He afterwards proves that the Synod was not necessary; that it could be of little use, because mens minds were too much inflamed; that as it could not be assembled in the present circumstances, it belonged to the States to find out ways of accommodating these disputes, which did not regard fundamental articles; and that Socinus had no defenders in Holland. He afterwards treats of the power which he ascribes to the Sovereign in matters ecclesiastic, and his authority in convoking Councils. He says the Sovereign has a right to judge in Synods, either in person or by his commissioners, and to judge Synods themselves; in proof of which he advances what passed in the first Councils; and 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.