answer, "that they had no reason for demanding such an account from me, rather than from others."-But to one of these ministers, who was not among the last [of the two kinds of applicants,] I proposed a conference at three different times, concerning all the articles of our religion; in which we might consider and devise the best means that could possibly be adopted for establishing the truth on the most solid foundation, and for completely refuting every species of falsehood. It was also a part of my offer, that such conference should be held in the presence of certain of the principal men of our country; but he did not accept of this condition.*-To the rest of the enquirers I returned various answers; in some of which I plainly

The person to whom Arminius here alludes was Werner Helmichius, one of his co-pastors at Amsterdam, whom their common friend Uitenbogardt had recommended to the service of that Church ouly a short time prior to the removal of Arminius to Leyden. He and Plancius were incited, by others who were concealed, to circulate rumours to the prejudice of our author, and to take an active part in discovering grounds of accusation against him. In September, 1604, Arminius writes thus concerning him, in a letter to Uitenbogardt: "I have also offered to Helmichius a Conference on all the articles of the Christian Religion, and on every theological doctrine, that he may not suppose any thing to lurk in concealment.-But let these meu take heed of themselves, if they be made wise: For, by proposing my own opinion, I might attempt to confute theirs. How easily may this be done by any man that has a correct perception of it! Nothing further will be necessary, than to propose the process, which, according to their supposition, obtains in the work of saving and damning men; by this, their whole doctrine will be confuted. For the excuses which they adduce for this process, are of such a description as not to be comprehended by any person: Nay, those who propound it, do not themselves understand it; this is apparent from the forms of speech which they employ. The fate of the Stoics and the absolute necessity of things are introduced; and (which is far worse than Manicheism,) the cause of evil is ascribed to the Good God. When the Manichees wished to avoid this consequence, and found it impossible on account of their unskilfulness, they invented a second God, the God of darkness;—which error of theirs was, in my judgment, far more deserving of toleration." In a subsequent letter, immediately after the paragraph quoted page 405, Arminius adds, "Whenever an opportunity occurs, I relate to every person, that I have offered to Helmichius a peaceful Conference on all the heads of the Christian Religion, either in private or in public. I likewise make a similar offer to those who converse with me about it. I can do this with safety, because I can compel them to confess that they go beyond the terms of the Confession and Catechism; this they are compelled to allow, even now when not under any necessity to make the admission. But I think, not only that all the doctrines which I have ever proposed may be reconciled with the Confession and the Catechism, but that it is possible to defend them under the protection of those formularies :" This course, it will be found, Arminius has pursued in a subsequent part of the Declaration.

From these extracts it will be seen, that the two principal hindrances to Helmichius's acceptance of the repeated offers of Arminius, were, the unscriptural and indefensible nature of the dogmas on which he and other bigots insisted, and their own acknowledged personal trausgressions against those two formularies of union. These circumstances rendered almost all the Supralapsarians in the United Provinces exceedingly shy about coming into close conversation with a man, whose powers of ratiocination ave been faintly described, in the preceding Life, page 55.

denied what they requested of me, and in others I made some disclosures to the enquirers: My sole rule in making such a distinction, was, the more intimate or distant degree of acquaintance which I had with the parties. In the mean time it frequently happened, that, a short time after I had thus revealed any thing in confidence to an individual, it was slanderously related to others,-how seriously soever he might have asserted in my presence, that what I had then imparted to him was, according to his judgment, agreeable to the truth, and although he had solemnly pledged his honour that he would on no account divulge it.

