THE FEUDS IN THE UNITED PROVINCES BETWEEN THE DISCIPLES OF
CALVIN AND THE DISCIPLES OF ARMINIUS, UNTIL THE SYNOD AT
DORT.
1610-1617.
It has generally happened, when a people have risen against
their sovereign, that their first successes have been
followed by divisions among themselves; and that these have
endangered, and sometimes even ruined, their cause. Such a
division took place, in a remarkable manner, in the
conflict between the United Provinces and Spain. No sooner
did the arms of the former begin to prosper, and promise
ultimate success, than the ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY burst
forth. At first, it was merely a religious dispute; but it
soon mixed itself in the national politics; split the
people into two very hostile parties, and produced
contentions between them, which more than once brought
their cause to the brink of destruction. Grotius was
unfortunately involved in them. This part of the history
now claims our attention.
Calvinism.
The reformed church, in the largest import of the word,
comprises all the religious communities, which have
separated themselves from the church of Rome. In this
sense, the words are often used by English writers; but,
having been adopted by the French Calvinists to describe
their church, these words are most commonly used, on
the continent, as a general appellation of all the churches
who profess the doctrines of Calvin.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
About the year 1541, the church of Geneva was placed by the
magistrates of that city, under the direction of Calvin. He
immediately conceived one of the boldest projects, that
ever entered into the mind of an obscure individual. He
undertook to new model the religious creed of the reformed
church; to give it strength and consistency, and to render
the church of Geneva the mother and mistress of all
Protestant churches. His learning, eloquence, and talents
for business, soon attracted general notice; and, while the
fervour of his zeal, the austerity of his manners, and the
devotional cast of his writings, attracted the multitude,
the elegance of his compositions, and his insinuating
style, equally captivated the gentleman and the scholar. By
degrees, his fame reached every part of Europe. Having
prevailed upon the senate of Geneva to found an academy,
and place it under his superintendence, and having filled
it with men eminent throughout Europe for their learning
and talent, it became the favourite resort of all persons,
who leaned to the new principles, and sought religious or
literary instruction. From Germany, France, Italy, England
and Scotland, numbers crowded to the new academy, and
returned from it to their native countries, saturated with
the doctrine of Geneva, and burning with zeal to propagate
its creed.
Calvin's peculiar doctrine on Predestination and Free-will
soon attracted attention, and gave rise to more than a
civil war[015] of controversy,[016]
We feel that we are free: if we were not free, conscience
could not exist; for, if a man had not freedom of action,
conscience could not intimate to him either its approbation
or its disapprobation of his actions.
But-how are we free? How is free-will
reconcileable, either with the influence of motive upon
will? or with the order of the universe, prescribed by the
Deity? or, with his prescience? For that, which his
infinite mind prescribes or foresees, must be fixed.
Disputes on the Free-will of Man.
This question soon engaged the attention of the Greek
Philosophers: some advocated the free-will of man; others
denied it, and ascribed his actions to Fate or Destiny; a
being or energy, which they were never able to define or
describe. Among the Jews, the Sadducees embraced the former
opinion; the Pharisees, the latter. Among the Mahometans, a
like division took place between the followers of Omar, and
those of Ali.
Unfortunately, the Christians engaged in these ungrateful
speculations: their disputes chiefly turned upon the
effect, which motive, suggested by grace, or the divine
favour, has upon will. Does it necessitate? then, there is
no free-will,-no merit,-no demerit. Does it not
necessitate? then, in the choice of good, man acts by his
own power, and thus achieves a good of which God is not the
author.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
The dispute was brought to an issue by Pelagius and
his disciples. They held, that man acts independently of
divine grace, both in the choice and execution of good.
This independence was denied by St. Augustin, he
asserted, that man co-operates with grace, yet, that grace
begins, advances and brings to perfection every thing in
man, which can be justly called good. St. Thomas of
Aquin new-modelled the system of St. Augustin, and used
new terms in describing it: his subtile distinctions, in
the opinion of many, considerably improved it.
Calvin aggravated the doctrine of St. Augustin. He
maintained,[017] that the
everlasting condition of mankind in the future world, was
determined from all eternity, by the unchangeable
order of the Deity; and that this absolute
determination of his will was the only source of
happiness or misery to individuals. Thus Calvin
maintained, without any qualification, that God, from all
eternity has doomed one part of mankind to everlasting
happiness, the other to everlasting misery; and, was led to
make this distinction, without regard to the merit or
demerit of the object, and by no other reason or motive
than his own pleasure.
Luther,[018] in opposition to
Calvin, maintained, that the divine decrees
respecting the salvation or misery of men, are founded upon
a previous knowledge of their sentiments and characters;
or, in other words, that God, foreseeing from all eternity
the faith and virtue of some, and the incredulity or
wickedness of others, has reserved eternal happiness for
the former, and eternal misery for the latter.
Disputes on the Free-will of Man.
These, and other doctrinal differences, separated the
Protestants into the adherents to the creed of Luther, and
the adherents to the creed of Calvin. The United Provinces
were among the latter: the creed of Calvin was, as we have
mentioned, one of the fundamental laws of the Union.
The Calvinistic doctrine, that God, from all eternity,
consigns one portion of mankind, without any fault on their
side, to everlasting torments, shocks our feelings, and is
totally repugnant to the notions entertained by us of the
goodness and justice of the Deity: it is not therefore
surprising that it should be called in question. From the
first, several objected to it; but it was not till the
successes of the United Provinces appeared to afford them a
near prospect of triumph, that the opposers of Calvin's
doctrine formed themselves into a party, and occasioned a
public sensation.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
The celebrated JAMES ARMINIUS[019] was at their head.
He was born in 1560, at Oudewater in Holland, of
respectable parents. He lost his father in his infancy, and
was indebted, for the first rudiments of his education, to
a clergyman, who had imbibed some opinions of the reformed
religion. Under his tuition, Arminius studied, during some
time, at Utrecht. After the clergyman's decease, Rudolphus
Snellius, a clergyman of eminence, took Arminius under his
protection, and, in 1575, placed him at Marpurgh. There, he
heard of the taking of Oudewater by the Spaniards, and
their massacre of its inhabitants. His mother, sister, and
two brothers were among the victims. On the first
intelligence of the calamity he repaired to Oudewater, in
hopes that the account of it might have been exaggerated.
Finding it true, he retired to Leyden: there, his severe
application to study, and the regularity of his morals,
gained him universal esteem. In 1563, he was sent to
Geneva, at the expense of the magistrates of Amsterdam, to
perfect his studies under the care of Beza. Unfortunately,
by adopting the philosophical principles, of Ramus,
and unguardedly professing them, he displeased some leading
men of the university, and was obliged to leave it: he then
went to Bâsle. There, his reputation having preceded
him, he was received with great kindness: the faculty of
divinity offered him a doctor's degree; but a general wish
for his return being expressed at Geneva, he declined the
honour, and returned to that city. He then visited Italy,
and, during some months, studied under Zabarella, a famous
philosopher, who then lectured at Padua. In 1588, Arminius
was ordained minister at Amsterdam.
