In reply to these accusations, Arminius wrote a letter to Sebastian Egbert, in which he explicitly declared that "he did not regard the pope as a member of the body of Christ, but as an obstinate enemy of the same, a sacrilegious man, a blasphemer, a tyrant, a most violent usurper of unjust dominion over the Church, the man of sin, the son of perdition, etc."

As Luther and Calvin had scarcely ever succeeded in bringing more hard names together against the pope, than Arminius collected on this occasion, he seemed, at last, to have made the kind of propitiatory offering which the spirit of the day demanded. For a man to argue coolly and dispassionately, whatever skill or weight his arguments might exhibit or contain, was not enough to satisfy the excited feelings of men. If one did not blacken his adversary, it was but half doing his work. Above all, if he found in him any good thing, one trait of candor, generosity, ability, learning even, then he was no true son of his party. He was regarded as being in secret more than half on his opponent's side; and the only way in which he could throw off this load of suspicion, was, to fill his pages with epithets chosen from the vocabulary which the excitement of the times had rendered too common, to exhibit passionate antipathy, and as it were to clench his fist, and bring it not very softly against the face of his adversary.

One of the most derogatory things that I know of respecting Arminius, is, that he was overcome by the pressure of calumny, so as to yield to such a spirit as that which I have now described. He ought to have resisted it, with calmness as to manner, but still with sacred indignation; because it was truly of an unchristian character. He should have trusted in God, for his ultimate defence and deliverance from calumny. He should have bid defiance to the storm that raged, not in the spirit of pride, but in the strength of conscious innocence ; and he was entitled to look with pity on those, who insisted upon it, on penalty of defaming his reputation, that he should defend the truth of God in an ungodly manner. Passion is not piety; the calling of hard names is not argument; the loading of an opponent with curses or with detraction, is not the most probable way of convincing him; nor is the exhibition of the odium theologicum a very happy exemplification of obedience to those precepts, which require us, when we are reviled, not to revile again, and demand that "the servant of the Lord should not strive, but be gentle toward all men, meekly instructing those who oppose themselves to the truth, if peradventure God will give them repentance."

Arminius, however, is not the first nor the last, who has been driven, by the cry of heresy, from the ground which Christian integrity and courtesy should ever maintain. But he would have appeared far more dignified, in my view, had he never moved an inch because of the empty accusations about his inclination toward the Romish Church. I am constrained indeed to believe, that all the accusations are true, which he made against the head of that Church, as he then was, and has been for most of the time since. But I could wish he had never uttered them in the manner that he did; much less to appease the unjust demands made on him by detraction. It was an unholy sacrifice. A man who makes such a one, must expect that the very persons who

demand it, will shortly turn round, and look at him with contempt for doing what they demanded. And no doubt, sooner or later, he did receive ample retribution in this way.

Thus much for the spirit of the day, and the homage which even the more independent minds paid to it. We return to the events of Arminius' life.

In this same year (1608) Arminius was summoned by the states general to appear before them at the Hague, and give them an account of his sentiments. This he did in his famous Declaratio, published in his works. From this, most of the extracts in the sequel are made, which are exhibited in order to develop the sentiments of Arminius.

The states general, as a body, were at this time beyond all doubt inclined to favor Arminius. But the disputes continuing with increased violence, in the next year (1609) they summoned Arminius and Gomar before them once more, each accompanied by four ministers of his own party, in order that they might hold another conference in their presence. This was interrupted, in a short time, by the sickness of Arminius. Gomar and his friends insisted, before the magistrates, on a general synod, knowing that they had a majority of the clergy on their side. Uytenbogart, the special friend of Arminius, who was present as one of his assistants, warned the states against being prejudiced by the violence and the number of the opponents of Arminius. He expressed an entire willingness to have a general synod; only he averred that, as Beza once said, he did not wish Satan to be the president of it.

In the mean time, Arminius died, on the 19th Oct. 1609. His last sickness was exceedingly severe. Exhausted by the fatigues of body and mind which he had undergone, during the many years of his warfare; deeply wounded by the ill reports which the heat of dispute had engendered, and zeal against him had extensively circulated; he fell under a complication of diseases, viz. fever, cough, dyspnoea, atrophy, and arthritis. It is said, that amidst all his sufferings, he died with great calmness and resignation, lamenting the evils to which the Church had been exposed, and earnestly praying for her peace and prosperity. In his last will, made on his death bed, he solemnly testifies that he had, with simplicity and sincerity of heart, endeavored to discover the truth by searching the Scriptures; and that he had never preached or taught any thing, which he did not believe to be contained in them.