7. What occurred relative to the same Subject in the Preparatory Convention.

To these it is also necessary to add a report which has been spread abroad by means of letters, not only within these provinces, but far beyond their confines: It is, that, in the Preparatory Convention which was held at the Hague, in the month of June, 1607, by a company of the brethren, who were convened by a summons from their High Mightinesses the States-General,—after I had been asked in a manner the most friendly to consent to a disclosure, before the brethren then present, of my views on the subject of the Christian faith, I refused; and although they promised to endeavour, as far as it was possible, to give me satisfaction, I still declined ' to comply with their wishes.'*-But since I find by experience that this distorted version of the matter has procured for me not a few proofs of hatred and ill-will from many persons, who think that far more honourable deference ought to have been evinced by me towards that assembly, which was a convention of divines from each of the United Provinces, I perceive a necessity is thus imposed upon me to commence at the very origin of this transaction, when I am about to relate the manner in which it occurred:

Before my departure from Leyden for the convention at the Hague which has just been mentioned, five articles were put into my hands, said to have been transmitted to some of the provinces, to have been perused by certain ministers and Ecclesiastical assemblies, and considered by them as documents which embraced my sentiments on several points of Religion. Those points of which they pretended to exhibit a correct delineation, were Predestination, the Fall of Adam, Free-will,

This is an extract from the letter of Sibrandus Lubbertus, which has just been quoted, page 523.

Original Sin, and the Eternal Salvation of Infants.* When I had read the whole of them, I thought that I plainly perceived, from the style in which they were written, who was the author of them; and as he was then present, (being one of the number summoned on that occasion,) I accosted him on this subject, and embraced that opportunity freely to intimate to him that I had good reasons for believing those articles to have been of his composition.-He did not make any attempt to deny the correctness of this supposition, and replied, that 'they had not been distributed precisely as my articles, but as those on which the students at Leyden had held disputations.”— In answer to this remark I told him, 'Of one thing he must be very conscious, that, by the mere act of giving circulation to

These form a part of the forged Thirty One Articles, an answer to which is subjoined to this Declaration. When the enemies of Arminius could find nothing tangible, on which their malevolence might fasten itself, they invented rumours and circulated suspicions against him in every possible form, both in print and manuscript. But the iniquity of the whole business lay in this,—that when they had many opportunities of knowing what he taught, they chose to attribute to him such doctrines as they could have wished him to teach, rather than those which he actually inculcated. The manufacture and circulation of forged Articles, therefore, were among the basest yet most successful expedients to which these men had recourse to blast the reputation of our author, and to hinder his usefulness. Finding these Five Articles to be serviceable to their cause, they soon augmented them by adding to them two others, concerning which Arminius thus writes to Dr. Sebastian Egberts, in Dec. 1608: "I have been twice informed by letter, that Seven Articles are circulated among you [at Amsterdam] in my name, and, I understand, they have also been seen by you. Will none of the ruling men among you perform this kind office for me, -to institute an enquiry into the truth of this matter, and concerning the author who fastens those articles on me, who am a foster-child of Amsterdam, and was a preacher (though an unworthy one!) fifteen whole years? I have no other reason for wishing this to be done, than a desire to obtain a just and moderate degree of protection. My relation Jacob Laurentson informs me by letter, that those articles were delivered to his wife by a certain person who said he had received them from an Elder of the Church. It may easily be asked, who that Elder is. But, such people are not to be irritated! I also exercise patience. But beware lest by your connivance and indulgence these stings increase so fast, as to cause you afterwards to utter vain lamentations about the punctures which they make and the pain they excite. Unless I had some time ago made a full determination in my mind, not to have recourse to public apologies except when pressed to adopt them by the most urgent necessity, I would now demonstrate what sufficient reasons are offered to me, in these articles, of animadverting upon the ignorance and maliciousness of some persons. I have communicated this affair to those on whose judgment I place great dependence, and to whose kindness I am much indebted: They think, that I shall be acting with propriety if I request the Burgomasters to institute an enquiry into this matter. I therefore now desire you, to give this intimation in my name to your colleagues, who cannot, I think, for any just reason deny me this favour. I would write to them myself, did I not cousider it more advisable to have the affair conducted with as little noise and exertion as possible. Yet if you think otherwise, I will write to the bench of magistrates.”— Then follows the quotation which is inserted in page 517,

'such a document, he could not avoid creating a grievous and 'immediate prejudice against my innocence, and that the same articles would soon be ascribed to me, as if they had been my composition: when, in reality,' as I then openly affirmed, 'they had neither proceeded from me, nor accorded with my 'sentiments, and, as well as I could form a judgment, they 'appeared to me to be at variance with the word of God.'

