consideration was his principal inducement for retiring; and, soon after his departure, he was warned from good authority, (from the Princess Dowager of Orange and her son Prince Henry Frederick,) not to return to Holland, even though he might receive a safe-conduct. Proceedings were commenced against him before the civil and ecclesiastical tribunals. On the 29th of October, a summons was issued for his appearance before the South Holland Synod at Delft; and, because he did not appear within the stipulated time, (six days,) he was deprived of all ecclesiastical functions, till he should give full satisfaction to the Synod or its Deputies respecting the offences with which he was charged. In a conversation between Oldenbarnevelt and Uitenbogaert, in February 1618, the Grand Pensionary told the latter, that he was then disposed to consent to a Synod on the old conditions. To which Uitenbogaert replied, "Would to God that you had been of this mind above a year ago, when I advised it! It is now too late: Then you would not hear of it, and now you must give me leave to be gone."+ Oldenbarnevelt opposed his departure, and said, "If you go, all honest men both of the Clergy and Laity will lose their courage, and the Church and State will be ruined." In the month of May, the Grand Pensionary asked him, "Whether the Remonstrants could not draw up a confession in the name of the whole party ?" Uitenbogaert replied, "No: I cannot advise it. There are confessions enow; nay, too derous books and papers against many eminent pastors of the Church, tending to defame the true religion: It having been also considered, that he has unfaithfully deserted his church, under the pretence that his Consistory has granted him a temporary leave of absence, and that he is still a fugitive," &c. • He also addressed a letter to Prince Maurice, in which he endeavoured to remove the displeasure of his excellency, and to demonstrate his own innocency. But this produced no better effect, than the Memorial which he had presented to the States and to his excellency, and which was published at the same time at Leyden, with his name subjoined: But it was read by few persons. + It was early in 1817, that Uitenbogaert, aware of the baneful consequences of the reigning disputes, intreated Oldenbarnevelt to have matters so disposed as to convoke a Synod in what manner soever it might be desired. To his request the Grand Pensionary replied, If you be inclined to sacrifice the rights of your country, I am not. "But Uitenbogaert was of opinion, that the Contra-remonstrants and their supporters were resolved to carry their point about a Synod, though it were purchased by an entire revolution in the government, from which the ruin of the Remonstrants was inseparable; but that, if the government stood, the Remonstrants might still hope for some protection though they might be condemned by the Clergy: For a government cannot always hinder what they may afterwards redress. With the same object in view, this prudent man again advised his Remonstrant brethren, with great earnestness, simply to desire a Synod: But they would not listen to his counsel, but pleaded their consciences, which (they said) would not allow them to join in promoting what they believed would tend to suppress the truth."-BRANDT. many." When Oldenbarnevelt said, "Then they [the Calvinists will condemn you as contumacious;" Uitenbogaert answered, "Let them do it: We are weary of their company. The States will at least do so much for us, as to let us live here in our own country, and enjoy the freedom of it, as well as the Lutherans and other sects. But, let what will happen, it would be better for us to suffer any thing, than to afford an occasion to the effusion of blood, or a civil war." But in the month of June, he found matters to have become much worse, and therefore told the Grand Pensionary, "I see, the government either cannot or will not protect us any longer: They should tell us so, that we may consider what we have to do." But Oldenbarnevelt replied, "that he had still hopes of a happy issue." These conversations are important when viewed in connection with the Synod of Dort, which was convened a few days after the last had occurred. Uitenbogaert's prudent conduct amidst the numerous snares that were laid for him and his friends, and his able management of the affairs of the society, during the long and unexpected exile of some of the most pious and learned men of that age, were highly to his credit; but the bare allusion to them must, in this place, suffice. But there was no circumstance in the life of Uitenbogardt which gave him and his friends so much trouble and uneasiness, as the call of Conrad Vorstius to the chair of Divinity in the University of Leyden, as the successor of Arminius. This eminent man was one of the brightest theological luminaries, and, as Bayle very justly observes, "would probably have been considered orthodox at the time of his decease, had he not accepted the invitation to Leyden." He was born at Cologne, July 19, 1569. He entered on his classical studies at Dusseldorf where he remained till 1586, when he removed to St. Laurence's College in Cologne; but did not graduate there, because he and his parents had then become Protestants, and he could not with a good conscience take the oath prescribed by the statutes—that he would abide by the decisions of the Council of Trent. His father, having experienced some reverses of fortune, then resolved to educate him for business; and young Vorstius accordingly spent two years in acquiring a knowledge of Arithmetic, French, Italian, and other branches of learning which might afterwards prove useful in his commercial pursuits. But his mind having a marked predilection for studies of a higher order, he was permitted to resume them, and went to the University of Herborn, in 1589, to study Divinity under the famous Piscator. His progress was very extraordinary, and he soon had the privilege of acting as tutor to the sons of noblemen, with some of whom he 3 f ཛཱ went to Heidelberg in March 1593, and took his Doctor's degree in that University in July 1594. In 1595, he visited the Universities of Switzerland, and that of Geneva; and, in the latter, at