from the mouth of God.'"⁴ He will not have the faithful as[)ire to less certainty than this : and after proposing the means of attaining to it, which he places in the certain knowledge we have of the faith that is in us, he concludes, " we thereby learn that we are given to the Son according to God's purpose and predestination : by con- sequence," proceeds he, " since that God is unalterable, since that perseverance in the faith is requisite to salvation, and being made certain of our predestination, glorification is annexed to it by an indissoluble hand: how can we doubt of perseverance, and finally of our salvation ?"

— Calvinists begin to be sensible of these Excesses.

As the Lutherans, no less than the Catholics, abominated these dogmata, and the writings of the first were read with a more favourable prevention by the Calvinists, the horror of these sentiments, unheard of till Calvin's days, spread itself by little and little among the Calvinian churches. Men began to awake, and perceive how horrible it was, that a true believer could not fear for his salvation in contradiction to this precept of the Apostle : "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling⁵." If it be a temptation and weakness to fear for one"'s salvation, as in Calvinism men are forced to say, why does St. Paul command this fear ; and can a temptation fall within the precept.''

— 2'hey opposed this Fear commanded by St. Paul.

The answer returned by them was not satisfactory. '' The believer trembles," said they, " when he regards himself, because, however just he may be, he hath nothing in himself but death and damnation ; and would indeed be damned, were he judged with rigour. But resting assured that he shall not be so judged, what has he to fear? the future," say they ; " because should lie forsake God, he would perish :" weak reasoning ! since, besides their holding the condition itself impossible, they hold, moreover, that the true faithful ought to believe assuredly that they shall persevere. Thus, in all manner of ways, the fear inspired by St. Paul is banished, and salvation rendered certain.

1 0. — Frivolous Evasion.

When they answer, — without fearing for salvation, there are other chastisements enough to afford just occasion of trembling ; the Catholics and Lutherans reply, that this fear mentioned by St. Paul does manifestly regard salvation : " Work out," says he, " your own salvation with fear and trembling." The Apostle inspired a terror reaching so far as to fear making

X£V.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 225 shipwreck in the faith, as well as in a good conscience* ; and Jesus Christ himself hath said, " fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell | ;" a precept which concerned the faithful as well as the rest, and made them fear no less a thing than the loss of their own souls. To these proofs they added those from experience : the idolatries, and disastrous fall of a Solomon, adorned undoubtedly at first with all the gilts of grace ; the abominable crimes of a David ; besides what every person is conscious of in his own regard. What, then, is it fitting that, without security against crimes, you should be secure against their jjenalties ; and that he, who once believed himself truly faithful, should be obliged to believe that he is sure of for";iveness, let him fall into whatsoever^ abommations he may. But must he lose this certainty m the midst of crimes ? — he must then necessarily lose the remembrance of his faith and of the grace he has received. Does he not lose it ? — he must then remain as secure in crimes, as in innocence ; and, provided he argue aright according to the principles of his sect, he shall find therein wherewith to condemn all whatever doubts might arise of his conversion ; so that, whilst he continues to li\e amidst disorders, he will be sure not to die in them : or else, will be sure he never had been a true believer when he most believed himself such ; and there you see him in despair, never able to hope for more certainty of his salvation than he had enjoyed then nor able, do what he will, ever to secure himself, in this life, that he shall not relapse into the deplorable state he now is in. What remedy for all this, unless to conclude, that the infallible certainty, boasted of in Calvinism, suits not with this life, and that nothing is more rash nor pernicious than such certainty.

— Justifying Faith not forfeited by sin.

But how much is it more so, to hold one's self assured, I do not say to recover lost grace, with true justifying faith, but not to lose them in sin itself; to remain therein still just and regenerated ; to preserve therein the Holy Ghost, and the seed of life, as the Calvinists undoubtedly believe J, if they follow Calvin and Beza and the other chief doctors of their sect ? For, according to them, justifying faith is peculiar to the sole elect, who are never deprived of it ; and Beza said, in the Exposition so often quoted §, " that faith, although it be as it were buried sometimes in the elect of God, in order to make

• 1 Tim. i. 19. t ^i-M- X- 20. + S. 1. ix. n. 15. § Ch. iv. Cone, part 13. p. 74. VOL. II. Q them sensible of their infirmity, yet it never is without the fear of God, and charity for our neighbour." And a httle furtber on⁶, he says two things concerning the spirit of adoption : first, " that those, who are planted in the Cburch only for a time, do never receive it;" second, " that those who are admitted among the people of God by this spirit of adoption, do never go forth from them."

— What Scripture-texts Cahinists ground themselves on.

This doctrine was grounded on these texts: " God is not like to man, so as to be a liar ; nor like to the son of man, so as to repent |." Which also was the reason why St. Paul said, " That the gifts and calling of God are without repentance ;|;." What then, does not man lose any of the gifts of God in adulteries, in homicides, in the blackest of crimes, not even in idolatry ? And if some of them at least may be lost for a time and during this state, why should not justifying faith, and the presence of the Holy Ghost, be of this number, nothing being more incompatible with the state of sin, than such Graces ?

13, — Question proposed to the Ccdmnists : ivhether a Believer were damned that died in his crime.

In regard to this last difficulty, a very material query was also proposed, which I beg may be attentively considered, because it will be the subject of an important dispute presently to be treated of. The Calvinist is therefore asked, whether this true believer, David for instance, fallen into adultery and murder, would be saved or damned dying in this state before he had done penance ? None durst answer, he would be saved ; and indeed, how can a Christian maintain that any may be saved with such crimes? This true believer would be therefore damned, dying in this state ; this true believer, in this state, has therefore ceased to be just, since none Avill ever say of a just man, that he would be damned dying in his justice.

— The Ccdvinists^ inextricable confusion under this question.

To answer, he shall not die in his sin, but will do penance if he be of the number of the predestinated, is saying nothing ; for it is not predestination, nor the penance Ave shall do one day, Avhich justifies and makes us saints ; otherwise, a predestinated infidel would actually be sanctified and justified even

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 227 before he had faith and repentance ; since, before he had either of them, he was ah-eady certainly predestinated ; God had ah-eady certainly decreed he should have them.

If it be answered, this infidel is not actually justified and sanctified, because he has not as yet had faith, and repentance, although he be to have them hereafter ; whereas, the true believer has them already : here arises a new perplexity ; for it would follow from thence, that faith and repentance, but once exercised by the faithful, justify and sanctify them actually and for ever, although ceasing to exercise them, and even abandoning them by abominable crimes : a thing more horrible to conceive than all hitherto said on this subject,

— This no mdifferent question.

Again, this is no chimerical question ; it is a question that every believer, when he sins, should make to himself: or rather, it is a judgment he ought to pronounce ; were I to die in the state I am in, I should be damned. To add after this, but I am predestinated, and shall amend one day ; and by reason of this future amendment, am, at this instant, just and yholy and a living member of Christ Jesus, is utter blindness.

— These difficulties were the occasion of many forsaking

Calvinism.

Whilst Catholics, and Lutherans more readily listened to than they in the new Reformation, urged home these arguments, many Calvinists were convinced; and seeing on the other hand amongst the Lutherans a more engaging doctrine, they were attracted by it *. A general will in God to save all mankind ; in Jesus Christ, a sincere intention to redeem them, and means sufficient offered unto all, was what the Lutherans taught in the book of Concord. We have seen as much ; we have seen even their excesses regarding these offered means and the co-operation of free-will : they gave daily more and more into these sentiments, and the Calvinists began to listen to them, principally in Holland.

— Arminius\s disjmte and excesses. — IGOl, 1602.

James Arminius, a famous minister of Amsterdam, and since Professor of Divinity in the University of Leydon, was the first that declared himself in the university against the maxims q2

228 THE IIISTOUV OF [fiOOK received in the Churches of his country : but a man of so vehement a temper was not Hkely to keep within just boimds. He openly blamed Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, and the rest, whom Calvinism accounted her main pillars and support⁷. But he impugned excesses with other excesses; and besides his apparently drawing near to the Pelagians, was suspected, nor without reason, of something worse ; certain words falling from him, made him be believed favourable to Socinianism, and a great number of his disciples turning afterwards to that side, confirmed the suspicion.

— Gomar^s opposition to him in defence of Calvinism. — Party of Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants.

He met with a terrible adversary in the person of Francis Gomar, Professor of Divinity in the University of Groningen, a rigorous Calvinist, if ever there was one. The academies divided themselves between these two Professors : the division increased ; the ministers espou-sed the quarrel ; Arminius beheld whole Churches in his party. His death did not end the dispute. And the minds of men on both sides were so inflamed under the names of Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants, namely of Arminians and Gomarists, that the United Provinces saw themselves on the very brink of a civil war.

— The Prince of Orange upholds the first, Barneveld the second Party.

Maurice prince of Orange had his reasons for supporting the Gomarists. Barneveld, his enemy, was judged favourable to the Arminians ; and the reason of it was his proposing a mutual toleration and imposing silence on both parties f ,

This indeed answered the wishes of the Remonstrants. A party just shooting up, and as yet but weak, asks no more than time to gather strength : but the ministers, among whom Gomar prevailed, were determined on victory, and the prince of Orange had more skill than to let a party strike root, which he judged as opposite to his grandeur as to the primitive maxims of the Reformation.

— The Remonstrants or Arminians condemned in the Provincial Synods. — Convocation of the Synod of Dort.

The provincial Synods had done nothing but aggravate the evil by condemning the Remonstrants ; it was necessary to

-j- Ibid.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 229 proceed at length to a greater remedy : Avberefore the Statesgeneral assembled a national Synod, and invited to it all those of their religion in every conntry. Upon this invitation England, Scotland, the Palatinate. Hesse, the Swiss, the republics of Geneva, of Bremen, and Embden, in a word, the whole body of the Reformation not united to the Lutherans, sent deputies, with the exception of the French, whom reasons of state prevented ; and of all these deputies, in conjunction with those of the whole United Provinces, was composed that famous Synod of Dort, whose doctrine and procedure we are now to relate.

— Opening of the Synod, 1618.

This assembly opened the 14th of November, 1618, with a sermon preached by Balthasar Lydius, minister of Dort. The first sessions were taken up in regulating divers matters of discipline, or of procedure ; nor was it till the 13th of December, in the thirty-first sitting, that, properly speaking, they began to treat of doctrine.

— The dispute reduced to Jive heads. — Declaration of the Remonstrants in genercd touching these five heads.

In order to understand in what manner they proceeded there, it is necessary to know that, after many books and conferences, the dispute was at length reduced to five heads. The first regarded predestination ; the second, the universality of redemption ; the third and the fourth, which were always treated together, regarded the corruption of man and his conversion ; the fifth regarded perseverance.

On these five heads, the Remonstrants had declared in general, in full Synod, by the mouth of Simon Episcopius, Professor of Divinity at Leyden, who always appears at their head, that men of great renown and repute in the Reformation had laid down such things as agreed neither with God's wisdom, nor with his goodness and justice, nor with the love which Jesus Christ bore to all men, nor with his satisfaction and merits, nor with the sanctity of preaching and the ministry, nor with the useof the sacraments, nor, in fine, with the duties of a Christian. These great men, whom they impeached, were the authors of the Reformation, — Calvin, Reza, Zanchius, and the others, whom they were not allowed to name, but whom they had not spared in their writings. After this general declaration of their sentiments, they explained themselves in particular as⁸ to the five articles⁹ ; and their declaration attacked principally the certainty of salvation, and the inamissibility of justice — tenets by which, they pretended, piety was ruined in the Reformation, and so fine a name discredited. I shall relate the substance of this declaration of the Remonstrants, in order that it may be better understood what chiefly was the subject matter of the deliberation and the result thereof, in the decisions of the Synod.

— The import of the Remonstrants' declaration as to each . particular. — As to Predestination.

Concerning Predestination, they said f — " They ought not to own in God any absolute decree, whereby he had determined to give Jesus Christ to the elect alone, no more than to give to them alone by an efficacious vocation, faith, justification, perseverance, and glory ; but that he had appointed Jesus Christ the common redeemer of the whole world, and resolved, by this decree, to justify and save all those who should believe in him, and at the same time to give to all of them sufficient means in order to be saved ; that none perished through want of these means, but through the abuse thereof ; that the absolute and especial election of particular persons was made in view of their faith and future perseverance, nor was there any election but conditional ; and that reprobation likewise was made in view of men's infidelity and perseverance in so great an evil."

— Doctrine of the Remonstrants concerning Infant Baptism, and ivhat they would conclude from it.

They added two points Avorthy of particular consideration : the first, that all children of the faithful Avere sanctified, and that none of them, dying before the use of reason, are damned ; the second, that with much more reason none of these children dying after baptism, before the use of reason, are damned^.

In saying that all the children of the faithful are sanctified, they did but repeat what we have clearly seen in the Calvinian Confessions of Faith ; and if they be sanctified, it is evident they cannot be damned in this state. But after this first article, the second seemed unnecessary ; for if these children were secure of their salvation before baptism, after its reception there could be no question of it. It was therefore with a particular design that this second article was inserted, and the Remonstrants would thereby denote the inconstancy of the

♦ Sess. xxxi. p. 112. f Ibid. + Art. ix. 10. Ibid.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 231

Calvinists, who on one hand, to s'ulve the baptism o'lven to all these children, said, they were all saints, and born in the covenant, the sign whereof, by consequence, could not be refused them ; and to salve, on the other hand, the doctrine of the inamissibility of justice, they said that baptism given to children had not its effect, but in the predestinated alone ; so that the baptized that lived ill afterwards never had been saints, not even with the baptism they had received in their infancy.