Arminius.
Some theologians of Delft having attacked the sentiments of
Calvin and Beza upon predestination, and given great
offence by it, they defended themselves by a book,
entitled; "An Answer to certain Arguments of Beza and
Calvin, in the treatise concerning Predestination; or upon
the ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans." They
transmitted their defence to Martin Lydius, a partisan of
the divines whom it attacked; he sent it to Arminius, with
a request that he would answer it. Arminius undertook the
task, and attentively examined and weighed the arguments on
each side; the result was, that he embraced the opinions
which he had been called upon to confute, and even went
further than the ministers of Delft. Upon this account, the
friends of the rejected principles raised a great clamour
against him; but were quieted by the intervention of the
magistrates. The opinions, which Arminius adopted, he
endeavoured to propagate. They are contained in the
Remonstrance of his disciples, which we shall afterwards
transcribe.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
As the language of Arminius seemed to express notions, more
consonant than those of Calvin, to the sentiments
entertained by rational Christians, of the goodness and
justice of the Deity, it is not surprising that they found
many advocates among the learned and moderate; but some
ardent spirits were offended by them, and instilled their
dislike of them into the populace. This, Arminius was soon
made to feel. In 1603, he was appointed, on the death of
Francis Junius, to a professorship of theology in the
university of Leyden: great efforts were made, first to
prevent, and afterwards to procure a recision of his
appointment. He was accused of having said in a sermon,
that "God had not yet sent his letter of divorce to the
church of Rome;" but his friends produced a work of Francis
Junius, his predecessor in the theological chair, in which
that celebrated theologian had used the same expression.
Arminius was also accused by his adversaries, of elevating
the action of reason in the choice of good, at the expense
of grace. To this Arminius replied, by accusing his
adversaries of sacrificing reason entirely to grace. But
the greater number of the enemies of Arminius supported
their charges against him, by making it a question of
authority: "the States," they said, "had decided the
question, by adopting Calvin's doctrine at the union; so
that the gainsayers of it were guilty of treason." The
friends of Arminius replied, that he did not deny Calvin's
doctrine, but merely explained it.
Arminius.
Thus they disputed;
"And found no end, in wandering mazes
lost."
Milton.
In fact, the subject,-as the writer has more than once
observed,-is above human reason: the day will come, "when
the Almighty will be judged, and will overcome;"-when the
secret of his councils will be unfolded, and their justice
and goodness made manifest to all.[020]
The friends of Arminius also observed, that he was by no
means singular in his doctrine; that it was favoured by
professors in Gueldres, Friesland, Utrecht, and other parts
of Holland; and, that in all the provinces, it was
patronized by the higher ranks of the laity. Was it
fitting, they asked, that the peace of the church, and the
tranquillity of the state, should be disturbed by such a
dispute? by a dispute which affected no essential article
of christianity; no civil, no moral, no religious
observation?
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
The principal adversary of Arminius was Gomarus,
also a professor of theology at Leyden. When the election
of Arminius was proposed, Gomarus announced suspicions of
his orthodoxy; he afterwards raised his tone, and accused
Arminius of Pelagianism, of secretly inclining to the
church of Rome, and holding principles which led to general
scepticism and infidelity.
Arminius died on the 19th October 1609.
Grotius made his eulogium in verse. He had hitherto applied
little to these matters; he acknowledges, in a letter
written in 1609, his general ignorance of them. Entering
afterwards into the dispute, he became convinced that the
idea, which we ought to have of the goodness and justice of
God, and even the language of the scriptures and the early
fathers of the church, favoured the system of Arminius, and
contradicted that of Gomarus.
The prejudices against the Arminians increasing, they drew
up a Remonstrance, dated the 14th January 1610, and
addressed it to the States of Holland. It begins by stating
what they do not believe: it afterwards propounds their own
sentiments in the five articles following:[021]
Remonstrance.
1. "That God, by an eternal and immutable decree in Jesus
Christ his son, before the world was created, resolved to
save in Jesus Christ, on account of Jesus Christ, and
through Jesus Christ, those, from among mankind fallen in
sin, who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in his
same son Jesus; and through the same grace continue in
the faith and obedience to the end; and, on the contrary,
to leave under sin, and wrath, and to condemn the
obstinate and unbelieving, as having no part in Christ;
according to what is said St. John iii. 36.
2. "That accordingly, Jesus Christ the Saviour of the
world, died for all and every man; and by his death on
the cross has merited for all, reconciliation with God,
and remission of sin; in such manner nevertheless, that
no one can partake of them but believers, according to
the words of Jesus, St. John iii. 16., 1
John ii. 2.
3. "That man hath not saving faith of himself, and by the
strength of his own free will; since, while in a state of
sin and apostasy, he cannot of himself think, desire, or
do, that which is truly good, which is what is chiefly
meant by saving faith; but it is necessary that God in
Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Spirit, regenerate and
renew him in his understanding and affections, or in his
will and all his powers; that he may know the true good,
meditate on it, desire, and do it. St. John xv. 5.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
4. "That to this grace of God is owing the beginning, the
progression, and accomplishment of all good; in such
manner, that even the regenerate, without this
antecedent, or preventing, exciting, concomitant, and
cooperating grace, cannot think that, which is good,
desire or practise it; nor resist any temptation to evil;
so that all the good works or actions he can conceive,
spring from the grace of God; that as to what regards the
manner of operation of this grace, it is not
irresistible, since it is said of several, they resisted
the Holy Spirit. See Acts vii. and other places.
5. "That those, who by a lively faith are engrafted into
Christ, and consequently made partakers of his quickening
spirit, are furnished with sufficient strength to be able
to combat, and even overcome Satan, sin, the world, and
their own lusts; and all this, as is carefully to be
observed, by the assistance of the grace and the Holy
Spirit; and that Jesus Christ succours them by his spirit
in all temptations, reaches to them his hand, (provided
they be willing to engage, ask his assistance, and are
not wanting to themselves,) supports and strengthens
them: so, that they cannot be led away by any wile or
violence of Satan, or snatched out of Christ's hands, as
he says himself, St. John x. My sheep shall no
man pluck out of my hands. For the rest, if it be
asked whether these may not through negligence let go the
confidence they had from the beginning, (Heb. iii. 6.)
cleave again to the present world, depart from the holy
doctrine, which was delivered, make shipwreck of a good
conscience? (2 Pet. i. 10., Jude iii., 1 Tim. i. 19.,
Heb. xii. 15.) This must be previously examined with more
care, by the Scriptures, to be able to teach it with full
assurance to others."
Such is the Confession of Faith of the Arminians: they gave
it the name of Remonstrance; and were styled from it
REMONSTRANTS. It was drawn up by Utengobard,
minister at the Hague, with the help, it is supposed, of
Grotius: it was signed by forty-six ministers.
