of their bazaars, combing their beards, smoking their pipes, or drinking
their coffee, with a pitcher of water standing beside them, or saying
their prayers, or reading the Koran.”

STUMBLING, STONE OF. “We set out from Argos very early in the morning,”
says Hartley, “and were almost eleven hours in reaching Tripolitza. The
road is, for the most part, dreary; leading over lofty and barren hills,
the principal of which is Mount Parthenius. In England, where the roads
are so excellent, we do not readily perceive the force and just
application of the Scriptural figures, derived from a ‘stone of
stumbling, and a rock of offence,’ Isaiah viii, 14, and similar
passages; but in the east, where the roads are, for the most part,
nothing more than an accustomed track, the constant danger and
impediment arising to travellers from stones and rocks fully explain the
allusion.”

In the grand description which Isaiah gives, lxiii, 13, of God “with his
glorious arm” leading his people through the Red Sea, it is said, “That
led them through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they
should not stumble;” that is, who preserved them from falling amidst the
numerous inequalities in the bed of the sea, caused in some instances by
deep cavities, and in others by abrupt intervening rocks. The figure is
a very natural one, especially in the east, where the Arabs and Tartars
are famed for their dexterity in the management of even bad horses. A
curious instance of this occurs in Colonel Campbell’s “Overland Journey
to the East Indies.” Speaking of the Tartar, an accredited courier of
the Turkish government, under whose guidance he travelled in disguise
across the desert from Aleppo to Mosul, he says, “One day, after riding
about four miles from a caravansera, at which we had changed our cattle,
I found that a most execrably bad horse had fallen to my lot. He was
stiff, feeble, and foundered; in consequence of which he stumbled very
much, and I every minute expected that he would fall and roll over me. I
therefore proposed to the guide to exchange with me; a favour which he
had hitherto never refused, and for which I was the more anxious as the
beast that he rode was of the very best kind. To my utter astonishment,
he peremptorily refused; and as this had been a day of unusual
taciturnity on his part, I attributed his refusal to peevishness and ill
temper, and was resolved not to let the matter rest there. I therefore
desired the interpreter to inform him, that as he had at Aleppo agreed
to change horses with me as often as I pleased, I should consider our
agreement infringed if he did not comply, and would write to the consul
at Aleppo to that effect. As soon as this was conveyed to him, he seemed
strongly agitated by anger, yet endeavoured to conceal his emotions
under affected contempt and derision, which produced from him one of the
most singular grins that ever yet marred the human physiognomy. At
length he broke forth:--‘You will write to Aleppo, will you? Foolish
Frank! they will not believe you,’ &c.--‘Why do you not, then,’ said I,
interrupting him; ‘why do you not perform your promise by changing
horses, when you are convinced in your conscience (if you have any) that
it was part of our agreement?’--‘Once for all, I tell you,’ interrupted
he, ‘I will not give up this horse. There is not,’ said he
gasconadingly, ‘there is not a Mussulman that ever wore a beard, not to
talk of a wretched Frank, who should get this horse from under me. I
would not yield him to the Commander of the Faithful this minute, were
he in your place; and I have my own reasons for it.’--‘I dare say you
have,’ returned I, ‘love of your ease, and fear of your bones.’ At
hearing this he grew quite outrageous; called Mohammed and Allah to
witness, that he did not know what it was to fear any thing; declared
that he was convinced some infernal spirit had that day got possession
of me, &c. At length observing that I looked at him with sneering
contemptuous defiance, he rode up alongside of me. I thought it was to
strike, and prepared to defend myself. I was however mistaken: he
snatched the reins out of my hand, and caught hold of them collected
close at the horse’s jaw, then began to flog my horse and to spur his
own, till he got them both into full speed: nor did he stop there, but
continued to belabour mine with his whip and to spur his own, driving
headlong over every impediment that came in our way, till I really
thought he had run mad, or designed to kill me. Several times I was on
the point of striking him with my whip, in order to knock him off his
horse; but as often patience providentially came in to my assistance,
and whispered to me to forbear, and see it out. Meantime I considered
myself as being in some danger; and yet such was the power which he had
over the cattle, that I found it impossible to stop him. So, resigning
the event to the direction of Providence, I suffered him, without a
farther effort, to proceed. He continued this for some miles, over an
uncultivated tract, here and there intersected with channels formed by
rills of water in the periodical rains, thickly set with low furze,
ferns, and other dwarf bushes, and broken up and down into little hills.
His horse carried him clear over all; and though mine was every minute
stumbling and nearly down, yet, with a dexterity inexpressible and a
vigour altogether amazing, he kept him up by the bridle, and, I may say,
_carried_ him gallantly over every thing. At all this I was very much
astonished; and, toward the end, as much pleased as astonished; which he
perceiving, cried out frequently and triumphantly, ‘Behold, Frank,
behold!’ and at last, drawing in the horses, stopping short, and looking
me full in the face, he exclaimed, ‘Frank, what say you now?’ For some
time I was incapable of making him any answer, but continued surveying
him from head to foot as the most extraordinary savage I had ever
beheld; while he stroked his whiskers with great self-complacency and
composure, and nodded his head every now and then, as much as to say,
‘Look at me! Am I not a very capital fellow?’ We alighted on the brow of
a small hill, whence was to be seen a full and uninterrupted prospect of
the country all round. The interpreter coming up, the Tartar called to
him, and desired him to explain to me carefully the meaning of what he
was about to say. ‘You see those mountains,’ said he, pointing to the
east; ‘they are in the province of Kurdestan, and inhabited by a vile
race of robbers, who pay homage to a god of their own, and worship the
devil from fear. They live by plunder; and often descend from those
mountains, cross the Tigris which runs between them and us, and plunder
and ravage this country in bands of great number and formidable
strength, carrying away into slavery all they can catch, and killing all
who resist them. This country therefore, for some distance round us, is
very dangerous to travellers, whose only safety lies in flight. Now it
was our misfortune this morning to get a very bad horse. Should we meet
with a band of those Curds, what could we do but fly? And if you, Frank,
rode this horse, and I that, we could never escape; for I doubt _you
could not keep him up from falling under_ ME, _as I did under_ YOU. I
should therefore come down and be taken; you would lose your guide and
miss your way; and all of us would be undone.’ As soon as the
interpreter had explained this to me, ‘Well,’ continued the Tartar,
‘what does he say to it now?’--‘Why, I say,’ returned I, ‘that you have
spoken good sense and sound reason; and I am obliged to you.’ This, when
fully interpreted, operated most pleasingly upon him, and his features
relaxed into a broad look of satisfaction.”

SUPERSTITION may be described to be either the careful and anxious
observation of numerous and unauthorized ceremonies in religion, under
the idea that they possess some virtue to propitiate God and obtain his
favour, or, as among Pagans and others, the worship of imaginary
deities, and the various means of averting evil by religious ceremonies,
which a heart oppressed with fears, and a perverted fancy, may dictate
to those ignorant of the true God, and the doctrines of salvation. Dr.
Neander observes, The consideration of human nature and history shows us
that the transition from unbelief to superstition is always easy. Both
these conditions of the human heart proceed from the self-same ground,
the want of that which may be properly called faith, the want of a life
in God, of a lively communion with divine things by means of the inward
life; that is, by means of the feelings. Man, whose inward feelings are
estranged from the divine nature, is inclined, sometimes to deny the
reality of that of which he has nothing within him, and for the
conception and application of which to himself he has no organ. Or else,
the irresistible force of his inward nature impels man to recognize that
higher power from which he would fain free himself entirely, and to seek
that connection with it which he cannot but feel needful to his comfort;
but, inasmuch as he is without any real inward sympathy of disposition
with the Divinity, and wants a true sense of holiness, the Divinity
appears to his darkened religious conscience only under the form of
power and arbitrary rule. His conscience paints to him this power as an
angry and avenging power. But as he has no idea of that which the
Divinity really is, he cannot duly understand this feeling of
estrangement from God, this consciousness of divine wrath; and, instead
of seeking in moral things the source of this unquiet feeling, which
leaves him no rest by day or night, and from which there is no escape,
he fancies that by this or that action, which of itself is perfectly
indifferent, he may have offended this higher power, and he seeks by
outward observances again to reconcile the offended power. Religion here
becomes a source, not of life, but of death; the source, not of
consolation and blessing, but of the most unspeakable anxiety which
torments man day and night with the spectres of his own imagination.
Religion here is no source of sanctification, but may unite in man’s
heart with every kind of untruth, and serve to promote it. There is one
kind of superstition in which, while man torments himself to the utmost,
he still remains estranged from the true nature of inward holiness; and
while he is restrained from many good works of charity by his constant
attendance on mischievous, arbitrary, and outward observances, he is
still actuated by a horror of any great sin, a superstition in which man
avoids pleasure so completely that he falls into the opposite extreme;
and even the most innocent enjoyments, which a childlike simplicity
would receive with thankfulness from the hand of a heavenly Father, he
dares not indulge in. But there is also another kind of superstition,
which makes it easy for man, by certain outward observances, to silence
his conscience under all kinds of sin, and which therefore serves as a
welcome support to it.

SUPPER, LORD’S, derives its name from having been instituted by Jesus,
after he had supped with his Apostles, immediately before he went out to
be delivered into the hands of his enemies. In Egypt, for every house of
the children of Israel, a lamb was slain upon that night, when the
Almighty punished the cruelty and obstinacy of the Egyptians by killing
their first-born, but charged the destroying angel to pass over the
houses upon which the blood of the lamb was sprinkled. This was the
original sacrifice of the passover. In commemoration of it, the Jews
observed the annual festival of the passover, when all the males of
Judea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem. A lamb was slain for every
house, the representative of that whose blood had been sprinkled in the
night of the escape from Egypt. After the blood was poured under the
altar by the priests, the lambs were carried home to be eaten by the
people in their tents or houses at a domestic feast, where every master
of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his
family to the God of Israel. Jesus having fulfilled the law of Moses, to
which in all things he submitted, by eating the paschal supper with his
disciples, proceeded after supper to institute a rite, which, to any
person that reads the words of the institution without having formed a
previous opinion upon the subject, will probably appear to have been
intended by him as a memorial of that event which was to happen not many
hours after. “He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it
unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup
is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” Luke xxii, 19,
20. He took the bread which was then on the table, and the wine, of
which some had been used in sending round the cup of thanksgiving; and
by saying, “This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of
me,” he declared to his Apostles that this was the representation of his
death by which he wished them to commemorate that event. The Apostle
Paul, not having been present at the institution, received it by
immediate revelation from the Lord Jesus; and the manner in which he
delivers it to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi, 23–26, implies that it was
not a rite confined to the Apostles who were present when it was
instituted, but that it was meant to be observed by all Christians till
the end of the world. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” Whether we consider
these words as part of the revelation made to St. Paul, or as his own
commentary upon the nature of the ordinance which was revealed to him,
they mark, with equal significancy and propriety, the extent and the
perpetuity of the obligation to observe that rite which was first
instituted in presence of the Apostles.

There is a striking correspondence between this view of the Lord’s
Supper, as a rite by which it was intended that all Christians should
commemorate the death of Christ, and the circumstances attending the
institution of the feast of the passover. Like the Jews, we have the
original sacrifice: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” and by
his substitution our souls are delivered from death. Like the Jews, we
have a feast in which that sacrifice, and the deliverance purchased by
it, are remembered. Hence the Lord’s Supper was early called the
eucharist, from its being said by St. Luke, “Jesus, when he took the
bread, gave thanks;” and his disciples in all ages, when they receive
the bread, keep a feast of thanksgiving. To Christians, as to Jews,
there is “a night to be much observed unto the Lord,” in all
generations. To Christians, as to Jews, the manner of observing the
night is appointed. To both it is accompanied with thanksgiving.

