substantially the same; and one of the most conspicuous evidences of its degraded and sinful condition, is, its proneness to suspicion and detraction, and the gratification which it experiences in indulging or fostering this spirit.

Arminius found his Mecaenases, at Amsterdam, cold and suspicious when he first returned. He succeeded, however, in satisfying them entirely that he had been slandered. He soon received an invitation to a place as minister in one of the churches at Amsterdam, over which he was installed in 1588, being then 28 years of age. On his return from Italy, he had passed through Geneva, where Beza gave him a letter to his patrons, in which he speaks of him as "animo ad faciendum officium optime comparatus, si Domino Deo placeret, ipsius uti ad opus suum in ecclesiâ suâ ministerio."

Arminius soon became exceedingly popular as a preacher at Amsterdam. His slender, but sweet and sonorous voice, his manner, his ardour, his distinguished talents and finished education, all combined to give him extensive popularity and influence. The rumours which had been set afloat concerning his inclination to become a Catholic, gradually died away, and all classes of men united in extolling his talents as a preacher and a pastor.

This season of popularity and peace, however, was soon in a measure interrupted, by an occurrence unforeseen, and altogether without design, on the part of Arminius. There lived, at Amsterdam, a man of distinguished talents and learning, by the name of Theodore Koornhert, who was strongly opposed to the doctrine of predestination as held at Geneva and in Holland, and who had written and spoken much against it. Two of the ministers at Delft, Arnold Cornelius and Renier Dunteklok had undertaken, by conference and by writing, to oppose Koornhert. In order to do this, however, as they thought to the best advantage, they had relinquished the views of Calvin and Beza in respect to the decretum absolutum, viz. the doctrine that the decree of election and reprobation preceded all respect to the fall of man, and to his obedience or disobedience. This is what has since been called Supralapsarianism. On the other hand, the ministers at Delft maintained, not only that God in his decree regarded man as created, but also that he had respect to his lapsed condition. This is what has since been called Sublapsarianism. It was the work which the Delft ministers published at this time, entitled Answer to some Arguments of Calvin

and Beza on the subject of Predestination, which first gave rise to these denominations in the church of Christ.

Whether the ministers of Delft did not misunderstand the views of Calvin and Beza, it may be of some importance here briefly to shew. Calvin says: "Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which he hath determined, in himself, what he would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death." Institutt. Lib. III. c. 21. § 5.*" In conformity with the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined, both whom he would once for all admit to salvation, and whom again he would condemn to destruction." Ib. § 7.† -" Now with respect to the reprobate . . . . Esau, while yet unpolluted with any crime, is accounted an object of hatred. If we turn our attention to works, we insult the apostle, as though he saw not what is clear to us. Now that he saw none [i. e. no works], is evident, because he expressly asserts the one [Jacob] to have been elected, and the other [Esau] rejected, while they had not yet distinguished any good or evil, to prove the foundation of divine predestination not to be in works. . . . The reprobate are raised up for this purpose, that the glory of God may be displayed by their means. . . . When God is said to harden, or shew mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught by this declaration, to seek no cause beside his will." Lib. III. c. 22. § 11.‡

* Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus.

+ Quod ergo Scriptura clare ostendit, dicimus, aeterno et immutabili consilio Deum semel constituisse, quos olim semel assumere vellet in salutem, quos rursum exitio devovere.

Nunc de reprobis. ... Esau, nullo adhuc scelere inquinatus, odio habetur. Si ad opera convertimus oculos, injuriam irrogamus apostolo, quasi id ipsum quod nobis perspicuum est non viderit. Porro non vidisse convincitur, quando hoc nominatim

-"Let them [the wicked] not accuse God of injustice, if his eternal decree has destined them to death, to which they feel themselves, whatever be their desire or aversion (velint nolint), spontaneously led forward by their own nature." L. III. c. 23. 3.-"But though I should an hundred times admit God to be the author of it [the perverseness of the wicked], which is perfectly correct (verissimum), yet this does not abolish the guilt impressed on their consciences, and from time to time recurring to their view." Ibid.t-"All things being at God's disposal.... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born, devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name may be glorified in their destruction." Ib. § 6.‡

As a more thorough-going passage still, in some respects, I quote once more from Lib. III. c. 24. § 13. Calvin is commenting on the passage in Is. 6: 9, 10, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not, etc. "Observe," says he, " that he [Jehovah] directs his voice to them [the Jews]; but it is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that they may become more blind; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed. . . . Nor can it be disputed, that to such persons as God determines not to enlighten, he [God] delivers

...

urget, quum nihildum boni aut mali designassent, alterum electum, alterum rejectum; ut probet divinae praedestinationis fundamentum in operibus non esse... . . . quod in hunc finem excitentur reprobi, ut Dei gloria per illos illustretur. . . . Quum enim Deus dicitur vel indurare, vel misericordia prosequi quem voluerit, eo admonentur homines nihil causae quaerere extra ejus voluntatem.

* Ne ergo Deum iniquitatis insimulent, si aeterno ejus judicio. morti destinati sint, ad quam a suâ ipsorum naturâ sponte se perduci, velint nolint, ipsi sentiunt.

