It is easy to see that this was a grave, constitutional, legal, and historical problem not to be solved offhand by vehement citations from Scripture, nor by pragmatical dissertations from the lips of foreign ambassadors.

“I believe this point,” continued Barneveld, “to be the most difficult question of all, importing far more than subtle searchings and conflicting sentiments as to passages of Holy Writ, or disputations concerning God’s eternal predestination and other points thereupon depending.  Of these doctrines the Archbishop of Canterbury well observed in the Conference of 1604 that one ought to teach them ascendendo and not descendendo.”

The letters of the King had been very favourably received both in the States-General and in the Assembly of Holland.  “You will present the replies,” wrote Barneveld to the ambassador in London, “at the best opportunity and with becoming compliments.  You may be assured and assure his Majesty that they have been very agreeable to both assemblies.  Our commissioners over there on the East Indian matter ought to know nothing of these letters.”

This statement is worthy of notice, as Grotius was one of those commissioners, and, as will subsequently appear, was accused of being the author of the letters.

“I understand from others,” continued the Advocate, “that the gentleman well known to you—­[Obviously Francis Aerssens]—­is not well pleased that through other agency than his these letters have been written and presented.  I think too that the other business is much against his grain, but on the whole since your departure he has accommodated himself to the situation.”

But if Aerssens for the moment seemed quiet, the orthodox clergy were restive.

“I know,” said Barneveld, “that some of our ministers are so audacious that of themselves, or through others, they mean to work by direct or indirect means against these letters.  They mean to show likewise that there are other and greater differences of doctrine than those already discussed.  You will keep a sharp eye on the sails and provide against the effect of counter-currents.  To maintain the authority of their Great Mightinesses over ecclesiastical matters is more than necessary for the conservation of the country’s welfare and of the true Christian religion.  As his Majesty would not allow this principle to be controverted in his own realms, as his books clearly prove, so we trust that he will not find it good that it should be controverted in our state as sure to lead to a very disastrous and inequitable sequel.”

And a few weeks later the Advocate and the whole party of toleration found themselves, as is so apt to be the case, between two fires.  The Catholics became as turbulent as the extreme Calvinists, and already hopes were entertained by Spanish emissaries and spies that this rapidly growing schism in the Reformed Church might be dexterously made use of to bring the Provinces, when they should become fairly distracted, back to the dominion of Spain.