of studies pursued by theological students during their residence at a university. It is a course fully and completely professional; as entirely so as the course at any of our theological seminaries; and these therefore, and not our colleges, are the institutions of our own country, between which and the German universities a comparison can in any way be instituted. The object of both is the same, viz. professional study. The subjects of study are more or less the same; the great difference in this respect being only in the mode and extent of instruction. But in another respect the difference is deep and fundamental. There, to use the common distinction, the whole system of obligation and discipline regards only the head; here it refers also to the heart. There, if a student avoid open immoralities, he may become by mere study a distinguished theologian; here, in order to be regarded as a theologian, he must, as yet, be also regarded as a sincere Christian; as one who considers his profession not as a means of subsistence, but has embraced it from high and holy motives of duty towards God and towards his fellow men. This is an association of ideas so utterly unknown in Germany, that when it was at several times mentioned to pious and distinguished men there, that in this country the term theologian had hitherto always implied the exhibition of personal religion and vital piety, they expressed the utmost surprise and delight at a state of things so congenial to their feelings, and yet so different from any thing in their own country, or, as they had supposed, in any other part of the world. May God preserve our churches and our schools from such a state of things, as shall ever give occasion for a separation of these ideas, either in language or in practice!

ART. II. THE CREED OF ARMINIUS,

WITH A BRIEF SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND TIMES.*

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem. at Andover.

The sentiments of any particular man excite but little curiosity, and create but a slight interest, unless something definite and

* When I began the study of the subjects comprised in the following article, it was my intention and expectation to bring the exhibition of them within the compass of 35 or 40 pages. Subse

particular is known respecting him. It is true, indeed, that nearly all of our religious public have some general knowledge respecting the subject of the following brief memoir. They know that such a man as Arminius lived in modern times; that he was a Hollander; that he was the founder of a party or sect among the Reformed Churches, which still continues to exist, and to be called by his name; and according to their respective feelings and sentiments with regard to theology, they look upon him with respect and reverence, or with disapprobation and aversion.

In the mean time, what was the manner of life and the fortune of Arminius; what were his talents and labours; or how far the sentiments of those who are now called after his name, are to be attributed to him; few among us seem very well to understand. It is desirable, however, that our religious public should become more particularly acquainted with these matters. The weak or erroneous conceits and sentiments of schismatics, in days that are past, which have become obsolete by length of time, and are no longer known except to antiquarians in church matters, may be suffered to sleep on, for endless ages, without disturbing their repose or summoning them to the stage of life, and no harm, but rather advantage, will accrue thereby to religion. Antiquarians and critics may indeed be called upon to trace the history of such errors, for the sake of illustrating something which belongs to the complete history of the church; but Christians in general have little or no interest in matters of this kind.

quent reading and attention shewed the utter impossibility of doing any justice to my theme, in this way, and made it evident to me, that I should only mock the hopes of the reader, if I should attempt such an abridgement. As it is, I have left out a vast number of facts, which have more or less interest; but which, nevertheless, I did not deem essential. When I saw the length to which I must of necessity go, it was then my wish to divide the piece between two numbers of the present work. There is generally something repulsive in long pieces, when they appear in a periodical; for the reader does not usually expect them, and he is apt to be wearied with them. But the public, I would hope, will, in reading this, duly consider the nature of the case; and if so, they will see that, in dividing it, there would be some hazard of making incorrect impressions; since the reader needs to have the tout ensemble before him, in order to judge correctly.

Not so, however, in respect to such sects and parties as still exist and divide the church. Men, in order to examine and pass a sound judgement on these, should be enlightened both as to their principles and their history. If they are not, how can they judge with candour and discernment? Or how can their judgement, even in their own eyes, be entitled to much respect?

From my youth up to the present hour, I have heard much said for and against Arminianism and Arminius. It has so happened, that, until recently, I have never had it in my power to make a thorough examination into the merits and demerits of this applauded and reprobated man. But as I have now obtained most of the materials for such an examination which I could desire, I have thought it a matter of interest, to know something more definite on the subject than I have hitherto done. The result of my investigation for this purpose, the reader will find in the following pages. In some respects, I may venture to believe, he will be surprized; in others, gratified; in some, disappointed. This will probably hold true, in regard both to the friends and the opponents of what is now called Arminianism. Arminius was a very different man, as to his own theology, from what either of them suspect; unless indeed they have been at the pains of instituting a particular and extended examination.