+ Atqui ut centies Deum auctorem confitear, quod verissimum est, non protinus tamen crimen eluunt, quod eorum conscientiis insculptum subinde eorum oculis recurrit.

Ecce, quum rerum omnium dispositio in manu Dei sit, quum penes ipsum resideat salutis ac mortis arbitrium, consilio nutuque suo ita ordinat, ut inter homines nascantur, ab utero certae morti devoti, qui suo exitio ipsius nomen glorificent.

his doctrine in enigmatical obscurity, that its only effect may be, to increase their stupidity."*

These passages, all taken from the Institutiones of Calvin, a work that was published while he was yet a youth, could hardly be assumed as the certain index of his riper opinions, were it not that we find them confirmed in his Commentary, a work accomplished in his mature years. Let us then hear the same author, when commenting on Rom. 9: 18, Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. "We must insist," says he, "on the words whom he will; beyond which we cannot go. As to the word harden, when this is used concerning God in the Scriptures, it means not only permission, (as some drivelling moderates would say,) but it also means the action of divine indignation; for all external means which conduce to the blinding of the reprobate, are instruments of the divine indignation. Yea, Satan himself, who acts with efficiency internally, is in such a sense his minister, that he acts only under his control (nonnisi ejus imperio agat). That pitiful subterfuge of the schoolmen, then, about foreknowledge, falls to the ground. Paul does not teach here that the ruin of the impious was foreseen by God, but that it was ordained by his will and counsel; in the same manner as Solomon teaches, not only that God foreknew the destruction of the impious, but that the impious were, by his decree, created in order that they might perish, Prov. 16: 4."+

* Ecce, vocem ad eos, dirigit, sed ut magis obsurdescant; lucem accendit, sed ut reddentur caeciores; doctrinam profert, sed qua magis obstupescant; remedium adhibet; sed ne sanetur.. Neque hoc quoque controverti potest, quos Deus illuminatos non vult, illis doctrinam suam aenigmatibus involutam tradere, ne quid inde proficiunt, nisi ut in majorem hebetudinem tradantur.

+ Insistere enim debemus in istas particulas, Cujus vult et quem vult; ultra quas procedere nobis non permittit. Caeterum indurandi verbum, quum Deo in Scripturis tribuitur, non solum permissionem, (ut volunt diluti quidam moderatores,) sed divinae quoque irae actionem significat. Nam res omnes externae quae ad excaecationem reproborum faciunt, illius irae sunt instrumenta. Satan autem ipse, qui intus efficaciter agit, ita ejus est minister, ut nonnisi ejus imperio agat. Corruit ergo frivolum illud effugium, quod de praescientiâ Scholastici habent. Neque enim praevideri ruinam impiorum a Domino Paulus tradit, sed ejus consilio et voluntate ordinari. Quemadmodum et Salomo docet, non modo

Again, in commenting on Rom. 9: 10-13, he says: "Although Esau might have been justly rejected, on account of his vitiosity [original sin]. ... yet that no occasion of doubt may remain here, as if Esau's condition may have been any the worse on account of any fault or sin of his own, it was proper that both sins and virtues should be excluded. [He means virtues with respect to Jacob, and sins with respect to Esau]... God has, in his own will, just cause of election and reprobation."

On Rom. 9: 17, For this same purpose have I raised thee up, viz. Pharaoh, Calvin "God declares that Pharaoh prosays: ceeds from him; that he has assigned him this part to act; and to this sentiment the words yoά as well correspond. Moreover, lest any one should imagine that Pharaoh was impelled by a kind of general and indistinct impetus on the part of God, so that he might rush into that madness, the special cause or ground is here designated; as if it had been said, that God knew what Pharaoh was about to do, but of set purpose he had destined him to this very end."+

That Calvin, then, was a Supralapsarian, in the sense in which the Delft ministers understood him to be, seems, from these passages and many more to the same purpose which might easily be adduced, to admit of no historical doubt. The right or wrong of his opinions, is no part of my present business. I am now merely acting the part of a historian. By and by I shall make a few remarks, on the use and abuse of such passa

praecognitum fuisse interitum, sed impios ipsos fuisse destinato creatos ut perirent, Prov. xvi. 4.

*Etsi sola vitiositas, quae diffusa est. . . . ad damnationem sufficit, unde sequitur merito rejectum fuisse Esau.... ne quis tamen maneat scrupulus, ac si ullius culpae aut vitii respectu deterior ejus conditio fuisset, non minus peccata quam virtutes excludi utile fuit. . . . Deum in suo arbitrio satis justam eligendi et reprobandi habere causam.

+ Deus Pharaonem a se profectum dicit, eique hanc impositam esse personam. Cui sententiae optime respondet excitandi verbum. Porro, ne quis imaginetur quodam universali et confuso motu divinitus actum fuisse Pharaonem, ut in illum furorem rueret, notatur specialis causa vel finis; ac si dictum essent, scivisse Deum quid facturus esset Pharao, sed datâ operâ in hunc usum destinasse.