Remark, I beseech the judicious reader, this important difficulty; it strikes home to the question of inamissibility, and it will be curious to behold how the Synod will behave in this regard.

— Declaration of the Remonstrants concerning the universality of Redemption.

As to the second head, regarding the universality of redemption, the Remonstrants said*, that " the price paid by the Son of God was not only sufficient to all, but actually offered for all and every individual person ; that none were excluded from the fruit of redemption by an absolute decree, or otherwise than by their own fault ; that God, prevailed with by his Son, had made a new treaty with all mankind, although sinners and damned." They said, by this treaty he had bound himself in respect of all, to afford them those sufficient means as abovementioned : " but that the remission of sins, merited for all, was not given actually, except through actual faith, whereby man believed actually in Jesus Christ ;" by which words they gave to understand, that whosoever lost, by his crimes, actual faith which justifies us, lost also, together with it, justifying grace and sanctity ; finally, they said also, " none ought to believe Jesus Christ died for him, save only those for whom he died in effect j; insomuch that the reprobate, for whom .]esus Christ did not die, whatsoever some might think of them, ought not to believe that he died for them." This article reached much further than it seemed. For the design of it was to show (according to Calvin's and the Calvinists' doctrine, who laid down for an undoubted dogma, that Jesus Christ did not die in any sort but for the predestinated, and in no sort for the reprobate) that it followed from thence, that to be enabled to say, Jesus Christ died for me, one ought to be assured, with an absolute certainty, of his predestination and eternal happiness, without ever being able to say, " he died for me, but 1 have rendered his death and redemption unserviceable to me," — a doctrine which defeats all preaching of the word to Christians, who, if bad livers, are continually told they have made themselves unworthy of being redeemed by Jesus Christ. Accordingly, this was one of those articles by which the Remonstrants maintained, that, in the Reformation, all the sincerity and holiness of preaching was subverted, as well as this text of St. Peter— " They have denied the Lord that bought them, and brought upon themselves swift perdition¹⁰."

26,— TJieir doctrine as to the third and fourth head.

Regarding the third and fourth head, after saying that grace is necessary to all good, not only to finish, but also to begin it, they added, " that efficacious grace was not irresistiblef ." This Avas their expression, and that of the Lutherans, whose doctrine they boasted of following. Their meaning was, that one might resist all kind of grace ; and thereby, as every one sees, they pretended J, "That although grace were bestowed unequally, yet God gave or offered a sufficient grace to all those to whom the gospel was announced, even to those that were not converted ; and offered it with a sincere and serious desire of saving them all without acting two different parts, seeming inclined to save, and at bottom unwilHnp; to do it, and moving men interiorly to sins which he forbade exteriorly." In all these places they aimed directly at the authors of the Reformation, and that insincere vocation which they attributed to God, whilst he openly called those to grace whom in reality he excluded from itj predestinating- them to evil.

In order to show how far grace was resistible § (these words warranted by use, must be allowed, in order to avoid circumlocution), they had inserted an article, which said " that man could do more good by the grace of the Holy Ghost tlian he did, and keep at a further distance from evil than he did ;" he therefore frequently resisted grace, and made it useless.

— Declaration of the Remonstrants concerning the Amissihility of Justice.

Concerning perseverance, they decided ^, that ^' God gave to the true faithful, regenerated by his grace, means for preserving themselves in that state ; that they might lose the true justifying faith, and fall into sins incompatible with justifica-

^ Art. vii. Ibid, p. 117. f Ibid. pp. 117, 118. et seq. ■

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 233 tion, even into atrocious crimes ; persevere in them, die in them, recover from them Uiiewise by repentance, nevertheless without being necessitated to it by grace." Here is uhat they urged with the greatest efTorts, " detesting," said they, " from the bottom of their hearts those impious dogmata, and contrary to good morals, which were disseminated daily among the people; viz., that the true faithful could not fall into the sins of malice, but only into the sins of ignorance and weakness ; that they could not lose grace ; that all the crimes of the world put together could not frustrate their election, nor deprive them of the certainty thereof; a tiling," added they, " Avhich opened a gap to carnal and pernicious security; that no crimes, how horrible soever, Avere imputed to them ; that all manner of sins present and to come were forgiven them beforehand ; that in the midst of heresies, of adulteries, of murders, for which they might be excommunicated, they could not totally and finally lose the faith¹¹."

— 2\vo material icords ivhicli the ivJiole dispute turned on : that one could lone grace totally and finally .

These two words, totally and finally, were v^hat the dispute chiefly turned upon. To lose faith and the grace of justification totally, was to lose it wholly for a certain time ; to lose it finally, was to lose it for ever and beyond recovery. Both the one and the other were held impossible in Calvinism, and both of these excesses were detested by the Remonstrants.

— Against the certainty of Salvation.

They concluded the declaration of their doctrine by saying that, as the true believer might, in the time present, be assured of his faith and good conscience, he might also be assured for that time, should he then die, of his eternal salvation f; that he might also be assured of being able to persevere in the faith, forasmuch as grace would never fail him for that end : but to be assured of always doing his duty? they did not see how he " could be so, nor how this assurance could be necessary for him."

— Foundations of the Remonstrants^ viz., that there is no gratuitous preference for the Elect.

If yon desire now to comprehend in few words the whole of their doctrine, the foundation of it was, that there is

234 THE HISTORY OP [bOOK no absolute election, no gratuitous preference, whereby God prepares for certain chosen persons, and for them only, certain means to lead them to glory ; but that God offers to all men, and especially all those to whom the gospel is published, sufficient means of conversion, which some make use of, and others not, without employing any other for his elect more than for the reprobate ; so that election always is conditional, which, the condition failing, may be forfeited. Whence they concluded in the first place, that we may lose justifying grace, and totally, that is, entirely ; and finally, that is, beyond recovery : secondly, that man could not in any wise be sure of his salvation.

— Wherein Catholics agreed with the Remonstrants.

Although Catholics did not agree with them in the principle, they agreed with them in the two last consequences, which nevertheless they grounded on other principles, which it is not necessary to the present subject to set forth in this place; and likewise they agreed that the Calvinian doctrine, opposite to these consequences, was impious, and an inlet to all sorts of wickedness.

— Wherein consisted the difference betwixt Catholics, Lutherans, and Remonstrants.

The Lutherans also agreed on this point with the Catholics and Remonstrants. But the difference between Catholics and Lutherans is, that these latter, denying the certainty of perseverance, acknowledged a certainty of present justice, in which they were followed by the Remonstrants ; whereas Catholics differed from both of them, by maintaining that none could be assured either of his future good dispositions, nor even of his present ones, which, by reason of the blindness of self-love, we have always grounds to distrust ; so that the confidence Ave have on God's side, takes not away wholly the doubt we have on our own.

— Calvinists contrary to the Doctrine of them both.

Calvin and the Calvinists opposed the doctrine of both these, and maintained against the Lutherans and Remonstrants, that the true believer was sure, not of the present only, but also of the future, and sure, by consequence, of never losing totally, that is, entirely ; nor finally, that is, beyond recovery, justifying grace or the true faith once received.

XIV.] . THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 235

— The Remonstrants demand a distict Decision.

The state of the question and the different sentiments are well understood * ; and never so Httle perspicuity in the Synod of Dort's decision would have made us easily comprehend what Avas their doctrine, which they were so much the more obliged to, as the Remonstrants, after their declaration, had summoned those that should complain of their doctrine's being ill-represented by them, to reject distinctly every particular wherein they judged themselves wrongfully accused ; and entreated also the Synod to deliver themselves precisely in respect of the articles that cast such a blemish on the whole Reformation.

— The Synod's decision.

If ever there was a necessity of speaking plainly, it was after such a declaration and in such a conjuncture. Let us now give ear to the decision of the Synod.

It pronounces on the five heads proposed in four chapters, for, as above said, the third and fourth head always went together. Each chapter has two parts : in the first, they assert ; in the second, reject and condemn. This is the substance of their canons, for so did they call the decrees of this Synod.

— The Synod's decision on the first head. — Faith in the sole Elect : certainty of Salvation.

Concerning predestination and election they decided, "■ that the decree thereof is absolute and unchangeable ; that God gives true and lively faith to all those he resolves to withdraw from common damnation, and to them only : that this faith is a gift of God ; that all the elect, in their time, are assured of their election, albeit not in the same degree nor in equal measure ; that this assurance is derived to them, not from the fathoming of God's secrets, but from observing in themselves, with a holy pleasure and spiritual joy, the infallible fruits of election, such as be true faith, sorroAV for their sins, and the like ; that the sense and certainty of their salvation always make them better; that tiiose, who have not as yet this sense and this certain confidence, ought to desire it ; and, lastly, that this doctrine should not affright any but those who, wedded to the world, are not seriously converted f." Here have we already for the sole elect, together with true faith, the i Sess. xxxvi. p. 249, et seq. lb. Art. -xii. et seq. p. 251.¹²

certainty of salvation ; but the thing will unfold itself hereafter much more clearly.

— Decision on Infant Baptism.

The seventeenth article decides *, " that the word of God declaring holy the children of the faithful, not by nature, but by the covenant Avherein they are comprised together Avith their parents, the believing parents ought not to doubt of the election and salvation of their children that die in this infant age." In this article the Synod approves the doctrine of the Remonstrants, whom we have heard say precisely the same thing t : nothing, therefore, is more unquestionable amongst our adversaries, than an article which we see equally taught by both parties ; the sequel will manifest to us what are its consequences.

— Condemnation of those that denied the certainty of Salvation.

Amongst the rejected articles, we find that which asserts that '^ the certainty of salvation depends on an uncertain condition j ;" that is to say, they condemn those who teach that one is sure of being saved by persevering to live well, but one is not sure of living well ; which precisely is the doctrine we have heard the Remonstrants teach. The Synod declares this " uncertain certainty" absurd ; and, by consequence, establishes an absolute certainty, which it endeavours even to prove from Scripture : bat proofs are not our present purpose ; it is to see this doctrine well asserted, viz., that the true believer, according to the decrees of Dort, not only ought to be sure of his salvation, supposing he does his duty well, but also ought to be sure of doing it well, at least, at the end of his life. But this is nothing as yet, and we shall see this doctrine decided much more clearly.

— Justifying Faith again confessed in the sole Elect.

Concerning Redemption and the Promise of Grace, they define, " that it is announced indifferently to all people; that it is through their own fault that those who believe it not do reject it, and through grace, that the true faithful do embrace it ; but they are the elect only to whom God is resolved to give justifying faith, whereby they infallibly are saved." Here then, a second time, have we justifying faith in the elect

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 237 alone : we must see afterwards what those shall have \Yho do not continue to believe unto the end.

— Co-operation, how admitled.

The summary of the Fourth Chapter is, that although God calls seriously all those to whom the Gos[)el is proclaimed, so that if they [)erish it is not God's fault; something nevertheless particular is wrought in those that are converted, God calling them efficaciously, and giving to them faith and repentance. The sufficient grace of the Arminians, whereby " Free-will determines itself," is rejected as a Pelagian tenet¹³. Regeneration is represented as transacted " without us," not by " the exterior word, or by moral persuasion," but by an operation leaving it not " in the power of man to be regenerated or nof,'^ to be converted, or not converted ; and nevertheless, say they in this article, " when the will is renewed, it is not only pushed on and moved by God, but acts, being moved by him, and it is man that believes and repents."

— The Believer's certainty.

The will therefore does not act but when converted and renewed. AVhat then, does it not act when one begins to desire his conversion, and to pray for the grace of regeneration ? Or had you it nlrcady, when you began to pray for it ? This they ought to have explained, and not say in general, Conversion and Regeneration is wrought " without us." Many other things might be said in this place, but our business is not disputing, it is sufficient we make the doctrine of the Synod historically well understood.

It says, in the thirteenth article, that the manner whereby thiso|)eration of regenerating grace is wrought in us is inconceivable ; it is sufficient to conceive that by this grace the believer " knows and feels that he believes and loves his Saviour." He " knows and feels ;" here have you what is most certain within the compass of perception, to know and feel.

— Sequel of the same subject.

We read in the sixteenth article f, that as sin hath not robbed man of his nature, nor of his understandino;, nor of his will ; so regenerating grace acts not in him •' as in a stump or log of wood ;" it preserves to the will " its properties, and does not¹⁴ force it in spite of itself ;" that is, it does not make it " will without willing." What strange theology! Are not men resolved to puzzle every thing, who thus weakly express themselves on free-will?

— Habits infused.

Amongst the rejected errors, I find that which teaches"¹⁵, **that in the true conversion of man, God cannot communicate qualities, habits, and gifts by infusion, and that faith by which we are first converted, and from which we are called faithful, is not a gift and quality by God infused, but only an act of man." I am glad to hear the infusion of these new qualities and habits; it will be of great service to us in order to explain the true idea of justification, and to shew by what means it may be obtained of God. For I do not believe it can be doubted but that, in those who are come to the age of understanding, it is an act of faith inspired by God which obtains for us the grace to receive the habit of it, with that of other virtues. Yet the infusion of this habit will be nevertheless gratuitous, as will be seen in due time. But let us proceed, and come now to the last chapter, which is the most material, because the reproaches of the Remonstrants concerning the certainty of salvation and the inamissibility of justice were there to be answered fully and distinctly.