My reason for publishing the following contribution to the history of doctrine in the Reformed Churches, is, that at the present time there is great sensitiveness and interest in the public mind as to the doctrines of Arminianism so called. What now passes under this name, among us, I do not undertake, in this place, particularly to describe. I begin, where we ought in all cases of this nature to commence, with the supposed original author of the system in question, and make it my object to develope who he was, and what he believed and taught. It will then be seen, by all who enlist under the present banners of Arminianism, and by all their opponents, how far the Leyden professor is entitled to their approbation or their disapprobation. It is just that things should be called by their right names; or if not, that it should be known that they are not so called. The dead should have impartial justice distributed to them, as well as the living. But this cannot be done while they are unknown, or misrepresented.

I do not say these things by way of apology for the present article. Apology is not needed for an effort to throw some light

on a subject imperfectly, and in some respects erroneously, apprehended by the religious community of our country. Those who have not the means of pursuing an investigation like the present, will probably welcome this effort to give them the results of a labour which their circumstances do not permit them to perform; and those who have such means, may, if they please, retrace the whole ground, and see for themselves whether I have made correct delineations and statements.

I. BRIEF SKETCH OF ARMINIUS AND OF HIS TIMES. James Arminius, (called in Latin, Jacobus Arminius, and in Dutch, Jacob Hermanni or Van Harmine,) was born in 1560, at Oudewater, a small but pleasant and thriving village in South Holland. While an infant his father died. It happened, however, at that time, that there was at Oudewater a priest by the name of Theodore Emilius,* who was distinguished for erudition. and piety, and who had forsaken the Romish church, and had emigrated from place to place, in order to avoid its persecution. Moved by compassion for the indigent condition of Arminius, he took him under his care, instructed him in the learned languages, and inculcated on him frequent lessons of practical piety. He became so interested in the distinguished talents and rapid improvement of his young pupil, that he continued his education until he was sufficiently advanced, or nearly so, in his studies, to be sent to a university. It appears, that some time before his death, Emilius had removed to Utrecht with his pupil; and there he died, leaving the young Arminius without any means of support. Soon after this event, however, the bereaved youth obtained a second patron in Rodolph Snell, a native of Holland, who had been obliged to quit Marburg, where he had resided, on account of the incursions of the Spaniards, and had recently come from Hesse. Snell was himself distinguished for a knowledge of the mathematics. He soon returned to Hesse, accompanied by his young pupil; but he had scarcely arrived there, before news came that the Spaniards had taken Oudewater, burnt it, and massacred all its inhabitants. Arminius, being exceedingly distressed at this news, set out immediately for his native place; and arriving there, he found it a heap of entire ruins, every house being burnt, and his mother, sister, brother,

*So Bertius, De Vitâ, etc. Schröckh writes Petrus Emilius; I know not on what authority.

near relatives, and nearly all his fellow townsmen, murdered.He returned immediately to Hesse, performing the whole journey on foot. Here however he did not stay long. News reached him, that the university of Leyden had been founded by the prince of Orange. He soon set out once more for Holland, and betook himself to Rotterdam, which was then the asylum for such of the sufferers at Oudewater as survived, and also for many refugees from Amsterdam. Here Peter Bertius, (the father of P. Bertius who wrote the funeral eulogy of Arminius,) was persuaded to receive him into his own family; and he afterwards sent him, with his son P. Bertius, to the university of Leyden. Here young Bertius was the constant companion of his studies and of his person. He describes Arminius as exceedingly devoted to literary pursuits. He cultivated much the study of poetry, mathematics, and philosophy, and became the ornament and example of the whole class of students to which he belonged. He was greatly beloved and extolled by his instructors. His principal instructor in theology here was Lambert Danaeus, who had taught theology at Geneva, and was distinguished for his knowledge of the Christian fathers and of the scholastic divines.

After remaining at Leyden about six years, the Senate of Amsterdam, being moved by the peculiar reputation for brilliant talents and distinguished application which Arminius had acquired, sent him, in 1582, at their own expense, to Geneva, which was then regarded as the head-quarters of the Reformed Calvinistic churches. Here he enjoyed the instructions of the celebrated Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin, in the famous theological school at Geneva. But here he soon created a prejudice against himself, among the leading men in this school, on account of his enthusiastic attachment to the philosophy of Ramus, which he taught to his fellow students by private lectures, and which he boldly and zealously defended in public. The philosophy of Aristotle was at that time considered as the summit of perfection in this branch of science, not only at Geneva, but in all the schools and universities of Europe. The views of Ramus were opposed to this philosophy; and of course, Arminius, who appeared as a zealous and contentious advocate for the opinions of Ramus, (magnâ contentione pro illâ contendebat, says his friend Bertius,) could not expect to meet with the approbation of the instructors at Geneva. Accordingly, he was soon obliged to quit Geneva. He immediately repaired