e Remonstrance of his disciples,
which we shall afterwards transcribe.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

As the language of Arminius seemed to express notions, more consonant
than those of Calvin, to the sentiments entertained by rational
Christians, of the goodness and justice of the Deity, it is not
surprising that they found many advocates among the learned and
moderate; but some ardent spirits were offended by them, and instilled
their dislike of them into the populace. This, Arminius was soon made to
feel. In 1603, he was appointed, on the death of Francis Junius, to a
professorship of theology in the university of Leyden: great efforts
were made, first to prevent, and afterwards to procure a recision of his
appointment. He was accused of having said in a sermon, that "God had
not yet sent his letter of divorce to the church of Rome;" but his
friends produced a work of Francis Junius, his predecessor in the
theological chair, in which that celebrated theologian had used the same
expression. Arminius was also accused by his adversaries, of elevating
the action of reason in the choice of good, at the expense of grace. To
this Arminius replied, by accusing his adversaries of sacrificing reason
entirely to grace. But the greater number of the enemies of Arminius
supported their charges against him, by making it a question of
authority: "the States," they said, "had decided the question, by
adopting Calvin's doctrine at the union; so that the gainsayers of it
were guilty of treason." The friends of Arminius replied, that he did
not deny Calvin's doctrine, but merely explained it.

[Sidenote: Arminius.]

Thus they disputed;

"And found no end, in wandering mazes lost."
Milton.

In fact, the subject,--as the writer has more than once observed,--is
above human reason: the day will come, "when the Almighty will be
judged, and will overcome;"--when the secret of his councils will be
unfolded, and their justice and goodness made manifest to all.[020]

The friends of Arminius also observed, that he was by no means singular
in his doctrine; that it was favoured by professors in Gueldres,
Friesland, Utrecht, and other parts of Holland; and, that in all the
provinces, it was patronized by the higher ranks of the laity. Was it
fitting, they asked, that the peace of the church, and the tranquillity
of the state, should be disturbed by such a dispute? by a dispute which
affected no essential