— Justice not to he lost. — Monstrous doctrine of the Synod.

Concerning Inamissibility, this is what they sayf, viz., " That in certain particular actions the true faithful may sometimes withdraw themselves, and do so in effect, by their vices, from the guidance of grace, to follow concupiscence, even so far as to fall into atrocious crimes ; and do, by these enormous sins, offend God, render themselves guilty of death, interrupt the exercise of faith, greatly wound their consciences, and sometimes lose, for a while, the sense of grace." O God, is it possible, in this detestable state, they should only " lose the sense of grace," and not grace itself, and this, too, but '^ sometimes 'I!" But it is not yet time to exclaim ; here is much worse : " God, in those dismal falls, does not entirely deprive them of his holy Spirit, nor suffers them to fall so as to forfeit the grace of adojition and the state of justification, nor so as to commit the sin unto death, nor against the Holy Ghost, and be damned." Whosoever therefore is once truly faithful, and regenerated

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 239 by grace, not only shall not perish in his crimes, bnt at the very time he abandons himself to them, " does not fall from the grace of adoption, and the slate of justification." Could Jesus Christ be associated with Belial, grace with sin, in a more flagrant manner ?

— What is the sin a true Believer cannot fall into.

The Synod, indeed, seems willing to preserve the faithful from ^ome crimes, when it says, " they are not so far abandoned as to fall into the sin unto death, or against the Holy Ghost," Avhich the Scripture says is not to be forgiven ; but if they understand any other sin by this, than that of final impenitence, I am at a loss to know what it can be, there being no such sinner, what disorders soever he may have been guilty of, that should not be made to hope the forgiveness of them. Let us, however, leave to the Synod to determine what other explanation of this sin it may please to fancy ; it is sufficient we see plainly, according to its doctrine, that all crimes possible to be named, for example, an aduhery as long continued, and a murder as much premeditated as that of David's, heresy, idolatry, even with all its abominations, which the Synod evidently allows the true believer may fall into, are compatible " with the grace of adoption and the state of justification."

— The Synod speaks plainly.

Nor can it be said by this state the Synod understands only the right of salvation still remaining in the true believer, namely, according to the Synod, in the predestinated, in virtue of predestination ; for, on the contrary, the matter here in deliberation concerns the immediate right one has to salvation by actual regeneration and conversion, and concerns the state whereby one is, 1 do not say destined to, but really in possession as well of the true faith as of justification. In a word, the matter in debate is not whether you shall one day have this grace, but whether, after having had it, you can forfeit it one single moment ; the Synod decides you cannot. Remonstrants, complain not, you have your answer, at least, in plain terms as you desired, and all the pernicious doctrine you say is believed in the party which you accuse, all that you reject therein with abhorrence is decided by them in express terms.

— The great words " totally''^ and "finally,^'

But, to remove all equivocation, we must see in the Synod * these essential words, *' totally" and " finally," whereon, I have shewn, the whole dispute depended. We must see, I say, whether it allows the Remonstrants to assert, that a true believer " may fall totally and finally from the state of justification." The Synod, to leave no doubt of its sentiment as opposite to the total loss, says, " ihat the immortal seed, whereby the true faithful are regenerated, abides always in them in spite of their fall." As opposite to the final loss, the same Synod saysf, that the reconciled, one day, " shall feel grace anew ;" they shall not recover it ; no, the Synod is sure not to say that, " they shall feel it" anew. In this manner, proceeds the Synod, it happens that " neither do they lose totally the faith and grace, nor do they remain finally in their sin, so as to perish in it."

Here, methinks, is enough said for inamissibility. Let us see as to certainty.

— Certainty of salvation, of what kind ?

" The true faithful," says the Synod ^^, " may be certain, and are so, of their salvation and perseverance, according to the measure of faith wherewith they believe with certainty that they are, and abide, living members of the Church ; that they have forgiveness of their sins, and life eternal : a certainty which does not accrue to them from a particular revelation, but from faith in the promises which God hath revealed in his word, and by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and lastly, by a good conscience, and a holy and serious application to good works."

— All uncertainty a temptation.

To leave nothing unsaid, it adds §," that in the temptations and doubts of the flesh, which we are to contrast with, we do not always feel this fulness of faith and this certainty of perseverance :" to the end that, as often as ever you feel some doubt, and dare not promise yourself with an entire certainty to persevere always in your duty, you may look on yourself obliged to reckon this doubt among the motions of the flesh, and the temptations you are to fight against.

lb. Art. ix, pp, 272, 273. § lb. An. ii.

XIV.] THE VAUIATIONS, ETC. 241

— Totally and finallij .

Amongst the rejected errors this afterwards is reckoned *, viz. " that the true faithful may fall, and do often fail, totally and finally from jiislifying faith, from grace and salvation, and that, during this life, you cannot have any security of future perseverance without special revelation." They declare this doctrine hrings back the doubts of Papists, because this certainty, Avithout special revelation, was condemned in the Council of Trent.

— Hoiv man justified remains guilty of death.

It may be asked, how they reconcile with the doctrine of Inamissibility, that which is said in the Synod f, viz. that by great crimes, the faithful committing them, " render themselves guilty of death." This is what easily is brought to bear with the principles of the new Iveformation, where it is maintained that the true believer, how much soever regenerated, remains always, by concupiscence, " guilty of death," not only in his great and less sins, but also in his good works ; so that this state, rendering us guilty of death, is no hindrance, according to the terms of the Synod, to our abiding in the " state of justification and grace."

— The self-contradiction of the Calvinian Doctrine.

But then, have we not said that our Reformed could not deny, nor in effect did deny, but that, should one die in these crimes without doing penance, he would be damned P True it is, the greatest part confess it ; and although the Synod decided nothing in body concerning this difficulty, it was proposed there, as we shall see, by some of the Opiners. In good truth, it is wondrous stranoe men can remain in an error containins so inevitable and manifest a contradiction as that is which acknowledges a state of grace, in which, nevertheless, one would be damned should he die therein. But many other contradictions are there in this doctrine : here is one unquestionably not less jialpable than the other. In the new Reformation, true failh is inseparable from the love of God and good works, the necessary fruits thereof: it is the most steady dogma of this religion ; and here you see, nevertheless, in opposition to this dogma, true faith, not only without good works, but also in the greatest crimes. Have patience, this is

VOL. 11. R¹⁶¹⁷ not all : I see another contradiction not less manifest in the new Reformation, even by the Synod's own decree¹⁸: All children of the faithful are holy, and their salvation certain. Therefore, in this state, they are truly justified : therefore they cannot fall from grace, and every individual of the Reformation will be predestinated : nor can one believer, which is still more strang;e, have a child that is not holy and predestinated like himself: thus all their posterity are evidently predestinated, and never can a reprobate spring from one elect, Who of them all will dare to say it ? And yet, who of them can deny, that so visible and so strange an absurdity is clearly contained in the principles of the Synod and the doctrine of Inamissibility ? It is therefore all over teeming with manifest absurdities, all over jarring with horrid contradictions ; nor can it indeed be otherwise than the necessary result of error thus always to contradict itself.

— All error contradicts itself.

There is no error but must fall into self-contradiction some way or other : but see Avhat befalls man possessed with strong prejudice. He first strives, what he can, to avoid seeing this inevitable and glaring contradiction : if this cannot be done, he looks on it with a prepossession, that does not allow him to form a right judgment of it ; he thinks to fence against it by soothing himself with frothy reasoning and fine words: dazzled with some specious principle to Avhich he is strongly wedded, he is resolved never to forsake it. Eutyches and his followers durst not say, Jesus Christ was not at the same time true God and true man : but fond of that unity ill-understood, which they imagined in Jesus Christ, they would have both natures confounded in this union, and were pleased and gloried in removing by this means to a greater distance than all others (though it were even to excess) from Nestorius's heresy which divided the Son of God. Thus do men entangle, thus do they prepossess themselves, thus do the prepossessed, with blind determination, lead the van and draw after them the giddy viilgar, without being willing, or able to understand, as says the Apostle J, " either what they say themselves, or whereof they affirm" with such assurance. This is what constitutes all opinionists ; this is the pit all heretics fall into.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 24^

— Certainty of salvation^ a false lallurement.

Our adversaries frame to themselves an object of infinite comfort in the certainty they will needs be in of their eternal salvation. Do not expect they ever will regard, with candid equity or attention, what may deprive them of this certainty. If to maintain it they must be obliged to say, one is sure not to die in sin though he fall into it with malice prepense, nay, though he contract a detestable habit thereof; this they will say. If they must exaggerate, beyond measure, this text of St. Paul¹⁹, " The gifts and calling of God are without repentance,"" and say, God never takes away entirely, nor in substance, what he has given ; this they will say happen what will, whatever contradictions you may shew them, whatever inconsistency, what dismal consequence soever may result from their doctrine : otherwise, besides losing the pleasure of their certainty and the charms discovered by them in the novelty of this tenet, they must also be forced to own that they were in the wrong as to the point they looked upon the most essential of their Reformation, and the church of Rome, so much censured and hated by them, was in the right.

— Whether the Synod toere ill-understood in respect to Inamisslbility , and whether the Certainty it proposes he no more than confidence.

But, perchance, this certainty, which they teach, is nothing else at bottom than that trust which we admit. Would to God it were ! Nobody denies this trust : the Lutherans maintained it, yet the Calvinists told them a hundred times, that something more was requisite. But without going forth from the Synod, the Arminians admitted this trust ; for unquestionably they never said that a believer fallen into sin, which he repents of, should despair of his salvation. The Synod nevertheless condemns them, because that, satisfied with this hope, they reject certainty. The Catholics in fine admitted this trust, and the holy perseverance, which the Council of Trent -l* will have us aclcnowledge as God's special gift, it will have us ex[)ect with confidence from his infinite bounty; and yet, because it rejects absolute certainty ;{;, the Synod condemns it, and accuses the Remonstrants, who likewise condemned this certainty, of falling by this means into the doubts of Popery. Had the dogma of absolute certainty and r2 inamissibility raised as much honor in the Synod as so hideous a doctrine should excite naturally in all minds, the ministers that composed this assembly would not have had mouths enough to proclaim throughout all the universe, that the Remonstrants, the Lutherans, and the Catholics, laying such a blasphemy to their charge, did calumniate them ; and all Europe would have rung with their clamour: but on the contrary, so far were they from defending themselves against this certainty and inamissibility objected to them by the Remonstrants, that they define it expressly, and condemn the Remonstrants for denying it. When they think themselves calumniated, they are not at all sparing of their complaints. They complain, for instance, at the close of their Synod *, that their enemies, and amongst the rest, the Remonstrants accuse them " of making God the author of sin ; and of the reprobation of men without any regard to sin : of making him precipitate the children of the faithful into damnation, so as that all the prayers of the Church, and even baptism itself, are not able to withdraw them from it." Why do not they complain, in like manner, they are wrongfully accused of admitting this same certainty and inamissibility. '' It is true," they say in this very place |," they are accused of inspiring men with carnal security, by affirming that no crime prejudices the salvation of the elect, and that they may, with full security, commit the most execrable." But is this a sufficient explanation from men that were asked a plain and direct answer ? 'W'hat, does it not suffice them then for an evasion, that they acknowledged crimes, for instance, *' the sin even unto death and against the Holy Ghost," whatever it may be, which the elect and true faithful never fall into ? And if it was their sentiment that other crimes were equally incompatible with true faith and the state of grace, could they not have said as much in express terms, whereas, in express terms, they assert the contrary ?

— Calvhi's Doctrine expressly defined by the Synod.

Conclude we, therefore, that, of the three articles wherein we have made the Calvinian justification to consist, the two first which already were insinuated in the Confessions of Faith, namely, absolute certainty of predestination, and the impossibility of forfeiting finally faith and grace once received, are expressly defined in the synod of Dort ; and that the third article, where the question is, whether a true believer may at

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 245 least lose for a while, and during his continuance in sin, justifying grace and true faith, although not expressed in any confession of faith, is likewise decided conformably to Calvin's doctrine and the spirit of the new reformation *

— Peter de Mouliris Sentiments approved by the Synod,

One may also know the seniiment of the whole Synod by that of the renowned Peter du Moulin, minister of Paris ; allowed by all the world to be unquestionably the most rigorous Calvinist of his time, and the most wedded to the doctrine Gomar defended against Arminius. He sent to Dort his judgment on this matter, which was read and approved by the whole Synod, and inserted in the acts. He declares, that he had not leisure to handle all the questions j : but lays down the whole substance of the Synod's doctrine when he decides, that none is justified but he that is glorified : whereby he condemns the Arminians, in that they teach |, " there are men justified that lose the faith, and are damned." And still more clearlj' in these words § : " Although the doubt of salvation enter sometimes into the minds of the true faithful, God nevertheless commands us in his word to have a certainty thereof, and we must tend with all our might to this certainty, at which we should not doubt many do arrive ; and whoever is assured of his salvation, is so, at the same time, that God will never abandon him, and that he shall thus persevere even to the end." One cannot more clearly regard doubting as a temptation and weakness, nor certainty, as enjoined by God's commandment. Thus the faithful are not assured that they shall not fall into the worst of crimes, and continue in them a long while, like David: but are nevertheless assured, " God never will abandon them, and that they shall persevere even to the end." This is an abridgment of the Synod : accordingly, it was resolved by the assembly to return Du Moulin thanks for the very accurate judgment passed by him on this subject, and for his assent to the doctrine of the Synod.

