I add, that, with regard to what belongs to Common Places, his Institutes must be read after the Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark, that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions. I could produce innumerable witnesses of this my advice; while they cannot produce one, whom I have advised to read Koornhert or the followers of Ignatius Loyola. Let them bring forward a single witness, and the falsehood will immediately be manifest: So that, on this point, a history, or rather a fable, arises out of nothing." Then follows the quotation which I have given in pages 671-2.

In the same spirit of conscious rectitude, in the following year, 1608, Arminius undertook the defence of his own cause, before that very noble personage, Hippolytus a Collibus, Ambassador from the illustrious Prince Palatine, Frederic the Fourth, to their High Mightinesses the States General. Being of opinion that no dependence ought to be placed on the rumours which had been circulated at Heidelberg some time before, that Arminius differed a little from others on some points of christian faith, and thinking that the party accused ought also to have a hearing, this eminent individual, in a manner the most polite, invited our author to visit him at the Hague. Arminius obtained an interview with him; and, at the commencement of the conversation, after the Ambassador had with singular benevolence of mind disclosed the causes of the unpleasant suspicions concerning him, and on what points Sibrandus Lubbertus had complained of him by letter to the famous Paræus, Arminius openly and candidly explained his sentiments on all those subjects, but chiefly on the Divinity of the Son of God, Providence and Divine Predestination, Grace and Free Will, and on the point of Justification. His explanation of these doctrines was so satisfactory to that illustrious person, as to induce him earnestly to request Arminius to commit it to writing, not only that he might be enabled with greater certainty and firmness to deliver his own judgment on these matters after they had been properly considered, but might likewise communicate it to others, and thus have it in his power the more easily to refute calumny and defend his innocence. On that occasion, therefore, our author composed that very learned epistle, which "smelled of the lamp ;" and sent it on the 6th of April, 1608, to the Ambassador of the Elector Palatine. It is still extant in his published Works, and comprehends a succinct defence both of his doctrine and his life. [After quoting the conclusion of this Epistle, and describing the Conference at the Hague between

Arminius and Gomarus, on the 28th of May 1608, of which Brandt's own account is given in the long note, pp. 517-21, that biographer continues his narrative in these words:]

66

That famous man, Hugh Grotius, alluding to this Conference in a letter which he addressed to his kinsman Reygersbergen at that time, says, that he found Uitenbogaert sadder than usual, and declaring among other things, "that although the Pro"vincial Synod might proceed, yet since this affair was agitated "with such violent prejudices, and since the private opinions “of divines almost imperceptibly stole into the minds of their pupils, and, in process of time and through neglect in prose"cuting a deeper inquiry, were received by the tacit consent of "the Churches, since these private opinions, by the authority "which they insensibly acquired, destroyed the liberal applica"tion of men possessed of great talents, and since the majority, "in the Churches, as well as in other assemblies, [frequently] "prevailed against those who had the better cause, he could "not hope for a more prosperous result to the affairs of Armi"nius than that which had been the lot of Castellio, who, "oppressed by the outrageous conduct of his adversaries, was "reduced to such an extremity as to obtain a livelihood by "gathering fuel."-That this fear concerning Arminius, which had occupied the mind of his friend Uitenbogaert, was not a vain one, we may readily suppose, from the foul reproaches and falsehoods with which detraction daily assailed his reputation. For this purpose Thirty-one Theological Articles were circulated about that time, some of which were ascribed to Arminius, some to Adrian Borrius, a Pastor of the Church of Leyden, and others to both of them. In dispersing these Articles, his adversaries intended, by placing on them the black mark of HERESY, to excite against them the hatred of the ignorant among the populace, as well as the animosity of those who were at the head of the ecclesiastical and civil affairs of the Republic.

As Nine of these Articles are inserted in this volume, I refer the readers to the commencement of them in page 669, and proceed with the remainder of Brandt's narrative :

At this time, too, was renewed the calumny, which had formerly been objected against Arminius, of his attempts to promote the interests of the Papal Kingdom. To put down this slanderous accusation, he had within the preceding twelve months, composed most learned Theses on Idolatry, and had added, by way of Corollary," that the Roman Pontiff is an idol, and that they are idolaters who consider him to be what he professes;" but he had likewise published other Theses, in which he maintained, "that the Reformed Churches had not made a

secession from the Church of Rome, and that they had acted properly in refusing to hold and profess communion with her in faith and Divine worship." Still further to close the mouths of his detractors, a short time after the Conference held before the Supreme Court, May 24th, 1608, (pp. 517-21,) he held a public Disputation on the Roman Pontiff, and defended the position, "that he was an adulterer and the pander of the Church, a false prophet and the tail of the Dragon, the adversary of God and of Christ, the Antichrist, the evil servant who beats his fellowservants, one who is unworthy of the title of BISHOP, and the destroyer and spoiler of the Church." Yet, even by this declaration, he could not satisfy the suspicious dispositions of certain persons. An individual was found, who, in a letter which he sent into Germany, placed a mutilated title before his Theses on the secession from the Church of Rome, from which foreigners and persons unacquainted with these affairs might conclude, that Arminius was most unreasonably attached to the Popish Church. But a certain minister of the Church of Amsterdam, impelled by these popular clamours, publicly inveighed against Arminius "as a most impure Divine, and one who accounted the Roman Pontiff to be a member of the body of Christ: This doctrine," he exclaimed," was so displeasing to God, that, as it had been observed by some men of prudence, from the time when certain people undertook to defend it, the affairs of the Republic had begun to decline, and some of the most strongly-fortified cities had been seized by the enemy."-To this slander succeeded another, "that Arminius was the cause of the defection of many persons to Popery; and that he afforded an opportunity, to some politicians, less resolutely to deny the exercise of the Popish religion to those by whom it was desired."