Some of his opponents, as Bertius tells us, did not fail to take advantage of the circumstances of his death, in order to make an impression that Heaven had interposed, by special judgments, to remove him from the earth. A partial paralysis of the left side, was one of the evils which he suffered in his last sickness; and with this, came on an obscuration of vision in the left eye, the optic nerve of which became insensible. His opponents, as Bertius and Brandt aver, quoted and applied to him, because of this, the passage in Zech. xiv, 12, where it is said of the enemies of Jerusalem, that their eyes shall consume away in their sockets; also Zech. xi, 17, where it is said of a false shepherd, that the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye. If they did so, they were at least unlucky in the choice of this last text, as it was the left eye of Arminius which was affected.

On a par with this exegesis and application of the Scripture, we may place the epigrams which are said to have been made, on the occasion of his death; among the rest, one made out of his name, by transposition of the letters, Vani Orbis Amicus. Among the blessings which the ravages of time bring along with them, one is, that they exterminate a mass of poisonous or of worthless matter, which would otherwise mar the safety and peace of the world by its influence. Such epigrams, I would hope for the honor of Christianity, have been swept away by time, and that they lie buried deep, along with the accusations that Arminius was inclined to favor the Romish Church.

On the other hand, Baudius and Grotius each composed Latin elegies on the occasion of Arminius' death, which were filled with eulogy of his learning and his virtues. It is said that the celebrated Daniel Heinsius, private secretary of the deputation of the states general at the synod of Dort, did the same; but the copy of his verses was suppressed in the later edition of his works.'

After giving a succinct account of the synod of Dort, which took place about ten years after the death of Arminius, the professor presents to his readers an account of the Creed of Arminius; but as this differs in nothing material from the doctrine of our own Church, except in the article of the possibility of falling from grace, as it has been so often published, it is not necessary, we apprehend, to lay it before our readers in this place. As, however, the views of Arminius on depravity, regeneration, and justification, have occasioned considerable controversy, have been misunderstood by some and misrepresented by others; and as Professor Stuart has taken some pains to set these subjects in a fair point of light, and to illustrate them by quotations from some other authors of celebrity, of whose orthodoxy even the Calvinists never had any doubt, we think it expedient to give the following extracts from this part of the work before us :

"On this point," namely, justification, says Arminius, "I am not conscious of having thought or taught any thing different from what the reformed and Protestant Churches believe. ... For the present I say briefly, that I believe sinners to be justified solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the sole meritorious cause, on account of which God pardons believers, and accounts them as just, not otherwise than if they had obeyed the whole law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except to believers, I think that in this sense, faith may well and truly be said to be gratuitously imputed to a believer for righteousness, viz. inasmuch as God has set forth his Son Jesus Christ as the mercy seat (¡λaσrýpiov) or propitiatory sacrifice, by faith in his blood. But however this may be, my sentiments on this subject do not so differ from those of Calvin, whom all admit to be correct here, but that I am ready to subscribe with my own hand, to those things which he has said in the third book of his Institutions." (p. 127.)

Arminius then adds: "These, most noble and supreme Ordines,

are the particular articles, respecting which I deemed it necessary to speak my sentiments, agreeably to the order of your Consessus." (p. 127.) He then concludes his declaration, by urging a new and general synod of the Belgic Churches, to take into consideration several particulars of their confession and catechism. p. 128 seq.

We may well suppose, that the points which have now been brought under review, were the principal ones which were the object of attack upon him; for it would have been very ill judged in him to leave unnoticed any important particular of accusation, before an assembly of the states general, to whom an ultimate appeal must be made in all matters of Church as well as of state. Whatever other allegations his opponents have made, or can make against him, I presume that of being wanting in shrewdness and foresight never has been, and never will be one. He plainly outgeneraled all his competitors, and enlisted a large majority of the civil power on his side.

It appears, however, that Arminius was not assailed in synods only. There was put in circulation, in a kind of private way, a paper or papers, containing thirty-one charges of error, i. e. error with respect to thirty-one points in theology. To these he at length made a public reply, denying many of them wholly; explaining others; and avowing his sentiments in regard to most of them. From these avowals, I beg the liberty of making a few extracts, which will explain more fully the opinions of this writer, on some points which the preceding extracts leave untouched.

