magistrates to restrain the querulous and dogmatical bearing of the divines of the Geneva school, though not invariably successful,* yet at least prevented these persons, for a time, from proceeding to persecute and excom

* This will be seen from the treatment some of the persons met with, named at pages 21 and 22, who had opposed the doctrine of absolute predestination, either prior to, or at the period when it was inserted in the Confession. It is truc, during the space of sixteen years, no measures were adopted against them, the defenders of this doctrine being too few to carry their purposes; but when they increased in numbers and influence, they proceeded to make use of their power to persecute them.

The case of Koolhaes may be first noticed. He engaged in a dispute with his colleague, Luke Hespe, who maintained, that all persons who accompanied him to the Lord's table must be of his opinion in all points; and if they were not, he would neither break the Lord's bread with them, nor own them as brethren." Koolhaes published a pamphlet, in which he asserted, "that we are bound to own all them as brethren who agree with us in fundamentals, and are willing to live in peace with us, though they may not know as much as we do." He also refused to comply with a rule that required that those persons should not be owned as brethren who denied the doctrine of absolute predestination. He was excommunicated in 1582. This occasioned much disputation, which continued for many years. At length, by the interposition of some gentlemen, his clerical brethren were reconciled to him for a time on certain conditions; among these the following was one, "that he should declare that the Belgic Confession was scriptural, except in the matter of reprobation in the sixteenth article; and that he should consent to have his books suppressed, and should remain silent in reference to what he did not yet fully understand concerning the doctrine contained in that article, and should by no means maintain, that the grace of God extended to all men, and to every person in particular.* But although he expressed his assent to these terms, he was nevertheless subjected to many vexatious and malignant proceedings, before he was again acknowledged as a minister of the Gospel. Festus Hommius, of whom we shall have much to say hereafter, endeavoured to get him excommunicated a second time, in 1604, but the States prevented it.

Herman Herberts, in 1582, was charged with heterodoxy by some of his fellow ministers, and accused of publishing an Anabaptist book. The government deputed four commissioners to hear the charge and defence. The parties who accused him, not having evidence to substantiate their accusation, asserted that it was his duty to become his own accuser, and acknowledge the truth of their allegations. This was done in such a domineering tone, that the Heer Van Nispen, one of the commissioners, said to them, "Gentlemen, *How these gentlemen could impose this condition on a man's conscience, in the face of the following statement, I cannot tell: "For the grace of God, that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men." Tit. ii, 11.

municate those ministers who disagreed with them on doctrinal subjects. But the civil commotions of the provinces, at a subsequent period, presented an opportunity too favourable to be allowed to pass unimproved by these I have read the history of the Spanish Inquisition, but I never was in a place where I saw so lively a picture of it as here." Herberts afterward consented to subscribe to the Confession, if they would allow him to interpret the sixteenth article* so that it might not be understood "to make God the author of sin."

He subsequently incurred the charge of heterodoxy, and the clergy were about to excommunicate him, but the magistrates of Gouda, to which place he had removed, interfered, and prohibited them from thus proceeding against him. Through their favour he was protected, and continued to proclaim for twenty-five years the doctrine of conditional election, at the end of which period he died in peace, with the devout resignation and fortitude of a holy Christian. Wiggerts was suspended by the Synod of Alkmaer, in the year 1587, under the charge of holding heterodox sentiments on the doctrines of election, vocation, and the perseverance of the saints. The States were petitioned to suspend him from his office, but instead of so doing, they forbade the ministers to proceed any farther against him. Chafed and galled, however, by their subsequent bigoted and vexatious intermeddlings, he finally withdrew from them; and ceas ing to preach in the churches, he began to exercise his ministry in a private house. The clergy complained of this to the States, say. ing he would lay the foundation of a new sect, and requested them to prevent his holding private meetings; but they refused to listen to their entreaties: he therefore continued to preach. The ministers grew clamorous, and insisted that he should cease preaching; but he was not a man to be awed by them, and when they threatened to excommunicate him, he told them they might do what they pleased, since he was no longer of their Church; he hoped every thing that was good from the States, but if it should happen otherwise, he was prepared to suffer for the Lord Jesus, who, he doubted not, would enable him to bear it faithfully. He however sent a challenge to those who had pronounced and condemned him as heterodox; offering to dispute with them, publicly, on the points on which they differed. This challenge was not accepted; and if it had been, it is most probable that the magistrates would have interposed to prevent the dispute taking place. They were particularly sensitive on these matters, and never suffered a public discussion to be held without their concurrence. This arose from

* We will present the reader with an exact copy of this article in French, in which language it was originally drawn up, in the year 1566:-" Nous croyons que toute le Lignée d' Adam etant ainsi precipitée en perdition et ruins par la Faute du Premier Homme, Dieu s'est demonstré tel qu'il est, à sçavoir Misericordieux et Juste. Misericordieux, en retirant et suavant de cette Perdition ceux, lesquels, en son Conseil Eternel et Immuable, il a eleus et choisis par sa Pure Bonté en Jesus Christ Nostre Seigneur, sans aucun égard de leurs Oeuvres. Juste, en laissant les autres en leur Ruine et Trebuchement, où ils se sont precipitez."

bigoted and restless spirits, to accomplish their designs of suppressing every opinion that was not in conformity with the rigid doctrines of Calvin and Beza. Of this conduct, Bentham, in the work already quoted, bitterly complains. This he does on the ground of the early labours of his countrymen, who, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft, spread the light of the Reformation through these provinces. From such a people, he intimates, the followers of Luther and Melancthon deserved better treatment. The coadjutors of these great men, had been so far successful in spreading their doctrines among the Dutch, that the latter, on several occasions when addressing Protestant or Catholic princes, designated themselves Lutherans. And yet in several instances the divines of Calvin's school were subsequently unwilling to tolerate them.*

