nothing was manifested like enmity or violence, by either party, on account of the other adopting opposite sentiments. No measures were pursued by either side, calculated to injure the other; and persons of both parties were appointed to public offices in the Church, without its being supposed, that the one was more eligible than the other, on account of his opinions. No person thought of branding another as a heretic, for difference of sentiment. And the people and ministers associated in Church fellowship in the most friendly manner, living in peace and amity with each other.

"But this happy state of things was not of long continuance. This arose from the circumstance of those who had adopted the harsher views of Calvin, at length charging the persons who had received and maintained the doctrine of conditional election, with Pelagianism; adding, at the same time, that they were not entirely purged from the leaven of Popery. This charge, publicly advanced, was followed by strong excitement against them, which painfully manifested itself from time to time. But it broke out more violently after James Arminius had adopt. ed and defended the doctrine of conditional predestination. The circumstances which occasioned this talented man to embrace this sentiment, not only demand a place in this work from their singularity, but likewise from the fact of all those who have subsequently adopted the same views, being called Arminians, though the parties so designated may be averse to the appellation.

"Some persons at Delft, who maintained the doctrine of the sublapsarians, published a work entitled: Responsio ad argumenta quædam Beza et Calvini ex Tractatu de Prædestinatione, in caput IX. ad Romanos. An answer to some of the arguments adduced by Beza and Calvin ; from a treatise concerning predestination, on the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.' This book they sent to Martin Lydius, at that time professor at Franeker, who subsequently forwarded it to Arminius at Amsterdam, with a request that he would defend Beza against these writers at Delft. To perform this task, Arminius was the more ready, from the circumstance of his having recently returned from Geneva, where he had fully imbibed the sentiments of his former master Beza. But when he pro

ceeded to an examination of the work, and deliberately weighed the arguments for and against the sentiments it contained, he at first began to waver, then to incline to them, and finally adopted the doctrines he had seriously sat down to refute."

Such is the brief sketch this writer presents of religious opinion, as it existed among the Dutch, immediately after the introduction of the Reformation among them, and up to the period in which Arminius adopted those sentiments which, after his death, were known in connection with his name.

It is evident, therefore, from this author,-who, asserts his impartiality as an historian, and vindicates his claim to this character by saying, that he has avoided all reference to the prejudiced statements of the followers of Arminius and Calvin,* himself belonging to neither,—that the mild doctrines of Melancthon, which are the same as those of the Remonstrants,† had found their way, and widely spread through Holland, long before those of Calvin. This being the case, it follows that the innovators on public opinion were not the advocates of conditional predes. tination, but those who disseminated the doctrines of Calvin. This fact is not sufficiently borne in mind, by certain writers, who find it convenient, while attempting

* And in farther proof of the justice of his claim to this charaoter, he declares that he does not, like many, blindly follow such Calvinistic writers as Heinsius, Triglandiùs, Baudartius, Hoorn. beckius, and Hornius; neither does he adopt the statements of the Arminians, Uitenbogardius, Brandius, nor those of the writers of the Epistolæ Remonstrantium.

+ That is, on the subject of predestination. So says Brandt in the preface to his second volume, page 8. How far this statement is correct will appear from the following extract from Mosheim: "The Lutherans maintain that the Divine decrees respecting the salvation or misery of men, are founded upon a previous knowledge of their sentiments and characters; or, in other words, that God, foreseeing from all eternity the faith or incredulity of different persong, had reserved eternal happiness for the faithful, and eternal misery for the unbelieving and disobedient."-Vol. iv.

This statement is equally applicable to Calvin himself, as it regards his introduction into Geneva, of what Mosheim designates his melancholy and discouraging doctrine of eternal and absolute decrees. His opinions on predestination, says this writer, were totally different from the most ancient Helvetic doctors, who were far from adopting the notion of an unconditional decree, that appointed some to everlasting happiness, and others to endless misery,

to blast the fair fame of Arminius, to assert that he was a wild and headstrong innovator. Such conduct has undoubtedly been adopted, for the purpose of justifying the unrighteous and cruel proceedings of the Synod of Dort, toward those who espoused his opinions, and who were then, as now, known by the name of Remonstrants. So important do we think this view of the history of the early opinions of the people of the Netherlands, that we shall present the reader with one or two more extracts from other writers, on the same subject.

Vassor, who, in his History of Lewis the Thirteenth, gives a fair and extended account of the religious commotions of the Low Countries, and especially of the disputes between the followers of Arminius and Calvin, makes the following statement:* "The books of Erasmus, Melancthon, and Bullenger, being very much esteemed in Holland, these works had not a little contributed to make people relish the Reformation. The most sensible and understanding persons of the province, had a stronger inclination for the calm, moderate sentiments of these divines upon grace and predestination, than for the hypotheses of the rigid reformed. The sentiments of Melancthon were more in accordance with the primitive Greek fathers than those of Augustine, and being more ancient and rational than the latter, they were very generally adopted.

