I request you to inquire what posthumous pieces of his the public may expect, in addition to his History.” The schism artfully created in 1616, by Henry Rosæus, one of Uitenbogardt's colleagues at the Hague, was a source of great disquietude to this lover of concord. The account of it in BRANDT'S History of the Reformation, is exceedingly interesting, and stands to this day in proof of the base machinations of the Dutch Calvinists. The old historian commences the narrative by observing, "Some of the violent Contra-remonstrants were of opinion, that the cause of the Remonstrants stood upon a bad foundation, being nothing more than the artifice of a faction that had its capital seat at the Hague; and that, as the most powerful patrons of it resided there, it would be necessary to break the neck of it in its head-quarters. They cried, that Uitenbogardt, who was now looked upon as one of the greatest enemies of the Church, must be attacked in his own kennel. They were of opinion, that the received doctrine of the Reformation could be no longer preserved in its ancient purity, without a total separation from the Remonstrants; which was not then very practicable whilst the States maintained their resolutions for promoting mutual toleration and the peace of the church at the Hague, for from thence the influence of their authority diffused itself through most towns of the province." Rosæus, like many of those who subsequently became most outrageous in their opposition to the Remonstrants, had previously been moderate in his religious sentiments and on terms of intimacy with Uitenbogardt. He had received part of his theological education under the Professor Vorstius; and when that persecuted individual was treated like an outcast in Holland, Rosæus, without the knowledge of the Consistory at the Hague, introduced him to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and hospitably entertained him at his own house. But being a young and ambitious ecclesiastic, and perceiving that the influence of the Remonstrant's began to decline, he commenced his public attacks upon them and their patrons, but only in general terms and without mentioning any At Wittenboogart's much-deplor'd decease: Love patriotic for his country's weal, And Eloquence which taught mankind to feel. But PATIENCE hopes, by means of Dutchmen, now With victor wreaths to decorate her brow; For they alone, allow the just surmise, Have call'd this virtue into exercise. names. The Contra-remonstrants however understood his indefinite phraseology, and by degrees absented themselves from Uitenbogardt's sermons and then from the sacrament. Rosæus himself raised a separate congregation in 1616 at Ryswick, a short distance from the Hague, and refused to listen to all the suggestions of the States of Holland for an accommodation between him and Uitenbogardt. The latter in discourse with a particular friend of Rosæus, told him, "I am ready to pass by all considerations and to bear with the opinions of Rosæus, provided he will bear with mine," &c. The reply was, "that the separation at the Hague was produced at the request of other churches, in order to support them in their separation, and thus to obtain a remedy; and that Rosæus was obliged to maintain a correspondence with those churches and to pursue their methods." This was soon rendered too obvious in the proceedings of various clandestine meetings composed of deputies from the Contraremonstrant Churches, in which the Pastors adopted what they called the Act of Union, and determined to separate from the Remonstrants as false brethren. Grotius says, in his Apology, "There were also covenants and engagements drawn up by the Contra-remonstrants, [of which he gives authentic copies,] importing that they would hold no communion with those who submitted to the ecclesiastical constitution of the year 1591, [which, for the sake of peace, the States had re-enacted.] It is true, as some allege, that the Remonstrants likewise have had private meetings, and drawn up instruments of agreement; but it was never said, that they did this in order to separate from those who were willing to maintain unity with them, much less could it be proved."