In this, by vast pre-eminence, the parting of the ways in the history of Protestant liberty in conflict with papal supremacy and tyranny, with the ark of freedom securely anchored, the Dutchmen of the latter half of the sixteenth century stood alone. They had indeed some moral support in the Huguenot Protestants of France, and by indirection such occasional material help as the Huguenot leaders could instigate a support and help which, after the St. Bartholomew Massacre, operated seriously to the detriment of the plans of William of Orange.11

If it may be stated that in the struggle between the Netherlands and Spain, which began almost simultaneously with the abdication of Charles V. in 1555, and which was maintained without even an armistice till by theT welve Years' Truce, the Seven United Provinces won, in 1609, everything for which they had contended,— absolute independence and the sovertreaty of union which was published afterwards on the 29th, from the Town House of Utrecht. This memorable document-which is ever regarded as the foundation of the Netherland Republic-contained twenty-six articles." (The Rise of the Dutch Republic. Vol. iii., p. 411.) It should be added, that this, The Union of Utrecht, as it was called, though the beginning and the virtual pledge of the Dutch Republic, was not intended as such. This end was not, at the time, in the thought or even wish of its framers. At the time they sought to protect themselves against oppression, but a separation from the Spanish crown was not contemplated. As often happens in history, the builders were wiser than they themselves knew.

11 The high character, intelligent pre-eminence, and terrible fate of the Huguenots-particularly during the reign of the half-imbecile Charles IX. of France, whose witless pen signed the edict ordering the St. Bartholomew Massacre entitle them to the profound and tender sympathy so generally accorded to them by the Protestant world. Yet the truth of history attests that they hardly rose to the high degree of even pretending to be champions of general toleration. They rightly sought to protect themselves against the tyrants of the Court, yet their chief aim was to establish a commonwealth within the Kingdom. The great Richelieu resisted and crushed them, not as heretics but as political schismatics, seeking the disembodiment of the French nation, in which endeavor we are forced to concede that the right of the situation was with the Catholic Statesman rather tan with his Protestant foes. A recent historian says: "The Huguenots, moreover, did not seek to obtain a more liberal government and greater protection in person and belief for all subjects, and thus gain the alliance of many who would have been in political if not in doctrinal sympathy with them. They sought rather to form a separate political body, having their own privileges, but taking no part in the general government of France. Under these disadvantages they were met with the whole force of the Catholic reaction." (France under Richelieu and Mazarin, by James Breck Perkins. Vol. i., pp. 91, 92.)

eignty of the Republic 12—the nation which had an interest in the issue not second to that which to the Dutch was supreme over every other, was England. None knew better than Queen Elizabeth and her chief Statesmen, that the subjugation of the rebellious Provinces was to be but the prelude to an endeavor to drive her from her throne, to restore the Catholic system in all the churches of the island, to suppress Protestantism in form and in fact, and to make England but a satrapy of the Spanish throne. Philip II. in all the years of his long reign kept two objects steadily in view the raising of Spain to universal empire, and the re-establishment of the Romish Church with the Holy Inquisition in every nook and corner from which it had been driven by the Lutheran Revolution. The great harbors of the Netherlands once in his possession, particularly those of the Scheld and the Meuse, he had the strongest reasons for the hope, as Elizabeth had for the fear, that England-in which popish plots wereevery where forming— would be too weak for his armaments and armies. Every Dutch victory brought relief to her royal spirit, as every Dutch defeat filled her with apprehension. Yet in that great Sovereign—where great weaknesses and qualities truly royal were constantly contending for the mastery-her best endeavors for her Dutch co-workers were rendered practically of no avail by her special foible-her greed. She sent a few regiments to the rebellious Provinces, but haggled over the price, and took several of the fortified cities for security; and her forces must be entrusted not to a competent commander, but to her courtfavorite and even lover, the Earl of Leicester, whose unwisdom often made his services a hindrance rather than a help. Further, the Queen's patriotic wishes were neutralized by an infirmity common to all monarchs. She never forgot that she was a Queen, and she looked upon the Netherlanders in rebel

12 In the terms of the treaty of 1609 the Spaniards, in acknowedging the independence of the Seven Provinces, sought, as Mr. Motley says, "a solace in syntax." They treated with them as free, but not for freedom. "Yet the liberty of the Netherlands was acknowledged in terms which convinced the world that it was thenceforth an established fact." (History of the United Netherlands. Vol. iv., p. 523.)