But though Arminius esteemed no remedy superior to innocence and patience for dispersing these clouds of detraction, yet he occasionally preferred a complaint, about the injury thus inflicted on him, to the principal men who were distinguished for their wisdom and judgment, but chiefly to the Burgomasters of Amsterdam, in which city the licentiousness of detraction at that period transgressed all limits; and he proved, by his letters, that all these rumours were destitute of truth. The following is a brief declaration of his opinion on this subject, addressed to one of the honourable Burgomasters of Amsterdam, Sebastian Egberts, September 24th, 1608:

"I openly declare, that I do not own the Roman Pontiff to be a member of Christ's body; but I account him an enemy, a traitor, a sacrilegious and blasphemous man, a tyrant, and a violent usurper of most unjust domination over the Church, the

man of sin, the son of perdition, that most notorious outlaw, &c. But, in this description, I understand a Pope who discharges the functions of the Pontificate in the usual manner. But if an Adrian of Utrecht, raised to the Pontifical dignity without intrigues, were to attempt a reformation of the Church ;-and were to make a commencement at the Pope himself, the Pontificate, and the Court of Rome;-and if he were to assume to himself nothing more than the name and authority of a Bishop, though holding, according to the ancient canons of the Church, the principal station among the rest of the Bishops ;—on such a man I durst not bestow these epithets. For I cannot persuade myself, that an individual whom the satellites of Anti-christianity, and the Court of Rome, hated so dreadfully as to deprive him of existence, is that exceedingly wicked one whom I have described. It is believed, that Adrian was poisoned by those persons who were afraid of his effecting a reform in the Church, and especially in the Court of Rome. Yet I am of opinion, and I think it can be proved with great appearance of probability from the Scriptures, that a reform must not be expected from any one who is elevated to the Roman Pontificate; and that, if a person allows himself to be promoted to that dignity. in hopes of personally accomplishing such a reform, he will incur the certain peril of death or exile,-because God himself has so ordered that matter. For the Pope shall be destroyed at the glorious [second] advent of Christ; and, according to prediction, the reform will take place by the separation of the nations from Babylon, which [typical] city will not be destitute of its head.-But if that preacher supposes it to be a consequence which flows from the sentiment which I hold, about God not having yet sent a bill of divorce to the Church in which the Roman Pontiff presides, that I acknowledge the Pontiff himself as a member of the Church;' by such a supposition he declares himself incapable of distinguishing between those who have been led astray and still endure the tyranny, and THE FALSE PROPHET AND TYRANT HIMSELF, who spontaneously divests himself of the appellation of a member of the Church, by assuming the title of HEAD OF THE CHURCH, and by actually excommunicating, or holding as excommunicated, all those who are unwilling to recognize him in that character. But if on this account such a charge can lawfully be made against me, I have, as my associates in this crime, Francis Junius and Luke Trelcatius, both of pious memory, beside Gomarus himself and the greatest part of our Divines.

On this subject, consult a letter from Arminius, in p. 580,

Brandt next presents his readers with a copious description of THE DECLARATION which Arminius delivered before the States of Holland, on the 30th of October, 1608, and which has received ample illustration between pages 516-668 in this volume.

W-Page 41.

Bertius has described the rapid progress which disease made on the delicate frame of Arminius; and says, "yet he did not discontinue the labours connected with his Lectures and his regular vocation, and never lost an opportunity of advocating his own cause when he deemed it necessary." The younger Brandt, after quoting this sentence, and some others, immediately subjoins:

This was shewn in a very conspicuous manner, at a certain public disputation which was held July 25th, 1609, On the Calling of Men to Salvation. On that occasion Arminius was very animated and lively, and in a strain of great eloquence not only denied that irresistible and necessitating force, which, according to the opinion of some among the Reformed, God Almighty employs in the conversion of men; but he likewise maintained, that the Divine Vocation of men to salvation was exercised thus, -God either supplies men with strength [or power,] or He is ready to bestow it, for the performance of that to which He calls men by his vocation.* He also said, "that he neither could nor durst define the method which the Holy Spirit uses in the conversion and regeneration of man: That, if any one else durst define the mode, the proof would rest with that individual: That he could say how conversion was not effected, that it was not by an irresistible force; but not how it was: That this is known to HIM alone who searches out the deep things of God.". When the opponent asserted, that there was some grace by which men might certainly be converted, and on that founded a

In Borre's letter, the following very important explanation is added: “This must not be understood as if a man, at the very commencement of his vocation, could instantly perform whatever is required to salvation; but that, by the assistance of Divine Grace which is always ready, it is in his power to perform that to which he is immediately called by his vocation. For instance: When a man is called [by the Spirit of God] to the confession of his sins, he cannot immediately repent of the sins which he has committed, but he can acknowledge them. When he is called to serious grief on account of his sins of commission, he may be affected with that, and may conceive in his spirit true contrition, but he cannot immediately believe in Christ: And thus onwards, by always moving forward from the next lower degrees to those which are higher, till at length, being carried up, he is brought to the last of the divine commands, to the performance of which salvation is promised according to the gospelI do not add any more, since I am writing to a man of understanding.”

covenant.