"Calvin, Zanchius, Beza, and others of the reformed divines, remained strongly adhering to St. Augustine's tenets; yea, some of them used harsher expressions.Several, however, of these divines, having duly searched and examined the Scriptures, the opinion of St. Chrysos. without any previous regard to their moral character and circumstances. And though the very learned Gerdes has attempted to prove that the sentiments of Calvin were the same with those of the ancient Swiss doctors, yet this excellent author may be refuted, even from his own account of the tumults that were occasioned in Switzerland, by the opinion that Calvin had propagated on the subject of the Divine decrees.-Vol. iv, 370, and 435. Indeed, Calvin prided himself in having departed from the notions then generally held concerning predestination. His persecution of Castalio, and Bolsec the ex-Carmelite, whom he occasioned to be exiled for opposing his opinions on predestination, we may notice afterward.

*I have not thought myself at liberty to alter the phraseology of this writer.

tom and the primitive Greeks appeared to them much preferable to that of Augustine. Nevertheless, the ministers who had studied religion by reading the works of Calvin and Beza, obstinately maintained the doctrine of their masters, insomuch that there existed some notable and substantial differences between the principles of the Churchmen and the magistrates. Both parties formed to themselves quite different notions of the thing they called Reformation, or Reformed Doctrine. The ministers, by these words, meant the dogmas or points of divinity explained by their great authors, inserted in the Confession of Faith. And some of these, always headstrong and fiery in upholding their opinions and prejudices, ever and anon railed at the magistrates, for their want of zeal for the sound doctrine; and the latter again complained that the others were a parcel of obstinate and inflexible persons, who would have every body implicitly and blindly embrace their particular sentiments.

"When the ecclesiastics summoned such as withstood the positions of Calvin and Beza touching predestination and free grace before the magistrates, as a sort of people who subverted the very foundation of the Reformation, the wisest and most enlightened among them demanded of these new upstart inquisitors if they meant to say that it was impossible to be a good reformed Christian without embracing the tenets of St. Augustine and his disciples. Ever since the reformation in Holland, those sentiments that are contrary to that doctor's system had always prevailed, and the states of Holland had not so much as approved of the Confession of Faith received in the Belgic Churches. Might not this be a sufficient proof that these wise, grave senators, believed that the compilers of this form had laid down some articles not absolutely necessary, which ought to have been expressed after a more gentle manner, less capable of giving offence to those who could not swallow all the private sentiments of the first reformer? "Some able, learned divines of the Reformation maintained, and that publicly, the tenets of universal grace, of a power of resisting its operations, and of conditional predestination; and they were also taught by many learn. ed Hollanders, and openly defended, before Arminius preached at Amsterdam. They had been read in public

lectures at Leyden long before Gomarus had appeared against him. Their works are still extant. It is true, indeed, that some too hot-headed zealots stickled very much to blemish the reputation of the authors and their works; but the States of Holland always put a stop to their impetuous zeal. Some professors at Leyden assumed an entire liberty to teach in conformity with Melancthon's doctrine.”*

Similar quotations might be made from other writers; but we shall only add to the above, one from the Annales du Pais-Bas of Grotius. "When the people of Holland began to throw off the dominion and doctrines of Popery, they had no standard of faith, nor time to enter into disputes on points of doctrine. Each man, therefore, adopted his own sentiments, undisturbed by his neighbour. But after a length of time, when some young men, who had studied under the doctors of Geneva and Nassau, were allowed to officiate as ministers among them, they soon endeavoured to force their opinions on the Dutch Churches, and availed themselves of the first opportunity to accomplish their purpose. carrying their measures, they attempted to pass a law in the classis, that no persons should be admitted to the ministry, but those who had adopted the opinions they themselves had received. Not satisfied with this, they wished to exclude others who had long officiated as preachers, but whose sentiments were not in accordance with their own. These circumstances occasioned the other party to make frequent appeals to the States, asserting that their doctrines were such as had formerly been taught, and publicly sanctioned by the people, the States, and the ministers of the Churches."

The authority and praiseworthy interposition of the * Le Vassor's Lewis XIII.

† We translate from the folio edition in French.

In 1571, they succeeded in getting a law passed that no one should be admitted as a minister till he had been examined, and had subscribed to the Confession. The terms of admission were nar. rowed and more rigorously enforced by subsequent decrees, in 1576 and 1586. Such as were to be admitted to the ministry they examined more strictly, and others, already in the ministry, whom they discovered to be erroneous in their doctrines, they censured and cast out. This is the testimony of a rigid Calvinistic writer.— Clark's Marrow of Ecclesiastical History.