ome to France, agreeable to the advice of Du Maurier
and the President Jeannin; the latter assuring him he might depend on
the King's protection, the esteem of men of the greatest consideration,
and his friendship.

But previous to the account of his journey to Paris it will be proper to
say something of the writings that appeared relating to the disputes
which divided the church and state.

Among the Ministers who opposed the Arminians Sibrand Lubert was one of
the most zealous and in greatest reputation. This man was a Professor in
the university of Francker: he wrote against Worstius, who was suspected
of Socinianism; and insinuated that the States of Holland favoured that
heresy. He also complained of their renewing the law of 1591, concerning
the election of ministers, and their opposing the convocation of a
National Synod. The States, incensed at his presumption, employed
Grotius to write their Apology, which he published in 1613.

In this work he undertakes to shew that the Arminians have very
different sentiments on grace from the Pelagians; that they join with
the Greek and many Latin Fathers in their opinion about Predestination;
that the Reformed did not always entertain such rigid sentiments,
particularly Melancton, inferior to none in learning or piety; that
since the rise of the disputes Arminius and Gomar had declared in
writing, there was no difference between them in fundamentals; that
after the dispute of those two Divines in presence of the States, it was
determined that the two opinions might be tolerated; that since the
death of Arminius twelve Ministers of the two parties having been
heard, the States recommended to them mutual toleration and charity.

He afterwards proves that the Synod was not necessary; that it could be
of little use, because mens minds were too much inflamed; that as it
could not be assembled in the present circumstances, it belonged to the
States to find out ways of accommodating these disputes, which did not
regard fundamental articles; and that Socinus had no defenders in
Holland. He afterwards treats of the power which he ascribes to the
Sovereign in matters ecclesiastic, and his authority in convoking
Councils. He says the Sovereign has a right to judge in Synods, either
in person or by his commissioners, and to judge Synods themselves; in
proof of which he advances what passed in the first Councils; and
regards as acts of jurisdiction and examination all that has been