— Question whether the certainty of Salvation be a certainty of Faith.

Some would doubt Avhether this certainty required by the Synod in every believer for his salvation, be a certainty of faith :²⁰²¹

but their doubt will cease, if they do but observe, that the certainty in question, is always expressed by the word '' Believe," which in the Synod is taken no otherwise than for true faith ; to which add, that this certainty, according to the same Synod, is nothing else than the belief of the promises applied by each individual to himself and to his eternal salvation, with a certain feeling in the heart of the sincerity of his faith ; so that, to the end no kind of certainty may be wanting, you have that of faith joined to that of experience and feeling.

— The Sentiment of the Divines of Great Britain.

Of all the Opiners, those that best explain the sense of the Synod, are the Divines of Great Britain : for after confessing, with all the rest, a kind of doubt in the believer concerning his salvation, but a doubt that always proceeds from temptation, they explain very clearly²² , " how that after the temptation, the act whereby one believes that God looks upon him with the eyes of mercy, and that he shall infallibly possess eternal life, is not an act of dubious opinion, or of conjectural hope, wherein one might be deceived, cui falsum suhesse 'potest; but an act of a true and lively faith excited and sealed in our hearts by the spirit of adoption:" wherein these Divines seem to advance further than the English Confession of Faith, which, as we have already seen, looks as if it designed to avoid speaking so clearly " on the certainty of salvation -j-."

— These Divines believed that Justice could not he forfeited. — Contradiction of their Doctrine.

Some have thought that these English Divines were not of the common opinion in respect to justice attributed to the faithful fallen into grievous crimes whilst they continue in them like to David ; and what may occasion this doubt is, that these doctors decide formally, ''that these faithful are in the state of damnation, and would be damned, should they die therein ^]:" whence it follows, that they are fallen from the grace of justification, at least for that time. But this is one of those places which involve all such as err in necessary contradictions : for these Divines see themselves obliged, by their erroneous principles, to acknowledge, on one side, that the faithful, thus plunged into f Conf. Ang. Art. xvii. Svnt. Gen. i. p. 102. S.l. x. n. 23. X Theol. Mag. Brit. Th. iii. iv.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 247 crimes, would be damned should they then die ; and on the other, '^ that they do not fall from the state of justification²³ ."

— That Faith and Charity subsist amidst the greatest

Crimes. Nor must one persuade himself, they here confound justification with predestination: for, on the contrary, it is what they distinguish most expressly;' and sayf, that these faithful, plunged into crimes, not only are not fallen from their predestination, which is true of all the elect, but, " they are not fallen from the faith, nor from that celestial seed of regeneration and those fundamental gifts, without which, spiritual life can in no wise subsist]: ; insomuch, that it is impossible the gifts of charity and faith should entirely be extinguished in their hearts. They do not entirely lose the faith, sanctity, adoption § : they abide in this universal justification, which is justification in its most proper sense, which no })articular crime can exclude them from : they abide in this justification, from which interior renovation and sanctification are inseparable [I ;" in a word, they are saints, who, if they died, would be damned.

— What it was that remained in the Faithful guilty of grievous crimes. — The Doctrine of those of Embden. They were extremely puzzled to explain, according to these principles, what it was that remained in the faithful who had run themselves into criminal disorders. Those of Embden were agreed ^, " actual faith could not remain in them, and that it was inconsistent with the consent to grievous sins." What they did not lose, "was habitual faith, that," said they, "which subsists in man whilst he sleeps, or doth not act:" but then, " this hal)itual faith infused into man by preaching and the use of the sacraments, is the true living and justifying faith ;" whence they concluded that the faithful did not, for all these enormous crimes, lose " either justice or the Holy Ghost :"" and when they were asked whether it might not as well be said, they lost " faith and the Holy Ghost" afterwards to recover them, as to say, they only lost " the feeling and energy" thereof** ; they answered, the faithful ought not to be deprived of the comfort accruing to them from the im[)Ossibility of their ever losing " either faith or the Holy (ihost, what crime soever

♦ Theol. Mag.Brit. Th.ii. p. 212. f lb. Th. v. p. 213. vi.214. | lb. 215.

H Jud. Thco. £mbd. de V. Art. Th. i. n. 44, 52, pp.2CG, 2U7. Ibid. n. 45. Ibid. 270.

•* Ibid.n. 50, 51.

they fell into against their conscience." " For this," said they, "would be but a cold comfort, to tell them, you have entirely lost faith and the Holy Ghost, yet, perchance, God will adopt and regenerate you again, that you may be reconciled to him." Thus, what sins soever the believer may give himself up to, contrary to his conscience, they are so favourable to him, that to comfort him, they are not satisfied with leaving him the hopes of a future return to the state of grace * ; but he inust also have the comfort of actually being in it^ his crimes notwithstanding.

63.— What it icas the Holy Ghost did in the Faithful guilty of grievous sins. — Strange idea of Christian justice.

The question still remains, what did faith and the Holy Ghost in these believers thus abandoned to sin, and whether or no they were altogether without action in them ? It was answered, they were not without action ; and the effect produced by them, for example in David, was^ that he did not sin " whole and entire : Peccavit David, at non totus-f;'' there being a certain sin which he did not commit. But if you urged so far as to ask, what could be " this sin the whole man falls into,"" and the faithful are never guilty of? they answered |, '^ it was not a particular fall of the Christian man into such or such a crime against the first or second table, but a total and universal defection and apostacy from the Gospel truth, whereby man offends not God in part and by halves, but, by an obstinate contempt, despises his whole majesty, and absolutely excludes himself from grace." Thus, till you are arrived to this obstinate contempt of God, and to this universal apostacy, you still have the " comfort of being holy, of beingjustified, and regenerated," and of having the Holy Ghost dwelling in you.

— The Opinion of those of Bremen.

Corresponding to this is the sentiment of Bremen, when they say 11 , " that those who are once truly regenerated, never wander to that degree as to stray entirely from God by an miiversal apostacy, so as to hate him as their enemy, to sin like the Devil with a studied malice, and to deprive themselves of heavenly gifts : Avherefore they never lose absolutely God's grace and favour ;" so that they remain in this grace and favour, well

I Ibid. n. 60. p. 268. II Jud. Brem. de V. Art. n. 32, 33. pp. 254, 255.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 249 regenerated, well justified, provided only they be not the declared enemies of God, and quite as wicked as the Devil.

— Whether the Synod can be excused from these excesses. — The unanimous consent of all the Opincrs.

So great are these excesses, that the Protestants are confounded at them ; nay, there have been some Catholics that could not persuade themselves the Synod was guilty of them. Nevertheless, here have you historically, with the decrees of the Synod, the votes of the principal Opiners *. And that there might be no doubt, in respect to those of all the rest, besides what is inserted in the Acts of the Synod, that every thing was there decided by the unanimous consent of all the voices, not one excepted, 1 have expressly related the opinions, wherein those that are willing to excuse the Synod of Dort find the greatest moderation.

— The Sanctlfication of all baptized Children confessed in the Synod, and the consequence of this doctrine.

Besides these important points, we see a fourth expressly decided in the Synod ; and it is that of the sanctity of all children descending from the faithful. There have been different explanations of this article in the Acts of the new Reformation. We have seen this sanctity of children formally established in the Catechism of the Calvinists of France, and there it is said expressly, that all children of the faithful are sanctified, and born in the Covenant ; yet, we have seen the contrary in the agreement of those of Geneva with the Swiss, and the sanctlfication of infants, even baptized, is there restrained to the predestinated alone. Beza seems to have followed this restriction in the above-cited exposition : but the Synod of Dort pronounces in favour of the sanctity of all children born of faithful parents, and permits not the parents to doubt of their salvation ; an article from which we have seen it follow (lemonstrati\ely, according to the principles of the Synod, that all the children of the faithful, and all the posterity of these children to the end of time, should their race continue so long, are of the number of the predestinated j.

■f- S.l. ix. pp. 11, 12, 19. Ibid. 21. Expos, do la Foi, ch. iv. Cone, xiii, p. 80.

Sessione sxxvi. Ca. de prwdcst. Art. xvii. Sup. n. 3C.²⁴²⁵

— Procedure of the Synod. — The Remonstrants' petitiq^^ complaining that they are judged by their Adversaries.

Whether all these decisions, which seem so authentic, be so certainly fundamental in the new Reformation, as to deprive of salvation and cut off from the Church all those that reject them, is what we are to examine by setting forth the procedure of the Council.

The first thing I observe therein, is a petition preferred by the Remonstrants, representing to the Synod * that they have been condemned, treated as HereticSj and excommunicated by the Anti-Remonstrants, their colleagues and parties ; that they are pastors like the rest, and so naturally ought to have a seat in the Synod together with them: if they are to be excluded from it as parties in the cause, their plaintiffs ought to be excluded from it no less than they — otherwise, they would be both judges and parties at the same time, which of all procedures is the most unjust.

— They employ the same arguments which the whole Pro~ testant party insisted on against the Church.

These were manifestly the sam.e reasons for which all the Protestants had excepted against the Council of the Catholics ; for which the Zuinglians in particular had opposed the Synod of the Ubiquitarians, by whom they were condemned at Jena, as above seen. The Remonstrants did not fail to quote these examples. They instanced chiefly in complaints made against the Council of Trent, when all Protestants exclaimed f, " We will have a free Council ; a Council we may be present at together with the rest ; a Council that comes unbiassed ; a Council that does not hold us for Heretics — otherwise we should be judged by our adversaries." We have seen that Calvin and the Calvin ists alleged the same reasons against the Synod of Jena. The Remonstrants found themselves in this very state when they beheld Francis Gomar and his adherents seated in the Council amongst their Judges, yet themselves excluded, and treated as guilty persons ^ : this was prejudging against them before examining the cause ; and these reasons seemed to them so much the more convincing, as they were visibly the very same their fathers had ursred aj^ainst the Council of Trent, as they set forth in their petition.

Syn. Doid. Ibid. pp. 70, 71, 72, &c. 81, &c.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 261

— Their mouths are stopped by the authority of the States.

After their petition was read, it was declared to them, " the Synod thought it very strange that the accused should set laws to their Judges, and prescribe them rules ; which was not only injuring the Synod, hut also the States-General, by whom it was assembled and authorized to judge ; wherefore they had no more to do but obey *."

This was stop[)ing their mouths with the authority of the secular power, but not answering their arguments, nor the example of their forefathers when they declined the judgment of the Council of Trent. And truly, little did they dwell on these considerations : the Delegates of the States who were present at the Synod f with the whole authority of their superiors, judged the Remonstrants were not to be admitted plaintiffs, and ordered them to obey the regulations of the Synod — which, on its side, declared their propositions insolent, and their challenging the whole Synod as a party in the cause, injurious, not only to the Synod itself, but also to the supreme authority of the States-General.

— They protest against the Synod. — The arguments used against thorn by the Synod condemn the ivhole Protestant party.

The Remonstrants condemned, change their petitions into protests against the Synod. These were debated on ; and as the reasons alleged by them were the same with those the Protestants had used to elude the authority of the Catholic bishops, the answers returned them were the same that the Catholics had employed against the Protestants-^. They were told that it had never been the custom of the Ciiurch to deprive pastors of their right of suffrage against errors, because that they had opposed them : that this would be divesting them of the prerogatives of their function for having faithfully discharged their duty, and subverting the whole economy of Church judgments: that by the same reasons the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Eulychians might have exce|)ted against the whole Church, and left themselves no judge among Christians: that thisvvouid be the way to silence pastors and give a free scope to all kind of heresies. After all, what judges would they have? Where could they find, in the whole body of the pastors, these

I Sess. xxvii, p. 93. Ibid. n. 83, 87, 07, 98, 100, 104, lOU.²⁶²⁷

neutral and indifferent persons that had interested themselves no way in questions of faith and affairs of the Church ? These arguments were unanswerable ; but then, unluckily for our Reformed, they were tlie same that had been objected to them when they declined the judgment of the bishops in possession of authority, at the time of their separation.

— Hiey decide that the iveaher and younger 2)arty ought to yield to the greater and more ancient.

What carried the greatest v/eight in the objections against the Remonstrants was, " that they were innovators, and the least party, as well as the newest, which by consequence ought to be judged by the greatest, and the most ancient ; by that Avhich Avas in possession, and which maintained the doctrine till then received *." But thereby the Catholics did most evidently gain their cause, for, after all, what antiquity did the Dutch Reformed Church allege against the Remonstrants ? We will not suffer, said shey, any alteration to be made in the doctrine we have constantly taught " these fifty years past," for this was the utmost antiquity they could boast. If fifty years gave to this Church, that called herself reformed, so great a power against the Arminians newly crept out of her bosom, what ought to be the authority of the whole Catholic Churchy of so many ages standing ?

— The Synod's perplexity at the Protest of the Remonstrants.

Among all the answers made to the Remonstrants, in relation to their Protest, what was the least taken notice of was the comparison made by them between their exceptions against the Synod of Dort, and those of the Reformed against the Councils of the Catholics and those of the Lutherans J. Some of them said, " there was a great difference between this, and the councils of Papists and Lutherans. There you hear men, the Pope and Luther; here you here God. There men are prepossessed ; here not a man to be found that is not ready to yield to the word of God. There you have enemies to contend with ; and here, none but brethren. There every thing is forced ; here all is free." This was solving the question by that which caused the difficulty. The question was, whether the Gomarists did not come to the Synod prepossessed ; the question was, whether they were enemies or brethren ; the question was, which of them had the most docile hearts in

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 253 regard to truth and the word of God ; whether the Protestants in general, or the Cathohcs, the (hsciples of ZAiinghus or those of Luther; the Gomarlstsor the Armhiians. And as to hberty, the authority of the States which everywhere interposed, and moreover was ahvays in the mouth of the Synod *, that of the Prince of Orange, the dechired enemy of tlio Arminians, the imprisonment of Grotius and the other heads of that party, and lastly, the capital punishment of Barneveld, sufficiently prove what liberty was allowed in Holland as to that matter.