The Lord’s Supper exhibits, by a significant action, the
characteristical doctrine of the Christian faith, that the death of its
author, which seemed to be the completion of the rage of his enemies,
was a voluntary sacrifice, so efficacious as to supersede the necessity
of every other; and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins.
By partaking of this rite, his disciples publish an event most
interesting to all the kindreds of the earth; they declare that, far
from being ashamed of the suffering of their Master, they glory in his
cross; and, while they thus perform the office implied in that
expression of the Apostle, “Ye do show forth the Lord’s death,” they at
the same time cherish the sentiments by which their religion ministers
to their own consolation and improvement. They cannot remember the death
of Christ, the circumstances which rendered that event necessary, the
disinterested love and the exalted virtues of their deliverer, without
feeling their obligations to him. Unless the vilest hypocrisy accompany
an action, which, by its very nature, professes to flow from warm
affection, the love of Christ will constrain them to fulfil the purposes
of his death, by “living unto him who died for them;” and we have reason
to hope, that, in the places where he causes his name to be remembered,
he will come and bless his people. As the object of faith is thus
explicitly set before them in every commemoration, so the renewed
exercise of that faith, which the ordinance is designed to excite, must
bring renewed life, and a deeper experience of the “great salvation.”
See SACRAMENT.

SURETY, in common speech, is one who gives security for another; and
hence it has become prevalent among theological writers to confound it
with the terms substitute and representative, when applied to Christ. In
fact, the word “surety” occurs only once in our translation of the
Scriptures, namely, Heb. vii, 22: “By so much was Jesus made the surety
of a better covenant.” It is certainly true that the Son of God, in all
that he has done or is still doing as Mediator, may be justly viewed as
the surety of the new and everlasting covenant, and as affording the
utmost security to believers that, as the Father hath given all things
into his hands, they will be conducted with effect, and all the
exceeding great and precious promises of that covenant assuredly be
accomplished. But this does not appear to be the precise idea which the
Apostle has in view in the above passage. This has been sufficiently
evinced by many critics and commentators, particularly by Pierce,
Macknight, and M’Lean, in their notes on the place. The substance of
their remarks is, that the original term employed by the Apostle, and
which occurs no where else in Scripture, is ἔγγυος, which is derived
from ἐγγὺς, _near_, and signifies _one who draws near_, or who brings
others near; which sense of the word will not very well accord with that
of a substitute or representative. The Greek commentators very properly
explain the word by μεσίτης, _a mediator_. Now, as in this passage a
comparison is stated between Jesus, as a high priest, and the Levitical
high priests; and as the latter were considered by the Apostle to be the
mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the
Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices; it is evident that the
Apostle in this passage terms Jesus the High Priest or Mediator of the
better covenant, because, through his mediation, or in virtue of the
sacrifice which he offered of himself to God, believers receive all the
blessings of the new covenant. And as in verse 16 the Apostle had said
that “by the introduction of a better hope we draw near to God,” he, in
verse 22, very properly calls Jesus ἔγγυος, “he by whom we draw nigh,”
thereby denoting the effect of his mediation. From the whole, therefore,
it is plain that the word “surety” in this place is equivalent with that
of mediator or high priest.

SWALLOWS, סיס, a bird too well known to need description. Our
translators of the Bible have given this name to two different Hebrew
words. The first, דרור, in Psalm lxxxiv, 3, and Prov. xxvi, 2, is
probably the bird which Forskal mentions among the migratory birds of
Alexandria, by the name of _dururi_; and the second, עגור, Isa. xxxviii,
14, and Jer. viii, 7, is the crane; but the word סיס, in the two last
places rendered in our version “crane,” is really the swallow. So the
Septuagint, Vulgate, and two ancient manuscripts, Theodotion, and Jerom,
render it, and Bochart and Lowth follow them. Bochart assigns the note
of this bird for the reason of its name, and ingeniously remarks that
the Italians about Venice call a swallow _zizilla_, and its twittering
_zizillare_. The swallow being a plaintive bird, and a bird of passage,
perfectly agrees with the meaning of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The annual
migration of the swallow has been familiarly known in every age, and
perhaps in every region of the earth. In Psalm lxxxiv, 3, it is said,
“The sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts.” By the
altars of Jehovah we are to understand the temple. The words probably
refer to the custom of several nations of antiquity,--that birds which
built their nests on the temples, or within the limits of them, were not
suffered to be driven away, much less killed; but found a secure and
uninterrupted dwelling. Hence, when Aristodicus disturbed the birds’
nests of the temple of Kumæ, and took the young from them, a voice,
according to a tradition preserved by Herodotus, is said to have spoken
these words from the interior of the temple: “Most villainous of men,
how darest thou to drive away such as seek refuge in my temple?” The
Athenians were so enraged at Atarbes, who had killed a sparrow which
built on the temple of Æsculapius, that they killed him. Among the
Arabs, who are more closely related to the Hebrews, birds which build
their nests on the temple of Mecca have been inviolable from the
earliest times. In the very ancient poem of a Dschorhamidish prince,
published by a Schulten, in which he laments that his tribe had been
deprived of the protection of the sanctuary of Mecca, it is said,

                “We lament the house, whose dove
                Was never suffer’d to be hurt:
                She remain’d there secure; in it, also,
                The sparrow built its nest.”

In another ancient Arabian poet, Nabega, the Dhobianit swears “by the
sanctuary which affords shelter to the birds which seek it there.”
Niebuhr says, “I will observe, that among the Mohammedans, not only is
the _kaba_ a refuge for the pigeons, but also on the mosques over the
graves of Ali and Hassein, on the Dsjamea, or chief mosque, at Helle,
and in other cities, they are equally undisturbed.” And Thevenot
remarks: “Within a mosque at Oudjicum lies interred the son of a king,
called Schah-Zadeh-Imam Dgiafer, whom they reckon a saint. The dome is
rough cast over; before the mosque there is a court, well planted with
many high plane trees, on which we saw a great many storks, that haunt
thereabout all the year round.” See SPARROW.

SWAN, תנשמת, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 16. The Hebrew word is very
ambiguous, for in the first of these places, it is ranked among
water-fowls; and by the Vulgate, which our version follows, rendered
“swan,” and in the thirtieth verse, the same word is rendered “mole,”
and ranked among reptiles. Some translate it in the former place, “the
bat,” which they justify by the affinity which there is between the bat
and the mole. The LXX. in the former verse render it ϖορφυρίωνα, the
_porphyrion_, or “purple bird,” probably the “flamingo;” and in the
latter, “ibis.” Parkhurst shows that the name is given from the
creature’s breathing in a strong and audible manner; and Michaëlis
learnedly conjectures, that in verse eighteen, and Deut. xiv, 16, it may
mean the “goose,” which every one knows is remarkable for its manner of
“breathing out” or “hissing,” when approached.

SWEDENBORGIANS denote that particular denomination of Christians who
admit the testimony of Baron Swedenborg, and receive the doctrines
taught in the theological writings of that author. Emanuel Swedenborg
was the son of a bishop of West Gothnia, in the kingdom of Sweden, whose
name was Swedberg, a man of considerable learning and celebrity in his
time. The son was born at Stockholm, January 29, 1688. He enjoyed early
the advantages of a liberal education, and being naturally endowed with
uncommon talents for the acquirement of learning, his progress in the
sciences was rapid and extensive; and he soon distinguished himself by
several publications in the Latin language, which gave proof of equal
genius and erudition. It may reasonably be supposed that under the care
of his pious and reverend father our author’s religious instruction was
not neglected. This, indeed, appears plain from the general tenor of his
life and writings, which are marked with strong and lively characters of
a mind deeply impressed with a sense of the divine Being, and of all the
relative duties thence resulting. He was ennobled in the year 1719, by
Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and named Swedenborg, from which time he took his
seat with the nobles of the equestrian order, in the triennial assembly
of the states. The philosophical works, published in Latin, by Baron
Swedenborg, are numerous; but his theological works are said to be still
more so.

1. The first and principal distinguishing doctrine contained in the
writings of Baron Swedenborg, and maintained by his followers, relates
to the person and character of Jesus Christ, and to the redemption
wrought by him. On this subject it is insisted that Jesus Christ is
Jehovah, manifested in the flesh; and that he came into the world to
glorify his human nature, by making it one with the divine. It is
therefore insisted farther that the humanity of Jesus Christ is itself
divine, by virtue of its indissoluble union with the indwelling Father,
agreeably to the testimony of St. Paul, that, “in Jesus Christ dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Col. ii, 9; and that thus, as to
his humanity, he is the Mediator between God and man, since there is now
no other medium of God’s access to man, or of man’s access to God, but
this divine humanity, which was assumed for this purpose. Thus it is
taught, that in the person of Jesus Christ dwells the whole Trinity of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father constituting the soul of the
above humanity, while the humanity itself is the Son, and the divine
virtue or operation proceeding from it is the Holy Spirit; forming
altogether one God, just as the soul, the body, and operation of man,
form one man. On the subject of the redemption wrought by this incarnate
God, it is lastly taught that it consisted not in the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ, but in the real subjugation of the powers of
darkness and their removal from man, by continual combats and victories
over them, during his abode in the world; and in the consequent descent
to man of divine power and life, which was brought near to him in the
thus glorified humanity of this victorious God. They who receive this
testimony concerning Jesus Christ therefore acknowledge no other God but
him; and believe that in approaching his divine humanity, they approach,
at the same time, and have communication with, all the fulness of the
Godhead, seeing and worshipping the invisible in the visible, agreeably
to the tenor of those words of Jesus Christ: “He that believeth on me
believeth not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that seeth me,
seeth him that sent me,” John xii, 44, 45.

2. A second doctrine taught by the same author relates to the sacred
Scripture, or word of God, which is maintained to be divinely inspired
throughout, and, consequently, to be the repository of the whole will
and wisdom of the most high God. It is, however, insisted, that this
will and wisdom are not in all places discoverable from the letter or
history of the sacred pages, but lie deeply concealed under the letter.
For it is taught by Baron Swedenborg, that the sense of the letter of
the holy word is the basis, the continent, and the firmament, of its
spiritual and celestial senses, being written according to the doctrine
of correspondencies between things spiritual and things natural, and
thus designed by the Most High as the vehicle of communication of the
eternal spiritual truths of his kingdom to the minds of men. It is
farther endeavoured to be shown that Jesus Christ spake continually
according to this same doctrine, veiling divine and spiritual truths
under natural images, especially in his parables, and thus communicating
to man the most important mysteries relative to himself and his kingdom,
under the most beautiful and edifying figures taken from the natural
things of this world. Thus, according to Baron Swedenborg, even the
historical parts both of the Old and New Testament contain vast stores
of important and spiritual wisdom under the outward letter; and this
consideration, as he farther asserts, justifies the pages of divine
revelation, even in those parts which to a common observer appear
trifling, nugatory, and contradictory. It is lastly maintained, on this
subject, that the sacred Scripture, or word of God, is the only medium
of communication and conjunction between God and man, and is likewise
the only source of all genuine truth and knowledge respecting God, his
kingdom, and operation, and the only sure guide for man’s understanding,
in whatever relates to his spiritual or eternal concerns.

3. The next branch of the system is practical, and relates to the life,
or to that rule of conduct on the part of man which is truly acceptable
to the Deity, and at the same time conducive to man’s eternal happiness
and salvation, by conjoining him with his God. This rule is taught to be
simply this: to shun all known evils as sins against God, and at the
same time to love, to cherish, and to practise whatsoever is wise,
virtuous, and holy, as being most agreeable to the will of God, and to
the spirit of his precepts. On this subject it is strongly and
repeatedly insisted that evil must of necessity remain with man, and
prove his eternal destruction, unless it be removed by sincere
repentance, leading him to note what is disorderly in his own mind and
life; and, when he has discovered it, to fight resolutely against its
influence, in dependence on the aid and grace of Jesus Christ. It is
insisted farther, that this opposition to evil ought to be grounded on
the consideration that all evil is against God, since, if evil be
combated from any inferior motive, it is not radically removed, but only
concealed, and on that account is even more dangerous and destructive
than before. It is added, that when man has done the work of repentance,
by shunning his hereditary evils as sins against God, he ought to set
himself to the practice of what is wise and good by a faithful,
diligent, and conscientious discharge of all the duties of his station;
by which means his mind is preserved from a return of the power of
disorder, and kept in the order of heaven, and the fulfilment of the
great law of charity.

