the bounds, that had been wisely prescribed by their master, and had gone ever to the Pelagians, and even to the Socinians.”  “Such,” continues Dr. Maclaine, “is the opinion commonly entertained upon this matter.  But it appears on the contrary evident to me, that Arminius himself had laid the plan of the theological system, that was, in after times embraced by his followers; that he had instilled the principles of it into the minds of his disciples; and that these latter did really no more than bring this plan to a greater degree of perfection, and propagate with more courage and perspicuity the doctrines it contains.”  To prove this assertion, the Doctor cites a passage from the Will of Arminius, in which he declares, that “his view in all his theological and ministerial labours, was to unite in one community, cemented by the bonds of fraternal charity, all sects and denominations of Christians, the papists excepted.”  “These words, on this account,” continues Dr. Maclaine, “coincide perfectly with the modern system of Arminianism, which extends the limits of the christian church, and relaxes the bonds of fraternal communion in such a manner, that Christians of all sects and all denominations, whatever their sects and opinions may be, (Papists excepted) may be formed into one religious body, and live together in brotherly love and concord.”  It is not surprising that in the state of religious effervescence, in which the minds of men were at the time of which we are now speaking, a suspicion that Vorstius entertained the sentiments we have mentioned, or sentiments nearly approaching to them, should have rendered him a subject of jealousy.  So greatly was this the case, that the Contra-remonstrants appealed against his doctrines to several Protestant states, and represented to them the doctrine of Vorstius in the most odious light.  Our James I. accepted the appeal:  by a royal proclamation, he caused Vorstius’s Treatise de Deo to be burnt in London, and each of the English Universities.  He drew up a list, of the several heresies, which he had discovered in it, commanded his resident at the Hague to notify them to the States; to express his horror of them, and his detestation of those, who should tolerate them.

[Sidenote:  CHAP.  VIII. 1622.]

[Sidenote:  Vorstius.—­James I.]

With some intimation of their independence, the States replied, that “the case was of their cognizance;” that “they would examine it;” and that, “if it should appear that Vorstius maintained the doctrines imputed to him, they would not suffer him to live among them.”  The monarch’s orthodoxy was not satisfied with this answer.  He repeated his suggestions, that the States should proceed against Vorstius; and hinted, that if the doctrines should be proved against him, and if he should persist in them, burning might be a proper punishment for him.  The monarch added that, if the States did not use their utmost endeavours to extirpate the rising heresy, he should publicly protest against their conduct; that, in quality of defender of the faith, he would exhort all Protestant churches to join in one general resolution to extinguish the abomination, and would, as sovereign of his own dominions, prohibit his subjects to frequent so pestilential a place as the University of Leyden.  To his menaces he added the terrors of his pen, and published a “Confutation of Vorstius.”