Contra-Remonstrance.
The Gomarists opposed to it a Contra-Remonstrance;
which gave them the name of the CONTRA-REMONSTRANTS.
It was about this time, that Grotius was elected Pensionary
of Rotterdam, and ordered to England: it has been
suggested, that he had secret instructions from the
Arminians, to induce king James to favour their principles.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
We are informed, by Mr. Nichols, (Calvinism and
Arminianism compared,)[022] that the
Arminians sent to King James by Grotius, a true state of
their case; that Grotius found an adversary in
Archbishop Abbott, and friends in Bishops
Andrews and Overal; and that by their advice the
monarch addressed to the States General, a wise and
conciliatory letter.
The irritation of the public mind increasing, the States of
Holland, to restore tranquillity, published an edict of
Pacification, by which they strongly enjoined forbearance,
toleration, and silence. This was favourable to the
Arminians, but it increased the violence of the
Contra-remonstrants. Thus, it became a signal of
war. The States of Holland transmitted it to King James:
his Majesty, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the other
English prelates, allowed its doctrine to be orthodox.
Remonstrants-Contra-Remonstrants.
Still, the troubles in Holland augmented: riots took place
and greater riots were apprehended. In an evil hour,
Barneveldt, the Grand-Pensionary, proposed to the States of
Holland, that the magistrates of the cities of that
province should he empowered to raise troops for the
suppression of the rioters. Amsterdam, Dort, and other
towns, that favoured the Gomarists, protested against this
measure, styling it a declaration of war against the
Contra-remonstrants. Yet, on the 4th August 1617,
Barneveldt's proposition was agreed to, and promulgated.
We have mentioned the enmity of Prince Maurice to
Barneveldt, on account of his having promoted the armistice
of 1609, and his favouring the republican party. The Prince
professed to consider the edict of Pacification as
derogatory of his authority, and forbade the soldiers to
obey the States, if they should be ordered to act against
the rioters. He publicly declared, that he favoured the
Gomarists; he assisted, at the divine service, in their
churches only, and shewed them every other mark of public
favour. Exulting in this powerful support, the Gomarists
separated themselves, formally, from the Arminians.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
To bring over Amsterdam to their sentiments, the States of
Holland sent a deputation to the burgomasters of that city,
and placed Grotius at its head. On the day after their
arrival in Amsterdam, the burgomasters assembled to receive
the deputies. Grotius addressed them in an argumentative
and eloquent speech. He urged the necessity and advantage
of religious toleration, particularly upon theoretical
points of doctrine. He observed to the assembly, that
Bullinger and Melancthon had been tolerated by Deza and
Calvin; that James, the King of Great Britain, had
advanced, in his writings, that each of the two opposite
opinions on Predestination might be maintained without
danger of reprobation; that Gomarus himself had declared
that Arminius had not erred in any fundamental article of
Christian doctrine; that the contested articles were of a
very abstruse nature; that the affirmative or negative of
the doctrines expressed in them, had not been determined;
and that toleration would restore tranquillity and union,
and favour the assembling of a numerous and respectable
synod, which might labour with success in restoring peace
to the church.
Grotius delivered his speech in the Dutch language; it was
afterwards translated into Latin; all, who heard, admired
it; but it produced no effect on them. The deputies were
uncivilly dismissed; and the oration of Grotius, by an
order of the States General, was suppressed.[023]
Feuds of the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.
He was much affected by the bad success of his mission: he
was seized with a fever, which nearly proved fatal to him.
Many of his friends sought to persuade him to retire from
the contest: he told them that he had taken his resolution
after deep deliberation; that he was aware of his danger,
and that he submitted the event to providence.
The next effort of the States of Holland to pacify the
troubles, was to prepare a formula of peace, which
the ministers of the two parties should be obliged to sign.
It contained nothing contrary to the doctrine of Calvin; it
referred the five articles to future examination, and
prescribed, in the mean time, silence upon the parts in
dispute. Grotius drew up the Formula; it was shewn to
Prince Maurice, and rejected by him.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
Matters now converged to a crisis:-we have more than once
mentioned the opposite politics of Prince Maurice and
Barneveldt, the Grand-Pensionary; the former wishing to
draw the whole sovereign power to himself; the latter
endeavouring to preserve and stabilitate the the
constitution of the Provinces, as it had been settled by
the Act of Union. We noticed that the Gomarists sided with
the Prince; the Arminians with the Grand-Pensionary. As the
Prince was aware that the States of Holland were favourable
to the Arminians, that the States General were opposed to
them, and that the clergy of each denomination partook of
the civil and ecclesiastical opinions of their flocks, he
convened a national synod of the clergy; and, that be might
the more overawe his opponents and strengthen his own
party, he appointed the synod to meet in Holland. Against
this synod the provinces of Holland, Utretcht, and
Overyssell protested. Barneveldt was so much affected by
the disturbances, and a view of the evils with which they
appeared to threaten his country, that he sought to resign
his place of Grand-Pensionary; but the States of the
province of Holland, which needed more than ever the
counsels of such an experienced minister, sent a deputation
to him, beseeching him not to abandon them in times of so
much difficulty. He thought it his duty to yield to their
entreaty, and continued to exercise the functions of his
office.
Imprisonment of Barneveldt, Grotius and Hoogerbetz.
To frustrate the designs of Prince Maurice, several cities
favourable to the Arminians levied bodies of militia, and
gave them the name of Attendant Soldiers. The
States-General, at the instigation of Prince Maurice,
enjoined the cities to disband them. The cities generally
disobeyed these orders. In this they were justified by the
established constitution: the Prince, however, treated
their conduct as rebellious; and, in concert with the
States General, marched in person, at the head of his
troops, against the refractory cities. Wherever he came, he
disarmed and disbanded the new levies; deposed the Arminian
magistrates, and expelled the ministers of their party.
In the provinces of Gueldres and Overyssell, he met with no
resistance; and little at Arnheim: greater resistance was
expected at Utretcht: the States of Holland sent Grotius
and Hoogerbetz, the Pensionary of Leyden, to stimulate the
inhabitants to resistance; but the fortune of the Prince
prevailed. In an extraordinary assembly, which consisted of
eight persons only, yet assuming to act as the States
General, the Prince procured an ordonnance to be passed,
which directed Barneveldt, Grotius, and Hoogerbetz to be
taken into immediate custody. They were accordingly
arrested, and confined in the Castle at the Hague.
CHAP. V. 1610-1617.
Thus the Prince's party prevailed in every part of the
United Provinces. About this time, he succeeded, in
consequence of the death of his elder brother, to the
dignity of Prince of Orange.
CHAPTER VI.
THE SYNOD OF DORT.
1618.
CHAP. VI. 1618.