— Strange answer of those of Geneva.

The deputies of Geneva made fewer words of the difficulty, and without stopping at the Lutherans, to whom but four years of seniority above the Zuinglians could give but little authority to be their judges, they answer in respect of the Catholicsf: " Our fathers might, as they pleased, protest against the Councils of Constance and Trent, because we are determined to have no kind of union with them ; on the contrary, we despise and hate them : in all times those who declined the authority of Councils separated from their communion." This is the whole of their answer ; and these great doctors would have had nothing to oppose against the exceptions of the Arminians, had they but broken off from the Churches of Holland, and openly " despised" and " hated" them.

— AccorduKj to the Synod of Dort, the Protestants were obliged to own the Council of the Catholic Church.

According to this way of answering, the Lutherans needed not have taken so much pains to heap up grievances against the Council of Trent, nor to have discussed which was l)arty, and which was not, in this cause. To reject the authority of the Council the Catholics cited them to, they had no more to do but say downright. We are determined to break with you, we despise you, we hate you, we trouble not ourselves about your Council. But public edification, and the very name of a Christian, would not suffer such an answer. Neither did the Lutherans answer in this manner ;j; ; on the contrary, they declared, and even at Augsburg in their own Confession §, that they appealed to the Council, even that Council which the Pope was to assemble. There is a like declaration in the

I S. 1. iii. n. 62. § Conf. Argent. Peror. Synt. Gen. part i. p. 199.²⁸²⁹

Confession of Strasburg ; so that both Protestant parties were agreed in this point. They were not for breaking with us ; they did not hate us 5 they did not despise us to that degree as did those of Geneva. If it be therefore true, according to them, that the Remonstrants ought to have submitted themselves to the Council of the Reformation, as they were averse to schism ; so the Protestants, who alike declared they would not separate from tlie Cathohc Church, ought to have submitted to her Council.

— In order to silence the Remonstrants, a Synod of Calvinists is forced to have recourse to the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to Councils.

We must not forget the answer made by a whole Synod of the Province of Holland to the exceptions of the Remonstrants : it was the Synod held at Delft, a little before that of Dort, The Remonstrants objected that the Synod, which was to be convened against them, would not be infallible like that of the Apostles, and, consequently, would not bind their consciences. This they must certainly have owned, or denied all the principles of the Reformation ; yet after owning it, those of Delft had these words³⁰: " Jesus Christ, who promised the Apostles the spirit of truth, whose lights were to lead them into all truth, had likewise promised to his church to be with her even to the end of the world, and to be in the midst of two or three that should meet together in his name ;" whence they concluded a little after, '^ that when pastors should meet together from sundry countries, in order to decide, according to God's word, wiiat ought to be taught in the churches, one ought to persuade himself with a firm confidence that Jesus Christ would be with them according to his promise."

— This is returning to the Ccdholic Doctrine.

Here, then, you see them obliged to confess two promises of Jesus Christ, that he will be present at and direct the j lodgments of his chiu'ch. Now the Catholics never had any other foundation than this to believe the Church infallible. They make use of the first text, in order to shew he always is with her considered in her whole. They make use of the second to shew we ought to hold for certain he would be in the midst of two or three, were we assured that they were truly assembled

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 255 in the name of Jesus Christ. Now what is doubtful in respect to two or three assembled in private, is certain in regard to the whole church assembled in body: we ought, therefore, to hold for certain, in such case, that Jesus Christ is there by his spirit, and by that means her judgments are infallible ; or let them tell us what other use can be made of these texts in the case to which the Synod of Delft applies them.

— The Remonstrants are made to hope an (Ecumenical Council.

It is true, the certain accomplishment of these promises is to be found in the body of the Universal Church and in her oecumenical council. Accordingly, it was to such a council the Remonstrants had appealed. They were answered³¹, " It was doubtful whether and when this oecumenical council could be assembled ; mean while, the national one, called together by the states, would be like to one oecumenical and general, forasmuch as it would be composed of the deputies of all the reformed churches;" and in case they should find " themselves aggrieved by the national Synod, they would be free to appeal to an oecumenical council, provided, in the interim, they obey the national council."

— The illusion of this Promise.

The reflection we ought to make here is, that to speak of an oecumenical council was, amongst these new Reformed, a remainder of the church's language. For what could this word mean in these upstart ciuirclies ? They durst not say, the deputies of all the Reformed Churches were an oecumenical council representing the Universal Church. It was, said they, not an oecumenical council, but like to an oecumenical council. What, then, should a true oecumenical council be composed of? Ought the Lutherans to be a part of it, who had excommunicated them ? or the Catholics ? or, in fine, some other churches ? That is what the Cah inists could not tell, and in the condition they had put themselves by dividing from all the rest of Christendom, the great name of an cecumenical council, so venerable among Christians, was nothing to them but an insignificant word, which had no idea in their mind corresponding to it.

— Resolution of the Synod, that the Confessiom of Faith might be remsed^ and at the same time an obligation imjyosed of subscribing them.

The last observation I have to make, as to the procedure, regards the Confessions of Faith and the Catechisms received in the United Provinces. The provincial Synods obhged the Remonstrants to subscribe them³². These refused it absolutely, because they believed there were principles in them from which the condemnation of their doctrine might be clearly enough deduced. Upon this refusal they were treated as heretics and schismatics ; and this, notwithstanding it was agreed in the provincial Synods, and expressly declared in the Synod of Dort f , that these Confessions of Faith, so far from passing for a certain rule, might be examined anew ; so that they obliged the Remonstrants to subscribe a doctrine of faith, even without believing it themselves.

— Decree of the pretended Heformed of France, at the Synod of Charenton, in order to approve that of Dort. — The certainty of Salvation acknowledged as the principal point.

We have observed already, what is specified in the acts, that the canons of the Synod against the Remonstrants were established with the unanimous consent of all the voices, " not one excepted.'" The pretended reformed of France were not allowed to go to Dort though invited, but received its decisions in their national Synods, and amongst the rest, in that of Chai-enton, in 1620, where all the canons Avere translated into French, and a subscription of them enjoined in this form J: — " I receive, approve, and embrace all the doctrine taught in the Synod of Dort, as entirely conformable to God's word and to the Confession of Faith of our churches : the doctrine of the Arminians makes God''s election to depend on the Avill of men, brings back Paganism, disguises Popery, and overthrows the whole certainty of salvation." These last words shew us what they judged of most importance in the decisions of Dort, and the certainty of salvation stands foremost as one of the most essential characteristics of Calvinism.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 257

— A new Subscription of the Synod of Dort, by the French

Mefugees.

Even very lately, the first thing required of our ministers, who had taken refuge in Holland in these lust contests about religion, was to subscribe the acts of the Synod of Dort; and so great a concourse, so many oaths, such a number of repeated acts, seem to make it plain, that nothing is more authentic in the whole party.

— By the Decree of the Synod of Dart the Remonstrants stand deposed and excommunicated.

Even the decree of the Synod shews the importance of this decision *, the Remonstrants being deprived by it " of the ministry, of their chairs of professorship in divinity, of all other functions as well ecclesiastic as academical, until, having satisfied the church, they be fully reconciled and received to her communion :" which shews they were treated as excommunicated, and that the sentence of excommunication passed against them in particular churches and synods was ratified ; after which the Synod supplicates the states not to suffer " any other doctrine to be taught but that which was just defined, and to obstruct heresies and errors that were creeping in;" which manifestly regards the Arminian articles, by them qualified " as erroneous, and as the source of hidden errors."

— The decisions of Dort not essential. — The sentiment of the Minister Juricu.

All these things might make one think these articles were accounted very essential to religion. Mr. Jurieu, nevertheless, assures us of the contrary: for after supposing " the church of Rome was in the sentiment of the Arminians, at least during the time of the Council of Trent," he thus proceedsj : " if she had no other errors, we shoxdd have done exceedingly ill to separate from her : we ought to have borne with those for peace sake, by reason that she was a church whereof we made part, and which liad not banded herself to maintain grace according to St. Austin's system of divinity,"" &c. And accordingly, it is this which makes him conclude, " that the reason which made them cut the Remonstrants off from tlieir communion was, for that they would not submit to a doctrine wJiich, in the³³³⁴ first place, we believed conformable to the word of God ; which, in the second, we had bound ourselves, by a confederate confession, to maintain and defend against the Pelagianism of the church of Rome."

— Semi-Pelagianism, according to this Author, damns none.

Without assenting to his principles, or what he says of the Church of Rome, it suffices to relate his sentiments, which make him say in another place³⁵, " that the churches of the Swiss and Geneva Confession would exclude from their communion a Semi-Pelagian, and one that should maintain the errors of the Remonstrants : yet it would not be their design thereby to declare this man damned, as if Semi-Pelagianism did damn." It, therefore, stands well grounded by the sentiment of this minister, that the doctrine of the Remonstrants may well exclude one from the particular confederation of the pretended reformed churches, but not, in general, from the fellowship of God's children ; the which shews that these articles are not of the number of those they call fundamental.

Lastly, the same doctor j, in his " judgment concerning methods," where he labours at the reunion of the Lutherans to those of his communion, acknowledges, " that in order to stem a torrent of Pelagianism which was going to overflow the Low Countries, the Synod of Dort ought to oppbse the most rigid and strict method to this Pelagian relaxation." He adds, " that with this view she might have imposed on her party the necessity of maintaining St. Austin's method, and obliged, I do not say all the members of her society, but, at least, all her doctors, preachers, and the rest concerned in teaching, yet without laying other churches and other communions under the same obligation." Whence it comes that the Synod, so far from binding all Christians to her tenets, does not even pretend to bind all her members, but only her preachers and doctors ; which shews what these grave decisions of the new Reformation are in the main ; when, after so much boasting the express word of God, all terminates at last in obliging doctors to teach, by common agreement, a doctrine which private men are neither obliged to believe nor profess.

— The tenets in debate at Dort were the most popular and the most essential.

Nor can it be answered that these are dogmata which appertain not to the knowledge of the people : for besides that all

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 259 dogmata revealed by God are made for the people as well as the rest, and there are certain cases Avherein they are not allowed to be ignorant of them ; that which was defined at Dort ought, above all others, to be a most popular dogma, since it principally concerned that certainty every body ought to have of his own salvation : a dogma, wherein the Calvinists laid the main foundation of the Christian religion.

8(j. — The minister Jxirieu makes the Synod of Dort act m,ore by policy than truth.

All the rest of the decisions of Dort, as you have seen, tending to this dogma of certainty, it was no question of idle speculation, but of practice, which they judged the most necessary anrl of the utmost consequence to religion 3 and, nevertheless, Mr. Jurieu has represented this doctrine not so much as a capital dogma, but as a method they were obliged to follow ; and not as the most certain neither, but as being " the most rigid." "In order to stem," says he , " this torrent of Pelagianism, it was necessary to expose against it the most rigid and strict method, and to decide," adds he, '' many things to the prejudice of that liberty of disputing j^ro and con, which always had subsisted among the Reformed :" as if this were a political aflfair, or that other things were to be considered in church decisions than the pure truth revealed by God clearly and expressly in his word ; or, after a full knowledge thereof, it were allowable to shift and decline from it.

— They were ready to bear with Pelagianism in the

Arminians,

But what this minister teaches in another place, is still more surprising, since he declares to the Arminians, that it is not properly Arminianism, but Socinianism, which they reject ia them J. " These Remonstrants," says he, " ought not to wonder we offer peace to sects that seem to be of the same mind with them in respect to the Synod of Dort, and do not offer it to them. Their Semi-Socinianism will ever be a wall of separation between them and us." Here then is what makes the separation. " It is because, at this day," proceeds he, " Socinianism is in the most elevated stations amonsrst them." It is plainly seen, were it not for this obstacle, that they might unite with the Arminians, without concerning themselves for " that torrent of Pelagianism with which they

• Jug. sur les meth. Sect, xviii. p. od. f l^- ''^^t. xvi. p. 137.

s2 overflowed the Low Countries," nor for the decisions of Dort, nor even for the confederacy of all Calvinism in favour of the pretended sentiments of St. Austin.

— The rest of the Ministers are of the same opinion with

Mr. Jurieii.

Mr. Jurieu is not the only one that has revealed to us this secret of the party. The minister Matthew Bochart had assured us before him *', that, " if the Remonstrants had only differed from the rest of the Calvinists in the five points decided at the Synod of Dort, the difference might have been adjusted," which he confirms by the opinions of other doctors of the sect, even with that of the Synod itself.

— The Reformation allows private men to arrogate to themselves more capacity for understanding sound Doctrine, than all the rest of the Church.

