This history was one of the sacred labors of his life; and, although offered to the States in 1612, was withheld from the press, revised, and was not completed until near his death. His being chosen for this task proves the general estimation in which he was held for his patriotism, and the tendency of his mind, after the appointment, was such as to confirm the opinion. The treatise, published in 1609, on the Antiquity of the Batavian Republic, was an earnest defence of the national freedom from the charge of presumptuous innovation; and his previous work on the Freedom of the Sea evinced how well he understood the sources of his country's prosperity, and with what prophetic wisdom he sought to stigmatize the spirit that would make a national monopoly of the ocean, that free highway given by God. Portugal claimed as her own the path to India discovered by the enterprise of her De Gama, whilst Grotius triumphantly vindicated the rights of Dutch commerce in the East, and the entire freedom of the seas. The principles which he asserted in opposition to Spanish tyranny he was ere long called to assert against English rapacity, and in 1613 he was sent upon a mission to England to negotiate in regard to the difficulties that had sprung up between the two nations in respect to maritime rights.

Grotius in England, in the prime of manhood, at the age of thirty, with a reputation and achievements far beyond the average lot of distinguished men at the close of a long life, brings England before us in an interesting aspect. Into what select society this great scholar must at once be ushered, and with what delight he revels in the companionship of the illustrious Englishmen of that day! we are ready to exclaim. His letters, generally so numerous and copious, how rich must they be in illustrations of the men and manners of England! At Stratford, he might find Shakspeare enjoying a pleasant retirement, rare enough for an actor and poet not yet an old man. In the high courts, he could have heard Sir Francis Bacon pronounce his profound charges, and in society have enjoyed the conversation of the man who had already written the Essays and the Advancement of Learning, and who was rising to brilliant political and philosophical honors, his official dignity not yet stained by fraud, and his intellectual greatness not yet consummated by the Novum. Organum. Other men of note then flourished in England, and still greater were coming upon the stage. A little boy

of five years, named John Milton, lived with his father, the scrivener, in Bread Street, London; and in the fields of Huntingdon roamed the stout lad Oliver Cromwell, too wayward to submit to the discipline of school and to the proper preparation for college. But we are sadly disappointed in what Grotius says of England. He was well received by James, and succeeded in one part of his mission; but he tells us very little that we care to know. He complains somewhat of the predominance of the theologians, and yet does not appear to have been much in the society of men of letters and statesmen. He seems to have been most intimate with his old correspondent, Isaac Casaubon, the Swiss scholar and theologian, who, after being librarian of Henry the Fourth, had left France for England, and, in the enjoyment of a good benefice, was now meditating plans for the union of the Christian church. Grotius listened with great interest to his views, and undoubtedly found in them much to confirm his own previous thoughts. Both men had taken strong disgust at the intolerance of the Reformed sects; both had considerable admiration for the unity and grandeur of the old church; both were far from being admirers of Calvinism.*

It is evident that the mind of Grotius was becoming deeply interested in theological questions, and that while in England he thought more of the point at issue between the Calvinists and Arminians than of any thing else. King James was at that time upon the fence in regard to this subject, and told Grotius that both doctrines deserved toleration. He had not yet fully seen the hostility between the doctrine of arbitrary election and high church doctrines, nor realized how uncomfortable to kings and bishops are the men who ask nothing but the Divine decree to place them among the elect. Bishop Abbot had recently been called to the primacy of Canterbury, and always gave his influence in favor of the more Calvinistic principles; while at Oxford, one of

*It is worthy of note that Grotius states it as a significant fact, in illustration of the scanty patronage of literature in England, that a scholar like Casaubon was obliged to put on the theologian, and trust to a benefice for support. "I am just from England," he writes; "small is the patronage of letters. Theologians rule; pettifoggers have affairs in their own hands. Casaubon is almost the only one who has a sufficiently favorable fortune, although in his own judgment it is far from secure. Nor for him as a man of letters is there any place in England; he was obliged to put on the theologian.” — Epistolæ, p. 756.

the heads of College, William Laud, was maturing those views which were to drive Calvinism from the English Church, substitute the rites of the Church for the decrees of arbitrary election, and make English theology so far Arminian. Abbot took a great dislike to Grotius, undoubtedly on account of his Arminian sentiments. Grotius, in some respects, had much sympathy with the rising party of Laud, although by no means the friend of its subsequent intol

Upon his return, he became deeply involved in the theological strifes that had been long agitating Holland. His views had been decided for several years, but he had not been prominent in religious controversy. The increasing bitterness of sectarian rancor seems to have led him to receive gladly the office of Pensionary or Syndic of Rotterdam, upon such terms as exempted him from removal, and entitled him to a seat in the assembly of the States General. This office was the more pleasing to Grotius, as it brought him into relations of intimacy with his old friend, the illustrious Barneveldt, who for nine years had performed its duties, and had now become Grand Pensionary of Holland. How intimately the fate of both men was to be connected we have seen. A few words we may be allowed upon the causes of the catastrophe.

