About the same time when this affair occurred, his uncle and colleague, John Kuchlinus, regent of the Theological College, created Arminius no little trouble. For he pretended to feel an

whatever things are done, whether they be matters of great or of trivial consequence, good or evil, they are all subject to the governance and direction of Divine Providence: So that those things which to us seem to be uncertain, and to happen casually, do still happen certainly and immutably with regard to the most wise and omnipotent Providence of God and of his eternal decree; and yet so, that He is not the author of the evil which is committed."

IV. Can the same place be always assigned to free will in good and in evil actions ? ANS.-A free will that is inclined to evil alone, belongs to man since the fall and in his depraved state, so that he is the slave of sin and of Satan.

V. Have men, before regeneration, a good will, which is truly good; and have they true faith?

ANS.-Man, when considered since his fall, has from himself neither a good will which is truly good, nor faith, nor regeneration.

VI. Are all those to whom the Divine Law has been made known, able to exercise true repentance, and duly to turn themselves to God?

ANS. By no means,

VII. Is the power to believe, always supplied to all those to whom the evangelical doctrine is announced, and by the same labour?

ANS. Of himself no faculty [or power] to believe, appertains to man; but whosoever they be who at any time believe, they receive that faith in no other way than by the special illumination of the Holy Spirit; So that Faith is the gift of God, bestowed gratuitously, and without any regard being had to merits. But with respect to the other questions, namely, The kind of grace which God bestows through the preaching of the gospel, and immediately after it :- By what means that heavenly force operates on the intellect and the will, and concurs with them:-And whether common grace of the same kind be bestowed on those who do not believe in Christ, through or [præter] against the preaching of the evangelical doctrine, by which they can believe, and thus be rendered inexcusable by it:-Concerning these and other questions, 1 find nothing certain in the Belgic Confession and the Catechism; nor dare I at present determine any thing either on this part or on that. But I am willing to adhere to the Confession and the Catechism, and I wish to show myself docile.

VIII. Is there in all men original sin ? Whence is it derived into human nature? Is it through the souls of the parents, through their bodies, or by some other way?

ANS.-Original sin has place in all mortal men, with the exception of Christ. But whether it descends to us through the soul or through the body, is not, in my opinion, sufficiently manifest from the Sacred Writings. But I have believed, that, by the wonderful yet just appointment of God, it is derived to us from the fall of Adam, in whom we all have sinned,

IX. Is it in reference to ecclesiastical discipline that St. Matthew says, (xviii. 17, 18,) 'Tell it to the Church,' &c.: 'Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;' &c. ?

ANS.-I believe, that ecclesiastical discipline was instituted by God; nor will I deny, that the passage which is cited has reference to that matter.

Such were the answers of Narsius; out of whose mouth, had he happened to express himself too incautiously, some persons endeavoured to extract something by which they might assail with cavils Arminius his preceptor. But however great the caution which he employed in the preceding replies, he could not satisfy those ecclesiastical hyper-critics. On the contrary, he became the more suspected and odious in their eyes from the close intimacy which subsisted between him and his master: And he had afterwards to submit to the same treatment as that which Arminius endured;

ardent zeal for the defence of the Truth against new doctrines and against those who invented novelties; and a fear lest the young men, who were the flower of their country and the hopes of the Church, should imbibe pernicious errors: On this account, he left nothing unattempted by which he might drive away from his lectures, the pupils of his honoured colleague. Having therefore changed the hour for the delivery of his Lectures, Kuchlinus chose that in which Arminius had been accustomed to have his Lectures for the explanation of the different articles of the Dutch Confession; and he commanded all the students to be present at these College exercises. But Arminius most resolutely resisted this attempt; and, having lodged a complaint against this new regulation before the honourable the Burgomasters of the city of Leyden, he caused the determination of the whole affair to be deferred to the next meeting of the Curators of the University.