It is true, he says at the same time 'f', that although they were disposed to tolerate, in particular peaceable and modest men, sentiments opposite to those of the Synod, they could not have suffered them in the ministers, who ought to be better instructed than the rest : but this, however, is enough to evince, that these decisions, " which were opposed against Pelagianism," although made by the Synod with so great solemnity and with such frequent declarations of their following nothing therein but the pure and express word of God, are not very material to Christianity ; and what is more surprising, is, that they hold for modest men such private persons as, after knowing the decisions of all the doctors, nay, as speaks Mr. Bochart, " of all the Churches of the party as many as there are in Europe," yet believe they are better able to understand which is sound doctrine, not only than any one of these in particular, but even than all of them together.

— The Doctors themselves are very much relaxed in the observance of the decrees of Dort.

It is also very certain, that the doctors, in whom sentiments opposed to those of the Synod were not to be tolerated, are greatly slackened in that regard |. The ministers who have written in latter times, and among others Mr. Beaulieu, whom

XIV,] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 261 we have seen at Sedan one of the most learned and pacific of them all, soften as much as they are able the dogma of inamissibility of justice, and even that of the certainty of salvation ; and two reasons move them to it : the first is, the Lutherans' dislike to it, whom they are willing to be united to at any rate ; the second is, the absurdity and impiety discoverable in these tenets by never so little an inspection. The doctors may, by degrees, inure themselves to them in consequence of the false principles they are imbued with ; but plain and sincere people will not easily be persuaded, that every one of them, to have true faith, must assure himself he has no damnation to fear, let him commit what crimes he pleases ; much less, that he is sure of preserving sanctity and grace in such crimes.

As often as our Reformed disclaim these impious tenets, let us praise God for it, and without more disputing, entreat them only to consider that the Holy Ghost could not have been in those that taught them, and who made a great part of the Reformation to consist in notions so derogatory to Christian justice.

— The Synod of Dor t hath done no good, and spite of all its decrees Mr. Jurieu is a Pelagian.

This, however, we may conclude from thence : that, after all, this great Synod has proved quite useless, and neither cured the people, nor even the pastors, for whom it was principally intended, inasmuch as Avhat is called Pelagianism in the Reformation (the thing the Synod resolved to destroy) still stands its ground j for I ask, who has been cured of this evil ? Not those surely who do not believe the Synod ; nor even those who do believe it; for Mr. Jurieu, for instance, who is of this last number, and seems to continue so firm in the confederation, as he calls it, of the Calvinian Churches against Pelagianism, in reality does not disapprove it, since he maintains, as we have seen, that it is not contrary to piety³⁶. He is like to those Socinians, who when asked if they believe the eternal divinity of the Son of God, make no difiiculty of answering, they believe it : but urged a little further, will tell you, that the contrary belief, in the main, is neither opposite to piety nor true faith. Such are true enemies to the Son of God's divinity, since they hold the tenet for indifferent: Mr. Jurieu is a Pelagian, and the enemy of grace, in the same sense.³⁷

— Another Pelagian saying of the same Minister, and his ivretched contradictions.

In effect, what is the tendency of these words of his, " in exhortation, you must of necessity speak like a Pehigian ?"" This is not the speech of a divine ; for if Pelagianisni be a heresy, and a heresy that renders useless the cross of Jesus Christ, as has been so much preached even by the Reformation, you cannot keep at too great a distance from it in exhortation, so far from retaining the least tincture of it *.

This minister is no less inconsistent when he excuses the Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians of the Augsburg Confession, together with the Arminians, following the same sentiments, under pretext that, " whilst they are Semi-Pelagians in word and spirit, they are the disciples of St. Austin in the heart;" for can he be ignorant that a perverted spirit soon corrupts the heart ? Men must be very closely attached to error when even truth presented does not awaken them; nay, presented by a synod made up of their whole communion.

When therefore Mr. Jurieu says, on one hand, that Pelagianism does not damn ; and on the other, that you will " never make truly pious men of Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians j," though he be never so subtile a divine, he could not shew more clearly that he does not reflect on what he says, and that, by endeavouring to save all, he loses all.

— l^his Minister falls back into the excesses of the Reformers relating to the cause of Sin.

He also thinks he has kept clear from that blasphemy which makes God the author of sin, into which, he pretends, none of his party has fallen " for this hundred years ;" and he himself relapses into it in that very book where he pretends to shew they are no longer guilty of it J. For after all, whilst you continue to deprive mankind of the liberty of their choice, and believe that free-will subsists together with an entire and inevitable necessity, it ahvays will be true that neither men, nor prevaricating angels, could avoid sinning ; and so the sins they fell into are the necessary consequence resulting from those dispositions their Creator placed them in. Now Mr. Jurieu is one of those who leave this inevitable necessity whole and entire, when he says, we know nothing of our soul, " only that

• Meth. Sect. xv. p. 131. Ibid. Sect. xiv. pp. 113, 114. t S. n. 83, 84; 87. Meth. Sect. xv. pp. 113, 121. J S. n. 6.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 263 she thinks," nor can we define what is requisite '' to constitute her free*." He owns^ therefore, he does not know but it is this inevitable necessity which drags us into evil as well as good, and by that means sinks into all the excesses of the first Reformers, from which he boasts that his party has been free a whole age.

To avoid these terrible inconveniences, you must at least believe, if not arrived to the comprehension of it, that there is no admitting, without blas{)hemy and making God the author of sin, this invincible necessity which the Remonstrants reproached the pretended Reformers with, and from which the Synod of Dort has not justified them.

— Connivance of the Synod of Dort, not only at the excesses of the pretended Reformers, hut also at those of the Remonstrants.

And in realit)^, I observe that nothing is said in any part of the Synod against these damnable excesses. It was willing to spare the Reformers and save the beginnings of the Reformation from eternal infamy.

Yet at least it ought not to have extended the like condescension to the Remonstrants, who opposed to the excesses of the Reformers other no less criminal excesses.

They printed in Holland in 1618, a little before the Synod, a book under this title — " The State of Controversies in the Low Countries f," where it is shewn it was the doctrine of the Remonstrants that certain accidents might befal God ; that he was liable to change ; that his prescience of certain events was not certain ; that he proceeded by discoursing and conjecture in drawing, as we do, one thing from another ; and other the like numberless errors, wherein the Author sides with those philosophers who destroy God's foreknowledge, for fear of lessening the liberty of man. There it is made appear they went so far astray as to make God corporeal, to attribute to him three essences, and the rest that may be learned from that Book, which is very perspicuous and concise. It was composed in order to prepare, for the approaching Synod, the subject matter of their deliberations : but none of all these things were mentioned at it, no more than many others as materially started by the Remonstrants. The whole care of the Synod was taken up in preserving those Articles which are peculiar to

*Metli. Sect. pp. 120, 132. t Specim. Controv. Belg. ex Offic. Elzcv. pp. 2, 4, 7, &c.

Calvinism ; and more zeal was exhibited by them for these opinions, than for the fundamental principles of Christianity.

— Tlie Decree of Charenton receiving the Lutherans to Communion. — 1631.

The great deference which we have seen was paid to the Lutherans, prevailed nothing with them in regard to an union, 'they still persisting to hold the whole party of the Sacramentarians for exxommunicated. At last the Reformed of France, in their national Synod of Charenton, made this memorable decree, wherein they declare, " that the Germans and others following the Confession of Aiigsburg, for so much as the Churches of the Augsburg Confession agree with the others that are reformed in the fundamental principles and tenets of the true religion, and that in their worship there is neither idolatry nor su[)erstition, may, without making abjuration, be received to the holy table, to contract marriage with the faithful of our Confession, and to present, as god-fathers, children to baptism, in promising the Consistory they will never solicit them to act counter, directly or indirectly, to the doctrine received and professed in our Churches, but will be contented with instructing them in the principles wherein we all agree."

— The Consequences of this Decree.

In consequence of this decree, they were obliged to say³⁸, " that the doctrine of the Real Presence, taken in itself, has no venom in it : that it is neither contrary to piety nor God's honour, nor the good of mankind : that although the opinion of the Lutherans relating to the Eucharist infers, no less than that of Rome, the destruction of Jesus Christ's humanity, this consequence nevertheless cannot be imputed to them without calumny, inasmuch as it is formally rejected by them," — so that it is an allowed maxim that, in matters of religion, none ought to charge on others the consequences they draw from their doctrine, but only such things as they allow in express terms.

— The Calvinists had never advanced so far before.

Never had the Sacramentarians, before this time, made so great an advance towards the Lutherans. The novelty of this decree does not consist in saying, that the Real Presence, and

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 265 the other disputed points between both parties, do not regard the fundamentals of salvation ; for it must be owned ingenuously, that ever since the time of the Conference of Marpurg, that is, so long ago as the year 1529*, the Zuinglians offered the Lutherans to hold them for brethren notwithstanding their doctrine of the Real Presence ; and ne\er, from that time, did they believe it fundamental, but required that the fraternity should be mutual, and owned equally on both sides ; which being refusqji them by l^uther, they likewise continued to disown those for brethren who were so averse to pass the same judgment in their favour: whereas, in the Synod of Charenton, it is the Sacramentarians alone that receive the Lutherans into that fellowship, notwithstanding that they are held by them for excommunicated.

— Memorable date of the Decree of Charenton.

The date of this decree is remarkable : it was made in 1631, when the great Gustavus was thundering in Germany, and when it was currently believed throughout the whole Reformation, that Rome itself would be soon in the power of the Lutherans. God had otherwise ordained : the year following, this victorious King Avas killed at the battle of Lutzen, and all the rare discoveries made concerning him in the prophecies were now to be retracted.

— Great change in controversies by means of this Decree. — It convicts the Calvinists of calumny.

Mean while the decree passed, and the Catholics observed the greatest change imaginable in the doctrine of the Protestants.

In the first place, all that horror they had infused into the people against the doctrine of the Real Presence appeared manifestly unjust and calumnious. The doctors may say what they please of the matter : but it was the Real Presence on which the people's aversion was chiefly bent. This doctrine had been represented to them, not only as gross and carnal, but also as brutal and full of barbarity, whereby men became Cyclopses, eaters of human flesh and human blood, parricides that eat their Father and their God. ]3ut now, since the decree of this Synod, it stands confessed, that all these exaggerations, with which the silly vulgar were fascinated for so

• S. 1. ii. n. 45.

long a time, are calumnies ; and the doctrine that was made to pass for so impious and inhuman, has no longer any thing in it that is contrary to piety.

— The literal sense and the Real Presence necessary.

Thereby even it becomes the most credible and the most necessary ; for the chief reason inducing to wrest the sense of these words — *' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood *," and also of these — " Eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood f," — to spiritual and metaphorical meanings was, because they seemed to lead to sin by commanding to eat human flesh, and to drink human blood : so that St. Austin's rule, of interpreting spiritually what appears to incline to evil, was here to take place. But at present this reason carries no longer any the least probability ; all this imaginary crime is vanished, and nothing prevents taking the words of our Saviour in their true literal sense.

The people were made to abhor the Catholic doctrine, as a doctrine that destroyed Jesus Christ's human nature, and ruined the mystery of his ascension. But they must no longer be affrighted at these consequences, since the denial of them sufficiently acquits whosoever denies them.

— The chief argument in behalf of the rupture rendered frivolous.

These horrors thus raised in the minds of the people were, to speak the truth, the real cause of their departure from the Church. Read in all the acts of the pretended martyrs the cause for which they suffered, and you will find everywhere, that it was for the doctrine opposite to the Real Presence. Consult a Melancthon, a Sturmius, a Peucer, all the rest that were against condemning the doctrine of the Zuinglians — you will find their chief reason to be, because it was for this doctrine that such a number of the faithful laid down their lives in France and England. These wretched martyrs persuaded themselves, in dying for this doctrine, they died for a fundamental point of faith and piety : at present this doctrine is innocent, and excludes none from the sacred table, nor from the kingdom of heaven.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 267

— The hatred of the People turned against Transubstantiation, a thing of much less importance.

To preserve in the hearts of the people their aversion to the Cathohc doctrine, it was requisite to turn it on another object than the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is now the ^reat crime : there is now no manner of difficuhy in admitting- Jesus Christ really present ; in admitting one and the same body in different places at once; in admitting the entire body in every crumb of bread : the grand error consists in taking the bread away : what regards Jesus Christ is of small importance ; what regards the bread is alone essential.

— Jesus Christ no longer adorable in the Eucharist, as formerly believed by Protestants.

All the maxims, till then held for unquestionable, regarding the adoration of Jesus Christ, are now changed. Calvin and the rest of them had demonstrated, that wherever Jesus Christ, so adorable an object, was held present by so special a Presence as that acknowledged in the Eucharist, it was not lawful to withhold that adoration which is due unto him. But now, Jesus Christ's Presence in any place is not enough to make him be adored in it; he must command it, he must "declare his will, in order to be adored in such and such a state *;" otherwise, as much God as he is, he will meet with no worship from us. More than this, he must shew himself: " if the body of Jesus Christ be in a place insensibly, and in a manner imperce()tible to all the senses, he does not oblige us to worship him in such a place." His word does not suffice, it is necessary he should be seen : you may hear the voice of the king never so much ; if you see him not with your own eyes, you owe him no respect, or, at least, he must declare expressly it is his intention to be honoured ; otherwise you should behave as in his absence. Were it the case of an earthly king, none would question paying him what is his due the moment it is known where he is ; but thus to honour the King of heaven would be idolatry, and it would be to be feared lest he should take the worship to be given to another than himself.³⁹⁴⁰

— Interior Ads of Adoration are tolerated in the Lutherans, and the exterior, which are but the tokens of them, rejected.

