'guilty of the same crime, and of having more than once 'taught such doctrine as was not only contrary to the passages ' of scripture quoted in the margin, but at variance with those 'which are given at large in the text of the Confession."

The Rev. J. Kuchlinus owned, that he could not deny the truth of this last observation, and added, that if there was a 'perfect agreement in those principal points which were the "very hinge of the articles of the Confession, there needed to 'be no apprehension about the rest. Nothing further was then said on this topic; but some questions were asked respecting the duty of the elders, and about ecclesiastical discipline, on which neither Arminius nor his reverend colleague John Halsbergius was thought to have correct ideas. Both of them defended themselves in a long reply, and refuted the objec tions which had been raised against them.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the reverend J. Hallius, who was, for the time being, the president and moderator of the Presbytery, addressing himself to Arminius, publicly testified the pleasure which he felt on perceiving the promptitude. of mind which he had evinced to cultivate union with his brethren in the matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline: He begged God to favour this auspicious commencement with his blessing, and to make the whole of this affair a source of further prosperity to his church; and then dissolved the assembly.

Yet certain preposterous zealots, thinking that matters ought not to be suffered to remain in this [state of tranquility, began to excite other complaints against Arminius; and by: the numerous slanders which they propagated, they were enabled to prevail with the Presbytery, that had assembled on the 22nd of April without his knowledge, to pass a resolution to this effect: "That the said Arminius shall be asked to declare without any obscurity or wary circumlocution his sentiments on all the articles of faith; and, in case of his betraying any reluctance to comply with this request, certain theses and anti-theses shall be prepared, on the subjects of which a conference shall be held with him." On the 6th of May when Arminius first heard of this resolution and of the advice. which it contained, he was not hasty in replying to it, but more inclined to ask the Presbytery to grant him a longer period for deliberating on that proposition. A few weeks afterwards, (on the 20th of May,) when some members of the Presbytery reminded him of this affair, and would not desist from

repeating old grievances, rising up in the midst of the meeting, in an animated tone, he challenged all those to come forward, whosoever they might be, that might wish to communicate any particulars in his sermons which they had deemed worthy of reprehension. When no one arose, some person made a solitary remark," that it might be rationally concluded from the testimony of the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, and persons of Libertine habits, (who boasted of his discourses on the ninth chapter of the Romans,) that he taught and defended something that was quite at variance with the doctrines which were delivered by his brethren in the ministry and by the Reformed pastors in general."-Arminius would not allow this to be a necessary consequence, and declared, "that it appeared wonderful to him how persons of so many discordant opinions could unite together in applauding his discourses; but that no person who was of the same sacred order with him, and a member of that assembly, had at any time heard such things as were manifestly repugnant to the sacred volume or the received forms of consent."-In reply to this, one of the elders said, "that it must indeed be confessed he had carefully guarded against declaring any thing openly that deserved to be an object of censure, yet he had indulged in ambiguous and equivocal modes of expression."- After Arminius had declared his innocence of this charge, and had demanded some proof of the accusation thus preferred against him, that he might afterwards the more carefully avoid expressions of that kind, not a man was found among them to produce a single proof.

The next meeting of the ecclesiastical senate was held on the 27th of the same month, when Arminius, perceiving the minds of several persons still to be unappeased, two or three times invited the clandestine slanderers of his name to make their appearance, and commanded them openly to divulge those things which they had to allege against him. This challenge having been repeated, Kuchlinus immediately asked, "Where is Plancius?" and when he was found, Kuchlinus began to remind him," that he had occasionally in the absence of Arminius stated some doubts which he felt about his doctrine, and that he ought now to state them in his presence and hearing. That was the proper scene of action, and the object which claimed his present attention." Being thus unexpectedly summoned, and having been also desired by Arminius to stand forward as his adversary, Plancius refused to assume

that invidious character; yet he confessed, that he had observed some things in his sermons, which did not accord exactly enough with the sentiments entertained by the Reformed Church. The sum of his accusation reduced itself to

these points:

1. While Arminius was interpreting the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, he had taught, that no one was condemned except for sin, and that all infants were for that reason excluded from condemnation.

2.That he had likewise said, It is scarcely possible to attribute too much to good works: We cannot say enough in commendation of them, provided we abstain from ascribing to them any portion of merit.

3.And that he had avowed, The angels are not immortal."

Arminius answered each of these charges, thus:

1. "In reference to the first objection, when he was preacning on sin as the cause of condemnation, he did not by those words exclude original sin; but Plancius had not correctly understood the nature of the original stain, if under the name of sin he was desirous to have it excluded.