But in order most strenuously to obviate the calumnies of those persons who reported, that he maintained erroneous sentiments concerning Divine Providence, Arminius held a public Disputation, (May 4th, 1605,) on the Righteousness and Efficacy of Divine Providence concerning Evil; and, as may be seen in his polished Theses on this subject, he shewed, in a manner the most learned, how the Providence of God concerned itself not only about the beginning, but likewise about the progress and the end of sin. Of this affair, and of the general controversy, he makes the following mention in his celebrated letter to Hippolytus a Collibus: "I carefully guard against two things, both of after whose death, being opposed by the incessant cruelty of his adversaries, he joined the Society of the Remonstrants, and openly patronised their cause and opinions.

In this place Brandt relates the case of one of the pupils of Arminius, Abraham Christian Vliet, who incurred the indignation of Gomarus, by producing some strong arguments during a disputation, in which this surly Professor acted as Moderator. The reader will find this case recorded in a subsequent page, 594. In the course of his severe animadversions, (continues Brandt,) Gomarus traduced Arminius, in a manner not to be misunderstood, as the person whom he supposed to have been the fabricator and the suggester of the objections which Vliet urged: But in this supposition he was incorrect.-As Vliet had, by his conduct on that occasion, excited the hatred of many people against himself, as if he had tried to raise tumults, Arminius wished this affair not to operate to the injury of a pupil whom he greatly loved, and endeavoured to relieve his wounded reputation by the following written testimonial:— "I, JAMES ARMINIUS, Rector of the University, pro tempore, myself having been an eye and ear witness, being required, DO HEREBY TESTIFY, that ABRAHAM VLIET, in the disputation on Divine Providence held on the 30th of April, 1605, was bound, in virtue of the office which he sustained that day in the Hall of Disputations, to raise objections; and that, in the performance of this duty, he confined himself within the limits of modesty, and uttered nothing that was unworthy either of himself personally, or of his audience; and, therefore, that he has given no person ar legitimate cause of complaint."

which are capable of misconception and liable to give offence,(1.) not to have God represented as the author of sin,-and (2.) not to have the human will deprived of its own liberty. If any one knows how to avoid these two stumbling-blocks, he will not be able to devise any action whatsoever, which I will not most willingly allow to be ascribed to the Providence of God, provided a due regard be had to the divine excellence."

Soon after the University had listened to the discussions of Arminius on Divine Providence, he brought forward, and exposed for public examination, (July 23rd) his Theses on Free Will and its Powers, to remove from himself the charge of Pelagianism. In a letter to Adrian Borrius, dated July 25th, Arminius says: "I transmit you my Theses on Free Will, which I have composed in this [guarded] manner, because I thought that they would thus conduce to peace: I have advanced nothing which I consider at all allied to a falsity. But I have been silent upon some truths, which I might have published: For I know, that it is one thing to be silent respecting a truth, and another to utter a falsehood; the latter of which it is never lawful to do, while the former is occasionally, nay very often, expedient." [See pages 272, 644.]

Besides, as he was of opinion that he ought thus to act with caution, and as he considered nothing to be a greater object of his care than to manifest, to all good and prudent men, the justness of his cause and the moderation of his mind; the same conference on sacred controversies, either public or private, which he had formerly offered to Helmichius, he offered on every occasion to all those who tried to entangle him in debates.

Brandt then proceeds to give an account of the interview, between Arminius and the three deputies of the South Holland Synod on the 30th of June, 1605. But as a subsequent part of this volume, (pp. 524-527) contains this narrative in our author's own words, it is here omitted. The just and proper reasons for his refusing to enter into any conference with them, and others in their official character as ecclesiastical deputies, are recorded in the following pages, 537-543.