4. A fourth doctrine inculcated in the same writings, is the coöperation
on the part of man with the divine grace or agency of Jesus Christ. On
this subject it is insisted that man ought not indolently to hang down
his hands, under the idle expectation that God will do every thing for
him in the way of purification and regeneration, without any exertion of
his own; but that he is bound by the above law of coöperation to exert
himself, as if the whole progress of his purification and regeneration
depended entirely on his own exertions; yet, in exerting himself, he is
continually to recollect, and humbly to acknowledge, that all his power
to do so is from above, agreeably to the declaration of Jesus Christ,
“Without me ye can do nothing,” John xv, 5.

5. A fifth and last distinguishing doctrine taught in the theological
writings of our author, relates to man’s connection with the other
world, and its various inhabitants. On this subject, it is insisted, not
only from his view of the sacred Scriptures, but also from the
experience of the author himself, that every man is in continual
association with angels and spirits, and that without such association
he could not possibly think or exert any living faculty. It is insisted
farther, that man, according to his life in the world, takes up his
eternal abode, either with angels of light, or with the spirits of
darkness; with the former, if he is wise to live according to the
precepts of God’s holy word; or with the latter, if, through folly and
transgression, he rejects the counsel and guidance of the Most High.

Some other peculiar doctrines of minor importance might be enlarged on
in this place if it was deemed necessary; such as the doctrine
concerning the human soul, as being in a human form; concerning the
marriage of the good and the true, as existing in the holy word, and in
all things in nature. But it may be observed generally, that the
fundamental error of the system is a denial of the divinity of Christ,
while it appears to be acknowledged, and of the doctrine of the
atonement. Many true things are said also of the figurative and typical
character of the word of God; but the interpretation of it in this view
runs into the wildest extravagance for want of principles; while the
whole is clothed with mysticism on the one hand and gross and carnal
conceptions of spiritual things on the other. There is, indeed, much in
which this sect agrees with other Christians, and much, therefore, that
is true in their strange system; but it is unconnected with other great
and vital truths of the Gospel; and is joined also with great errors. It
is a dreamy delusion, which defies all rational defence: it rests upon
the assumed experience of a man of genius, it is true, but one who was
not always in his wits.

In London, and some of the other cities and great towns in England,
places of public worship have been opened, for the express purpose of
preaching the preceding doctrines. In all such places particular forms
of prayer have been adopted, in agreement with the ideas of the
worshippers, as grounded in the religious sentiments above stated,
especially respecting the supreme object of adoration, who is
acknowledged to be the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in his divine
humanity. But in no place have any peculiar rites and ceremonies been
introduced, the worshippers being content with retaining the celebration
of the two sacraments of baptism and the holy supper, since no other
rites are insisted on by the author whose testimony they receive. It is
believed, by a large majority of them, that it was never his intention
that any particular sect should be formed upon his doctrines, but that
all who receive them, whether in the establishment, or in any other
communion of Christians, should be at perfect liberty either to continue
in their former communion, or to quit it, as their conscience dictates.
England appears to be the country where the system has been most
generally received. Baron Swedenborg had many eccentricities; but
perhaps the most remarkable circumstance respecting him, was his
asserting, that, during the uninterrupted period of twenty-seven years,
he enjoyed open intercourse with the world of departed spirits, and
during that time was instructed in the internal sense of the sacred
Scriptures, hitherto undiscovered! This is a correspondence with the
invisible world, to which few or no writers, before or since his time,
ever pretended, if we except the Arabian prophet.

SWINE, חזיר, Lev. xi, 7; Deut. xiv, 8; Psalm lxxx, 13; Prov. xi, 22;
Isaiah lxv, 4; lxvi, 3, 17; χοῖρος, Matt. vii, 6; viii, 30; Mark v, 14;
Luke viii, 33; xv, 15; the plural of hog, an animal well known. In
impurity and grossness of manners, this creature stands almost
unrivalled among the order of quadrupeds; and the meanness of his
appearance corresponds to the grossness of his manners. He has a most
indiscriminate, voracious, and insatiable appetite. The Prophet Isaiah,
lxv, 4, charges his degenerate people with eating swine’s flesh, and
having broth of abominable things in their vessels, Isaiah lxvi, 3.
Conduct so contrary to their solemn engagements, so hateful in the sight
of the Holy One, though long endured, was not always to pass with
impunity. “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the
gardens, behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the
abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord,”
Isaiah lxvi, 17. Such a sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord,
because the eating of the blood was prohibited, and because the
sacrifice consisted of swine’s flesh. To these precepts and
threatenings, which were often enforced by severe judgments may be
traced the habitual and unconquerable aversion of the latter Jews to the
use of swine’s flesh; an aversion which the most alluring promises and
the most cruel sufferings have been found alike insufficient to subdue.

In such detestation was the hog held by the Jews that they would not so
much as pronounce its name, but called it “the strange thing;” and we
read in the history of the Maccabees, that Eleazer, a principal scribe,
being compelled by Antiochus Epiphanes to open his mouth and receive
swine’s flesh, spit it forth, and went of his own accord to the torment,
choosing rather to suffer death than to break the law of God, and give
offence to his nation, 2 Mac. vi, 18; vii, 1. It is observed that when
Adrian rebuilt Jerusalem, he set up the image of a hog, in bas-relief,
upon the gates of the city, to drive the Jews away from it, and to
express the greater contempt for that miserable people. It was avarice,
a contempt of the law of Moses, and a design to supply the neighbouring
idolaters with victims, that caused whole herds of swine to be fed on
the borders of Galilee. Whence the reason is plain of Christ’s
permitting the devils to throw the swine headlong into the lake of
Genesareth, Matthew viii, 32. We read, in Matthew vii, 6, “Give not that
which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
There is a similar maxim in the Talmudical writings: “Do not cast pearls
before swine;” to which is added, by way of explanation, “Do not offer
wisdom to one who knows not the value of it, but profanes its glory.”

SYCAMINE, συκάμινος, in Arabic _sokam_, Luke xvii, 6. This is a
different tree from the sycamore, mentioned Luke xix, 4. Dioscorides
says that this tree is the mulberry, though he allows that some
apprehend that it is the same with the sycamore. Galen has a separate
article on the _sycamorus_, which he speaks of as rare, and mentions as
having seen it at Alexandria in Egypt. The Greeks name the _morus_ the
sycamine. Grotius says the word συκάμινος has no connection with συκέη,
_the fig-tree_, but is entirely Syrian, שקמין, in Hebrew, שקמים. It
should seem, indeed, to be very similar to the mulberry, as not only the
Latin, but the Syriac and the Arabic, render it by _morus_; and thus
Coverdale’s, the Rheim’s, and Purver’s English translations render it by
the mulberry; and so it is in Bishop Wilson’s Bible.

SYCAMORE, שקמות, שקמים, 1 Kings x, 27; 1 Chron. xxvii, 28; 2 Chron. i,
15; Psalm lxxviii, 47; Isa. ix, 9; Amos viii, 14; συκομορέα, Luke xix,
4; a large tree, according to the description of Theophrastus,
Dioscorides, and Galen, resembling the mulberry-tree in the leaf, and
the fig in its fruit; hence its name, compounded of συκέη _fig_, and
μόρος, _mulberry_; and some have fancied that it was originally produced
by ingrafting the one tree upon the other. Its fruit is palatable. When
ripe it is soft, watery, somewhat sweet, with a little of an aromatic
taste. The trees are very common in Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt; grow
large, and to a great height; and though their grain is coarse are much
used in building. To change sycamores into cedars, Isa. ix, 10, means,
to render the buildings of cities, and the state of the nation, much
more magnificent than before. Dr. Shaw remarks, that as the grain and
texture of the sycamore is remarkably coarse and spongy, it could
therefore stand in no competition at all with the cedar for beauty and
ornament. We meet with the same opposition of cedars to sycamores in 1
Kings x, 27, where Solomon is said to have made silver as the stones,
and cedars as the sycamores of the vale for abundance. “By this
_mashal_, or figurative and sententious speech,” says Bishop Lowth,
“they boast, in this place of Isaiah, that they shall be easily able to
repair their present losses, suffered, perhaps, by the first Assyrian
invasion under Tiglath-Pileser, and to bring their affairs to a more
flourishing condition than ever.” The wood of this tree is very durable.
“The mummy chests,” says Dr. Shaw, “and whatever figures and instruments
of wood are found in the catacombs, are all of them of sycamore, which,
though spongy and porous to appearance, has, notwithstanding, continued
entire and uncorrupted for at least three thousand years. From its value
in furnishing wood for various uses, from the grateful shade which its
wide-spreading branches afforded, and on account of the fruit which
Mallet says the Egyptians hold in the highest estimation, we perceive
the loss which the ancient inhabitants of Egypt must have felt when
their vines were destroyed with hail, and their sycamore trees with
frost,” Psalm lxxviii, 47. “The sycamore,” says Mr. Norden, “is of the
height of a beech, and bears its fruit in a manner quite different from
other trees; it has them on the trunk itself, which shoots out little
sprigs, in form of grape stalks, at the end of which grow the fruit
close to one another, almost like clusters of grapes. The tree is always
green, and bears fruit several times in the year, without observing any
certain seasons; for I have seen some sycamores that have given fruit
two months after others. The fruit has the figure and smell of real
figs, but is inferior to them in the taste, having a disgustful
sweetness. Its colour is a yellow, inclining to an ochre, shadowed by a
flesh colour. In the inside it resembles the common figs, excepting that
it has a blackish colouring with yellow spots. This sort of tree is
pretty common in Egypt; the people, for the greater part, live upon its
fruit, and think themselves well regaled when they have a piece of
bread, a couple of sycamore figs, and a pitcher of water.” There might
be many of these trees in Judea. David appointed a particular officer,
whose sole duty it was to watch over the plantations of sycamore and
olive-trees, 1 Chron. xxviii, 28; and being joined with the olive, the
high estimation in which it was held is intimated; for the olive is
considered as one of the most precious gifts which the God of nature has
bestowed on the oriental nations. There seem to have been great numbers
of them in Solomon’s time, 1 Kings x, 27; and in the Talmud they are
mentioned as growing in the plains of Jericho.

One curious particular in the cultivation of the fruit must not be
passed over. Pliny, Dioscorides, and Theophrastus observe that the fruit
must be cut or scratched, either with the nail or with iron, or it will
not ripen; but four days after this process it will become ripe. To this
same purpose Jerom, on Amos vii, 14, says, that without this management
the figs are excessively bitter. These testimonies, together with the
Septuagint and Vulgate version, are adduced to settle the meaning of the
word בולס, in Amos vii, 14, which must signify scraping, or making
incisions in the sycamore fruit; an employment of Amos before he was
called to the prophetic office: “I was no prophet, neither was I a
prophet’s son; but I was a herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit.”
Hasselquist, describing the _ficus sycamorus_, or Scripture sycamore,
says, “It buds the latter end of March, and the fruit ripens in the
beginning of June. At the time when the fruit has arrived to the size of
an inch diameter, the inhabitants pare off a part at the centre point.
They say that without this paring it would not come to maturity.” The
figs thus prematurely ripened are called _djumeis_ _bædri_, that is,
“precocious sycamore figs.” As the sycamore is a large spreading tree,
sometimes shooting up to a considerable height, we see the reason why
Zaccheus climbed up into a sycamore tree to get a sight of our Saviour.
This incident also furnishes a proof that the sycamore was still common
in Palestine; for this tree stood to protect the traveller by the side
of the highway.

SYENE, a city of Egypt, now called Assouan, situated at its southern
extremity. Ezekiel, xxix, 10, describing the desolation to be brought
upon Egypt says, “Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make the
land of Egypt utterly desolate, from the tower of Syene even to the
border of Cush,” or Arabia, or, as some read it, “from Migdol to Syene,”
implying, according to either version of the passage, the whole length
of the country from north to south. The latitude of Syene, according to
Bruce, is 24° 0´ 45´´; that of Alexandria, 31° 11´ 33´´; difference 7°
10´ 48´´, equal to four hundred and thirty geographical miles on the
meridian, or about five hundred British miles; but the real length of
the valley of Egypt, as it follows the windings of the Nile, is full six
hundred miles.