The States General determined that the Synod[024] should be composed
of twenty-six divines of the United Provinces, twenty-eight
foreign divines, five professors of divinity, and sixteen
laymen;-seventy-five members in the whole. The expence was
calculated at 100,000 florins. The English divines were,
Dr. George Carlton, Bishop of Llandaff; Dr. Joseph Hall,
Dean of Worcester; John Davenant, professor of divinity,
and Master of Queen's college, Cambridge; Samuel Ward,
Archdeacon of Taunton, and head of Sidney college,
Cambridge. To these were added, Walter Balcanqual, a
Scottish theologian, as representative of the Scottish
churches. The ever-memorable John Hales of Eaton, as that
learned and amiable person is justly termed by protestant
writers, was permitted to attend the debates of the Synod,
but was not allowed to speak, or take any part in its
proceedings.
The Synod of Dort.
We have mentioned that Arminius was converted to the
opinions, which he defended afterwards so strenuously, by
the perusal of a work in support of the opposite doctrine,
which he had been desired to confute. In the same manner,
the proceedings of the Contra-Remonstrants, at the Synod of
Dort, made Mr. Hales a Remonstrant. We are informed by his
friend Mr. Faringdon, that, in his younger days, he was a
Calvinist; but that some explanations given by Episcopius
of the text in John iii. 16, induced him, as he himself
said, to "bid John Calvin, Good Night." His letters from
Dort to Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the
Hague, contain an interesting account of the proceedings of
the assembly.[025]
CHAP. VI. 1618.
Dr. Heylin says, in his "Quinquarticular History," that the
theologians sent by King James to Dort, were inclined to
condemn the Remonstrants; but he intimates that the monarch
acted from reasons of state; and that he was more hostile
to their persons than their doctrines: Brand makes the same
remark upon Prince Maurice. It seems to be admitted, that,
in the conference at Hampton Court, King James declared
against absolute predestination.[026]
The English divines arrived at the Hague on the 5th
November 1618: they were immediately presented to the
States General, and most honourably received.
The Synod of Dort.
The King of France had permitted two Protestant theologians
of his kingdom to attend the Synod; but afterwards revoked
the permission. The French Protestant churches had deputed
to it, the celebrated Peter de Moulin and Andrew Rivet; but
the King prohibited their attending it, under severe
penalties.
After the election of the members was finally adjusted, the
Synod appeared to be composed of about seventy
Contra-Remonstrants and fourteen Arminians.
It was opened on the 13th of November 1618. Two
commissioners of the States placed themselves on the right
side of the chimney of the room; the English divines were
placed on the left; seats were kept vacant for the French;
the third place was assigned to the deputies from the
Palatinate; the fourth, to those from Hesse; the fifth, to
the Swiss; the sixth to the Genevans; the seventh to the
theologians from Bremen; and the eighth to those from
Embden. The professors of theology were placed immediately
after the commissioners; then, the ministers and elders of
the country. By an arrangement, favoured by the States,
thirty-six ministers and twenty elders were added to the
five professors. Of this the Remonstrants complained, on
the just ground, that it evidently gave their adversaries
an undue preponderance.
CHAP. VI. 1618.
The commissioners nominated the celebrated Daniel Heinsius
secretary. The Remonstrants objected to him; they admitted
his extensive acquaintance with polite literature, and his
elegant taste; but asserted, that he possessed no
theological learning, and was prejudiced against them.
Episcopius was always considered to be at the head of the
Remonstrants: he has seldom been excelled in learning,
eloquence, or power of argumentation.
No further business than arranging the forms of sitting and
voting, was transacted at the first session of the
Synod. At the second, the Synod constituted John
Bogerman its president, and appointed two assessors and two
secretaries: all five were distinguished for their known
hostility to the Remonstrants. The appointment of Bogerman
particularly offended them, as he openly avowed it to be
his opinion that heretics should be punished by death; and
had translated into the Dutch language the celebrated
treatise of Beza, de hæreticis a civili magistratu
puniendis, in which this doctrine is explicitly
maintained in its fullest extent.
The Synod of Dort.
In the third session,-the deputies from Geneva
produced their commission: it was expressed in terms
decidedly hostile to the Remonstrants.
In the fourth session,-the grand preliminary
question,-in what manner the Remonstrants were to be
summoned,-came under consideration. After much argument, it
was settled, by a great majority of voices, that
"Episcopius and some other Remonstrants should within a
fortnight, appear before the Synod, as the sovereign
ecclesiastical tribunal of the United States."
The Remonstrants and the advocates of their cause protested
against this proceeding: they called in question the
authority of the Synod to sit as judges upon them, or even
to decide any point of doctrine definitively: they averred
it contrary to the evangelical liberty professed and taught
by the first Reformers. Every friend to the true principles
of the reformation must admit the force of this objection.
The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th
Sessions of the intermediate fortnight, were consumed
in debates upon a projected new translation of the
Scriptures; the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th,
20th and 21st Sessions were employed in
discussions, upon a new catechism, and other ecclesiastical
arrangements.
CHAP. VI. 1618.
The 22d Session was held on the 6th of
December. The Remonstrants appeared before the Synod, and
requested further time for preparing their defence on the
articles with which they were charged. Their request was
denied: and Episcopius having said, that "They wished to
enter into a conference with the Synod," a resolution was
passed, by which the Synod declared, that "the Remonstrants
had not been cited to confer with the Synod; but to
propound their opinions, and submit to its judgment."
The Remonstrants then paid their visits to the foreign
theologians: these they found greatly prejudiced against
them; they therefore published two short writings,
explaining and justifying their sentiments.
In the 23d Session, Episcopius made a long
discourse. Mr. John Hales praised it highly, in a letter
addressed by him to the English ambassador An oath was
prescribed to the members, by which they promised, that, in
the examination of the five articles, "or any other points
of doctrine which should be discussed, they would confine
themselves to the Scriptures, and resort to no human
authority." But, what was the Synod itself more than human
authority? The oath was not tendered to the Remonstrants;
it was declined by the Swiss.
The Synod of Dort.
The 24th Session was consumed in debates: on the
25th, Episcopius read a long document, and afterwards
presented it to the Synod. He protested in it against the
authority of the Synod, and asked the searching question,
whether the Calvinists would "submit to a Synod of
Lutherans?" To this question, no answer was given: an angry
discussion followed.
It continued during the 27th and 28th Sessions.
On the 29th, the opinions of foreign divines were
produced in favour of the authority of the Synod: those of
the English divines, and the divines of Bremen, were
expressed with more moderation than the others. The divines
of Geneva stated, that, "if a person obstinately refused to
submit to the just decisions of the church, he might be
proceeded against in two ways; the magistrate might
coerce him, and the church might publicly
excommunicate him as a violator of the law of God."
The dispute was more violent in the 30th Session.
Finally, the Remonstrants agreed to propound their
sentiments in writing; but with an express salvo, of their
right to liberty of conscience, and to retain their
objections to the authority of the Synod.
In the 31st Session, the Remonstrants presented to
the Synod a writing, containing their sentiments upon
Predestination,-the first and most important of the five
articles.
CHAP. VI. 1618.