The cause of the separation of the States of Holland from Spain was religion. Philip the Second, that worst of bigots, undertook to destroy the Reformation in the Low Countries by fire and sword. How atrocious were his measures, how infamous the conduct of his minion, the Duke of Alva, we need not describe. Their designs were signally baffled, and the rise of the republic of Holland was the result in 1579. In the Dutch Netherlands the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrines prevailed, probably on account of the proximity and influence of France, where the Protestants were generally Calvinists, not Lutherans. This fact, as we have hinted, has had a very great influence upon the destiny

* It must be granted, that, while Arminian principles favor human freedom by ascribing free agency to man, those who hold them have been often tempted to substitute for the principle of elective sovereignty and predestination the principle of sovereignty in the priesthood and ritual. Calvinism has always claimed freedom, civil and religious, for the elect, and favored republican government. It should be remembered, however, that its republic has consisted only of the elect, and has granted little privilege or mercy to those deemed non-elect.

of Holland. In the early contest with the Spaniards, there was something in the doctrine of predestined election that tended to animate the courage of the revolutionists in their desperate warfare. If they had lost the Pope's blessing, the soldiers were glad to feel that they were God's elect, and the more they magnified the Divine decree, the greater their reliance upon the success of their arms. It was the war of the Puritans against king and prelate, only under another form. It is obvious, however, that Calvinistic doctrines can never maintain for a long time an unquestioned hold upon a community, and in Holland their day of supremacy was to cease. We can but glance at the main points in the course of the controversy.

The leader of the more liberal party was James Hermann, or Arminius, who was born at Oudenwater, in Holland, in 1560, four years before Calvin's death, received his theological education at Geneva, the hot-bed of Calvinism, was led to reject the doctrine of arbitrary election while engaged in preparing a work in its defence, and who, notwithstanding a bitter opposition that reminds us of a recent controversy near by, was called to the theological chair of the University at Leyden in 1602. He died not many years after, in 1609, a year before the arrival of the Pilgrims at Leyden. Ill-starred man! a second Hamlet, whose mother, the Reformed Church, had been faithless, and brought upon him evil times that he vainly strove to correct. His position was little in unison with his mild temper and more generous creed. Graceful, eloquent, amiable, devout, conscientious, he adopted for his motto the sentence, whose truth, according to his biographer, Brandt, his whole life confirmed, 'A good conscience is paradise." He died at forty-nine, apparently a victim to constant excitement, and to the calumnies of those who too often think that a certain creed is the true paradise. We speak of his merits the more decidedly, as we have now the warranty of fair-minded Calvinists, and the great denomination of Methodists have become his champions. Few Orthodox men of New England will speak of Arminius as his old adversaries and some modern Presbyterians have done. The language on his death-bed, which is quoted by his adversaries in proof of his want of spiritual peace, points, obviously, rather to the unkindness of his foes than to any lack of religious confidence on his part: "Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me, a man of

strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have lent to no man on usury, nor have men lent to me on usury ; yet every man doth curse me." As to the personal character of Arminius, we are content to leave it where Professor Stuart has placed it in his instructive article in the first number of the Biblical Repository.

The amiable and perhaps somewhat timid Arminius, though defeated and prematurely cut off, was not, however, to be forgotten. The best men in Holland took up his cause, and in Uytenbogard and Episcopius, Barneveldt and Grotius, his place was more than filled. As to Grotius himself, he had long admired the learning and virtues of Arminius, and had celebrated them in an elaborate elegiac poem. He had always inclined towards his views. But only after the death of Arminius does he appear to have realized the importance of the points at issue. Calvinism became more and more extravagant in its doctrines, and more disposed to domineer over literature, church, and state. By nature gifted with a very comprehensive mind, he could not submit to its dogmatism; of vast learning, and wont to admire the wisdom and virtues of the ancients, he could not believe that men like Socrates, Plato, Cicero, and Aurelius were so powerless in will and so hopeless in doom as Calvin and Beza taught, and Gomarus and Cocceius echoed. He was outraged by the exclusiveness of the Predestinarian party; he was perfectly willing that they should hold their opinions, but indignant that they should try to exclude from the church those who differed from them. He had accordingly taken a prominent part in the remonstrance to the States General, in 1610, which gave the Arminians the name of Remonstrants. The leading men of the republic were with him, and there was some prospect of the success of their effort in opposition to the exclusive system. We cannot, indeed, admire all their measures. They would be tolerant of varieties of opinion, but not of intolerance; and while the Calvinists sought to divide the church by intolerant measures, the Arminians sought to keep it united by measures equally severe. The error of striving to stop division by appeal to the civil force began with the Arminians, although they demanded of their adversaries no sacrifice of essential doctrines, but only mutual forbearance. They were able in most of the States to enact a decree in favor of forbearance and union between the parties. This decree, adopted