make any observations here respecting its correspondence with the Gospel A few remarks will be offered respecting those sects which have the same foundation, and which allow the same place, and the same degree of efficacy, to divine influence.

At present, let us inquire what was the general state of religious opinions when the Arminian system was divulged? How was it treated at that time? And what progress did it make in succeeding ages?

1. There is evidently a wide difference between this system of doctrine, and that of the reformers; and this difference chiefly results from that degree of efficacy which they respectively ascribe to divine influence, in the salvation of sinners. The reformers believed and taught the original apostacy of mankind; their total moral inability, or indisposition to that which is spiritually good; the necessity of a special influence of the Holy Ghost, to raise them up from spiritual death to spiritual life; justification by faith, and this faith they believed to be the gift of God. In a word, they maintained that the salvation of a sinner is to be ascribed to the electing love and free grace of God. It has been already admitted, that among those who succeeded the reformers, some individuals favored the Semi-Pelagian doctrine of a power to co-operate with, or resist, the influences of the Spirit. This plan seems to admit the necessity of divine influence, in the conversion of a sinner, though it

does, in effect, ascribe a large portion of that work to the creature; for it supposes the issue to depend on his own will, or rather the use which he makes of his will. This disposition increased, as the Protestant Church was enlarged, until the time of Arminius, when there was a number, sufficiently large to constitute a sect, who rejected some of the principal doctrines upon which the Reformation began.

It is worthy of observation, that as we follow the history of the Protestant Church down from the Reformation, we may perceive an increasing disposition to reject the doctrines of the reformers, and to receive those sentiments which the Church of Rome expressed at the council of Trent, when they condemned those of the Reformation. But a little less than one hundred years had elapsed, from the time when the Reformation first began, until those disputes and dissentions which were excited by the doctrines of Arminius. This was a space of time long enough to admit of very great changes in the religious state of the world. In that length of time, the spirit which actuated the reformers would of course subside, unless it had been maintained by repeated and very extensive influences of the Spirit of truth and holiness. Without such divine interpositions, mankind would relapse into a careless, worldly, and selfish frame. They would probably fall in with that system of doctrine which they should find most favorable to their stupidity. In a word, there had been sufficient time to produce a generation, who were governed by

views and feelings entirely different from those which the reformers manifested.

Beside England and Scotland, it appears, by the account of Mosheim, that the Protestants in France, Holland, and Switzerland, received the doctrines of Calvin, before and at the time when Arminius published his sentiments. Though many of the Lutherans, in Germany, and the northern nations of Europe, had fallen into the Semi-Pelagian and Socinian systems, yet many others were Calvinists, in doctrine, while they were yet separate from the Calvinistic Church on account of their dif

ferent opinions respecting the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Lutheran Church was divided, in regard to doctrine. Some, it appears, were Calvinists, some were Semi-Pelagians, while others were inclined to the Socinian scheme.

2.

When the doctrines of Arminius were published, they produced an agitation in the public mind, which proves that they were considered an innovation upon the system of religion which had been generally received. Though, as observed before, in the lapse of one hundred years, a very considerable change had taken place in the views of mankind, and in the state of religion; and many only waited for some person of boldness and enterprize to take the lead, and form a sect of dissenters from the doctrines of the Reformation: yet, when that leader appeared, and taught a system of doctrine different from that which their

fathers had embraced, it appears the majority of Christians were not prepared for so great an innovation. There was a very powerful opposition to the new sect, among the Protestants of France, Switzerland, England, Holland, and Scotland. We speak of this as a sect which was then new; and it was new in the Protestant Church; though it was in reality but a revival of the Semi-Pelagian system. The doctrines of Arminius were not accepted by a majority, otherwise he and his associates would have been supported. The event proves, that the reformed Churches, in general, viewed with horror, the doctrines of the sectarian and his followers; for they were' excommunicated with the greatest severity. While we review the methods which were used to convince and reclaim the Arminians, we must disapprove of the means, however the: object which was aimed at was good. If the Arminians taught a system of doctrine, which," in its tendency, would counteract the true design of the Gospel, it was the duty of the Church to use lawful means to reclaim and bring them back to the truth. But neither corporal punishment, nor confiscation of their estates, were the best means which could have been chosen to effect this desirable end.

Arminius was joined in Holland, by several persons of talents and influence.

However, Mosheim says, "He met with the warmest opposition from the principal pro

* Century 17.

fessors in the Dutch universities. The magistrates exhorted the contending parties to moderation and charity; but it was in vain. After long, and tedious, and sometimes tumultuous debates, the controversy was, by the authority of the Prince of Orange, referred to the decision of the Church, assembled in a general Synod at Dort, in the year of our Lord 1618.

In some respects, the Synod of Dort resembled the council of Nice. The latter was assembled to settle the difficulties which the doctrines of Arius had excited in the Church. The former was called on account of the dissensions which arose about the doctrines of Arminius. The council of Nice was a very numerous assembly of Ecclesiastics. Depu ties, from all parts of the Christian world, represented the Churches in this council. The Synod of Dort, though not altogether so numerous and general, yet it was composed of representatives from the principal states and kingdoms which embraced the Protestant religion. Beside the most eminent divines of the United Provinces, there were, at this Synod, deputies from the Churches of England, Scotland, Switzerland, Bremen, Hessia, and the Palatinate. The doctrines of the Arminians were condemned. Had the Synod stopt here, after exposing and disapproving the errors of their opponents, it would have been well; but a melancholy scene of persecution ensued. The Arminians were excommunicated They were driven from their