lion against their king, as all monarchs look upon peoples who rise against their hereditary rulers. The Queen's government, in the average outcome, was of no help to the Provinces which were fighting her battles as well as their own. Of the royal pedant who took the English throne on the death of Elizabeth, it is to be said that James meant nothing but ill to the people whom Maurice of Nassau-William the Silent's son and successor-was leading to a succession of victories against the representatives of the Spanish crown; though he viewed Spanish friendship in a somewhat different light after it was presented to him, and for his own personal destruction, in the enterprise of Guy Fawkes. The late Mr. Green-the profoundest historian of England-makes the concession that in the great struggle, "the Low Countries were left to cope single-handed with the armies of Spain ;" and with great candor he adds: "They could look for no help from Elizabeth. Whatever the heroic struggle of the Prince of Orange for their liberties excited among her subjects, it failed to move Elizabeth even for an instant from the path of cold self-interest. To her the revolt of the Netherlands was simply a bridle on Spain, which kept war out of her own gate.' At the darkest moment of the contest, when Alva had called back all but Holland and Zealand, and even William of Orange despaired, the Queen bent her energies to prevent him from finding succor in France."13

6

This testimony is explicit. Whatever the meed of praise due the land of Wickliffe, of the Lollards, of Latimer, of the martyrs of the Marian persecution, of the naval heroes who sunk the Armada, of Cromwell, of the Puritans,—and surely in memory of these great names and mammoth enterprises and achievements, we of the happier present may well raise an exultant voice of praise and grateful acknowledgments; still not to England are we to direct our eyes when we would search for the defenders and the bulwarks of civil and religious liberty in the day of its greatest peril.

Historic movements are strangely interwoven. Many rivu18 History of The English People. Vol. ii., p. 402.

NEW SERIES. VOL. XXV.

18

lets combine to make the swelling river. Lollards and Hussites, Albigenses and French Calvinists, German Lutherans and Protestant Swedes, Britons and Netherlanders, each and all, in ways peculiar, and to such immediate ends as impending contingencies prescribed, have, in the heroic past, suffered and died, that we, of the more prosaic and enlightened present, may quietly possess the vast heritage of civil and religious liberty which they won, upheld and bequeathed to succeeding generations. We who have entered upon their labors, happy in what their toils and pains have made possible and in the outcome real, may indeed discriminate; but not to berate or undervalue the services of the most humble and least efficient.

Just discrimination however cannot fail to recognize as the heroes of the heroes, the hardy Dutchmen who had the sagacity and the soul to see a leader in William of Orange, and to maintain in the Seven United Provinces the great boon of toleration and liberty which he in good measure taught them to appreciate and defend, and this against the most formidable combination of tyrants, and under the lead of the most powerful and unscrupulous of despots, the world has ever known. All honor to the valiant souls of every name who have toiled for liberty, but the chiefest award to its rightful claimant the valiant Dutchman, the martyred William of Orange. G. H. Emerson.

ARTICLE XVII.

The New Birth.

THE doctrine of the New Birth is one which is regarded by many people as an insuperable objection to Universalism, and the words of the Saviour, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God' (John iii. 3), and "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into

the Kingdom of God" (John iii. 6.), the last texts which a Universalist Minister would like to preach from. Texts are these which they themselves think they understand quite clearly, thongh Jesus indicates that in its philosophy the operation of the new birth of the Spirit is not to be so easily understood as some suppose, for in answer to Nicodemus when he expresses difficulty on the matter, he says; "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and ye hear the sound thereof; but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Thus giving us to understand that though we may know of the fact of the new Spiritual Birth, we may not fully understand and know the process thereof. We know many facts of which we do not understand the process or philosophy.

Universalists have always believed in the doctrine of the New Birth, though they have not always been so clear in their understanding of it, nor always urged it as strongly as its importance as one of the chief doctrines of the Christian Religion demands.

We propose to examine this subject as well as we can, as if it were not one on which people had long held all sorts of opinions, right and wrong, and see whither this consideration will lead us. And the subject falls at once into two main parts: First, What does Jesus mean (a) when he talks of being born again? (b) What does he mean by being born of the Water and of the Spirit? (c) And what does he mean by "seeing the Kingdom of God"? and "entering into the Kingdom of God" (d) And why is this being "born again” necessary, and (e) Is it as necessary to-day as it ever was? And the Second part is, What is the process of being born again; what is the true philosophy of it? and what, if anything, can we do to bring it about?

There are no more important questions than these in Religion; none more important to come before men for their consideration than these. All other questions are side issues and derive their importance from their relative positions as regards these.