may add, the spirit of the day, and the frequent appeals of Arminius and his friends to the government of Holland to interpose, while he believed them to be in his favour, concur with the reasons already given, to render such a thing by no means improbable.

The simple truth, confirmed by the history of all ages, is, that when men become engaged in violent dispute, on theology or any other topic; when their passions become enlisted, and they are determined to carry their point; they do not usually wait to examine the justice, or the consequences, of all the measures to which they resort. Appeals to the government were agreeable to the political constitution of the Hollandic churches. But in making them, did Arminius, or Gomar and his friends, "do as they would be done by?" This question forever settles the whole matter; and settles it triumphantly against the intermingling of church and state.

The contra-remonstrants were gratified with carrying their point. But it filled Holland with scenes of distress. The triumph, moreover, lasted only for a short time. On the death of prince Maurice, the Arminian ministers began gradually to resume their offices; and in 1630, only eleven years after the sitting of the synod which excommunicated them, the States General connived at their return to their offices; since which they have never been disturbed. It was not long, before the principles of the remonstrants began to acquire a kind of predominance in Holland; and finally they became triumphant; although there have been men of the opposite party also, who have stood up, and borne testimony against this general disobedience to the synod of Dort.

Heaven has decreed, that reason and argument, not contumely or force, should maintain an empire over the minds of Christians. All appeal to any other weapons, is worse than in vain. It may triumph for a moment; but the next generation will take the liberty to think and inquire for themselves. So it should be. If men are not to be convinced by Scripture and argument, then human power has no ability to convince them. They must be commended to God, and left with him. All else is unchristian, yea, antichristian. It is, indeed, perfectly clear, that the contraremonstrants had a right to withdraw their fellowship from their opponents, if they believed them to be essentially in the wrong. If so much was not true, then they themselves were not entitled to Christian liberty. But all beyond this; all hard names, con

tumely, violence, appeal to civil power, shutting up their churches, and every thing of this nature, be it what it may, was utterly inconsistent with that religion for which they professed and cherished so much zeal. In the end, all this reacted upon the very cause which they meant to defend. It is thus that Heaven teaches men, that the armour of the gospel is Scripture and reason and argument, and not passion and prejudice and force. WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY.

But I am forgetting my main business, in pursuing these reflections; which is, to give the creed of Arminius. The Declaratio which Arminius made at the Hague, in 1608, (see p. 247 above,) before the States General, and at their request, is the principal source from which I shall draw; as this was a public and solemn declaration, and was made only one year before the close of his life. This and all the other sources from which I draw his creed, may be found in Arminii Opera, 4to 1629. L.B. I have noted the pages, so that every curious reader may consult for himself, and see whether I have rightly translated the author.

On the subject of translating him, I have only a word to say. His Latin is not very pure. It is grammatical, but not classical; and it is exceedingly unlike to that of Beza and Calvin, and greatly inferior to that of Limborch, Le Clerc, and Grotius. Moreover it is full of the scholastic terminology of the day. I am not certain, that I have in every instance hit upon the exact idea of the author. I am sure only that I have designed and wished to do so, and have spared no pains to accomplish my wishes. It is for those who are more conversant with the technicalities of the times of Arminius than myself, to correct me if I have gone wrong; and to their correction I will cheerfully submit.

I have rendered freely, yet closely to the sense. I have sometimes exchanged technical expressions for those which will now be better understood; for which I may probably count upon the thanks, rather than the blame of the reader. For the rest, it has been my aim to select all those points, of any great importance, on which Arminius was said to differ from his opponents, or accused of heterodoxy. Other points need no illustration; at least the object of the present essay would not embrace them, nor are they a matter of special interest to the reader.

Having premised thus much, I now proceed to the most important part of my work, beginning first with extracts from the

Declaratio above described. The reader will remember that Arminius read this before the States General, and will consider him throughout as addressing them.

II. THE CREED OF ARMINIUS.

In an introduction of some length and much address, Arminius states various efforts which had been made, to draw upon him the imputation of heresy. In the year 1605, he says, three deputies from the synod of South Holland, and two from North Holland, waited on him and requested a conference with him respecting his religious sentiments. The ground of this request was, that some of his students, who had been examined by their respective synods, had given answers not consistent with the catechism and the creed, and had appealed to him as sustaining them. Arminius declined a conference on such grounds; inasmuch as this would subject him to a kind of ecclesiastical trial, as often as any of his students misunderstood and misreported his sentiments; which by experience he had found to be not unfrequent. The proper way, he alleges, was, for the synod to confront those students with him, and thus to ascertain whether they had made a right report of his sentiments; and not to take it for granted that they had.