SYNAGOGUE, συναγωγὴ, “an assembly,” Rev. ii, 9; iii, 9. The word often
occurs in the Gospels and in the Acts, because Jesus Christ and his
Apostles generally went to preach in those places. Although the
sacrifices could not be offered, except in the tabernacle or the temple,
the other exercises of religion were restricted to no particular place.
Accordingly we find that the praises of God were sung, at a very ancient
period, in the schools of the prophets; and those who felt any
particular interest in religion, were assembled by the seers on the
Sabbath, and the new moons, for prayers and religious instruction, 1
Sam. x, 5–11; xix, 18–24; 2 Kings iv, 23. During the Babylonish
captivity, the Jews, who were then deprived of their customary religious
privileges, were wont to collect around some prophet or other pious man,
who taught them and their children in religion, exhorted to good
conduct, and read out of the sacred books, Ezek. xiv, 1; xx, 1; Dan. vi,
11; Neh. viii, 18. These assemblies, or meetings, became, in progress of
time, fixed to certain places, and a regular order was observed in them.
Such appears to have been the origin of synagogues.

In speaking of synagogues, it is worthy to be noticed, that there is
nothing said in respect to the existence of such buildings in Palestine,
during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. They are, therefore, by some
supposed to have been first erected under the Maccabean princes, but
that, in foreign countries, they were much more ancient. Whether this
statement be correct or not, it is nevertheless certain, that in the
time of the Apostles, there were synagogues wherever there were Jews.
They were built, in imitation of the temple of Jerusalem, with a court
and porches, as is the case with the synagogues in the east at the
present day. In the centre of the court is a chapel, supported by four
columns, in which, on an elevation prepared for it, is placed the book
of the law, rolled up. This, on the appointed days, is publicly read. In
addition to the chapel, there is erected within the court a large
covered hall or vestry, into which the people retire, when the weather
happens to be cold and stormy, and each family has its particular seat.
The uppermost seats in the synagogue, that is, those which were nearest
the chapel where the sacred books were kept, were esteemed peculiarly
honourable, Matt. xxiii, 6; James ii, 3. The “proseuchæ,” ϖροσευχαὶ, are
understood by some to be smaller synagogues, but by others are supposed
to be particular places under the open sky, where the Jews assembled for
religious exercise. But Josephus calls the proseucha of Tiberias a large
house, which held very many persons. See _Proseuchæ_. The Apostles
preached the Gospel in synagogues and proseuchæ, and with their
adherents performed in them all the religious services. When excluded,
they imitated the Jews in those places, where they were too poor to
erect these buildings, and held their religious meetings in the houses
of individuals. Hence we not only hear of synagogues in houses in the
Talmud, but of churches in houses in the New Testament, Rom. xvi, 5; 1
Cor. xvi, 19; Col. iv, 15; Phil. ii; Acts iii, 46; v, 42. The Apostles
sometimes hired a house, in which they performed religious services, and
taught daily, Acts xix, 9; xx, 8. Συναγωγὴ means literally a convention
or assembly, but by metonymy, was eventually used for the place of
assembling; in the same way, that ἐκκλησία, which means literally a
calling together, or convocation, signifies also at the present time the
place of convocation. Synagogues were sometimes called by the Jews
schools; but they were careful to make an accurate distinction between
such, and the schools, properly so called, the מדרשים, or “sublimer
schools,” in which the Talmud was read, while the law merely was read in
the synagogues, which they placed far behind the Talmud.

The mode of conducting religious instruction and worship in the
primitive Christian churches was derived for the most part from the
practice which anciently prevailed in synagogues. But there were no
regular teachers in the synagogues who were officially qualified to
pronounce discourses before the people; although there were interpreters
who rendered into the vernacular tongue, namely, the _Hebræo-aramean_,
the sections, which had been publicly read in the Hebrew.

The “synagogue preacher,” דרשן, whose business it is, in consequence of
his office, to address the people, is an official personage that has
been introduced in later times; at least we find no mention of such a
one in the New Testament. On the contrary, in the time of Christ, the
person who read the section for the Sabbath, or any other person who was
respectable for learning and had a readiness of speech, addressed the
people, Luke iv, 16–21; Acts xiii, 5, 15; xv, 21; Matt. iv, 23.

The other persons who were employed in the services and government of
the synagogue, in addition to the one who read the Scriptures, and the
person who rendered them into the vernacular tongue, were as follows: 1.
“The ruler of the synagogue,” ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ראש הכנסת, who presided
over the assembly, and invited readers and speakers, unless some persons
who were acceptable voluntarily offered themselves, Mark v, 22, 35–38;
Luke viii, 41; xiii, 14, 15; Acts xiii, 15. 2. “The elders of the
synagogue,” וקנים, ϖρεσβύτεροι. They appear to have been the counsellors
of the head or ruler of the synagogue, and were chosen from among the
most powerful and learned of the people, and are hence called
ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, Acts xiii, 15. The council of elders not only took a part
in the management of the internal concerns of the synagogue, but also
punished transgressors of the public laws, either by turning them out of
the synagogue, or decreeing the punishment of thirty-nine stripes, John
xii, 42; xvi, 2; 2 Cor. xi, 24. 3. “The collectors of alms,” גבאי צדקה,
διάκονοι, “deacons.” Although every thing which is said of them by the
Jews was not true concerning them in the time of the Apostles, there can
be no doubt that there were such officers in the synagogues at that
time, Acts vi. 4. “The servants of the synagogue,” חזן, ὑπηρέτης, Luke
iv, 20; whose business it was to reach the book of the law to the person
who was to read it, and to receive it back again, and to perform other
services. The ceremonies which prevail in the synagogues at the present
day in presenting the law were not observed in the time of our Saviour.
5. “The messenger or legate of the synagogue,” שליה צבור. This was a
person who was sent from synagogues abroad, to carry alms to Jerusalem.
The name, messenger of the synagogue, was applied likewise to any
person, who was commissioned by a synagogue, and sent forth to propagate
religious knowledge. A person likewise was denominated the messenger, or
angel, ἄγγελλος, τῆς ἄγγελλος ἐκκλησίας, &c, who was selected by the
assembly to recite for them the prayers; the same that is called by the
Jews of modern times the synagogue singer, or cantilator, Rev. ii, 1, 8,
12, 18; iii, 1, 7, 14.

The Jews anciently called those persons who, from their superior
erudition, were capable of teaching in the synagogue, פרנסים,
“shepherds,” or “pastors.” They applied the same term, at least in more
recent times, to the elders of the synagogue, and also to the collectors
of alms, or deacons. The ground of the application of this term in such
a way, is as follows: the word פרנם is, without doubt, derived from the
Greek word ϖύρνος, “bread,” or “a fragment of bread;” and, as it is used
in the Targums, it corresponds to the Hebrew verb רעה, “to feed.” It is
easy to see, therefore, how the word פרנס might be applied to persons
who sustained offices in the synagogue, in the same way as רעה is
applied to kings, &c.

We do not find mention made of public worship in the synagogues, except
on the Sabbath, Matthew xii, 9; Mark i, 21; iii, 1; vi, 2; Luke iv, 16,
32, 33; vi, 6; xiii, 10; Acts xiii, 14; xv, 21; xvi, 13–25; xvii, 2;
xviii, 4. What is said of St. Paul’s hiring the school of one Tyrannus
at Ephesus, and teaching in it daily, is a peculiar instance, Acts xix,
9, 10. Yet there can be no doubt that those Jews who were unable to go
to Jerusalem attended worship on their festival days, as well as on the
Sabbath, in their own synagogues. Individuals sometimes offered their
private prayers in the synagogue. When an assembly was collected
together for worship, the services began, after the customary greeting,
with a doxology. A section was then read from the Mosaic law. Then
followed, after the singing of a second doxology, the reading of a
portion from the prophets, Acts xv, 31; Luke iv, 16. The person whose
duty it was to perform the reading, placed upon his head, as is done at
the present day, a covering called _tallith_, to which St. Paul alludes,
2 Cor. iii, 15. The sections which had been read in the Hebrew were
rendered by an interpreter into the vernacular tongue, and the reader or
some other man then addressed the people, Luke iv, 16; Acts xiii, 15. It
was on such occasions as these, that Jesus, and afterward the Apostles,
taught the Gospel. The meeting, as far as the religious exercises, were
concerned, was ended with a prayer, to which the people responded Amen,
when a collection was taken for the poor.

The customs which prevail at the present day, and which Vitringa has
treated of, were not all of them practised in ancient times. The
readers, for instance, were not then, as they are at the present day,
called upon to perform, but presented themselves voluntarily, Luke iv,
16; the persons also who addressed the people were not rabbins expressly
appointed for that purpose, but were either invited from those present,
or offered themselves, Acts xiii, 15; Luke iv, 17. The parts to be
publicly read, likewise, do not appear to have been previously pointed
out, although the book was selected by the ruler of the synagogue, Luke
iv, 16. Furthermore, the forms of prayer that are used by the Jews at
the present time do not appear to have been in existence in the time of
Christ; unless this may perhaps have been the case in respect to the
substance of some of them, especially the one called שמץ קרי, concerning
which the Talmudists, at a very early period, gave many precepts.

It was by ministering in synagogues that the Apostles gathered the
churches. They retained also essentially the same mode of worship with
that of the synagogues, excepting that the Lord’s Supper was made an
additional institution, agreeably to the example of Christ, Acts ii, 42;
xx, 7–11; 1 Cor. xi, 16–34. They were at length excluded from the
synagogue and assembled at evening in the house of some Christian, which
was lighted for the purpose with lamps, Acts xx, 7–11. The Apostle, with
the elders, when engaged in public worship, took a position where they
would be most likely to be heard by all. The first service was merely a
salutation or blessing, namely, “The Lord be with you,” or, “Peace be
with you.” Then followed the doxologies and prelexions, the same as in
the synagogues. The Apostle then addressed the people on the subject of
religion, and urged upon them that purity of life which it required.
Prayer succeeded, which was followed by the commemoration of the
Saviour’s death in the breaking and distribution of bread. The meeting
was ended by taking a collection for the poor, especially those at
Jerusalem, 2 Cor. ix, 1–15.

Those who held some office in the church were the regularly qualified
instructers in these religious meetings; and yet laymen had liberty to
address their brethren on these occasions the same as in the synagogues;
also to sing hymns, and to pray; which, in truth, many of them did,
especially those who were supernaturally gifted, not excepting the
women. Those females who were not under a supernatural influence were
forbidden by the Apostle Paul to make an address on such occasions, or
to propose questions; and it was enjoined on those who did speak, not to
lay aside their veils, 1 Cor. xi, 5; xiv, 34–40. The reader and the
speaker stood; the others sat; all arose in the time of prayer. Whatever
was stated in a foreign tongue was immediately rendered by an
interpreter into the speech in common use. This was so necessary, that
Paul enjoined silence on a person who was even endowed with supernatural
gifts, provided an interpreter was not at hand, 1 Cor. xiv, 1–33. It was
the practice among the Greek Christians to uncover their heads when
attending divine service, 1 Cor. xi, 11–16; but in the east, the ancient
custom of worshipping with the head covered was retained. Indeed, it is
the practice among the oriental Christians to the present day, not to
uncover their heads in their religious meetings, except when they
receive the eucharist.

It is affirmed that in the city of Jerusalem alone there were no less
than four hundred and sixty or four hundred and eighty synagogues. Every
trading company had one of its own, and even strangers built some for
those of their own nation. Hence we find synagogues of the Cyrenians,
Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics, appointed for such as came up to
Jerusalem from those countries, Acts vi, 9.