After he and I had thus discoursed together in the presence of only two other persons, I deemed it advisable to make some mention of this affair in the Convention itself, at which certain persons attended who had read those very articles, and who had, according to their own confession, accounted them as mine. This plan I accordingly pursued; and just as the Convention was on the point of being dissolved, and after the account of our proceedings had been signed, and some individuals had received instructions to give their High Mightinesses the States General a statement of our transactions,-I requested the brethren not to consider it an inconvenience to remain a 'short time together, for I had something which I was desirous 'to communicate.' They assented to this proposal, and I told them that I had received the Five Articles which I held in my hand and the tenour of which I briefly read to them; that I discovered they had been transmitted, by a member of ' that convention, into different provinces; that I was positive concerning their distribution in Zealand and the diocese of • Utrecht; and that they had been read by some ministers in their public meetings, and were considered to be documents which comprehended my sentiments.' Yet, notwithstanding, I protested to the whole of that assembly, with a good conscience and as in the presence of God, that those articles ❝ were not mine and did not contain my sentiments. '—Twice I repeated this solemn asseveration, and besought the brethren not so readily to attach credit to reports that were circulated concerning me, nor so easily to listen to any thing that was represented as proceeding from me or that had been rumoured abroad to my manifest injury.'

To these observations a member of that Convention answered, • that it would be well for me, on this account, to signify to • the brethren, what portion of those articles obtained my appro'bation, and what portion I disavowed, that they might thus have an opportunity of becoming acquainted in some degree with my sentiments.' Another member urged the same reasons; to which I replied, that the convention had not been

6

' appointed to meet for such a purpose, that we had already 'been long enough detained together, and that their High Mightinesses the States General were now waiting for our determination. In that manner we separated from each other, no one attempting any longer to continue the conversation; neither did all the members of the Convention express a joint concurrence in that request, nor employ any kind of persuasion with me to prove that such an explanation was in their judgment quite equitable.* Besides, according to the most correct intelligence which I have since gained, some of those who were then present declared afterwards, that it was a 'part of the instructions which had been previously given to them, not to enter into any conference concerning doctrine; and that, if a discussion of that kind had arisen, they must have instantly retired from the Convention. These several circumstances therefore prove, that I was very far from being "solicited by the whole assembly" to engage in the desired explanation.

6

8. My Reasons for refusing a Conference.

Most noble and potent Lords, this is a true narration of those interviews and conferences which the brethren have solicited, and of my continued refusal: From the whole of which, every person may, in my opinion, clearly perceive, that there is no cause whatever for preferring an accusation against me on account of my behaviour throughout these transactions; especially when he considers their REQUEST with the MANNER in which it was delivered, and at the same time my REFUSAL with the REASONS for it, but this is still more obvious from my counter-proposal.

1. Their REQUEST, which amounted to a demand upon me for a declaration on matters of faith, was not supported by any reasons, as far as I am enabled to form a judgment. For I never furnished a cause to any man why he should require such a declaration from me rather than from other people, by my having taught any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to the Confession and Catechism of the Belgic Churches: At no period have I ceased to make this avowal, and I repeat it on this occasion. I am likewise prepared to consent to an enquiry being instituted into this my profession, either by a

The falsity of the statements of Sibraudus respecting this fact, (page 523,) has been ably proved by the answer of Uitenbogardt and Arminius. What credit therefore can be given to the Historical Preface, which, ten years afterwards, relates the same egregious falsehood with emendations, as though it had never been once refuted?