In the 34th Session, they presented their sentiments
upon the four other articles; and in the 39th
Session, upon the Catechism of Heidelberg. The Synod
had enjoined them to confine themselves to explanations of
their own doctrine, and to abstain from controverting the
doctrines of the Calvinists. These debates carried the
Synod to its 46th Session.
In that session, the resolution of the States General upon
the proceedings of the Synod was produced. They declared by
it, that "the Remonstrants were obliged to submit to the
decrees of the Synod,"-and that "if they persisted in their
disobedience to them, both the censures of the church, and
the penalties by which the States punished violators of
public authority, should be inflicted upon them." The
States ordered the Remonstrants to remain, in the meantime,
in the town.
The Remonstrants persisting in their refusal to acknowledge
the authority of the Synod, an assembly of it met on the
57th Session, and formally expelled the Remonstrants
from the Synod. Episcopius exclaimed, "May God decide
between the Synod and us!" "I appeal," said Niellius, "from
the injustice of the Synod, to the throne of Jesus Christ."
All remained firm in their protestation.
The Synod of Dort.
Mr. Hales and Mr. Balcanqual, in their letters to the
English ambassador, blame the proceedings of the Synod.[027] The only question
between the Synod and the Remonstrants was, whether the
latter would submit to acknowledge the authority of the
former. This, the Remonstrants uniformly refused to do. In
almost every Synod there was a repetition of the same
demand, and of the same answer. By every English reader,
the demand of the Synod will be thought exorbitant.
CHAP VI. 1618.
The Synod relaxed afterwards so far, as to permit the
Remonstrants to deliver their sentiments in writing: they
did it at great length. But they still persisted in
objecting to the authority of the Synod, and to be examined
by it. The Synod therefore proceeded against them in their
absence; and ultimately, on the 24th of April 1610,
pronounced them guilty of pestilential errors, and
corruptors of the true religion. The five articles were
formally condemned; Episcopius and the other ministers were
deposed.
The Synod of Dort.
"There are conclusions," says Grotius,[028] in a letter written
by him in the same year, "in the canons of the Synod of
Dort, of which, if good Melancthon were again to make his
appearance, he would express his disapprobation, and with
which Bullinger would be no less grieved; there are others,
which alienate all the Lutherans from the Calvinists;
although amity and concord are desirable between them and
us at this juncture. There are some points in them, which
forbid the Greek churches from uniting with us, though they
are very favourable to us; but there are others of the Dort
canons, which admit of no controversy.-It is possible that
they may recall to mind my labours for unity. Even those
writings, which I published since my calamity, have not
been diverted from the same peaceful object." If ever any
Protestant divines deserved the reproach cast by Mr.
Gibbon,[029] on the first
reformers in general, "of being ambitious to succeed the
tyrants whom they had dethroned," they were the members of
the Synod of Dort.
The Synod was closed on the 29th of May.
The sentence passed by it on the Remonstrants was approved
by the States General on the 3d July 1619. On the same day,
the Arminian ministers, who had been detained at Dort,
were, by a sentence of the States General, banished or
imprisoned, deprived of their employments, and the effects
of some were confiscated. Similar severities were exercised
on the Arminians in most of the territories subject to the
States General. To avoid the persecution, some fled to
Antwerp, some to France, the greater part to Holstein.
There, under the wise protection of the reigning duke, they
settled, and afterwards built a town, which from him they
called Friedericstadt.
They continued to assert the irregularity of the Synod: the
Bishop of Meaux shrewdly observed, that "they employed
against the authority of the Synod, the same arguments as
the Protestants use against the authority of the Council of
Trent."
CHAP VI. 1618.
The Synod of Dort.
For the publication of Acts of the Council, divines
were chosen out of various districts of the United
Provinces: their edition of the Acts was published at Dort
in the year 1620, in folio, in the types of the Elzevirs;
and was soon afterwards republished with greater
correctness, in the same year, at Hanover, in quarto, with
an addition of a copious index.-An Epistle of their High
Mightinesses the States General, addressed to the Monarchs,
Kings, Princes, Counts, Cities and Magistrates of the
Christian world, and vouching for the authority and
authenticity of the Acts,[030] is prefixed to
this edition. The Remonstrants published an edition of the
Acts in 1620, in 4to.: it is said,[031] that from a fear of
their adversaries, it was printed on ship-board.
Here, the history of the Arminians, so far as it is
connected with that part of the Life of Grotius to which
our subject has hitherto led us, seems to close. We shall
hereafter be called upon to resume it.
CHAPTER VII.
TRIAL AND IMPRISONMENT OF GROTIUS. HIS ESCAPE FROM PRISON.
1618-1621.
While the Synod of Dort continued its sittings, Prince
Maurice and his party were actively employed in increasing
the popular ferment against Barneveldt, Grotius and
Hoogerbetz; in collecting evidence of the designs and
practices of which they were accused, and in framing the
legal proceedings against them in such a manner as was most
likely both to procure their conviction, and to persuade
the public of their guilt.
We have mentioned that their confinement took place on the
20th of August 1618, and that they were removed from the
Hague, the original place of their imprisonment, to the
Castle of Louvestein. On the 19th November, the States
General, at the instigation of Prince Maurice, nominated
twenty-six commissioners for their trial. All the prisoners
objected both to the jurisdiction of the commissioners, and
to that of the States General; and asserted that the States
of Holland were their only competent judges. They observed,
at the same time, that many of the judges were notoriously
prejudiced against the Arminians.
Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.
The act of accusation contained many general charges, and
many averments of particular facts, supposed to
substantiate them. It was alleged against the prisoners,
that they had disturbed the established religion of the
United Provinces; that, in direct contradiction of the
articles of union, they had asserted the right of each
province to decide for itself in matters of religion; that
they had set up the authority and interests of the States
of Holland and West Friesland against those of the States
General; that they were the authors of the Insurrection at
Utrecht; had levied, in opposition to the orders of
government, the attendant soldiers; had raised jealousies
between the Prince and several of the Provincial States,
and between these and the States General; and that, by
their habitual conduct, they had become public disturbers
of the tranquillity of the republic, and councillors and
practisers of schemes hostile to its welfare.
CHAP. VII. 1618-1621.
The Commissioners proceeded to the trial of Barneveldt.
Uniformly protesting against the competency of the
tribunal, Barneveldt defended himself with great firmness
and ability. He controverted every article of the
accusation, and concluded his defence, by a long and
pathetic enumeration of the services, which he had rendered
to the republic; and of the numerous actions, by which he
had shewn his attachment to Prince William and Prince
Maurice:-he proved that it had been principally owing to
him, that the Stadtholderate had been conferred on the
latter. He admitted that he had suspected the Prince of
designs hostile to the constitution of the United
Provinces, and had opposed the Prince in every measure,
which appeared to have such a tendency; but he asserted
that he never had resorted to means which the laws or
constitution of the Provinces did not warrant. His
arguments were unanswerable; but Prince Maurice was
determined on his ruin; and the Commissioners were wholly
subservient to the prince's views: they accordingly passed
unanimously a sentence of death upon Barneveldt.
Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.
Many of the princes of Europe expressed their
dissatisfaction at these proceedings: none so much as the
French monarch. To him, the great merit of Barneveldt had
been long known. He considered that the conduct of Prince
Maurice was likely to involve the United Provinces in
troubles, of which Spain might take advantages. From
personal regard to Barneveldt, and with a view of
terminating the discord, the monarch sent an ambassador
extraordinary to the United States, and ordered him to join
Du Maurier, his ambassador in ordinary, in soliciting them
in favour of the accused, and in labouring to restore the
public tranquillity. The ambassadors executed their
commission with the greatest zeal. They made many
remonstrances, and had several audiences both with the
States and the Prince. The States, instigated by the
Prince, expressed great indignation at the proceedings of
the ambassadors.
All the accused were respectably allied, and had many
friends: numerous applications were made in their favour.
They undeviatingly demeaned themselves with the firmness
and modest dignity of conscious innocence. They persisted
in denying the guilt attributed to them, and in protesting
against the competency of the tribunal. They made no
degrading submission. At a subsequent time, a son of
Barneveldt having been condemned to death, his mother
applied to Prince Maurice, for his pardon. The Prince
observed to her, that she had made no such application in
behalf of her husband; "No," she replied, "I know my son is
guilty, I therefore solicit his pardon; I knew my husband
was innocent, I therefore solicited no pardon for him."
CHAP. VII. 1618-1621.
On Monday morning, May 13, 1619, Barneveldt was informed
that he was to be executed upon that day. He received the
notification of it with great firmness; he inquired whether
Grotius and Hoogerbetz were to suffer: being answered in
the negative, he expressed much satisfaction, observing
that "they were of an age to be still able to serve the
republic."
"The scaffold for his execution," says Burigni, "was
erected in the Court of the Castle at the Hague, facing
the Prince of Orange's apartments. He made a short speech
to the people, which is yet preserved in the Mercure
Françoise. 'Burghers!' he said, 'I have been
always your faithful countryman; believe not that I die
for treason: I die for maintaining the rights and
liberties of my country!' After this speech, the
executioner struck off his head at one blow. It is
affirmed that the Prince of Orange, to feast himself with
the cruel pleasure of seeing his enemy perish, beheld the
execution with a glass; the people looked on it with
other eyes: many came to gather the sand wet with his
blood, to keep it carefully in phials; and the crowd of
those, who had the same curiosity, continued next day,
notwithstanding all they could do to hinder them.
"Thus fell that great minister, who did the United
Provinces as much service in the cabinet, as the Prince
of Orange did in the field. It is highly probable that
the melancholy end of this illustrious and unfortunate
man was owing to his steadiness in opposing the design of
making Prince Maurice Dictator."[032]
Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.
The Prince pursued his triumph. Soon after the arrest of
Grotius, the States of Holland presented a petition to the
Prince, representing the arrest as a breach of their
constitutional rights; the Prince referred it to the States
General. To these, therefore, they presented a similar
petition; praying at the same time, that Grotius might be
tried by the laws and usages of the Provinces of Holland:
no regard was shewn to their petitions.
CHAP. VII. 1618-1621.
Grotius had an invaluable friend:-he was no sooner
arrested, than his wife petitioned to share his confinement
throughout the whole of his imprisonment: it was denied.
Grotius fell ill: she renewed the application: it was
absolutely rejected: but neither his wife, nor any of the
friends of Grotius ever recommended to him an unworthy
submission. He always denied the competency of the tribunal
appointed to try him: his wife and brother uniformly
recommended him to persist in his plea.
Much disregard of form took place, and many arbitrary acts
were perpetrated, in the proceedings against Grotius. On
the 18th of May 1619, the Commissioners pronounced sentence
against him. After enumerating all the charges, of which he
was accused, and asserting that all were proved against
him, the judges condemned him to perpetual imprisonment,
and his estates to be confiscated. The same sentence was
passed on Hoogerbetz; but the house of the latter was
assigned to him for his imprisonment.
On the 6th of June, Grotius was taken to Louvestein. It
lies near Gorcum, in South Holland, at the point of the
island formed by the Vaal and the Meuse. Twenty-four sous a
day were allowed for his maintenance; but his wife
undertook to support him, during his confinement, from her
own estate. She was at length admitted into prison with
him, on condition that she should remain in it, while his
imprisonment lasted.
Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.
At first, his confinement was very rigid: by degrees it was
relaxed: his wife was allowed to leave the prison for a few
hours, twice in every week. He was permitted to borrow
books, and to correspond, except on politics, with his
friends.
He beguiled the tedious hours of confinement by study,
relieving his mind by varying its objects. Antient and
modern literature equally engaged his attention: Sundays he
wholly dedicated to prayer and the study of theology.
Twenty months of imprisonment thus passed away. His wife
now began to devise projects for his liberty. She had
observed that he was not so strictly watched as at first;
that the guards, who examined the chest used for the
conveyance of his books and linen, being accustomed to see
nothing in it but books and linen, began to examine them
loosely: at length, they permitted the chest to pass
without any examination. Upon this, she formed her project
for her husband's release.
She began to carry it into execution by cultivating an
intimacy with the wife of the commandant of Gorcum. To her,
she lamented Grotius's immoderate application to study; she
informed her that it had made him seriously ill; and that,
in consequence of his illness, she had resolved to take all
his books from him, and restore them to their owners. She
circulated every where the account of his illness, and
finally declared that it had confined him to his bed.
CHAP. VII. 1618-1621.
In the mean time, the chest was accommodated to her
purpose; and particularly, some holes were bored in it, to
let in air. Her maid and the valet of Grotius were
entrusted with the secret. The chest was conveyed to
Grotius's apartment. She then revealed her project to him,
and, after much entreaty, prevailed on him to get into the
chest, and leave her in the prison.
The books, which Grotius borrowed, were usually sent to
Gorcum; and the chest, which contained them, passed in a
boat, from the prison at Louvestein, to that town.
His Escape from Prison.
Big with the fate of Grotius, the chest, as soon as he was
enclosed in it, was moved into the boat. One of the
soldiers, observing that it was uncommonly heavy, insisted
on its being opened, and its contents examined; but, by the
address of the maid, his scruples were removed, and the
chest was lodged in the boat. The passage from Louvestein
to Gorcum took a considerable time. The length of the chest
did not exceed three feet and a half. At length, it reached
Gorcum: it was intended that it should be deposited at the
house of David Bazelaer, an Arminian friend of Grotius, who
resided at Gorcum. But, when the boat reached the shore, a
difficulty arose, how the chest was to be conveyed from the
spot, upon which it was to be landed, to Bazelaer's house.
This difficulty was removed by the maid's presence of mind;
she told the bystanders, that the chest contained glass,
and that it must be moved with particular care. Two
chairmen were soon found, and they carefully moved it on a
horse-chair to the appointed place.