SYNODS, though actually synonymous with COUNCILS, are in common
historical parlance employed to designate minor ecclesiastical
conventions. In virtue of this distinction councils have usually claimed
for themselves the ample epithet of _œcumenical_ or _general_, while
synods have long been known only by the humbler term of _local_ or
_provincial_. In the apostolic age four local assemblies were held,
which some have called councils and others synods. The first was
convened for the election of a successor to Judas in the apostleship,
Acts i, 26. At the second, seven deacons were chosen, Acts vi, 5. The
third, like the two which preceded it, was held at Jerusalem, according
to some authors, A. D. 47, but, according to others, A. D. 51; that is,
at the latest, eighteen years after Christ’s ascension. It originated in
the attempt made to oblige the Gentile converts at Antioch to submit to
the rite of circumcision. St. Paul and Barnabas opposed this attempt;
and, after “no small dissension and disputation,” it was determined,
that the question should be referred to the judgment of the Apostles and
elders at Jerusalem. Accordingly, some of the Apostles and several of
the “elders came together” to deliberate on the propriety of dispensing
with the ceremonial law. The result of their deliberations was, that the
Mosaic ordinances, being too rigorous, should be abrogated; and that
their decision should be communicated to “the brethren which were of the
Gentiles,” Acts xv, 1–30. The fourth apostolic synod was convened in
reference to the toleration of legal rites, Acts xxi, 18. With respect
to all these, the fact is, that, instead of being councils or synods in
any proper sense, they were mere meetings of the church at Jerusalem,
and all of them ordinary meetings except the third, when they assembled
upon the request of the deputies from Antioch who came to ask advice.

Dr. Neander, speaking of the origin, use, and abuse of synods, says,--As
a closer bond of union was early formed between the churches of the same
province, so also the Christian catholic spirit introduced the custom
that, in all pressing matters, controversies on doctrinal points, things
relating to the ecclesiastical life, and very commonly in those relating
to church discipline, general deliberations should be held by deputies
from these churches. Such assemblies become familiar to us in the
controversies about the time of celebrating Easter, and in the
transactions about the Montanistic prophecies, in the last half of the
second century. But these provincial synods appear, for the first time,
as a constant and regular institution, fixed to definite times, about
the end of the second or the beginning of the third century; and it was
in this case a peculiarity of one country, where particular local causes
may have introduced such an arrangement earlier than in other regions.
This country was, in fact, exactly Greece, where, from the time of the
Achaic league, the system of confederation had maintained itself; and as
Christianity is able to connect itself with all the peculiarities of a
people, provided they contain nothing immoral, and, entering into them,
to take itself a peculiar form resembling them, so, also, it might
easily happen that here the civil federal spirit which already existed
worked upon the ecclesiastical catholic spirit, and gave it earlier than
in other regions a tolerably good form, so that out of the
representative assemblies of the civil communities, the Amphictyonic
councils, were formed the representative assemblies of the
ecclesiastical communities, that is, the provincial synods. As the
Christians, in the consciousness that they are nothing, and can do
nothing, without the Spirit from above, were accustomed to begin all
important business with prayer, they prepared themselves here, also, for
their general deliberations by common prayer, at the opening of these
assemblies, to Him who has promised that he will enlighten and guide, by
his Spirit, those who believe in him, if they will give themselves up to
him wholly, and that he will be among them, where they are gathered
together in his name. It appears that this regular institution met at
first with opposition as an innovation, so that Tertullian felt himself
called upon to stand up in its defence. Nevertheless, the ruling spirit
of the church decided for this institution; and, down to the middle of
the third century, the annual provincial synods appear to have been
general in the church, as we may conclude, because we find them
prevalent, at the same time, in parts of the church as far distant from
each other as North Africa and Cappadocia.

These provincial synods might certainly become very useful for the
churches; and, in many respects, they did become so. By means of a
general deliberation, the views of individuals might mutually be
enlarged and corrected; wants, abuses, and necessary reforms, might thus
more easily be mutually communicated, and be deliberated on in many
different points of view; and the experience of every individual, by
being communicated, might be made useful to all. Certainly, men had
every right to trust that Christ would be among them, according to his
promise, and would lead those who were assembled in his name by his
Spirit. Certainly it was neither enthusiasm nor hierarchical
presumption, if the deputies, collected together to consult upon the
affairs of their churches, and the pastors of these churches, hoped that
a higher Spirit than that of man, by his illumination, would show them
what they could never find by their own reason, whose insufficiency they
felt deeply, if it were left to itself. It would far rather have been a
proud self-confidence, had they been so little acquainted with the
shallowness of their own heart, the poverty of human reason, and the
self-deceits of human wisdom, as to expect that without the influence of
that higher Spirit of holiness and truth they could provide sufficiently
for the advantage of their churches. But this confidence, in itself just
and salutary, took a false and destructive turn, when it was not
constantly accompanied by the spirit of humility and self-watchfulness,
with fear and trembling; when men were not constantly mindful of the
important condition under which alone man could hope to share in the
fulfilment of that promise, in that divine illumination and
guidance,--the condition, that they were really assembled in the name of
Christ, in lively faith in him, and honest devotion to him, and prepared
to sacrifice their own wills; and when the people gave themselves up to
the fancy, that such an assembly, whatever might be the hearts of those
who were assembled, had unalienable claims to the illumination of the
Holy Spirit; for then, in the confusion and the intermixture of human
and divine, men were abandoned to every kind of self-delusion; and the
formula, “_Spiritu Sancto suggerente_,” “By the suggestion of the Holy
Spirit,” might become a pretence and sanction for all the suggestions of
man’s own will. And farther, the provincial synods would necessarily
become prejudicial to the progress of the churches, if, instead of
providing for the advantage of the churches according to the changing
wants of each period, they wished to lay down unchanging laws in
changeable things. Evil was it at last, that the participation of the
churches was entirely excluded from these synods, that at length the
bishops alone decided every thing in them, and that their power, by
means of their connection with each other in these synods, was
constantly on the increase. As the provincial synods were also
accustomed to communicate their resolutions to distant bishops in
weighty matters of general concernment, they were serviceable, at the
same time, toward setting distant parts of the church in connection with
each other, and maintaining that connection.

In the second century after the birth of Christ, eight local synods were
held on church affairs, about which little information is now extant,
except that they related to the heresy of Montanus, the rebaptizing of
heretics, and the time for celebrating the festival of Easter. In the
third century eighteen synods were held; the principal of which were,
that of Alexandria, against Origen; that of Africa, against the
schismatic Novatus; that of Antioch, against the heresy of Sabellius,
and another in the same city against Paul of Samosata; that of Carthage,
against such persons as fell away in time of persecution; and that of
Rome, against Novatian and other schismatics. Prior to the assembling of
the first general council at Nice, A. D. 325, three synods were held at
Sinuessa, Cirtha, and Alexandria, the subjects discussed in which are
unworthy of notice. Others were held, the discussions in which are so
far interesting as they show how desirous the Ante-Nicene fathers were
to regulate the doctrine and practice of the church according to the
apostolic model. The fourth was that of Elvira, which rejected by its
thirty-sixth canon any use whatever even of pictures. “We would not,”
say they, “have pictures placed in churches, that the object of our
worship and adoration should not be painted on their walls.” The synod
at Carthage not having brought the rival pretensions of Cæcilian and
Majorinus to the episcopate of that city to a favourable issue, the
Emperors Constantine appointed a commission (there being so few bishops
present, it could not deserve any other title) to sit, first at Rome,
and afterward at Arles, for the purpose of rehearing the matter. At
Arles, it was decreed, that Easter should be celebrated on the same
Sunday throughout the world; and that heretics, who had been baptized in
the name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized. The synods of Ancyra
and Neo-Cæsarea followed. The tenth canon, decreed by the latter, shows
the sense of the fathers on the subject of celibacy: namely, “If deacons
declare at the time of their ordination that they would marry, they
should not be deprived of their function if they did marry.” Rigid
decrees were passed generally against such of the clergy as ate meats
which had been sacrificed to idols. After the forementioned synods, two
were convened at Alexandria, A. D. 322, against Arius. But their acts
merge in the subsequent proceedings of the church. From the termination
of the council of Nice to the next œcumenical council, A. D. 381, no
fewer than forty-three synods, eastern and western were convened. The
professed object of these meetings was the tranquillity of the church;
yet, from the unhappy divisions which prevailed in these assemblies,
their deliberations were conducted with much of the violence of party
feeling; and, according as the one party or the other prevailed, they
severally hurled spiritual thunder-bolts against their doctrinal rivals,
as if against the enemies of God himself. Of the synod of Sardica a
separate and more particular account will be subsequently given, because
on the authority of that unimportant assembly the church of Rome grounds
the right of appeal to itself before any other church. In the whole, no
fewer than eighty-one synods were assembled throughout the universal
church in this century. The principal subjects which engaged their
attention related to Arianism, which was generally rejected by the
western church; but experienced various vicissitudes in the east,
according to the view taken of it by the reigning power. Unfortunately
for the peace of the church, this heresy gave birth to numerous others.
Marcellus, Photinus, Macedonius, and Priscilian, were severally betrayed
by their violence into systems no less revolting to reason and common
sense than the Arian impieties. Of sixty synods which were convened to
regulate the affairs of the church between the second and third general
councils, A. D. 381–431, more than half of that number were assembled in
Africa:--no inconsiderable proof of the vigilance exercised by the local
bishops over the interests of that portion of the church universal
committed to their care. In the latter part of the fifth century many
synods were held, some eastern and others western, but none of them
possessed peculiar interest. In the commencement of this century,
Zosimus, bishop of Rome, absolved the heresiarchs, Pelagius and
Cælestius, and by this act confirmed their errors. On the latter
appealing to him for support, Zosimus sent the Sardican canon to a
council held at the time in Carthage, as if that canon had been decreed
by the council of Nice; because it allowed the right of appeal to the
see of Rome. The African council rejected it with disdain, having found,
on reference to the eastern patriarchs, that no such canons belonged to
the Nicene council, or were ever before heard of. Thus was the reputed
infallible head of an equally infallible church detected in a gross act
of imposition; so gross as to compel our good Bishop Jewel to call
Zosimus “a forger and falsifier of councils,” The same pope pronounced
his unerring judgment in the dispute between the bishops of Arles and
Vincennes; while Boniface, his successor, under the influence of the
same inerrant principle and in the plenitude of the same apostolic
power, reversed that judgment. In the year 498, Symmachus and Laurentius
were elected to the pontificate on the same day by different parties;
and while they maintained the validity of their respective elections,
they reciprocally denounced each other. Where, then, did infallibility
reside before Theodoric, king of the Goths, gave it a supposed
habitation in the person of Symmachus? Theodoric, an Arian, and
consequently a heretic in the eyes of the Romish church, awarded the
keys of St. Peter to Symmachus; a circumstance which must have vitiated
the boasted apostolic succession in the bishops of Rome, and therefore
have destroyed their title to infallibility! Cabals and intrigues for
being elected to the popedom disgraced the commencement of the sixth
century. Their prevention in future, however, was decreed; and certain
rules, having in view the peace and order of the western church, were
laid down by two synods convened at Rome about the same time. From this
period to the middle of the century, upward of twenty local meetings of
the clergy were held in different parts of Europe, fifteen in Asia, and
only four in Africa. The directions for the married clergy, which
occasionally present themselves to view in the proceedings of these
synods, prove that _celibacy_ was not at this period a general
regulation; while _communion in both kinds_ appears to have been an
established usage. The synods which were held during the remainder of
the sixth century were confined to France and Spain. They amount in
number to twenty-six; and, like the rest of the minor class which
preceded them, canons are interspersed among their acts which have in
view the security of church property, and the rights, privileges, and
powers of the different ranks of the clergy. The remaining canons relate
to discipline, with the exception of the few which were at different
times ordained for the suppression of heretical opinions, for the
regulation of both the married and celibate clergy, and of the fees to
which they should be entitled on the performance of certain duties. In
none of them is to be found the least authority for the distinguishing
tenets of the modern church of Rome; so that, to the very close of the
sixth century, she may be considered as being orthodox, pure, and
uncorrupt. Whatever deference she might claim as an elder branch of the
church of Christ, she raised no pretensions to a lordly preëminence over
the rights and privileges of other churches. Her jurisdiction was
circumscribed within her own diocesan boundaries; and, beyond them, none
was demanded. After the commencement of the seventh century, however, a
complete change took place in this respect, so that if a comparison be
instituted between the tenets which the church of Rome held in the first
ages, and those which she subsequently professed, the precise period at
which the novelties commenced which now distinguish her from her former
self might easily be ascertained. The order of St. Benedict, which
served as a model for the other monastic fraternities that were
subsequently instituted, was founded in the early part of this century

As the history of synods after the sixth century dwindles down into a
meagre narrative of the unjust incroachments and corrupt innovations of
the church of Rome, and of the ineffectual struggles of Christian
churches in various parts of Europe to resist his usurpation, we shall
close this article with an account of the popish synod of Sardica and of
the Protestant synod of Dort. After a long night of darkness, the
glimmerings of a bright day were perceived at a distance, when, in the
fourteenth century, our celebrated countryman, the immortal Wickliffe,
appeared as the precursor of the reformation from popery. The light
increased during the succeeding century, when those brave witnesses for
the truth, John Huss and Jerome of Prague, suffered martyrdom; and the
sixteenth century was favoured with the full blaze of day when Luther
and Melancthon were encouraged and supported in their benevolent and
arduous undertaking, and succeeded in putting down the shadowy forms of
superstition and idolatry. Soon was the greatest part of irradiated
Europe called upon to rejoice in this light; and to some of the best
patriots in those countries that slighted such an opportunity, their own
culpable supineness or neglect has been a source of deep national regret
from one generation to another.