Among other accusations was the following; viz. "that he held, that to those, unto whom the Gospel is preached, sufficient grace of the Holy Spirit is given, so that if they will, they are able to believe; otherwise God does but mock men, in proffering them salvation."

That he ever taught this, in the same words, or the like ones, he totally denies. He afterward proceeds to show what he does hold. "What is meant by giving sufficient grace? It is known that there is habitual grace (gratiam habitualem) and the grace of assistance (assistentiae.) Now the phrase sufficient grace may be construed as meaning, that all to whom the Gospel is preached, have habitual grace infused into them, which renders them qualified (aptos) to yield faith to the Gospel; which sense I disapprove. For whatever is said of their sufficiency, I think should be ascribed to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by which He aids the preaching of the Gospel, as the instrument by which He is wont to operate on the minds of men. this assistance of the Holy Spirit may easily be explained, and sufficiency ascribed to it; so that Pelagianism may be shunned, at a great distance.

I

But

As to the expression, They can believe, through that sufficient grace, if they will;' these words, in this crude form, may be made to convey the very worst sense, and one which by no means accords with the Scriptures; just as if, when ability is once given, the Holy Spirit and Divine grace remain inactive, waiting to see whether man will rightly use this ability and believe in the Gospel. Whereas he who would think and speak correctly respecting this matter, must necessarily assign to grace its own part, and this the principal one, in persuading the will so that it shall assent to those things which are preached.

This explanation will easily free me from the suspicion of heresy on this point." (p. 145.)

The amount of these views seems to be, that Arminius never meant to assert, that habitual grace rendered men able or disposed to accept the offers of the Gospel. In other words, what is sometimes called common grace, i. e. such influences of the Spirit, whatever they may be, as are bestowed habitually on all men who hear the Gospel, these Arminius denies to be sufficient to engender faith, or to enable the sinner savingly to believe. He affirms that the gratia assistentiae, grace specially aiding, or (as we call it) special grace, is necessary in order to persuade the will to assent unto the Gospel. He avows explicitly, that we must assign to this grace its own part, and this a principal one, in the matter of saving belief. And if there can be any doubt here as to his meaning, we have to look to his declaration respecting the free will of the sinner, (p. 271 above,) where he openly avows, that "man, in his fallen and sinful state, is able neither to think, will, nor do any thing truly good, but he must be regenerated and renewed of God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit, in his understanding, affections, or will, and all his faculties, in order rightly to understand, regard, consider, will, and do that which is truly good."

I do not see how it can be justly denied, that Arminius held the doctrine of total depravity, (as this expression is understood by all considerate and intelligent theologians of the present day,) and the doctrine of special grace, in the highest sense that words are capable of expressing, unless man is represented as a mere passive machine. It is doing manifest injustice to his memory, to tax him with a denial of these doctrines; and equal injustice, to appeal to him as a patron and supporter of sentiments directly opposed to these doctrines. The envy or fear of a name, and the heat of party spirit, can never be an adequate apology for doing injustice to the dead, in order to gain interest among the living. Nor can a Christian sense of justice admit that it is pardonable, either to denounce a man for errors which he did not hold, or to appeal to him as the patron of sentiments which he rejected, (and this in order to render them more popular and grateful,) when the means of correction are at hand, and nothing is wanting but a little diligence to use them. Whatever were the faults or virtues of Arminius, neither the one nor the other consisted in his rejecting the doctrine of the entire depravity of the unregenerate man, or of the special influences of the Spirit of God; for it is clear as the light, that he did fully recognize the truth of both these doctrines.

I am apprehensive that neither his opposers nor his friends will be satisfied with this representation; for both, in some respects which may easily be conjectured, will be disappointed. The pen of historic justice, however, must not be guided by the wishes of those who may read, but by the evidence which lies before it. This evidence I have produced; and every man of candor may now judge for himself.

Clearly as the opinion of Arminius is expressed in the above extracts, so clearly that we are not at liberty to doubt what his opinion was, unless we can show that he has made a false statement, yet he had such views of the state of the sinner, when laboring under that conviction of mind which usually precedes the regeneration of the heart, as do not VOL. IV.-January, 1833.

3