persecuted as an apostate and heretic, for having dared to assert God's love to the whole human family; and that Jesus Christ not only tasted death for every man, but that he really and truly was the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.* He went down to the grave amid the rejoicings of his enemies, many of whom, though they had not sufficient decorum to suppress their exultation at his death, yet found it impossible to fix upon his memory any thing like a well founded charge, that could affect his character as a man and a Christian. Nevertheless, the measures they adopted to attempt so foul a purpose, when `known to be those of men sustaining the office of the Christian ministry, must be deemed an occasion of deep regret, painfully proving, that when religious bigotry takes hold of the mind, and governs it to a certain extent, its subject *That the doctrine of the universal extent of the atonement of Christ was taught by some of the reformers long before the time of Arminius, will be seen by the two following extracts from Bullinger, whose writings, according to Le Vassor, contributed so much to the spread of the Reformation in Holland. They are taken from the French edition of his works, the preface of which is dated 1549. We shall retain the orthography of the text:-"Jesus Christ nous ait oste par sa mort, la coulpè de nos pechez, et qu'il ait este fait satisfaction pour tout le monde," p. 32. Le Fils de Dieu, nostre seigneur Jesus, a abondanment satisfait, pour la coulpè le monde," p. 33. By the inoderate Calvinists of the present day the doctrine of Jesus Christ having tasted death for every man is very generally admitted; yet such admission in the days of Ar. minius and Episcopius, would have subjected them to the charge of Socinianism; not, perhaps, for asserting this doctrine itself, but under the pretence of their holding others which they were unwilling to acknowledge; for in this disingenuous manner did the Dutch divines of the Geneva school constantly attempt to render the advocates of universal redemption suspected of Socinianism. Should it be said that they had good reasons for this, on the ground of the system of Arininius tending to it, as was evident from several of those who afterward bore his name becoming Socinians; yet it should be recollected that, by the same mode of arguing, it might be shown that the opinions of Calvin also tended to Socinianism, seeing that the Churches of Geneva, which had formerly received his doctrines, had, till of late, universally embraced the errors of Socinus. In cases of this kind we ought rather to adopt the senti. ments of a modern writer on ecclesiastical history, who says, "He is not to be made answerable for all the sentiments adopted by those who, in after ages, become his professed followers."-Sabine's History of the Christian Church, p. 224. is prepared to pursue its victim while living with hatred and calumny, and when dead, to brand his memory with infamy and disgrace. Those who are well acquainted with the history of Arminius, and the treatment his memory met with, will admit that though this language is strong, yet the testimony of facts fully justifies its adoption.* These gentlemen supposed that the death of Arminius would be the extinction of his system, but in this they were mistaken. His creed lived, and found an incomparable defender in the subject of these memoirs, who now began to assume a more conspicuous appearance before the public,† and by his proceedings showed himself every way worthy of the master by whom he had been *The reader, who may wish to have a correct view of the cha racter of this amiable man, may consult Mr. Nichols' Life of him, which comprehends the whole of Bertius' funeral oration, with the principal portion of C. Brandt's life, published in Latin, 1724. We shall, however, present an extract from this oration, to prove the justice of the above remarks, from a translation of it published nearly two hundred years ago by J. K. This writer very justly remarks that, had Bertius delivered untruths, he would soon have been detected by the assembly in which he delivered them. Speaking of a dimness in one of the eyes with which Arminius was affected, and a swelling in the arm, he adds,-"In the meanwhile calumny was as cruel, and abated nothing of its accustomed fierce. ness, of which I shall here mention a cruel, unworthy, and abominable instance, which is fit to be recorded for after ages. When that dimness of one of his eyes was known, there were some that durst account this among those punishments which God threatens 'to his enemies and wicked contemners of his name, and did affirm even from this punishment that he was very wicked beyond others. And that there might not be wanting a pretext and colour to this so filthy and cruel a deed, the sacred books are consulted with, which a Christian may not approach without reverence and prayer. A place is found in the Prophet Zechariah concerning the consumption of the eyes and the whole body, sounding thus:-And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem: their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet; and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth, Zech. xiv, 12. And another place, Wo to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock: the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened, ch. xi, 7. Thus things above, things below, things on the right hand, things on the left, things Divine, things human, wait on those wretched hierophants [expounders of Divine mysteries] to serve them when they will ” + Benthem's Schulen-Staat. instructed, of whose sentiments he was soon to be recog nized as the able advocate, and talented defender. With the exception of his bereaved widow, and nine orphan children, none felt and mourned the loss of Arminius more sincerely than Episcopius. He was his most intimate and beloved friend, and he felt his death as depriving him of the still farther anticipated instructions of one, who, he was fully persuaded, had not left his fellow behind, as a man of mental power, and a professor of theology. These views he stated in a letter to some of his friends, deploring, at the same time, the circumstance of his having left the university of Leyden for Franeker, by which he lost so much of the instructions of Arminius, only receiving, as an equivalent for them, the advantage of hearing the lectures of Drusius, the professor of Hebrew; the others being men, in point of ability, comparatively inferior to those of Leyden. On his return to