the request of the aged Beza, he read Divinity Lectures, with the greatest applause. The Theological Professorship was offered to him, but he declined it, in consequence of having the prospect of being appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Steinfurt, then recently founded by the generous Arnold, Count of Bentheim. The letter, which contained the invitation, was given to him at Geneva, in February 1596; and he immediately accepted of the honourable situation, the duties of which he discharged for fifteen years with the highest credit to himself and to the benefit of the students. In the year 1598, reports were circulated to his prejudice, that he was secretly a Socinian. The Count of Bentheim therefore, with great propriety, and at Vorstius's suggestion through his friend Pezelius of Bremen, wished him to clear his character of these aspersions, before the heads of that University in which he had taken his Doctor's degree: A long correspondence accordingly ensued between him and the Divines of Heidelberg,* in which he acquitted himself to David Paræus, one of the Heidelberg Professors, had very kindly acquainted Vorstius, in a letter dated June 1598, with some of the rumours concerning him, and made the following among other remarks: I wish this which is no very secret rumour about your Socinianism, was (what you say it is) only a vain calumny, and that nearly all the brethren were not compelled to fear that there is some truth in this saying-A snake lies concealed in the grass. Are you desirous that I should not believe it! But what is this, I pray, which you write to your friends, that you have at "length learned, out of the books of the Socinians, to discuss theological subjects; * and that our evangelical divines hold things, which are not a little doubtful, as cer'tainties,—and things which are false, as truths?' What is the fact that the first three of the Theses which you have written to Tossanus, [another of the Heidelberg professors,] resemble those of the Socinians, as much as one egg does another? What is this that the more you explain your meaning, the nearer approaches you make to the Socinians, how artfully soever you may study to varnish it over ?—At length, that you may make the point at which you are aiming, more plainly appear, you stretch out your foot still further, and in the very commencement of the manuscript exhibited by Holsten on the 17th of June, you have without any dissembling rejected the doctrine of the church concerning justifying faith and concerning justification itself: And it is now no longer agreeable to you, that a sinner is justified before God by this faith, 'if he believes, that is, if he is confidently assured, that Christ had endured for him 'by name eternal death, and all the punishment of the damned.' On the other hand, the Socinian faith and justification seem to be more congenial to your views, that we ⚫ are received into favour, if we believe in Christ and obey him;' which two doctrines [faith and obedience] are of equal avail to Socinus. So that now you have no imputed faith, no justifyiug faith, that is, a faith receiving a gratuitous justification on account of the only and perfect merits of Christ: But, with you, justifying faith is a confidence or obedience yielded to Christ, or to God through Christ. You know, Socinus trifles thus: Nay, with you, conversion is antecedent to faith and to forgiveness of sins, as a cause is antecedent to its effects, and is in our own power, &c. By the glory their satisfaction. He also corresponded on the subject with the Basle Divines, who shewed themselves to be equally well therefore of our most righteous God, by the most holy and plenary satisfaction of the Son of God, by his wounds and death, by your own eternal salvation, by the peace of the christian church, by whatever things are dear to you, I entreat you to reflect upon what you are doing, and to use no tergiversation. Artful colouring and varnish will not serve you long for a covering: Truth is the daughter of time. Think only what a thing it is, to prefer one Socinus, a Samosatenian heretic, to all the orthodox divines; and, for a few empty subtleties, to renounce the faith and the consent of the Christian church. Reflect upon the just indignation of your most excellent patron, the scandal of the church, the triumphs of the enemies whom you will excite, the destruction of the youth under your care, and your own peril. Free me, and all your friends, from this anxiety and dread; and, with us, openly detest the heresy of Socinus," &c. Pezelius also, to whom he had written, addressed a letter to him, on the 14th of January 1599, of which the following is an extract : "But, in the first place, I congratulate you on your marriage, a sacred contract into which you have recently entered; and I pray and beseech, that it may be sweet, fruitful, and fortunate. I now return you thanks for having freed me from the doubts which had been injected into my mind concerning you, by those whom I understood to be affected with no malevolence towards you, but who with christian sympathy lamented your misfortune in having come under suspicion among some persons, not so much about that opinion of Piscator's, as about that much more important controversy relative to the eternal Divinity of the Son of God, which contains the foundation of our faith and salvation. The epistolary discussion into which you entered with that most accomplished man, Vivian of pious memory, and his answers to you about this principal article of faith, I have not seen, but I have heard casually by report. But in Mensoe's letter to me, he did not conceal the complaints which were raised against you in your diocese. I do not remember, however, that Du Moulin made any other than an honourable mention of you; except that he expressed his surprise at your discourse on that occasion: For when the Socinian dogma became incidentally a topic of conversation, you immediately exclaimed, 'I have no doubt at all, that, before the last advent of Christ, some extraordinary light will arise, even on this doctrinal article, such as has never yet appeared ' in the church !'" This last very innocent expression would be quite enough, with such a