-Rosæus and his violent partizans soon proceeded to greater extremities, and in 1617 seized upon one of the churches at the Hague. "Before this seizure of the Cloister Church," says Brandt, "there were great instances made, even by his excellency the Prince himself, for bringing the separatists into the Great Church, by introducing one of their own persuasion to preach there in the turn of Rosæus. But neither could the States Committee, the Magistrates, nor the Consistory of the Hague, be induced to give their consent; since, in their opinion, it tended to establish a formal schism in one and the same church, with visible danger of riots and seditions, by the people affronting each other, during the existing alienation of men's minds and the mutual animosities of parties: They were sufficiently wellinclined to call another Contra-remonstrant minister, provided he would comply with the resolutions of the States respecting Mutual Forbearance, and would hold communion with Uitenbogardt - and his two colleagues. But Prince Maurice was of a different opinion, and thought, that both parties might celebrate the Lord's Supper apart, and yet that this would be no schism. The minister La Motte, who, though of the Contra-remonstrant opinion on the subject of Predestination, had hitherto held communion with Uitenbogardt, now thought it a proper season to unite more closely with the discontented party: He received the sacrament with the separatists, continuing however to preach in the Great Church in regular course with Uitenbogardt and La Faille; which was then connived at, to avoid further trouble. By this seizure of one of the public churches at the Hague, the separation of the Contra-remonstrants was sufficiently established, in contempt of the States, who them no trouble on that account.gave On the 23rd of July, 1617, a fortnight after the seizure of the Cloister Church, Prince Maurice absented himself from. the service of the Great Church, and proceeded the same day to the meeting of the Separatists, with Count William Louis of Nassau, Stadt-holder of Friezland, and a great company that increased daily. But the Princess Dowager of Orange and her son Prince Henry Frederick adhered to the Great Church. The latter Prince declared plainly, that he did not believe the doctrine of Rosæus; and his mother made an equally open declaration, that she would continue to hear Uitenbogardt in the presence of the Synod or of any other persons, as long as the States would permit him to preach, and that she could engage that her son would do the same."-Grotius says, in his Apology, (book 19,) “His excellency Prince Maurice, many years after the controversy arose about Predestination, had approved of the Toleration by his own example, in hearing the sermons of Uitenbogardt and communicating with him at the Lord's table, long after that pastor had publicly joined the Remonstrants. Nay, even since that period, in the years 1610 and 1614, the Prince had been pleased to employ Uitenbogardt as his private chaplain in the expeditions of Juliers and Rees; and, in the year 1616, requested the States of Utrecht, (who claimed a right to him, and strenuously insisted upon his returning to them,) to forego their claim, and permit him to remain at the Hague, for the benefit of his excellency and the church in that place: The Prince continued in the same communion with him till the seizure made on the Cloister Church. His excellency likewise for a long time looked upon the resolutions of the States about a Toleration, without once admonishing that they did amiss, or that it would be more advantageous for the country and the church to proceed on some other plan. In these Provinces, therefore, it could be no secret, that it was not any religious consideration which induced some persons to advise the Prince to oppose the resolutions of the States concerning ecclesiastical affairs."* I have given this brief notice of Uitenbogaert's case, because it is one of the most favourable specimens of the outrageous and intolerant behaviour of the Dutch Calvinists, in possessing themselves of nearly every church in which the Arminian ministers had been accustomed to officiate. This affair at the Hague was conducted with comparative decency, though with great duplicity: In other cities, towns, and villages, the persecuted Remonstrants had to endure all the evils which could be inflicted by a half-educated commonalty, or by petty magistrates, (for the immense number of whom that populous country was then remarkable,) whose minds were under the influence of a malevolent zeal and a senseless bigotry. In such a state of affairs, Uitenbogaert was induced to continue in the administration of • In another passage Grotius says: "Some advice, not very consistent with the nature of our constitution or with the laws and usages of the country, had been given to his excellency, who had hitherto kept himself quiet and unconcerned in these quarrels, and who, being much occupied with military affairs, interfered very little with. the administration of the civil government: The consequence of all these was, that he began at length to manifest his dislike of the resolution of the States in favour of Toleration, to forsake the public churches, and to unite himself to the Separatists." +"The Contra-remonstrants, who had thus separated themselves, were not content, after the example of the primitive christians, with the exercise of their religion in private houses, but presumed, of their own accord, to render themselves masters of the public churches, partly by making an open schism in the church, in which all the members had previously been at