Bazelaer sent away his servants on different errands,
opened the chest, and received his friend with open arms.
Grotius declared, that while he was in the chest, he had
felt much anxiety, but had suffered no other inconvenience.
Having dressed himself as a mason, with a rule and trowel,
he went, through the back door of Bazelaer's house,
accompanied by his maid, along the market-place, to a boat
engaged for the purpose. It conveyed them to Vervie in
Brabant: there, he was safe. His maid then left him, and,
returning to his wife, communicated to her the agreeable
information of the success of the enterprise.
Chap. VII. 1618-1621.
As soon as Grotius's wife ascertained that he was in
perfect safety, she informed the guards of his escape:
these communicated the intelligence to the governor. He put
her into close confinement; but in a few days, an order of
the States General set her at liberty, and permitted her to
carry with her every thing at Louvestein, which belonged to
her. It is impossible to think without pleasure of the
meeting of Grotius and his heroic wife. From Vervie he
proceeded to Antwerp; a few days after his arrival in that
city, he addressed a letter to the States General: he
assured them, that, in procuring his liberty, he had used
neither violence nor corruption. He solemnly protested that
his public conduct had been blameless, and that the
persecution he had suffered would never lessen his
attachment to his country.
His Escape from Prison.
It was on the 22d March 1621, that Grotius obtained his
liberty. In the same year, the truce, concluded for twelve
years between Spain and the United Provinces expired: it
was expected, that the war would be resumed with more fury
than ever. But this did not happen; the war of thirty
years, which we shall afterwards have occasion to mention,
had mixed the contest between Spain and the United
Provinces with the general military plans and operations of
the parties engaged in it, and had carried much of the
conflict from the Low Countries into Germany. Prince
Maurice still appeared at the head of the army of the
United Provinces; but he had lost, by his persecution of
the Arminians, and his selfish intrigues, the confidence of
the people. Conspiracies against his life were formed:
fortune no longer favoured his arms. His attempts to compel
the Marquis Spinola to raise the siege of Bréda were
unsuccessful. This reverse of fortune preyed upon his mind.
He thought himself haunted by a spectre of Barneveldt: he
was frequently heard, during his last illness, to exclaim,
"Remove this head from me!" "This anecdote," says the
author of the Resumé de l'histoire de la
Hollande, "is related by all the republican historians
of the United Provinces; it is concealed by the flatterers
of the House of Orange.... To relate the remorse of princes
for their crimes, is one of the most useful duties of
historians."
Prince Maurice died in 1625.
M. Le Clerc, in the 2d volume of the Bibliotheque
Choisée, art. 3, shews, by unquestionable facts
and irresistible arguments, that both Prince William and
Prince Maurice sought to obtain the independent sovereignty
of the United Provinces. It was the aim of all their
successors: it has been effected in our times by means,
which certainly were foreseen by none.
CHAPTER VIII.
VORSTIUS,-JAMES I.
1622.
We must now carry back our readers to events which preceded
the Synod of Dort. We have mentioned the decease of
Arminius: soon after it, a circumstance took place, which,
to the exquisite delight of the monarch, who, at that time
filled the British throne, involved him in the theological
disputes of the Belgic theologians.
Not long after the commencement of the Reformation, several
bold inquirers began to deny the trinity of persons in the
Deity, the divine authority of the Old and New Testament,
and the existence of mystery in the Christian dispensation.
Both Catholics and Protestants united against them. To
avoid their hostilities, the maintainers of these opinions
fled to Poland, and, forming themselves into a distinct
congregation, published, in 1574, their First Catechism.
They established congregations at Cracow, Lubin, Pinczow,
Luck and Smila: but their most flourishing settlement was
at Racow.
Vorstius-James I.
They spread their doctrines over each bank of the Danube,
and at length penetrated Italy. There, they were adopted by
Loelius Socinus. After many peregrinations in different
parts of Europe, he finally settled at Zurich. Faustus
Socinus, his nephew, inherited his sentiments; and, on this
account, was obliged to quit Zurich. After many wanderings,
he fixed his residence at Racow. There, he was received
with open arms by the new communion, and completed their
system of theology. From him, they derived their
appellation of SOCINIANS. Their doctrine is expressed in
the Racovian catechism, published, in the Polish language,
in 1605. Other editions of it have appeared. An English
translation of the edition of 1605, was published at
Amsterdam in 1652: Dr. Toulmin, in his Life of Socinus,
ascribes it, seemingly by conjecture, to Mr. John Biddle.
In 1818, Mr. Rees published a new translation of it,
prefixing to it an interesting historical preface.
CHAP. VIII. 1622.
Among the disciples of Arminius, was the celebrated CONRADE
VORSTIUS, born at Cologne in 1569, of parents in reduced
circumstances: he was soon remarked for his diligence and
irreproachable conduct; and was, in 1605, appointed to a
professor's chair at Steinfurth. In 1610, he quitted it,
and was named to succeed Arminius, in the chair of
Professor of Theology, at Leyden. "He was beloved and
honoured," says Mr. Chalmers, "at Steinfurth; there, he
enjoyed the utmost tranquillity, and was in the highest
reputation; he doubtless foresaw, that in the state in
which the controversies of Arminius and Gomarus were at
that time, he should meet with great opposition in Holland.
But he was tempted by the glory he should gain by
supporting a party, which was weakened by Arminius's
death."
Vorstius-James I.
He had previously published his Treatise "de Deo."
Some passages in it were thought to favour the doctrine of
Arminius; some, to lead to Socinianism; and some, to have
an ulterior tendency. That Arminius himself discovers these
views in his writings, has been frequently asserted. Doctor
Maclaine, the learned translator of Mosheim's
Ecclesiastical History,[033] observes it to
be a common opinion, that "the disciples of Arminius, and
more especially Episcopius, had boldly transgressed 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.
CHAP. VIII. 1622.
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."
By the advice of the States, Vorstius replied to his royal
adversary in a most respectful manner; still, the royal
adversary was not satisfied. Finally, the States condemned
the obnoxious doctrines of Vorstius, divested him of all
his offices; and sentenced him to perpetual banishment.
Vorstius remained concealed during two years; then found an
asylum in the dominions of the Duke of Holstein, who, as we
have mentioned, took the remains of the Arminians into his
protection.
Vorstius died in 1622.
CHAPTER IX.
GROTIUS AFTER HIS ESCAPE FROM PRISON, TILL HIS APPOINTMENT
OF AMBASSADOR FROM SWEDEN TO THE COURT OF FRANCE.
1621-1634.
Soon after the escape of Grotius from prison, he repaired
to Paris: in this, he followed the advice of Du Maurier,
the French ambassador at the Hague. His works had made him
known in every part of Europe, in which learning was
cultivated: but persons properly qualified to appreciate
their merit, existed no where in such abundance as at
Paris: he was personally esteemed and regarded by the
monarch; and the principal officers of state were attached
to him. Paris was also recommended to him by its libraries,
the easy access to them, and the habitual intercourse of
the men of letters, who, during, at least, a great part of
the year, made that city their place of residence.