THE SYNOD OF SARDICA was held A. D. 347. The Emperors Constans and
Constantius, being anxious to restore that peace to the church of which
it was deprived by the continuance of Arius’s heresy, agreed to convene
an ecclesiastical assembly in Sardica, a city of Mæsia on the verge of
their respective empires. About a hundred western and seventy eastern
bishops attended; but altercation, and not debate, ensued. The smaller
party, apprehensive for their personal safety, withdrew to a town in
Thrace; a circumstance that disclosed the first symptoms of discord and
schism between the Greek and Latin churches. Before this period the
right of appeal from all other churches to the see of Rome had not been
claimed; but from it we date the first aspirations of Roman pontiffs to
lordly preëminence, and they bent their restless energies to establish a
spiritual tyranny over all the nations of the earth. Ecclesiastics,
excommunicated by the oriental or African churches, fled to Rome for
refuge, one after another; and as the bishop of that city afforded them
his protection, gratified as he was at every occasion which made it
necessary, they, in order to testify their gratitude, unwittingly
compromised the rights of the clergy, when, to the extent of their
individual sanction, they invested him with the appellant jurisdiction.
Among the refugees at Rome was the celebrated bishop of Alexandria.
Athanasius, persecuted by the Arian party in the east, knelt as a
suppliant on the threshold of the Vatican. Julius gladly espoused his
cause, and declared him to have been illegally condemned; a declaration
that seemed to come with authority, but which the eastern bishops
opposed as an usurpation of undue power. They went so far as even to
excommunicate Hosius, Gaudentius, Julius the bishop of Rome, and others,
on the alleged assumption of authority. They maintained the principle
laid down in the canons, that the judgment passed on any individual,
either by an eastern or western synod, ought to be confirmed by the
other. And while they complained that the bishops of the west should
disturb the whole church, on account of one or two troublesome fellows,
they accused them of arrogantly attempting to establish a new law for
the purpose of empowering themselves to reëxamine what had been already
determined. Chrysostom, too, in his distress, implored, at a subsequent
period, the interference of Innocent, the then occupant of the papal
chair, with the emperor of the east, for the purpose of procuring a
reversal of the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by an
obscure synod in the suburbs of Chalcedon. But that father never once
supposed that the Roman pontiff had any right to hear his cause. His
appeal lay to the supreme tribunal of a free and general council, from a
packed assembly which the empress Eudoxia had been instrumental in
calling together, in order to effect his ruin. As these two cases of
Athanasius and Chrysostom are pleaded by Romish writers in support of
the appellant authority with which they invest the bishop of Rome, it is
a matter of importance to examine the stability of this ground-work, on
which is laid the immense structure of papal supremacy. Hosius, who
presided in the Sardican synod, as he did at every council where he
happened to be present, is reported to have proposed that an appeal
should be made to Rome out of respect to the chair of St. Peter, and
not, as was ruled at the council of Nice, to the bishops of the
neighbouring province, when any decision had been come to in a
provincial synod. But what is the language of the proposition made by
Hosius? “If it be a favourite object with you, let us honour the memory
of Peter, so that a letter may be addressed to Julius, bishop of Rome,
by those who decided on the matter; that, if necessary, the judgment may
be reviewed by the bishops in his neighbourhood, and that he may appoint
some to hear the cause.” Here neither canon nor Scripture is referred
to; while it is left optional with the assembly whether deference was or
was not to be paid to Julius, who is simply styled συνεπίσκοπος, “a
fellow bishop.” The fourth canon of this synod ordains, “that an
archbishop, &c, deposed by a provincial synod, must not be expelled,
until the bishop of Rome shall determine whether the cause shall be
reëxamined;” and the fifth canon decrees, “that the bishop of Rome, if
he deem it proper, shall order a rehearing of the matter; that, if
convenient, he shall send deputies for the purpose; if not, that he
should leave the decision of the case to the synod itself.” From the
third and fourth canons it appears that a novelty in discipline is
established, and made obligatory on the churches of both empires, but
only by a handful of bishops belonging to one of them; and from the
fifth, that the bishop of Rome, if he deemed a judgment erroneous, might
convene a new council and send deputies to it, for the purpose of
reconsidering the matter. These canons, no doubt, were very flattering
to the ambition of the Roman pontiff, and, accordingly, they are pleaded
in behalf of his supremacy; but how preposterous is it to ascribe that
to a human law, which, it is asserted, belongs to him by the law of God!
There are other canons regulating the intercourse between bishops and
the imperial court; after such a manner, however, as to make the bishop
of Rome the judge of the propriety of the petitions which they intended
to prefer. Notwithstanding all this, they can never be rescued from the
imputation of being forgeries. For, 1. They were never received by
either the eastern or African church as general laws. At the sixth
council of Carthage, Austin strenuously denied the right of appeal to
the Roman see, although a letter has been forged in his name,
strenuously contending for it, which is now deposited among the pious
frauds of the Vatican. It happened, also, in the early part of the fifth
century, that Appiarius, who had been excommunicated by the African
bishops, applied to Zosimus, bishop of Rome. This pontiff forthwith sent
them the Sardican canon, which conferred on him the right of appeal.
This they indignantly rejected, inasmuch as their predecessors, who
attended the council of Sardica, left no record of it; and because the
eastern patriarchs, whom they consulted on the occasion, not only
disclaimed all knowledge of any such canon being in existence, but
furnished their brethren with an exact copy of the Nicene canons, among
which the Sardican one was not to be found. 2. The Sardican canons were
not inserted in the code of canons approved of by the council of
Chalcedon. 3. The council which passed them is not reckoned, even by the
church of Rome, as one of the eighteen general councils, whose authority
it acknowledges; nor does Bellarmine himself say that it is one of those
councils which his church receives in part and rejects in part. 4. When
the western bishops entreated the Emperor Theodosius to summon a
council, A.D. 407, so far were they from making any allusion to the
doctrine of an appeal to the Roman see, that they distinctly disclaimed
the thought of such a prerogative, and only sought the fellowship of a
common arbitration. 5. Lastly, if, as the historian Sozomen says, the
Sardican synod wrote to Julius, bishop of Rome, to apprize him of what
they had done, and of their decrees being drawn up in the spirit of the
council of Nice, the purport of the letter was not so strong as that
which they addressed to the church of Alexandria, in which they pray it
to give its suffrage to the determination of the council, additional
suspicions are created. From all these circumstances taken together, it
is evident that no value is to be attached to the decrees of this
obscure council; and that, although due respect was paid to St. Peter’s
chair, it was no acknowledgment of the superiority of its possessor as
to ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction.

THE SYNOD OF DORT. The Dutch churches forsook the communion of the
corrupt church of Rome soon after the church of England had cast off the
papal yoke; and they were generously aided in their endeavours to
recover their civil and religious liberties by our good Queen Elizabeth
and her wise counsellors. The first Christian teachers among them were
Lutherans; but in process of time, the celebrity of Geneva as a place of
public instruction for ministers of religion induced the majority of the
candidates for the ministry to repair to that university; and, as might
naturally be expected, they imported into the Low Countries the peculiar
views of Calvin and Beza on the subject of predestination. It is justly
observed by Le Vassor, “Some learned Hollanders had boldly defended this
doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a professor
at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their
writings are still extant; although it is true that certain ministers,
who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their
productions into disrepute; but the states of Holland uniformly checked
this impetuous zeal. The professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect
liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melancthon; and
when Arminius was called to that university, his opinions were generally
known; for he had declared them in the church of Amsterdam, from the
consistory of which he received very honourable testimonials. Gomarus,
and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation
with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging immediately that the
difference of sentiments which existed between them did not at all
concern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did
not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken
umbrage at the reputation of his new colleague, or the enemies of
Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful
insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man whom, some
time before, he looked upon as orthodox.” The struggles of the party of
Arminius in Holland, after the death of that great man, to obtain a
toleration for their opinions, are matters of history. The political
circumstances of that country and of Europe in general were at that
period very peculiar, and exercised great influence in the convening and
conducting of that famous ecclesiastical assembly, the synod of Dort;
but in a sketch like this, they can only be briefly mentioned. Frederic,
the elector Palatine, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of our King
James the First; he was nephew to Maurice the prince of Orange: and he
sent his Heidelberg divines to the synod to assist his uncle in the
condemnation of the Remonstrant party, as the Arminians were generally
called, and to gratify his polemical father-in-law in the overthrow of
the heretical Vorstius. In return, he naturally expected both of his
relations to aid him in his grand enterprise of seizing on the crown of
Bohemia; in which, soon after the banishment of the Remonstrants, he
completely succeeded,--though he subsequently lost that crown and all
his hereditary possessions, and embroiled nearly the whole of Protestant
Europe in the famous thirty years’ war.

The Remonstrants, according to Nichols, in the ample notes to his
translation of the “Works of Arminius,” had long wished to have their
“Five Points” of doctrine brought for adjudication either before a
_provincial_ synod, to prepare matters for a _national_ one; or to have
them brought at once before a _general council_ of Protestant divines.
But the Calvinists would listen to neither of these equitable proposals.
If a _provincial synod_ were convened, especially in that province
(Holland) which most needed such a remedy, these men well knew, from
trial, how difficult it would be to combat and refute the strong and
popular arguments of the Remonstrants, when both parties were placed
nearly on an equality in the same assembly; and if a _general council_
of Protestants was summoned together, they were certain that the
principles of Arminius would, without demur, be recognized as integral
parts of Scripture verity, and consequently entitled not only to
toleration, (which was all that the Remonstrants had desired,) but to
the especial patronage of the civil authorities. The latter result was
anticipated, from the immense preponderance which the Lutheran divines,
from all the small states of Germany, and from other parts of the north
of Europe, would have had in such a council. Numerous state papers on
this subject were written by the public functionaries of the different
provinces in the year 1617; among which those of the composition of the
learned Grotius, who conducted the arguments in favour of a _general
council_, are very conspicuous for the superior ability which they
display. A _national synod_ was therefore the sole remedy which the
wisdom, or rather the worldly prudence, of the Calvinists could discover
for removing the maladies under which the churches of Holland were at
that time labouring. In showing cause for their preference, they were
placed in an awkward dilemma; for they perceived, that the strongest
reasons to be adduced for the adoption of this measure would extend too
far, and might, in the hands of their able antagonists, be made to apply
with greater cogency to the convening of a general council.

The designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient
liberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which
possessed by the act of union the complete management of its own
affairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and
illegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the
appointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected
individuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill
the higher offices of state in the various towns which had been
ill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and
scandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated
respecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians
to deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to
succeed in his ambitious enterprises. To the party, therefore, that had
forwarded his views he willingly gave all the weight of his influence,
and that of the States General, the majority of whom, in virtue of the
late unlawful changes effected in the provinces, were favourable, not
only to Calvinism, but to any measure which the prince might think fit
to propose. It was in allusion to the revolution, thus craftily
completed, that Bogerman, as president of the synod of Dort, told
Episcopius, in a sarcastic style, as Hales tells us, “You may remember
what you told the foreign divines in your letter to them, that there had
of late been a great metamorphosis in the state; you are no longer
judges and men in power, but persons under citation.” In such a state of
affairs, an ordinance of government was easily obtained for convening a
national synod, which was to consist of native divines appointed by the
different classes and presbyteries, of civil deputies chosen out of each
province by the states, and of foreign divines deputed by such churches
as had adopted both the platform and the doctrine of Geneva. The temper
and intolerant conduct of the various ecclesiastical meetings with whom
rested the inland appointments, had been but too apparent; and time had
not mollified their intolerant principles; for, under the new order of
things, and with the sanction of the fresh race of magistrates, they
were emboldened to effect a schism in many of the chief towns, and
forcibly to exclude the Arminian ministers from the churches which they
occupied. In other towns, in which these bold practices could not be
attempted with any probability of success, they employed the
ecclesiastical arms of the classes, provincial synods, and other packed
vestry-meetings, the members of which (consisting generally of
Calvinists) summoned before them all the chief Arminian pastors in the
various districts, accused them of holding heterodox opinions on the
subject of predestination, and suspended or expelled them from the
ministry. This work of expulsion and suspension was carried on by the
dominant party, even during the time in which the fate of Arminianism
was in a course of determination by the synod of Dort: so that, had that
far-famed and reverend assembly decided in favour of a toleration of the
Arminian doctrines, the minor church meetings had left few ministers of
that persecuted denomination to profit from such a decision. The
Calvinistic account of this summary and iniquitous process is thus
given, in the preface to the acts of the National Synod: “And since
there were several pastors in that province, [Guelderland,] some of whom
had been suspected of many other errors beside the Five Points of the
Remonstrants, others of them had illegally intruded into the office of
the ministry, while others were men of profligate habits; certain
persons of this description being cited before the [provincial] synod
[of Guelderland and Zutphen, held at Arnheim, in July, 1618,] were
suspended from the ministry for some of the before-mentioned reasons,
and by no means on account of the opinion contained in the Five Points
of the Remonstrants, which was reserved for the cognizance of the
national synod. The trial of the rest of these men being dismissed in
the name of the synod, was committed to a deputation from their body, to
whom the states added certain of their own delegates. When they had
fully investigated the cases of these men in their classes, they
suspended some of them from the ministry, and entirely removed others.”
In the very able memorial which the Remonstrants, on their arrival at
the synod, presented to the foreign members, it is justly observed,
respecting those who were accused of having taught, beside the Five
Points, those doctrines which were contrary to the fundamentals of
faith: “Such particular cases do not in any manner affect the common
cause of the Remonstrants, but concern those alone who may be found
guilty of them. Nor are we adverse to the issuing of ecclesiastical
censures against such persons, provided they be lawfully put upon their
trials, and fairly heard in defence of themselves against such charges.”
Because the members of these Calvinistic provincial synods could not be
long absent from their respective congregations, such galloping
commissions as these, endowed with ample powers, were appointed to
traverse every province in which Arminianism had been planted; and they
soon showed to the world the most compendious method of rooting out
reputed heresies. Their track through the land resembled that of the
angel of destruction; it was marked by anguish, mourning, and
desolation. After this detail, established by the synodical documents
themselves, few words will suffice to point out the purely Calvinistic
constitution of the synod of Dort. When very few Remonstrant ministers
remained in the land, except such as were ejected from the church or
under suspension, it was no difficult matter to procure an assemblage of
men that were of one heart respecting the main object that was then
sought to be accomplished.

In the original order for holding the synod, and in the list appended to
it, as they were both passed by the States General, no mention was made
of inviting any other churches, except those of England, France, the
Palatinate, Hesse, and Switzerland, and it was a matter postponed for
farther deliberation, whether any invitation should be transmitted to
the churches of Bremen, Brandenburgh, Geneva, and Nassau. The clergy of
the principality of Anhalt were not invited to the synod, because their
opinions were understood to be similar to those of the Remonstrants, the
ancient confession adopted by their churches being decided on the
subject of conditional predestination. The divines of Bremen were viewed
as men inclined too much to moderate counsels, and on that account
improper representatives in an assembly that intended to carry every
proposition with the unanimity of force. The divines of Brandenburgh
were the last of those invited. Indeed no invitation was transmitted to
them, till the state and temper of their churches had been ascertained
with tolerable accuracy; and when it was generally thought that the
deputies from that electorate were tractable and would follow in the
train of the Contra-Remonstrants, it was determined to summon them to
the synod. It was for some time a matter of doubt with the leading men
of Holland, whether they ought to invite the divines of Geneva and
Nassau, two of the greatest nurseries of Calvinism, to be present at the
synod. The cause of this demur was, to avoid the appearance of
partiality, which they justly thought all the world would have imputed
to them had they convened an assembly consisting only of Calvinistic
doctors. To keep up this semblance of moderation, the synodical summons
was not transmitted to those divines when they were sent to the churches
of other states and countries. But when Prince Maurice’s schemes of
secular aggrandizement and political power had succeeded beyond his
utmost wishes, they no longer studied to “avoid the appearance of evil,”
but boldly summoned all those divines about whose presence at the synod
they had formerly hesitated. This was a most notable and certain method
of procuring a strict Calvinian uniformity in the members. On this
topic, Hales, in his letters from Dort, to the English ambassador at the
Hague, says, “For a general confession of faith, at least so far as
those churches stretch who have delegates here in the synod, I think his
project very possible, there being no point of faith in which they
differ.” Great interest was made at the court of France, to procure the
attendance of deputies from the reformed churches of that country; but
the king of France prohibited the Protestant clergy within his dominions
from becoming members of the synod, or assisting at its deliberations.

The letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the
national synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members
were summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of
November in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of
the united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was
formally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the
foreign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will
find scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided
opposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was
not consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge
of the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This
caused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that “no persons were
summoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of
Calvin’s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to
go to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the
reverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be
admitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the
bearing of his opinions.”

It will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of
ecclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having
any deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic
plan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were
the only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at
all, was, because that province was almost equally divided between
Remonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of
each denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons
as well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that
they would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the
seat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously
declared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as
the Acts express it, “that this synod might not be exposed to calumnies,
as if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the
judges” on five conditions, the chief of which were, “that while the
affairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not
disturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and
not acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which
concerned their cause.” Two of them, after a day’s deliberation, united
themselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a
layman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable
assembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther
deliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members
convened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be
summoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed
and sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each
province as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired,
if all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay
commissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the
secretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting
their numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the
secretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day
the preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for
amendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the
determination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many,
should be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the
Remonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation,
commanding them to appear before the synod, “within fourteen days after
the receipt of it without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that
in it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the
before-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to
be necessary.” In the mean time the Remonstrants, without knowing the
resolution of the synod, had deputed three of their body from Leyden, to
obtain leave for their appearance at the synod, in a competent number
and under safe conduct to defend their cause. On making their request
known to the lay commissioners, they were informed of the resolution
which had passed the synod only the preceding day. To which they
replied, that it was unreasonable to cite those to justify themselves
who were both ready and willing to come of their own accord; and that if
they persisted in proceeding with their plan of citation, they would by
that act furnish just cause, not only to them, but to all good men, to
entertain strange notions and suspicions of the synodical proceedings.
Not being permitted to choose those men from their own body whom they
deemed the best qualified to state and defend their cause, they
accounted it an additional hardship, that their enemies should assume
that unlawful authority to themselves. But neither at that time nor
afterward, when they wished to add two of the most accomplished of the
brethren to their number, were their representations of the least avail.
On the sixth of December these valiant defenders of the truth arrived,
and requested, by a deputation, to be allowed a few days to unpack their
books, arrange their papers, &c. But they were commanded immediately to
appear in a body before the synod, and to prefer their own request. They
were introduced by their brethren of Utrecht, and ordered to sit down at
a long table placed in the middle of the hall. Episcopius then, with the
permission of the president, addressed an apostolic greeting to the
synod; and, having repeated the request previously made, he said, that
“the cited Remonstrants appeared there to defend their good and
righteous cause before that venerable assembly, by reasons and arguments
drawn from the word of God,--or else to be confuted and better informed
from the same word. In reference to the favour which they had asked,
they left it to the discretion of the commissioners of the States
General, being ready on their parts, immediately and without delay, to
engage in a conference, if that should be required.” Then were they
desired to withdraw into a chamber prepared for them adjoining the hall
of the synod. After some time spent in deliberation, they were recalled,
and informed by the president, that they would be expected at the synod
next morning at nine o’clock. He added, according to Hales, “that they
came not to conference, neither did the synod profess themselves an
adverse party against them. Conferences had been heretofore held to no
purpose. They ought to have heeded the words of the letters by which
they were cited. They were called not to conference, but to propose
their opinions with their reasons, and leave it with the synod to judge
of them.” Episcopius replied, that it was not necessary so nicely to
criticise the word conference, and that they had come there with no
other view than to treat about the doctrines which were controverted,
according to the summons which they had received. The next day, December
7th, the Remonstrants were called in, when after Episcopius had desired
and obtained leave to speak, he uttered an oration, the delivery of
which occupied nearly two hours, and which, on account of the noble
sentiments contained in it, deserves to be recorded in letters of gold.
The gracefulness, force, and energy with which it was spoken, made such
an impression on the auditory as drew tears from several of them, and
even from some of the states’ deputies. This effect gave mighty umbrage
to the choleric Bogerman, who, as president, according to Mr. Hales’s
account, “signified unto Episcopius, that, because there were in his
speech many things considerable, he was therefore to deliver the copy of
it. Episcopius replied, that he had none handsomely written: if the
synod would have patience, he would cause a fair transcript to be drawn
for them. But this excuse would not serve; fair or foul, deliver it up
he must, and so he did.” In the session, December 10, after the
president had ceased to speak, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed
with their explanation and defence of the five points. They requested
leave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to
this; but the lay president ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard
Dwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the
synod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the
acts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause
it defended. The first part declared, that the Remonstrants did not own
the members of the synod for lawful judges, because the great majority
of them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed
enemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as
those whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy
schism which was made in the churches of Holland. The second part
contained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a
well constituted synod should consist. The observance of the
stipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the
synod, averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the
Protestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the
Papists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. The
production of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic
persuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against
the principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,--gave
dreadful offence to that powerful body in the synod, and especially when
they were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. No one
can form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading
of this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the lay president, and the
commissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the
succeeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Bogerman
laboured hard to show, that, by denying the competency and impartial
constitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in
reality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had
appointed and convened the synod; and that, by charging the majority of
the members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect
accused the prince of Orange and the States General, because those great
personages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the
latter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland
divines, he said, “The proper time has not yet arrived for discussing
it. But when it shall have been proved to the synod, what kind of
doctrine is sanctioned by the church, those who have departed from it,
and who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true
colours.” Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in
behalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority
of the states, and held the synod in due estimation, yet it was as
lawful for them to challenge this synod, as for several of the Christian
fathers who challenged some of the ancient councils, and their ancestors
that of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to
challenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law
allowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had
previously separated from the Remonstrants should sit in the synod to
try them, after they had by such separation pre-judged their doctrine
and entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation.
Episcopius then said, “Mr. President, if you were in our places and we
in yours, would you submit to our judgment?” Bogerman replied, “If it
had so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has
ordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with
patience.” Episcopius rejoined, “It is one thing to acknowledge a person
for a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which
he may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be
persuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you
are our sworn adversaries, and have churches totally separated from
ours.”