suspicious disposition as Du Moulin's, to dub Vorstius as a heretic: His swerving a little from the usual Calvinistic interpretation of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, (on which see his master's, Piscator's, sentiments in page 633,) would give countenance to his unsoundness on the divine nature of the Son of God. I copy a few sentences from the Defence of himself, which was addressed to the Heidelberg Professors on the 25th of July, 1598. "In this University, during the last year, I have from the word of God defended Christ's Divinity against heretics in such a manner, as it is impossible for me to have exceeded either in strength or clearness: In which defence, (all praise to God be given!) I still persevere. This is the substance of what I teach concerning the office of the Mediator: I maintain, that he is [ex gratia] graciously given to us by God the Father, to merit eternal salvation for us by his obedience, and to make us partakers of it by the virtue of his Holy Spirit, and thus, both by merit and efficacy to become our perfect Saviour. From these premises I infer, with the Holy Scriptures and the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, that we are justified by faith alone in Christ; that we depend on Christ's righteousness alone, which is gratuitously imputed to us before God; and that our conversion to God, as well as the remission of our sins and life eternal, must be considered as received solely through the grace of God, and through the alone merits and efficacy of Christ, to the exclusion of all merit and worthiness on the part of faith itself, as well as of our works. Are these the sentiments of the Arians and Socinians concerning the person of Christ, or those of 2 satisfied. In the autumn of 1599, he had a personal interview with the Professors of Heidelberg at which Pezelius was present; the Papists concerning his office? Nay, will you not much sooner effect an union between fire and water, than between the Confession which I have here made and their opinions? Those persons who have suspicions of my being attached to Popery, have apparently blamed me for the occasional preference which I seem to give to the Ancient Fathers and the Schoolmen before modern divines: For instance, I choose in this controversy to speak in the language of St. Augustine and of Aquinas on the necessity of satisfaction, rather than in that of some modern doctors. But I will ask you, most eminent men, are such proofs as these sufficient to support such a serious charge? If this be the proper mode of proceeding, who then will be innocent! Zanchius has a passage in some part of his writings in which he says, that he drinks old wine in preference to new: And he interprets this of the ancient Fathers, whom he judges to be very properly preferred to the moderns, in the discussion of all questions which are not expressly explained in the Holy Scriptures, as is the case with our present subject. "Those who seem to suspect me of Arianism or Socinianism, blame me principally for two things: The FIRST is, that I make too familiar a use of some phrases which the Socinians employ. The SECOND is, that I still defend certain hypotheses on which their whole heresy seems to depend.—To the FIRST I reply, that liberty was always granted in the Church, especially to the Professors of Sacred Literature, to read in the fear of the Lord and to pass judgment upon the writings and disputations of all learned men, to what sect soever they may belong; and that no small part of this liberty, which Christ has claimed for us by his blood, consists of the fact that in the matter of conscience or religion we are the slaves of no man; since all things are ours, but we are Christ's alone,' according to the saying of the Apostle. It is therefore impossible for the following law to be prescribed to Christians without injustice ;always to use the same words and phrases, in the explanation of any question, which Luther, for instance, or Melancthon, or Calvin has employed. I have indeed always highly admired, and do now admire, not only ingenuousness in professing that which you hold as being true, but also plainness of speech in giving utterance to your sentiments: Nor do I deny, that I have read with attention some of the books of these heretics, and have examined them according to the small measure of faith with which I am endued. From this circumstance perhaps it has resulted, that the phrases and sentiments of that author whom I have last read, provided they appear true and perspicuous, are used by me with greater familiarity, than others which are employed by other authors. But what man is so ignorant as not to know, that in this case regard must be had to a difference in sense and faith, and not to any diversity of style? St. Augustine undoubtedly accounts it useful for learned men to write and to treat upon the same questions in a different style, but not with a different faith. It is sufficient if we retain that example of phraseology which the Sacred Scriptures employ: I should wish this to be done by all divines, so as to bind themselves by an oath, in which they should promise to define nothing about any doctrine of belief, which they are unable to explain in the phraseology of the scriptures. For if this single rule were generally to obtain, we should have fewer useless disputes and far more solid truth. But I am unwilling, reverend and most famous men, that you should understand these expressions as if the phrases of those heretics on this subject were exceedingly grateful to me: For on this matter I choose in preference the words and sentiments of St. Augustine, and the Schoolmen, nay of Musculus and others, whom no one ever reprehends on that account. Yet I confess, that, some years ago, an opportunity was afforded to me, by the writings of Socinus, of thinking more deeply on this subject. In reference to this opinion, I have probably written to some friend, (of which, however, I am not now conscious,) that I had learned out of the books of the Socinians the true method of theologizing. The only thing which I understood by the opportunity afforded to me by those books,' was, that the perusal of them induced me to think with greater diligence |