2. "So far was he from denying the second assertion respecting GOOD WORKS, that he chose rather to defend it as a correct saying."-Plancius then asked, "Is justification therefore to be ascribed to good works, provided no merit is attributed to them?"-Arminius replied, "Justification is not assigned to works but to faith:" In confirmation of this he quoted ROMANS iv, 4, 5: Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.'

3. "With regard to the third matter of which he was accused, he had never uttered such a sentiment about the angels in public, but had, he confessed, once mentioned it privately in the house of Plancius, and had established it by solid arguments, but with this addition, that he still thought immortality to be an attribute properly belonging to God alone, which was manifest from Paul's testimony, (1 Tim. vi, 16,) The blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; WHO ONLY HATH IMMORTALITY, dwelling in the light to which no man can approach,' &c. Angels are indeed happy spirits, and are now and will ever be immortal, not by their own nature, but by the external sustentation of God

which preserves them: Much in the same way human bodies had been mortal before the fall, and capable of dissolution; yet they would never have been called to endure death, unless sin had intervened."

When he had in this manner answered all the objections of Plancius, he added, "that he had never been conscious of having hitherto taught any thing contrary to the Confession and the Catechism; that he received each article and doctrine of faith contained in those writings, in the very sense in which they are severally expounded by nearly all the Reformed Churches; that he then felt no scruple or doubt about any thing except the interpretation of the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession, to the words of which he was nevertheless willing to adhere."

In the Acts of the Presbytery at Amsterdam, it is officially stated, as the result of the discussions in that meeting, "After these things had been understood, the assembly determined, that they had no further business to transact with Arminius respecting this controversy, till, by the blessing of God and the interpretation of a General Synod, the true and genuine sense of the before-mentioned article be made more fully known to him."

Thus ended the troubles of Arminius, while he was a resident minister in Amsterdam; and if the expressions of Bertius were intended to apply to the period which intervened between the commencement of the year 1593 and the middle of 1603, when he was called to the Professorship at Leyden, his remarks are perfectly just,—for he lived in a state of the greatest amity with his colleagues, and was highly respected by the people of his charge. Private detraction, however, the constant attendant on merit, did not cease its offensive operations; but it shewed itself in a more pointed manner, when, in the course of his observations on the epistle to the Romans, he came to expound the thirteenth chapter, and treated in a learned and profound manner on the various duties which were there inculcated on Magistrates and those under their authority. Some persons thought, that in those discourses Arminius ascribed too extensive a jurisdiction to the civil power in matters of religion. Indeed this was afterwards almost as great a point of difference, between the Arminians and the Calvinists in the Low Countries, as that of predestination. The Arminians paid great deference to the constituted authorities in the State; and several of them manifested a strict adherence to

those principles under most trying circumstances. On the contrary, nearly as high notions about the power of the Keys were entertained by the Calvinists, as by their predecessors the Papists; and they generally claimed for ecclesiastical jurisdiction such matters as could by no ingenuity be made to rank among the duties of the clergy or could properly come under their cognizance.

I.—Page 31.

LAURENCE JACOBSON REAL was one of the earliest assertors of religious liberty in Holland. Mention is made of his zealous exertions as early as 1565. He was a man of wealth and consideration in Amsterdam, and his fellow-citizens elected him several times as one of the Schepens or Aldermen of that city, in which he also filled other offices of trust and honour, and at last became one of the Admiralty Directors of Zealand. In conjunction with five other of the principal burghers of Amsterdam, he introduced the preaching of the gospel into the province of Holland. JOHN ARENTSON, a basket-maker, was the preacher, and delivered an excellent discourse, on the 14th of July, 1566, in a field near Horn. The lively singing of the congregation was heard in an adjoining monastery, in which the police magistrate of Horn, his deputy, and two young gentlemen, were dining with the monks of the establishment, all of whom went out to hear the basket-maker, and at first seemed by their actions as if they wished to intimidate him; but John Arentson was a man not easily frightened. One of the Monks then leaped over a ditch, and made a hideous noise for the purpose of dispersing the congregation; but they remained unmoved, and the preacher pursued his discourse, to the whole of which the magistrate, his deputy and two friends listened with the greatest attention, and, on their return, informed the Monks that they were not displeased with what they had heard. On the 21st of the same month, Peter Gabriel, a Fleming preacher, delivered an excellent discourse from Ephes. ii. 8-10, to a great multitude. Though he was an infirm man, he preached four hours, in the middle of a hot day, without intermission. That meeting was attended with several remarkable circumstances, and served greatly to strengthen the hands of the Reformed. The Popish magistrates of Amsterdam seemed to have lost their wonted energy; and the Reformed, after hearing preaching in several of the neighbouring towns and villages, at last ventured, ou