On the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, being called in, were
urged by the synod to present their objections in writing against the
Confession and Catechism. Before they proceeded to do that, they craved
permission to read another document: after some demur, leave was
granted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: “The celebrated
Paræus, in his _Irenicum_, prudently observes, that he would advise no
man to approach any council in which the same persons had to appear in
the character of both adversaries and judges.” The rest of the paper was
occupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in
the four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their
want of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They
declared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to
the synod, as the States General had intended, and such men as had never
been concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they
would have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a synod.
This document concluded with a protest. After the delivery of this
protest, the synod invented various methods to vex the cited
Remonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause. Among those
methods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and
not in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers.
They had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they
thought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the synod,
without the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the
individuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who
had represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference
in 1611, only three were summoned to the present synod; and though those
who appeared on this occasion were generally men of good natural talents
and sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under
discussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a
ready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be
suddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent
degree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had
time for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons
with those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be
viewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without
exception refused. Having presented to the synod their opinions relative
to the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession,
the Remonstrants wished to enter on the “proposing, explanation, and
defence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary,”
according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited;
but the synod in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those
expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to
themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to
enter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was
accounted an act of great injustice by the Remonstrants, who also
alleged, that “they did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of
election, but that it was reprobation in which the chief difficulty
lay.” They were very desirous, therefore, of having reprobation
discussed in the first instance: but the Calvinists of those days wished
to keep unconditional reprobation enshrined in the dark _penetralia_ of
their temples, only to be produced, as opportunity might serve, for
their own private purposes, either to terrify the careless among their
hearers, or to quicken the occasionally sluggish current of
congregational benevolence. It was not to be expected, therefore, that
the Calvinists of the synod would allow the Remonstrants to give
reprobation that prominence in their discussions to which it was justly
entitled. In one of the debates which these two questions produced,
Bogerman again took advantage of the disingenuous trickery which we have
just exposed, and asked Pynakker, one of the cited ministers, “Do you
imagine the synod will suffer the Remonstrants to examine the doctrine
of reprobation?” Pynakker replied, “Yes, I do: because, as this is the
chief source of the troubles of the church, it ought to be _first_
discussed.” Perceiving either that his meaning was not correctly
understood, or that he had expressed it in an imperfect manner, Pynakker
immediately explained himself by adding, that by _first_ he meant
_chiefly_, (both of which significations the Latin word conveys,) and by
acknowledging that election ought to have the precedence of discussion.
When relating this occurrence, Poppius remarks, “This, being received in
a wrong sense, was imputed to all of us, as though we were unanimously
of opinion, that the discussion of the doctrine of reprobation ought to
precede that of election. Upon this question the foreign divines and
others were desired by the president to deliver their sentiments.
However, the expression imputed to us was employed by none of us, much
less by all. But this was their manner: if one of us, in the name of
all, said any thing that proved advantageous to the rest, the president
seemed much displeased at our unanimity: then we were told that we were
cited singly and personally, and that we did not compose a society or
corporation. But when any of us happened to employ a word that was
capable of being wrested to our common injury and misconstrued, then
what was said by one was certain to be imputed to all!” After gaining a
favourable opportunity like this, Bogerman always hastily dismissed the
cited persons; and on this occasion he dwelt largely, in their absence,
on Pynakker’s expression, and persuaded the foreign divines that the
proposal of the Remonstrants, to treat of reprobation before election,
was a _sine quâ non_, and that without it was granted to them they would
not proceed. This alarmed all the Calvinistic brotherhood, who rose _vi
et armis_, delivered _seriatim_ their objections to such a bold
proceeding, and thought, with the professor of Heidelberg, “that it was
unreasonable for the Remonstrants to disturb the consciences of the
elect on account of God’s judgments against the reprobated, and to plead
the cause of the latter, as though they had been hired to undertake the
defence of those who had by the just judgment of God been rejected; and
that for these reasons the synod neither could nor ought to grant the
Remonstrant brethren any farther liberty, unless the members designed to
expose the orthodox doctrine of predestination to be openly ridiculed.”
Finding this great aversion in the synod to the precedence of
reprobation, the Remonstrants proposed, since they were forbidden to
explain or defend their sentiments _vivâ voce_, “to explain their
doctrines in writing, beginning with the article of election, and
proceeding to that of reprobation; to defend their doctrines, and to
refute the contrary opinions of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those
whom they consider orthodox: but that, in case this explanation or
defence seems to be defective, they would answer in writing the
questions which the president might think proper to propose to them, or
in oral communications by those of their body whom they might judge best
qualified for that purpose. And that the liberty which they desired
might not appear unlimited, they bound themselves to proceed in such a
manner as should not savour in the least of an insolent licentiousness:
and that their discussions might not be extended too far, the lay
commissioners were empowered to curtail them at pleasure.” But these
very equitable terms, which were much worse than those which the
unsophisticated and grammatical sense of the citatory letters held out
to them, were rejected by the synod, at the instigation and by the
management of the president, who, after having had recourse to his old
trick of propounding questions to each of the cited persons, and after
procuring against them three or four synodical censures, had them at
length, (Jan. 14th,) dismissed from the synod, with every mark of
contumely and scorn which he could invent. Bogerman had previously
busied himself in extracting the opinions of the Remonstrants from such
writings of theirs as had been published long before, and in forming
them into articles, to be separately discussed by the synod. This
passing of judgment on the Remonstrants from the testimony of their own
writings, was an employment which Deodatus and his colleague from Geneva
had at one of the earliest sessions mentioned as very desirable, and in
which they appeared eager to engage. Any one who attentively reads the
Acts of the synod, and compares them with the private accounts both of
Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants will find, that this had also been
the intention of the president from the very commencement, and that all
his shifting schemes and boisterous conduct was intended to irritate the
Remonstrants, who possessed more patience than he had contemplated, and
who were therefore to be removed from the synod by a greater exercise of
art and with greater difficulty. But one of the greatest injuries of
which the Remonstrants had to complain, was, that the book from which
their supposed opinions were chiefly collected, was the production of a
declared enemy, who wrote a highly coloured account of a conference
respecting the Five Points, in which he pretended that the Calvinists
had obtained a complete victory. A Remonstrant author had also written
an able statement of the same conference, and had claimed a triumph for
his party. The latter would therefore have certainly been the most
proper authority from which to extract the real opinions of his body.

But though dismissed from their farther attendance on the synod, the
Remonstrants were not permitted to depart from Dort; the states’
commissioners having charged them not to quit the town, without their
special permission. The president, in his speech dimissory, had said,
that they would receive an intimation when the synod had any farther
occasion for them. When a Remonstrant deputy, by leave of the acting
burgomaster of Dort, who was one of the commissioners, had hastily gone
to Utrecht, to visit one of his children that was expected soon to die,
he was on his return called to an account for his conduct, and the
former order repeated. In the course of their detention at Dort during
eight months, they were as strictly watched as if they had been
condemned malefactors. One of them whose sister lay on her death-bed and
earnestly desired to see him, could not obtain permission to visit her
while she lived; and after her decease he was not allowed to attend her
funeral. Another, whose wife was near the time of her accouchment,
wished, like a good family man, to be at home for a few days at that
critical period; but his request was refused. When the uncle of another
of them was at the point of death, he longed for the presence of his
nephew, to receive his dying commands, and to benefit him by his
counsels and prayers; but the wishes of the good old man could not be
gratified. After his death, the nephew was not allowed to look after the
pressing concerns of his orphan cousins, although his uncle had
appointed him their legal guardian. None of these favours, though
reasonable and asked with much humility, could be obtained from the high
bigots, in whose hands, at that time, was vested the personal liberty of
the persecuted and cited Remonstrants. Toward the close of February, the
magistrates of different towns deposed from the ministry three of the
cited Remonstrant ministers who were present at the synod, and sent
regular notices to their families, speedily to quit the parsonage houses
which they severally occupied. These three good men, being heartily
tired of the strict durance in which they had been held since their
arrival at Dort, represented to the states’ commissioners, that, as they
were not now in the ministry, they could no longer be considered
amenable to the jurisdiction of the synod: this was the very argument of
the commissioners, when, at the commencement of the synod, the
Remonstrants had wished to have associated with them the two recently
deposed ministers, Grevinchovius and Goulart. Though, for very obvious
reasons, at that early stage of the business, they would permit no
Remonstrants to appear among the cited, “except such as were actually in
the exercise of the ministry;” yet they would not listen to the same
argument when it militated against their favourite purposes: and the
three ministers were commanded to remain at Dort with their brethren.
One of the three, however, whose wife then far advanced in pregnancy,
had been ordered to leave her house within eight days, ventured to
return to Horn, and to assist her to remove from their former dwelling.
But, on his arrival, he found her already removed to another house; and
his return to Dort was speedily required by the higher powers. To
expedite his departure, two or three of the Calvinist magistrates
employed their official authority in a manner the most reprehensible:
they placed him, like a criminal, in the town wagon openly before his
own door, though he had provided a carriage for himself on the outside
of the town, to which he wished to have retired privately and without
noise. A tumult ensued between the populace who were attached to their
good pastor, and the soldiers whom the magistrates had placed before his
house two hours before his departure. On his return to Dort, he was
severely examined before the commissioners respecting the unhappy
commotion; but being convinced that he had not been at all to blame in
that affair, they passed it over in silence. At different times the
Remonstrants wished to depute a few of their small body to the Hague, to
make a proper representation of the manner in which they were treated by
the synod; but this indulgence was invariably refused. Their only
resource then was, to write to their high mightinesses an account of
their proceedings, and to implore their interference and protection. But
such an attempt, in that posture of their affairs, was unavailing; for
their doom was already sealed. Soon after their appearance at Dort, the
magistrates of that city issued a proclamation, commanding the
inhabitants, all of whom were celebrated for their attachment to Calvin,
to refrain from insulting any of the foreign or native professors,
divines, or other persons that were called to appear at the synod, on
pain of summary punishment to the offenders. This document was not
required for the protection of the Calvinists; but the persecuted
Remonstrants were such objects of hatred to the populace, as scarcely to
be allowed to pass along the streets without being maltreated. This bad
spirit was excited and encouraged by the violent sermons which were
fulminated against them, from the different pulpits in the city.
Whenever these good men were required to be in attendance, (and they
were liable to be summoned from their lodgings at a few minutes’
notice,) they were not permitted to enter the large hall in which the
synodical sessions were held, but were ordered to wait the pleasure of
that venerable body in an ante-chamber, the door of which was generally
locked, and the passage leading to it guarded by two or three of the
police, who hindered them from holding any communication with their
friends, and kept them in as strict durance as if they had been
convicted of some capital offence. At the formal conclusion of the
principal business of the synod, May the 6th, when the farther
attendance of the foreign divines was declared to be no longer
necessary, the Remonstrants were summoned from their lodgings, and
waited upon the lay commissioners, at six o’clock in the evening, when
the resolution and censure of the synod were read to them in Latin by
Heinsius, the secretary; in which they were accused of “having corrupted
the true religion, dissolved the unity of the church, given grievous
cause of scandal, and shown themselves contumacious and disobedient: for
these several reasons, the synod prohibited them from the farther
exercise of their ministry, deprived them of their offices in the church
and university, and declared them incapable of performing any
ecclesiastical function, till, by sincere repentance, they should have
given the church full satisfaction, and, being thus reconciled to her,
should be re-admitted into her communion.” They were then required to
wait at Dort till farther orders from their high mightinesses; and when
they requested to have a copy of the synodical censure and sentence
against them, they were as usual refused. On the 24th of May, the cited
Remonstrants were summoned to appear before three new commissioners whom
the States General had deputed from their body, when each of them was
called into the room and separately interrogated; after which, he who
had been last called in was ordered into another room, and prevented
from holding any communication with those who had not been ushered into
the presence of the commissioners. The proposal and questions addressed
to each of them were in substance the following: “Since you have been
deprived by the synod, the States General have directed us to ask you
the following questions: Whether you are, notwithstanding this decision,
resolved to act as ministers? Or whether you will be content in future
to lead quiet and peaceable lives in obedience to the government, as
private burghers, without any place or office, abstaining from all
ecclesiastical ministrations in any meeting of the people of your sect,
from all manner of teaching and preaching, exhorting, reading,
administering the sacraments, visiting the sick, writing letters, or
transmitting papers?--It is the intention of their high mightinesses to
allow to those who shall conform to these requisitions such a competency