From these statements it will appear that the doctrines embraced and published by Arminius were not novelties in the Netherlands. They had long been received, and were generally taught, especially in Holland, which was

the apprehension that their frequency would agitate the minds of the people; and when they were permitted, with the hope of producing peace and unanimity among the contending ministers, they claimed the right of sending deputies to be present on the occasion. But of this they soon grew tired, at which the reader will not be surprised when he reads the following account: Saravia, one of the persons who assisted in drawing up the Confession, was allowed to dispute with Koornhert, who opposed it. Fifteen persons were appointed to preside on the occasion, namely, six out of the high council, one from the court of justice, and eight from the assembly of the States. Notaries were appointed to take down the arguments of each disputant. Saravia harangued for four days on the first question, and his statements filled many folio sheets. The rejoinder of the other was still longer. It was announced that there still remained forty-nine articles to be debated!!! The delegates stared at each other; for, allowing the disputants not to be more prolix on the remaining topics, which was some. what doubtful, still the prospect was really tremendous, and was too much even for Dutch patience itself. The delegates quailed at the task assigned them, and the conference was broken up and Brandt quaintly intimates, that having got safely out of the way, they left the disputants to pelt one another from the press.

*The intolerance of the Dutch or Calvinistic Church may be presumed from the fact, that no Lutheran house of worship was allowed to the States General of Holland and West Friesland.Lardner, vol. xlvi, p. 180.

by far the largest of the United Provinces. It is true, his master mind might give them a more systematic form, but the great outlines of his creed were taught before he was known in Belgium. When, therefore, the semi-infi. del Bayle holds up this distinguished scholar and amiable man to public scorn, as a busy, restless changeling, in which he has been imitated by a modern writer, who says, "Arminius was one of those restless spirits that can never let orthodoxy slumber," the charge is false and amounts to a foul calumny.

Conduct of this kind, it is true, is to be expected from such writers, but how far it is just and honourable is another matter. Without any fixed or influential religious opinions themselves, and being perfectly indifferent to such subjects, they nevertheless claim the right of carrying their notions of optimism into these matters so far as to condemn the man, whose conscience prompts him to adopt and divulge an opinion that may not be

* This man seems to have had the most bitter enmity against Arminius, which originated with the latter advocating the doctrine of the freedom of the will, and consequent responsibility of man, opinions Bayle abhorred. His assumption of the name of a predestinarian Christian, in conjunction with his gross vindication of Calvin's sentiments, will be received with no greater approbation by the followers of that divine, than the declaration of Dr. Priestley, when he states that he can assure his Calvinistic friends, that his views on the freedom of the will are precisely the same as those of President Edwards of America. Bayle, in his defence of Calvin against Arminius, says it is utterly impossible that he could refute the hypothesis of Calvin, "which admits that God will have men to commit sin ;" and then asks, "Where is the difference between God permitting and being the author of sin ?" But while these two writers claimed brotherhood with the followers of Calvin on this subject, it is but fair to state that their object was very different from that of the Geneva reformer. These gentlemen denied the freedom of the will to get rid of man's accountability, and liability to punishment for his actions. I remember many years since, conversing, in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, with an advocate of Dr. Priestley's sentiment on necessity; when I asked him what he would say to a deed of murder, he replied it was an inconvenience

an act to be punished by the magistrates; but would not be viewed as an evil by God: the person committing it being under the influence of circumstances over which he had no control, which necessarily superinduced a class of motives that led to the deed. He added, at the same time, that he who gave alms acted under similar circumstances, and was equally as undeserving of praise as the other of blame.

sanctioned at the time, either by the governors of the state, or the mass of the people. But the consequence of such a theory must be obvious, and if correct, would equally apply to the founder of Christianity as to any of his followers, in every period of the Church's history. And then what becomes of the noble band of martyrs of this and other countries? Why, instead of rendering homage to them, as to some of the loftiest spirits that ever adorned the Christian name, and who, when standing in the dungeon, or bound to the stake, were cheered while looking through the vista of time, anticipating the effects of their heroism, in inspiring others with courage in the day of conflict and of suffering, they are, according to the creed of these gentlemen, to be contemplated "as restless spirits, who could not let orthodoxy slumber," and therefore only to be remembered with contempt and reproach.

The mistake of such writers on these subjects must be traced to the circumstance of their looking at religion merely as a piece of state machinery, and only valuable as an instrument for governing the minds of the many for political purposes. This being the case, they are prepared to condemn every thing like the boldness of decisive acting in religion, which does not accord with the dictates of worldly prudence and worldly policy. But, with devout and serious persons, religion is contemplated in a more important point of view, and man is seen as a responsible agent, who is as accountable for his opinions as for his conduct; and therefore, for any one, professing to be its subject, to pay public homage to that which his conscience denounces as wrong, is held by them as a species of men, tal apostasy, as degrading to him as it is offensive to God, who requires truth in the inward parts: That such were the views of Arminius on matters of religious opinion, his unspotted character, and well known probity, fully testify. And we might put it to such gentlemen themselves, to say whether his conduct, in avowing what he believed to be the truth, does not appear more honourable, than that of a certain dignitary of the Church of England, who, differing from the creed of the Establishment, justified himself in letting "orthodoxy slumber," by saying he could not afford to keep a conscience. Had the subject of these memoirs, and his fellow sufferers, acted as this dignitary,