Chapter 14

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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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?

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.