But here is a device that is new and surprising. The Lutheran, ■who beheves Jesiis Christ present, shall receive him as his God ; shall put his trust in him, shall invoke him ; and the Synod of Charenton decides, " there is neither idolatry, nor superstition in his worship :" but if he make any perceptible act of adoration, he idolizes ; that is to say, it is allowable to have the substance of adoration, which is the interior sentiment, but not allowable to testify it; and you become an idolater in making appear, by some posture of respect, the sense of that truly sacred veneration you have in your heart.

— Frivolous Answer.

" But the reason of this is," say they⁴¹, " because, should the Lutheran adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, who is there together with the bread, there would be danger lest the adoration should be referred to the bread alike as to Jesus Christ ; or, however, lest some should think the intention was to refer it so :" no question, when the wise men adored Jesus Christ, either in his crib, or in a cradle, it was to be feared lest they should worship, together with Jesus Christ, either the crib or the cradle; or in fine, lest the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph should take them for worshippers of the cradle rather than of the divine infant lying in it. These were the subtilties introduced by the decree of Charenton.

— Ubiquity tolerated.

Moreover, the doctrine of Ubiquity, which had been accounted, and with reason, alike by the Sacramentarians and by Catholics, a most monstrous doctrine, confounding both natures of Jesus Christ, becomes the doctrine of the Saints.

For you are not to imagine that the defenders of this doctrine were excepted out of the union : the Synod speaks in general of the churches of the Augsburg Confession, whereof it is well known the greatest part are Ubiquitarians, and the ministers assure us f. Ubiquity hath nothing mortal in it, though it destroys, more expressly than ever Eutychianism did, the human nature of our Lord.

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 269

— Nothing but the external Worship is looked upon as important.

In a word, little account is made of all whatsoever causes no alteration in the worship, even in the external worship : for the belief, which you may have interiorly, is no obstacle to communion ; nothing but the respect you shew externally makes the sin ; and this is what we are brought to by those who are always preaching to us adoration in spirit and in truth.

— The Foundation of Piety formerly acknowledged by them, is changed.

It plainly appears, without needing my intimation, that after the Synod of Charenton, neither the inamissibility of justice, nor the certainty of salvation, are any longer a necessary foundation of piety, since the Lutherans are admitted to communion with the contrary doctrine.

— The Disputes about Predestination concern not the Substance of Religion.

No more must they speak to us of absolute predestination and absolute decrees as of a fundamental article, since they cannot deny, according to Mr. Jurieu, " but there is piety in those great communions of Protestants, wherein both absolute decrees, and grace of itself efficacious, are so roughly handled." The same minister is agreed, " that the Protestants of Germany make the foreknowledge of our faith enter into that gratuitous love whereby God has loved us in Jesus Christ." Thus the decree of [)redestination will not be an absolute decree, and independent of all foreknowledge, but a conditional decree, including the condition of our future faith j and this is what Mr. Jurieu does not condemn *.

1 10. — Tico other remarkable Novelties ensuing from the Decree of Charenton.

But here are the two most remarkable novelties which the decree of Charenton has introduced into the pretended Reformation : iirst, the dispute on fundamental points ; and secondly, the dispute on the nature of the church.

■f Jugemeut sur les Uletli. Sect. xiv. p. 113. Ibid. sect, xviii. p. 158.

— Distinction of fundamental Points, and the iiievitable perplexity of our Reformed.

As to fundamental points, the Catholics thus argued with them, " If the Real Presence, if Ubiquity, if so many other important points, contested for more than an age between the Lutherans and Calvinists, be not fundamental, why should those be more so on which you dispute with the Church of Rome ? Does not she believe the Trinity, the Incarnation, the whole Creed ? Has she laid any other foundation than Jesus Christ ? All you object against her, on this head, in order to shew that she has another, are so many consequences which she denies, and which, according to your own principles, ought not to be imputed to her, Yv herein, then, do you place precisely Avhat is fundamental in religion ?'''' To relate here all they have said concerning fundamental points, some one way, some another, and the greatest part confessing that it is all a mystery to them, and a thing rather to be felt than explained, were an endless task, and involving one's self with them in a labyrinth from whence there is no exit.

— They are forced to own that the Church of Home is a true Church, wherein one may he saved.

The other dispute was not less important : for this principle being once established by them, that those who retain the principal foundations of faith, however separated in communion, are, in the main, the same Church and the same society of God's children, worthy of his holy table and his kingdom, the Catholics demand how they can be excluded from this church and from eternal salvation ? For now it will no longer serve their turn to say, the Church of Rome is a church excluding the whole Avorld, and which the whole world ought to exclude : for you see the Lutherans, who exclude the Calvinists, are not excluded. It is this which has })roduced this new system of the church which makes so great a noise, and wherein, after all, they cannot but comprehend the Church of Rome.

— The Conference ofCassel, tvhere tJie Lutherans of Kintel come to an Agreement with the Calvinists of Marpurg,

The Protestants of Germany have not been in all places alike inexorable in regard of the Calvinists. In 1661, a conference was held at Cassel between the Calvinists of Marpurg and the Lutherans of Rintel, where both parties entered into a brotherly

XIV.3 "^"^ VARIATIONS, ETC. 271 fellowship. I own this union was without consequence in the other parts of Germany, and I have not been able to discover what even was the consequence of it between the contracting parties : but in the agreement there was one important article not to be forgotten.

— Important article of this Agreement relating to the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread.

The Calvinists reproached the Lutherans that, iu the celebration of the Eucharist, they omitted the breaking of the bread, which had a divine institution⁴². It is the current doctrine of Calvinism, that the breaking makes part of the Sacrament as being a symbol of that body broken which Jesus would give to his disciples ; that for this reason it was practised by Jesus Christ, that it is of precept, and comprehended by our Saviour in this ordinance, '' Do ye this."" This is what was maintained by the Calvinists of Marpurg, and denied by the Lutherans of Rintel. They nevertheless united, each side persisting in their sentiments ; and it was said by those of Marpurg, " Tliat the breaking did not appertain to the essence, but only to the integrity of the Sacrament, as being necessary thereto by the example and commandment of Jesus Christ, so that the Lutherans, without breaking the bread, had nevertheless the substance of the Supper, and both parties might mutually tolerate each other."

— Demonstration in favour of Communion under one kind.

A minister, who answered a treatise concerning Communion under both kinds, has examined this conference which was objected against them : the fact passed for unquestionable, and the minister agreed that the breaking of the bread, although commanded by Jesus Christ, did not appertain to the essence, but only to the integrity of the Sacrament f. Here, then, have we the essence of tlie Sacrament manifestly separated from the divine precept, and reasons have been found to dispense with that which they said was commanded by Jesus Christ : after which I do not see how they can urge the precej)t of receiving under both kinds ; forasmuch that as though we were agreed Jesus Christ had commanded the receiving of them, we should still be admitted to examine whether this divine commandment regarded the essence, or only the integrity.

— Present state of Controversies in Germany.

The present state of controversies in Germany between the Lutherans and Calvinists may be likewise seen in the same conference ; where it will be perceived, that the constant doctrine of the divines of the Augsburg Confession is, that grace is universal ; that it is resistible ; that it is amissible ; that predestination.is conditional, and presupposes the foreknowledge of our faith ; lastly, that the grace of conversion is annexed to an action purely natural, and depending on our own strength, namely, on our carefulness to hear sermons⁴³: which the learned Beaulieu confirms by many testimonies, to which we could add many others, were not the thing past dispute, as might have been seen by the testimony of Mr. Jurieu |, and had we not spoken of this matter already.

— The relaxation of the principles of the Lutherans give occasion to those of Cameron and of his disciples, touching Universal Grace.

Accordingly, one may have seen in this history, how Melancthon had softened, among the Lutherans, that extreme rigour wherewith Luther maintained absolute and particular decrees, and how unanimously it is taught amongst them, that God wills seriously and sincerely the salvation of all men ; that he offers them Jesus Christ as their redeemer ; that he calls them to him by preaching and the promises of his gospel; and that his Spirit is ever ready to be efficacious in them, if they do but hearken to his w^ord ; that, finally, it is attributing to God two contrary w ills, to say on one side, he proposes his gospel to all mankind ; and on the other, that he will save but a very small number of them ;j:. In consequence of that complaisance, still continued in behalf of the Lutherans, John Cameron of Scotland, a famous minister, and Professor of Divinity in the Academy of Saumur, there taught an universal vocation and grace, declared in behalf of all mankind by the wonders of God's works, by his word, and the Sacraments. This doctrine of Cameron was strenuously and ingeniously defended by his disciples Amiraud and Testard, professors of divinity in the same town. This entire Academy embraced it : Du Moulin put himself at the head of the con-

"l" S. n. 109. S. 1. viii. n. 48, et seq. I S. 1. viii. u. 22, et seq. Epit. Tit. de pvsed. Cone, p. C17. Solida repetit. Cod. Tit. p. 804.

XIV.] TIIR VARIATIONS, KTC. 273 trary party, and engaged in this sentiment the Academy of Sedan, where he ruled uncontrolled ; and in our days we have seen the whole Reformation divided in France, with much warmth, between Saumur and Sedan. Spite of the censures of the Synods, which suppressed the doctrine of universal grace, yet without tpuilifying it as heretical or erroneous, the most learned ministers undertook to defend it. Daille made its apology, to which Jilondel put a preface very much to the advantage of the abettors of this sentiment; and universal <i-race triumphed even in Sedan, where the minister Beauheu tau'>ht it in our days.

— Whether Universal Grace he confrarij to the Synod of

Dort.

it had not equal success out of this kingdom, particularly in Holland, where it was judged opposite to the synod of Dort, But on the contrary, Blondel and Daille shewed⁴⁴, that the divines of Great Britain and Bremen had maintained in the Synod "an universal will and intention" of saving all m.ankind, a sufficient grace given to all; a grace without whicli one could not renew in himself God's image. This is what these divines had publicly declared in the Synod, nor merited the less for it the praises and congratulations of this whole assembly.

— Decree paused at Geneva against Universal Grace, and the question resolved by the Mayisfrate. — Helvetic Formulary.— 16GU-1G71.

Geneva, ever attached to Calvin's rigorous propositions, was very averse to this Universality, which nevertheless was carried into its very bowels by the French ministers. Every family was now in contention for or against it, when the Magistrate interposetl. From the court of Twenty-five it was carried to that of the Two Hundred. These magistrates had the face to make their pastors and professors enter into dis{)ute before them, and set themselves up as judges in a question of the most refined theology. Powerful recommendations came from the Swiss in behalf of particular grace against universal grace ; a rigorous decree was issued in condemnation of the latter. They pub-

VOL, II. T lished the formulary of a divine which the Swiss approved, Avherein the system of universal grace was declared '' not a little remote from the sound doctrine revealed in Scripture;" and that nothing might be wanting to it, the sovereign magistrate commanded that all doctors, ministers, and professors, should subscribe the formulary in these words : '' Thus do I believe; thus do I profess ; thus will I teach." This is no submission of polity and order, it is a pure act of faith enjoined by the secular authority; this is what the Reformation ends in, subjecting the church to the world, learning to ignorance, and faith to the magistrate.

— Another decision of the Helvetic Formulary, concerning the Hebrew text, which the learned of the party laugh at. — Variation in regard to the Vulgate.

This Helvetic formulary had also another clause, wherein, not concerning themselves with the Septuagint, nor the Targums, nor the original Samaritan, nor with any of the old interpreters, nor any of the ancient readings, they canonized even the points of the Hebrew text, such as we now have it, declaring it untainted with any even the least faults of the transcriber, and clear from all injuries of time. The authors of this decree were not sensible how egregiously they exposed themselves to the laughter of all learned men, even of their own communion ; but they adhered to the old maxims of the Reformation, then but ignorant. They were vexed that the readings of the Vulgate, formerly taken by them for so many falsifications, were daily more and more approved by the learned of the party ; and by fixing the original text, such as it is at this time, they thought to rid themselves of the necessity of tradition, never reflecting that, under the name of the Hebrew text, instead of ecclesiastic traditions, and that of the ancient Synagogue, they consecrated those even of the Rabbins.

— Other Decisions of Geneva and the Swiss how much condemned by Mr. Claude,

Another decree passed also at Geneva concerning Faith in 1675, wherein was confirmed that of 1649, whereby they added two new Articles to the Confession of Faith ; the first, importing " that the imputation of Adam's sin was anterior to corruption ;" the second, " that, in the economy of the divine decrees, the sending of Jesus Christ is after the decree of

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 276 election." They ordered that all those who should refuse to subscribe these two new articles of Faith, should be excluded and deposed from the ministry and all ecclesiastical functions.

This decision was judged very odd even in the party, and Turretin, minister and professor at Geneva, was greatly upbraided for it by Mr. Claude⁴⁵, as appears by a letter of this minister dated the twentieth of June, 1G75, which Lewis du Moulin, son to the minister Peter du Moulin, and uncle to the minister Jnrieu, caused to be printed.

Mr. Claude complains in this letter f , " that the Swiss were solicited to draw up a Formulary conformable to that of Geneva, containing the same points and the same restrictions, in order to be added to their Confession of Faith :" and it is plain from a remark of Du Moulin, inserted in the same letter |, that the Swiss had in fact struck this stroke which Mr. Claude judged so terrible.

