regards as acts of jurisdiction and examination all that has been done
by Princes for maintaining good order and polity. He is of opinion that
public acts, even those which regard the doctrine of the Church, ought
to proceed only from the Prince: he relates what Princes have done, at
the solicitation of Bishops, for the assembling of Councils, as proofs
of the Sovereign's authority over Councils; and omits nothing in
antiquity that favours the authority of the Civil Magistrate in matters
ecclesiastical, and especially in what regards elections: he shews that
too much precaution, cannot be taken against the presumption of the
reformed Ministers, who want to intermeddle with State Affairs, bringing
with them their caprices and passions. "Upon the whole (he says in the
conclusion) the more I read Church history, the more evident it appears
to me, that the evils we complain of are the same which have been
complained of in all past ages."

This account of the work is sufficient to shew that the author, with
much erudition, was strangely misled: if the proofs he makes use of are
susceptible of different interpretations, he has not sufficiently
unravelled their ambiguity and intent. It was received with great
satisfaction by the Magistrates of Holland[118]: and the States returned
him public thanks on the 31st of October, 1613, in very honorable terms.
Casaubon[119] and Vossius[120] speak of this book with the highest
commendation: but the Gomarists were greatly dissatisfied with it[121].
Bogerman wrote some notes on it, serving to confute it; which were
suppressed. Sibrand's friends complained that the author had dipt his
pen in gall, and not in ink: and Sibrand himself wrote an answer, to
which Grotius replied in some short remarks, exposing the false
citations, the errors, and abusive language of his adversary.

Sibrand's work was condemned by the States: but five years after, June