Franeker, Episcopius again disputed with Sibrandus, on the subject of justification. This was on the 21st of October, and now, as on the former occasion, he was applauded by several persons; but, as might be expected, he was looked upon by others with envy and jealousy. The parties under the influence of these feelings manifested them by endeavouring to fix upon him the charge of heterodoxy. The method adopted to effect this, was such as was usually resorted to in that day, by the patrons of unconditional reprobation and election, when they wished to blast the reputation of an individual, namely, that of asserting that he was a Socinian: and he who dared but to whisper that God so loved the world as to send his Son to become a propitiatory sacrifice for every man, was sure thus to be branded. This was a species of polemical trickery which they who had recourse to, knew how it would tell against a man, and availed themselves of it in order to render an opponent odious to the people. That the followers of Calvin frequently resorted to such dishonourable means, in order to ruin the person who differed from them in doctrinal points, these memoirs will clearly show. We shall mention one instance here, given by Limborch, as it will show to what shifts the enemies of Episcopius resorted, in order to injure him. At Franeker, the master of a vessel resided, who was accustomed to trade to Dantzic. During his visits to this place, he had formed an acquaintance with some of the followers of Socinus, and by them had been induced to adopt their sentiments. He was an illiterate man, his vernacular language being the only one he knew; nevertheless, he was mightily pleased with his supposed knowledge of certain disputed points of theology, and evinced great anxiety, and seized every occasion that offered itself, of entering the lists as a combatant with the students, for the purpose of debating with them on subjects in which he dissented from the received opinions of the Church. The wide spreading fame of Episcopius roused his attention, and he became deeply solicitous to be introduced to him. He was rendered the more so from the fact of his residing in the street in which Episcopius lodged. By some means, the opportunity he so much wished for at length presented itself, which he eagerly embraced, and accordingly was introduced to him. He subsequently paid him two or three more visits, when they entered into conversation on certain doctrines of Christianity. This was soon rumoured abroad, and it was positively asserted by the enemies of Episcopius, that he had fully imbibed the sentiments of this man, and moreover, that he had actually procured by. his assistance, from Dantzic, several Socinian books for his own use. As this report was assiduously and extensively spread, Episcopius deemed it due to himself to contradict it. Among other persons who seem to have heard of it, was his brother Rembert Bisschop. This gentleman was much older than Simon, and manifested a species of parental affection for him. Indeed, Episcopius looked to him with filial, rather than fraternal regard, and at his death mourned his loss as a son would mourn the loss of a father. It is not improbable that Rembert had written to his brother on the subject, as the latter sent him a letter, dated December 22d, 1609, in which he asserted, "that he had never commissioned this person to obtain more than one publication for him, which was on the subject of infant baptism, and even that he did not succeed in procuring. And supposing that he really had engaged him to obtain other books than the one named, wherein should he have been more blamable than Dr. Sibrandus, who was in the constant practice of employing this very man to procure for him the various Socinian works which he actually possessed.' He farther adds, "that in his intercourse with this person, he had invariably refuted the sentiments he had adopted, and therefore had not given to any one, with the appearance of truth or justice, the slightest grounds of suspicion against him." Nevertheless, that he might cut off all occasions to his enemies of reproaching him on the subject, he avoided all intercourse with this person, and rarely spoke to him afterward. Toward the close of the disputation Episcopius held with Dr. Sibrandus in October, he had asserted that he did not admit that "those persons held strange and erroneous opinions on the subject of justification, who maintained that the word faith was to be understood, not metonymically for its object, but in a proper and literal sense. And in support of this statement, he assigned * John Goodwin says, "That when faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousness, the word is taken literally and not tropically, which was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the principal lights of the Church of God, and for 1500 years was never questioned or contradicted. Neither did the contrary opinion look out into the world until the last age. So that it is but a calumny brought upon it, (unworthy the tongue or pen of any sober man,) to make either Arminius or Socinus the author of it. And for this last hundred years and upward, from Luther's and Calvin's times, the stream of interpreters agree there. with." In support of the antiquity of this view of justification, he then gives a list of divines, beginning with Tertullian and proceeding to Origen, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, St. Augustine, Primasius, Bede, Hayne, Anselm, Luther, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Hunnius, Beza, Junius, and others, giving extracts at the same time from the writings of each in proof of his assertion. Nevertheless, he who maintained this doctrine was, by the Calvinists of that day both in Holland and England, treated as a Socinian. Hence, Baxter says, "Mr. Anthony Wotton, a very learned and godly divine of London, was charged with Socinianism, heresy, and blasphemy, for maintaining in his treatise De Reconciliatione, that he is right. eous to whom all sin of omission and commission is forgiven, and for having laboured to disprove the rigid imputation of Christ's holiness and obedience to man." In doing this, continues Baxter, "this very eminent man confuted these three assertions:-1. That a sinner is reputed to have fulfilled the law in and by Christ: 2. And being reputed to have fulfilled the law, is taken for formally just as a fulfiller of it: 3. And being formally just as a fulfiller of the law, eternal life is due to him by that covenant that saith, Do this and |