Nevertheless, the same minister maintains that it is not lawful to add thus §" new articles of Faith to those of his Confession ; and that it is dangerous to remove the ancient landmarks which have been set by our fathers ||." I would to God our Reformed had always had before their eyes this maxim of the wise man, which they so frequently are obliged to return to, in order to terminate the divisions they see daily breeding in the midst of them ! Mr. Claude proposes it to those of Geneva^, and is astonished that this Church " should thus make new articles of Faith and new laws of preaching :" he makes bold to say⁴⁶, that acting in this manner is setting up gods of their own, and breaking unity with all the Churches which are not of their own opinion : to wit, " with those of France, with those of England, with those of Poland, of Prussia, and Germany;" that the matter in hand is not of mere discipline, in which Churches may be allowed to vary, but that it is se|)arating themselves injf " points of doctrine unalterable in their nature, which they cannot, with a good conscience, teach differently :" so that this is not only " setting up for themselves a particular ministry," but also sowing " the seeds of a fatal division" in faith itself, and, in short, " shutting their hearts" against other Churches.

If now one should be desirous to know to what length Geneva carried her rigour, he will be informed from the same

X P. 101. § Iliid. p. 15. II Prov. xxii. 28.

f Fascic. Ep. p. 89. ** Pp. 9t), 91, 98, 103.

ft Ibid. pp. 93, 100.

27G THE HISTORY OF [BOOK letter⁴⁷; for it specifies, " that the signing of the articles was exacted with an inconceivable severity, and exacted even from those who came to Geneva to be ordained with the design of serving elsewhere ; that the same necessity of subscription was laid on them as on those of Geneva itself ; that it was exacted with the same rigour from pastors already received, notwithstanding they had already grown old in the labours of the ministry :" and this, says ]\Ir. Claude f, " is, as much as in them lies, wresting every where the cure from those that are of different opinions, namely, from all the rest of the Churches, and condemning their own selves, as liaving hitherto maintained an unjust peace with people against whom they ought to have declared war."

All these remonstrances were of no effect ; the church of Geneva stood firm, no less than that of the Swiss, both of them in the notion that their determinations were grounded on tlie word of God : which still continues to make it manifest that, under the covert of this word, it is his own conceits every man pays worship to ; and if they have no other principle whereby to agree in the sense of this word, there never will be amongst their Churches any other than a political and exterior union, such as subsists Avith those of Geneva, who in the main have broken off from all the rest ; and in order to find somiCthing fixed, it is necessary, after Mr. Claude's example, that they should be brought back to this maxim of the wise man, " not to remove the land-marks set them by their forefathers J ;" that is, they must hold to the decisions already made by those in matters of faith.

— The Test Act in England : therein the English approach to"^ur sentiments, and only, through manifest error, condemn the Church of Rome. ■

The fam.ous Test Avell deserves a place in this history, forasmuch as it was one of the principal acts of Religion in England. The parliament held at London in 1678, passed an Act enjoining the following declaration, " I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of breeid and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration, by any person whatsoever ; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint,

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 277 and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used m tlie Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, ike." The particuhirs to be observed in this Profession of Faith are, first, that it only attacks Transubstantiation and not the Real Presence, wherein it follows the amendment which Elizabeth had made in Edward the Sixth''s Reformation. There are only added to it these words^ " at or after the Consecration," which manifestly allow the belief of the Real Presence before the manducation, since they exclude nothing, as is plain, but the sole change of substance.

Thus, a good English Protestant, without blemish to his religion or conscience, may believe that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are really and substantially present in the bread and wine immediately after consecration. If the Lutherans believed as much, it is certain they would adore him. Neither do the English place any obstacle to it in their Test: and as they receive the Eucharist kneeling, nothing hinders their acknowledging and worshipping Jesus Christ there present, in the same spirit that we do : after this, to cavil with us about Transubstantiation, is a proceeding little worthy of them.

In the following words of the Test, the Invocation, or as they call it, the Adoration of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, with the sacrifice of the Mass, are condemned as acts of " superstition and idolatry:" not absolutely, but " as they are now used in the church of Rome." But the reason of this was, that the English are too well versed in antiquity to be ignorant, that the Fathers of the fourth century (to ascend no higher at present) did in\oke the Blessed Virgin and the saints. They know that St. Gregory of Nazianzum approves expressly, in the mouth of a martyr, that piety which moved her to beg of the Blessed Virgin, " that she would assist a Virgin engaged in danger⁴⁸." They know that all the Fathers have made, and solemnly api)roved in their Homilies, the like invocations addressed to saints : nay, in respect of them, have even used the word Invocation f. As for that of adoration, they know likewise, it is equivocal no less among the holy Fathers than in Scripture ; and does not always signify, rendering to a person divine honours ; and for this reason also St. Gregory of Nazianzum made no difTiculty, in many places, of saying that the relics of the martyrs v.ere adored, and that God did not disdain to confirm such an adoration by miracles. The English are

278 THE HISTORY OP [bOOK too well read in antiqiiity to be ignorant of this doctrine and these practices of the ancient Church, and bear her too great a veneration to accuse her of superstition and idolatry : it is this which makes them use this restriction, which we observe in their Test, and suppose, in the church of Rome, a kind of invocation and adoration different from that of the Fathers, because they were very sensible, without this precaution, the Test would he no more subscribed with a good conscience by the learned Protestants than by Catholics.

Nevertheless it is certain, as to the fact, that we demand nothing of the saints but the partnership of their prayers, no more than the ancients did ; and that we honour nothing in their, relics, but what they honoured in them. If we sometimes entreat the Saints, not to pray, but to give and act, the learned among the English will agree that the ancients have done it like us *, and like us have understood it in that sense which attributes favours received, not only to the Sovereign that distributes them, but also to the intercessors who obtain them ; so that there never will be found any real difference between the ancients, whom the English will not condemn, and us, whom they do condemn, but through mistake, and by laying to our charge what we do not believe.

I say the same of the sacrifice of Mass. The English are better skilled in antiquity than to be ignorant that in all times the same gifts were offered to God, in the sacred mysteries and the celebration of the Eucharist, as were afterwards distributed to the people, and that these were offered to him no less for the dead than for the living. The ancient Liturgies containing the form of this oblation, as well in the east as west, are in the hands of every one, and the English are far from accusing them either of superstition or idolatry. There is then a way of offering to God the Eucharistic sacrifice for the living and the dead, which the Protestant Church of England judges neither superstitious nor idolatrous ; and if they reject the Roman Mass, it is by supposing that it is different from that of the ancients.

But this difference is none at all ; one drop of water is not more like another, than the Roman Mass is like, as to its essence and substance, to the Mass which the Greeks and the rest of Christians received from their forefathers. For which reason the church of Rome, when she admits them to her communion, does not prescribe another Mass to them. Thus the Roman Church has not, in the main, another sacrifice than

XIV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 279 that which, by the confession of the EngUsh Protestants themselves, was offered in the east and west ever since the beginning of Christianity.

Hence it clearly follows that the Roman doctrine, as well concerning Invocation and Adoration, as the sacrifice of the Mass, is no otherwise condemned in the Test, than by presupposing that Rome receives these things in another sense, and practises them in another spirit, than that of the Fathers ; which visibly is not so : so that readily, and without alleging further reasons, we may say, that abrogating the Test would be nothing else but abrogating a notorious calumny fixed on the church of Rome.

280 THB HISTORY OF [bOOK

Ex. (le la Foi. chpz. Riv. lofJO, ch. ii. Cone. 1. f lb. di. p. iii. t. iv. part v. p. Sit. I lb. Cone, part vi. p. 31J. ;» lb. 3t>. \ lb. 2y, yo, Ql. di. iii. Con. part vi. p. 40. ↩
liib. de /Et. Dei praedes. opiisc. 704, 705. Lib. iii. c. xxiii. ii. 7, 8, 9. ↩
De pi-cedes. de occult, provid., &c. ↩
Rom. xi. 29, f Ch. viii. cone, pftit i. p. CC. J lb. cone, part ii. p. 121, ↩
Phil. ii. 12. ↩
S. 1. ix. Ch. V. Cone, C. p. 00. | Cone. p. 74. J Rom. xi. 29. ↩
S. I. viii. 11, 52. Epit, c. xi. Concord, p. C'21. solid, repet. CCy, 805, et secj[. ↩
Act. Syn. Dordr. Edit. Dordr. 1G20. Praf, ad Eccl. ante Synod. Dordr. ↩
Sess, xxxlv. p. 1 15. et seq. f Art. iv. Ibid. ↩
2 Pet. ii. 1. f Ead. Sess. xsxiv. p. 116, et seq. || Ibid. p. II7. ↩
Ead. Sess. xxxiv. Art. iv. Ibid. p. 118. f Art. vii. aud viii. Ibid. p. liy. ↩
Sess. xxxiv. Ibid. pp. 121, .322. ^ ↩
Sess. xxxvi. Art. xvii, p. 252. f Sup. n. 23. I Ibid, Art. viii. p. 254. ↩
Art. xii. f.2(}o. t I'^'J- ↩
Art. vi. p. 207. tlbid.iv.v. p. 271. $ Ibid, vi, et seq. ↩
S. n. 27. t Ai't- vii. viii. p. 272. ↩
Art. iii. p. 274. Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. c. xii. Can. xvi. f S. n. 42. ↩
S. n. 36. f 1 Tim. i. 7. ↩
Rom. xi. 29. f Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. t Can. xv. xvi. xxii. ↩
Syn. Dord. Concl. Sess. 136. p, 21b. \ Ibid. ↩
S. 1. ix. n. 2, 3, et seq. Conf. de Foi de Fr. Art. xviii. xix. xx. xxi. xxii. Dim. 1», 19, 36. S. 1. ix. Conf. Biltj. Art.x.xiv. Synt. Gen. part i. p. 139. i Sess. ciii. civ. pp. 28D, 300. ^ Ibid, p. 2yi. § Ibid. 300. ↩
Theolog. I\rag. Brit. c. de persev. cert, quoad nos. Th. iii. p. 218. Ibid, Th. iv.p. 219. ↩
Ibid. Th. vii. Ibid. Th. vi. II Ibid. pp. 214, 218. ↩
Jiid. Theo. Embd. de V. Art. Th. i. n. 30. p. 2fi5. f Ibid. n. 54. p. 267. ↩
Sess. cxxv. cxxx. et preef. .id Kcc. ↩
Sess. XXV. p. 65. et seq. f S. 1. vlii.n. 41. Ibid. 70. 81. ↩
Syn. Dord. p. 80. Sess. xxvi. pp. 82, 8.3. f Soss. xxvi. p. 81. ↩
Sess. xxvii. pp. 97, 103, &c. f Praf. ad Ecc. Ant. Syn. Dord. J P. i)'J. ↩
Sess. XXV. 80. xxvi. 81, 82, 83, &c. f Ibid. 10.3. ↩
Oct. 24, 1018. Syn. Delpli. Int. Act. Dord. Sess. xxvi, p. 86, Matt, xviii. 20. ↩
Praef, ad Ecc. Ant. Syn. Dord. ↩
Syn. Delph. Int. Act. f Dord. Sess. xxv. p. 91. Sess. xxxii. 123. ↩
Sess. cxxv. cxxx. Prjef. ad Ecc. Sin. de Cha. xxiii. ↩
Sent. Syii. de Remon. Sess. cxxxviii. p. 280. f Syst. de I'Egl. liv. ii. di. iii. p. 2o5. Ibid. di. x. p. 300. VOL. II. S ↩
Syst. de I'Egl. liv. ii. cli. iii. p. 249. f Jug. sur les meth. Sect, xviii. pp. 159, 160. ↩
Dlallact. c. viii. p. 120, &c. lb. 130. lb. 127- f lb. 12G, et seq. lb. 127- + The. de Art. Just. part. ii. Th. 42, 43. Item. Tb. An Homo solis uat. virib., &c. Corol. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. ↩
S. n. pp. 83, 8-i, 87. ↩
Daille Apol. ch, vii. p. 43. Id. Lettre a Mongl, ↩
John vi. 53. f Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. ↩
Cont. Westp. Cont. Hesliu. Dial, clii I\Iinist. Boch. sur le syu. <le Cha. i. p. 24. Ejusd. Dial, part ii. cap. vii. Sedani, p. 21. ↩
Dial, du Mill. Boch. sur le syn. de Cha. i. p. 24. f Boch. Ibid. Dial. xv. part ii, c. vji. ↩
Coll. Cass. q. de fract. pan, •f Triiite de Communion sous Ics deux Especes, part ii. ch. xii. La Roq. Rep. part ii. th. xvii, p. 307. ↩
Thes. de q. An horn, in stat. pecc. solis nat.viribus, &c. Th. xxxi. et seq. ↩
Dull. Apol. Tract, part ii. Blond. Act. auth. viii. et soii. p. 77. Jud. Tlie. Mag. r.rit. du Art. ii. inter. Act. Syn. Dord. partii. p. 287- J"*J- Brcui. Iliid. p. li;i, etscq. ↩
Fascic. Ep. 167G, pp. 8.3, 94. | Ibid. p. 95. ↩
Fascic^Ep. pp. 94, 95. t Pp. 97, 100. % Prov. xxii. 28, ↩
Orat. in Cyp. llasil. Orat. in I\Iam. f (irep. Nyss. Orat. in Thco. Amb. Serm. dc S. Vit. Greg.; Naz. Orat. in Jill. 1. iu JMacliab., &c. ↩
Greg. Naz. Orat. funeb. Atli. et Basil, &c. ↩

Chapter 16 of 18

Book XIV. Fi'om the Year IGOl, to that part of the Seventeenth Century, wherein the Author wrote and conchided his History

Footnotes