From the Escape of Grotius till his appointment of
Ambassador.
Grotius arrived at Paris on the 13th of April 1621. He was
immediately noticed by a multitude of persons of
distinction and rank; but it was not till March 1622, that
he was presented to the king. His majesty received him
graciously, and settled upon him a pension of 3,000 livres.
The Prince of Condé, the Chancellor, and the Keeper
of the Seals, had exerted themselves to dispose the king in
his favour. His majesty professed kindness towards those,
who had been persecuted by the States; and issued an edict,
dated the 22d April 1622, by which he took them under his
protection, in the same manner as if they were his own
subjects; he even extended this benefit to their children.
The celebrated President Jeannin was one of the most active
and useful of Grotius's friends; but he died soon after
Grotius arrived at Paris.
Grotius, during his stay in that city, attended frequently
the courts of justice. He observed the wretched style of
oratory, which at that time, prevailed in them. It was, in
some measure, corrected by Patru and Le
Maitre; but it did not reach its best state, till the
end of the reign of Lewis XIV. The rhetorical march and
laboured amplifications allowed at the French bar, are
offensive to English ears. Has any nation produced a more
perfect style of forensic or judicial eloquence, than that
of Sir William Grant? The wisdom and justice of
Lord Stowell's decisions, and the admirable
arguments by which he explains or illustrates them, are
known and acknowledged by every Court.
CHAP. IX. 1621-1634
Grotius's love of his native country continued unabated;
all his views, all his hopes, were directed thither. With
these feelings he wrote his Apology. He composed it
in the Dutch language, and translated it afterwards into
Latin: it was published in 1622. He dedicated it to the
people of Holland and West Friesland. It is divided into
twenty chapters; in the first, he argues the important
point, that each of the United Provinces is sovereign and
independent of the States General, and that the authority
of these is confined to the defence of the provinces
against their enemies. In the second chapter, he applies
the position to ecclesiastical concerns; these, he says,
are subject to the sovereign power of each State. In the
following chapters, he descends into the particular charges
against him; defending himself against all the crimes and
irregularities of which he was accused, and shewing the
informality of the judicial proceedings by which he and his
companions in misfortune were tried and condemned.
From the Escape of Grotius till his appointment of
Ambassador.
His answer was universally read and approved: It greatly
incensed the States General: They proscribed it, and
forbade all persons to have it in their possession, under
pain of death; but no answer to it was published. The edict
made Grotius and his friends entertain apprehensions for
his personal safety. On this account, he obtained from the
French monarch letters of naturalization, dated the 26th
February 1623: By these, his majesty took him under his
special protection.
Grotius retained many friends in every part of the United
Provinces: Prince Frederick Henry, the brother of Maurice,
was among them. He had never entered into his brother's
persecuting projects.
"The Count d'Estrades has given us," says Burigni, "some
anecdotes on this subject, which we shall relate on his
authority. He assures us, that, being one day tête
a tête with Prince Henry Frederick in his coach,
he heard him say, that he had much to do to keep well with
his brother Maurice, who suspected him of secretly
favouring Barneveldt and the Arminians. He told me, (these
were the Count's own words), it was true that he kept a
correspondence with them, to prevent their opposing his
election, in case his brother should die; but that, as it
imported him to be on good terms with his brother, and to
efface the notion he had of his connection with the
Arminians, he made use of Vandenuse, one of his particular
friends, and Barneveldt's son-in-law, to let the cabal
know, that it was necessary for him to accommodate himself
to his brother, that he might be better able to serve
them,-which Barneveldt approved of."
CHAP. IX. 1621-1634.
In the meantime, the situation of Grotius at Paris, became
very uncomfortable. His resources, and those of his wife,
were small; and his pension was paid irregularly. Cardinal
de Richelieu wished to attach Grotius; but required from
him an absolute and unqualified devotion to him, which was
utterly irreconcileable with the slightest degree of
honourable independence. Grotius therefore declined the
offers of the Cardinal. From this time, the Cardinal
regarded him with an evil eye, and often made him feel the
effects of his displeasure.
This rendered Grotius desirous of quitting France. Trusting
to some protestations of friendship, which he had received
from Prince Frederick; to his numerous friends, to his
claims upon the gratitude of the States of Holland, to his
feelings of innocence, and to the effect produced, as he
flattered himself, by his Apology, he ventured into
Holland in 1631. But he met with no countenance: and in
that year was banished a second time. Upon this, he
formally bade a final adieu to Holland, and determined to
seek his fortune elsewhere: He then fixed his residence at
Hamburgh.
From the Escape of Grotius till his appointment of
Ambassador.
He sought to preserve his friends in France; but announced
to them his intention to receive no more money from the
French government.
"I shall always," he said in a letter to the First
President of the Cour des Monnoies, "be grateful for the
King's liberality; but it is enough that I was chargeable
to you, while I resided in France. I have never done you
any service, though I made you an offer of myself. But it
would not be proper that I should now live, like an hornet,
on the goods of other men. I shall not, however, forget the
kindness of so great a king, and the good offices of so
many friends."
CHAP. IX. 1621-1634.
It may appear surprising that Prince Frederick of Orange
should pertinaciously exclude Grotius from his native
country. But ambition listens to nothing that conflicts
with its own views. Prince Frederick inherited from his
father and brother the wish of becoming the sovereign of
the United Provinces. To this, he knew he should always
find a zealous and able opponent in Grotius: hence,
notwithstanding his great personal regard for Grotius, he
always kept him a banished man. Grotius wished to be
employed by the Government of England, and Archbishop Laud
was sounded upon this subject; but the application was
coldly received[034]. Prince Frederick
sustained, both in military and civil concerns, the
character of the former princes of his family. Under his
administration, the affairs of the republic prospered at
sea and land. Peter Haim captured the Spanish flotilla,
estimated at twelve millions of florins. The Prince took
Bois-le duc, Maestricht, and Breda, and reduced the Dutchy
of Limburgh. Under his auspices, the celebrated Van Tromp
commenced his career of naval glory, by obtaining a
complete victory over the Spanish fleet, consisting of
seventy men of war. Prince Frederick died in 1658.
From the close of his Stadtholderate, we may date the
origin of the jealousy entertained, by France and England,
of the rising power of the United Provinces. It is to be
observed that Prince Frederick was Stadtholder only of the
Provinces of Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Gueldres and
Overyssell: Count Ernest Casimir of Nassau was Stadtholder
of the provinces of Gröningen, Frizeland, and the
county of the Drenta. In 1631, their eldest sons were
chosen, in the lifetime of their fathers, their successors
in their respective Stadtholderates. This was a great step
towards making the Stadtholderate hereditary in their
families,-one of the leading objects of their ambitious
views.