The disposition of mind with which Arminius viewed the unjust machinations of certain persons against him, at that crisis of his affairs, he has himself declared in a letter to A. Borrius, quoted above and in page 548, in which he says: "My adversaries, I perceive, act thus, that they may excite disturbances, and then may represent me as the cause at least of such disturbances, which may compel me to rush forth out of my retreat, and to make a full disclosure of myself: In that case they seem to

promise themselves an assured victory. But I will be so much the more careful to keep myself at home, and to utter those things which may, in my opinion, be of service to Truth, Peace, and to the present Times ;-though I know they would be disappointed of their hope, even if I were to manifest myself openly to them. It is indeed an ancient saying, To have dragged forth a Heretic and a Heresy to the light, is to have confuted them: But [as now applied] it is a panegyric, on the part of those who raise their notes of triumph before they have gained the victory. It would be a most difficult enterprize for them to prove those doctrines to be heretical, which, with open mouth, they proclaim as heresies." [The remaining very interesting paragraph of this letter is quoted in a note, page 548.]

S.-Page 37.

The solicitude of Arminius for a general christian pacification among all Protestant communities, is displayed to great advantage, in the dedication which his nine orphan children have prefixed to this volume, in the Fifth of his "Orations," (p. 370476,) in the Preface, and in Appendix Z.

In elucidation of this subject it was my intention to have subjoined a few brief remarks from the Preface to CORVINUS'S Defence of the Sentiments of Arminius,-the book whose arguments effected the conversion of the celebrated Tilenus from the errors of Calvinism, in the year 1614: But the execution of this purpose must be deferred to some better opportunity-perhaps to the time when I present a translation of that admirable work to the English reader.

T.-Page 38.

How valiantly does Bertius talk, in this passage, against the tyranny of the Church of Rome! His subsequent shameful defection to that most corrupt Church, will remind every humble christian of the fine apostolic caution, Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall! Had a prophet from the Lord predicted to Bertius this sad blot in his future character, he would then have indignantly replied in the language of Hazael, Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? Yet, startling as the circumstance in prospect would once have appeared to the individual himself, this great and horrible thing actually happened to Bertius, and disgraced the Remonstrants.

In the preceding pages, (20-22,) Bertius has alluded to his own parentage, and to his early friendship with the youthful Arminius. He was pursuing his studies in England, when he

was recalled to his paternal home for the purpose of accompanying his new fellow-student to the University of Leyden, where, after a long residence, he became a great favourite with the famous Lipsius, whom he accompanied, in 1591, in his journey through part of Germany, when that great man deserted the communion of the Protestants and joined that of the Papists.

Bertius was soon afterwards appointed Sub-regent in the Theogical College at Leyden, under Bastingius. Kuchlinus was originally chosen Regent, and came to Leyden to enter on his new and very responsible office: But finding the erection of the College delayed, he returned to Amsterdam, whence he had been called, and remained there till the death of Bastingius, in 1595, when he was again appointed Regent, and executed the duties of that situation till his death in 1610. The reader will have seen, p. 128, that Kuchlinus married the aunt of Arminius as his second wife; and Bertius, who had long been Sub-regent in the College, married one of the daughters of Kuchlinus by his former wife. These family alliances, though they established no actual affinity between the parties, served to cement the friendship which had previously subsisted between Bertius and Arminius.

The temper of Bertius seems to have been naturally stern and unpleasant, and his authority was in consequence reluctantly acknowledged by the students. In October, 1594, the Academical Senate had granted him leave to give public lectures on the Ethics of Aristotle; but, in his attempt to deliver the first of the series, he was received with hisses and the most tumultuous conduct by the students, who would not suffer him to utter a syllable. The ferment occasioned by this affair had not quite subsided, when his severity excited a dreadful riot among the students; and, in the first encounter, one of the Beadles of the University was killed in the hall of the Theological College. In a letter which the celebrated printer and Professor Raphelengius addressed to Lipsius at Louvain, in April, 1595, the following brief account is given of this affair:-"You have undoubtedly heard of the Theological College being deserted, on account of a castigation which, it is said, was inflicted with too much severity by Bertius, or rather by the Curators and Magistrates. Men, however, of a sounder judgment ascribe the whole of it to the connivance of Bastingius. But the College will be reestablished in the month of May, by the coming of Kuchlinus, who is recalled.”—I am not certain whether it was on this, or on a subsequent occasion, that Professor Baudius delivered his celebrated" Oratio ad Studiosos Leidenses ob Cadem Commili