In this, Arminius was clearly in the right; for nothing is more frequent, than for students without experience in theology, and without sufficient attention and inquiry, to misunderstand and give a wrong account of a teacher's sentiments; although it may be with no ill design, but yet to the serious injury of such teacher. But for graver and more experienced persons to take these accounts as being of course correct, even where they are at variance with the published opinions of such teachers, is indeed a species of injustice of which it must be right loudly to complain, as Arminius did.

Various other colloquies had been undertaken with Arminius ; some of which, as he states, he declined, and into others he entered, according to the circumstances of each, and the evident intentions of those who were engaged in them. After endeavouring, with great skill, to justify to the States General the course he had taken, in regard to declining various colloquies, on account of which suspicions against him had been much augmented, he proceeds to the declaration of his sentiments as follows.

"The first and most important article of religion, on which I

have some thoughts to suggest, and which has been a subject of reflection with me for many years, has respect to divine predestination, that is, the election of men to salvation, and their reprobation to destruction.

"I begin with this article, and I shall, first, shew what is taught respecting it, both orally and in writing, in our churches, and in the university of Leyden; secondly, I shall propose my own thoughts respecting it, and at the same time exhibit my own opinion concerning it.

"The opinions of the learned respecting this article of faith are not one and the same, but diverse and in several respects discrepant. Those who are most rigid in their views, hold for substance to the following sentiments; as appears in all parts of their writings.

"That God, by an eternal and immutable decree, has predestinated some to eternal life, and some to everlasting perdition, without respect to them as having been created, much less as having sinned, and without any regard to their righteousness or unrighteousness, obedience or disobedience, but of his mere good pleasure; and this, that he might display the glory of his justice and compassion, or (as some say) of his saving grace, wisdom, and sovereign power." pp. 99, 100.

This first proposition contains the essential part of the opinion in question. Arminius then proceeds to detail, under eight heads more, various subordinate propositions connected by the high predestinarians with their main position. The substance of these is, that the means of carrying the great and original decree into execution, were also predestinated, and will necessarily and certainly bring about the end intended; that of these means, some are common both to election and reprobation, and some peculiar to each; that those means common to both were, the creation of man in a state of original righteousness and holiness, the permission of Adam's fall, (or rather, the arrangement made by God that man should sin, and become corrupt,) the loss of the image of God or original righteousness, and the consequent conclusion of all under sin and condemnation ;-and all this, because in order to save there must be some to save, in order to condemn there must be sinners, and in order to be sinners without making God the author of sin, men must be created in a state of righteousness. Of the means predestinated to carry into effect the decree of election, are (1) The gift of the Saviour; (2) The effectual calling of the elect; (3) The pre

servation of them in a state of grace; (4) As to elect children, they may, by special promise and grace, be saved without actual faith or perseverance in it. Of the means destined to execute the decree of reprobation, are, (1) The desertion of the non-elect in their state of sin, and the withholding of saving grace from them. This is done in two ways; first, Christ did not make any atonement for the non-elect; and secondly, God does not communicate his spirit to them so that they may believe on Christ. (2) Adult reprobates are hardened, first, by the law of God operating on the conscience, and enlightening and convincing it; secondly, by the preaching of the gospel, which makes an external call to repentance and obedience, and furnishes internal excitement to the same; but which never can produce any better faith than that of the devils, who believe and tremble but remain impenitent.'

From all this it follows, that all the elect must necessarily and infallibly be saved, and all the reprobate as surely perish; because all things and events, all causes and effects, proceed from, and depend entirely upon, the absolute and eternal purpose of God.' pp. 100-102.

Against these views, thus stated by him, Arminius proceeds to array twenty one reasons, at very considerable length, (pp. 102-115,) which I shall not here repeat, inasmuch as he has made a separate declaration of his own sentiments in a subsequent part of his declaration, and my object is history, not discussion. Thus much, however, should be said respecting them, viz. that they bear ample testimony to the learning, acuteness, dexterity, and logical subtlety of the author; nor can any one read them without feeling that they deserve serious consideration..

It ought not to escape notice, moreover, that under his twenty-first head, he avers, that not only the churches of ancient times rejected the doctrine of predestination, but that the Lutheran, the Anabaptist, and the Romish churches did the same. He admits that Luther and Melancthon favoured the doctrine at the beginning of the Reformation, but declares that they afterwards renounced it. For proof of this, he appeals to an epistle of Melancthon, addressed to Caspar Peucer, in which he compares the doctrine under consideration to the stoical fatality of Zeno. To the church in Denmark also he appeals, as rejecting the doctrine; and he declares, very fully and explicitly, No. II.

34