unity, by establishing a distinct Consistory, and administering the Lord's Supper by themselves, and by not permitting a Remonstrant minister even to sit in the parquet [a place in front of the pulpit, inclosed with rails, for the accommodation of ministers and elders] when a Contra-remonstrant had to preach, as was the case at Oudewater;-partly by irregularly introducing ministers, as was done at Heusden ;-partly by extorting churches from the magistrates by threats, as at the Bril, where some persons had the assurance to declare, that they were resolved to seize upon a Church, whatever the consequence might be ;-and partly by actually dispossessing the occupiers of churches, as in the case of those of the separate meeting at the Hague, who, after they had obtained the Hospital Church, under a promise of not erecting a distinct Consistory, immediately violated their promise and took possession of the Cloyster Church, and conveyed into it a pulpit and some seats, and causing persons to preach there, though they did not so much as ask leave of the States themselves, to whom the ground and edifice belonged, or that of the magistrates of the Hague, much less without obtaining such leave. Nay afterwards, (which seemed to be done still more in contempt of the orders of the States,) Henry Rosæus, who had been suspended by the States from his ministry, was employed by them as preacher. Now if every one of the various sects should pretend to seize upon a public church, nothing but bloodshed would ensue : Wherefore none, except the government, ought to determine to whom the use of the public churches belongs: And accordingly the Roman or Civil Law reckons the right of ordering the public worship of God, to be one of the prerogatives of the sovereign power. Whatever is done in any other manner, cannot but be esteemed irregular and unlawful by all wise Civilians and Statesmen."-GROTII Apologia. his pastoral duties, only at the earnest solicitation of the Princess Dowager of Orange, and of her son Prince Henry Frederick. He had been present at a consultation, which was held in his own house at the Hague, on the 3d of July, 1618, between Van Ledenbergh, secretary of the States of Utrecht, who requested to be favoured with the advice of De Haan, Hogerbeets, and Grotius, the Pensionaries of Haerlem, Leyden, and Rotterdam, about the new Warders or Militia, whom some of the states and cities had raised, for the defence of their several liberties against the aggressions of Prince Maurice: When he found them engaged in the discussion of this important affair of state at such a critical juncture, he attempted twice to leave the room, but was as often called back by those gentlemen, and thus unwillingly was present at their conference. Uitenbogaert was most probably aware of the fatal consequences which might accrue from the misinterpretation which Prince Maurice, and his powerful party, would give to this action, as well as to every other in which the Remonstrants were then concerned :* He therefore prepared himself for the worst that could happen; and at the earnest entreaty of his friends, he retired from the Hague on the evening of the very day, (Aug. 29, 1618,) on which the Grand Pensionary Oldenbarnevelt was taken into custody. He proceeded immediately to Antwerp, having previously obtained from his consistory a complete and honourable discharge. In a Memorial which he transmitted to the States General of the United Provinces, and to their Stadtholder, in justification of himself against certain rumours that were in circulation, he declared, "that, in the existing situation of affairs, he could neither wake nor sleep at the Hague; that he could neither speak, hold his peace, nor do any thing but what would be misconstrued, wrested, and represented in the very worst sense, in order to load him with new crimes." This In consequence of his alleged political conduct on that occasion, and on some others which were worse defined, all his property was confiscated, and he was condemned to perpetual banishment on pain of death if he ventured to return. +"Some think that the apprehension of Oldenbarnevelt was done with the knowledge of the English Ambassador, Carleton, who arrived on the preceding evening from England, and had been in conference with Prince Maurice till late the preceding night."-BRANDT. The three principal crimes of which Uitenbogardt was accused, beside the dreadful one of contempt for the authority of the Synod, are thus described in their Acts:"Whereas the said Uitenbogaert has acted in a manner unbecoming his character, not only by putting himself at the head of a party, and by having been the chief director and manager of all the troubles of the Church, as appears by that Remonstrance which he first presented, and that protection from the ordinary church-censures which he obtained for ecclesiastical persons; but likewise by his publishing several slan |