Grotius has hitherto appeared to us chiefly as a Man of Learning: we are
now going to consider him entering into the affairs of the Republic,
wholly employed in restoring the peace of his country, and receiving for
the reward of his pacific intentions an imprisonment, which would in all
probability have been perpetual, had not the ingenious friendship of his
wife with great address procured his liberty. But as the occasion of
these events was the warm dispute kindled in the United Provinces
concerning Grace and Predestination, we must resume things a little
higher.
I. In the year 1608, while the truce between the Spaniards and the
United Provinces was negotiating, Arminius, an eminent Professor in the
University of Leyden, departing from the rigid sentiments of Calvin,
publickly taught, that God, foreseeing Adam's sin, had resolved to send
his only Son into the world to redeem mankind; that he had ordained
Grace to all to whom the Law should be preached, by which they might
believe if they would, and persevere; that this grace offered to all
men was of such a nature, that not only it might be resisted, but men
actually did often resist it; and that God had only chosen or reprobated
those, who, he foresaw, would embrace or reject the grace offered them.
Gomar, another Professor in the University of Leyden, warmly opposed
this doctrine; maintaining, that by an eternal and irreversible decree
God had predestinated some to everlasting life, and others to eternal
damnation, without regard to their actions; that the grace given to the
Elect was so powerful, they could not resist it; and that Jesus Christ
did not die for the Reprobate.
The doctrine of Arminius was directly opposite to that of Calvin:
accordingly it met with great opposition; and he was accused before the
Synod of Rotterdam, in which Gomar's party prevailed.
Arminius, who knew that the Magistrates were as warm for him, as the
Clergy and Professors were against him, presented a petition to the
States of Holland and West-Friesland, praying that the Grand Council
might take cognisance of this dispute. His adversaries maintained that a
theological contest ought to be judged by a church judicature:
Arminius's petition, however, was granted, and Gomar obliged to appear
with him before the Magistrates, who promised to have the affair
speedily discussed in a Synod; and forbad, in the mean time, the
advancing any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures, the Confessions of
faith, and Catechism. The Grand Council reported to the States, that the
whole dispute was about some obscure questions concerning Grace and
Predestination.
Barnevelt happening to say he thanked God that the fundamental points of
Religion were not in question, Gomar, who was present, obtaining leave
to speak, said, among other things, he would be very sorry to appear
before God with Arminius's sentiments.
The dispute still continuing with much bitterness, in 1611 the States of
Holland ordered the principal Ministers of the two parties to appear
before them: Twelve accordingly attended, six Arminians and six
Gomarists, and disputed in presence of the States on Predestination, the
Death of Christ, the necessity and nature of Grace and Perseverance. The
States heard them, but would determine nothing, only recommended to them
to live in peace. But the consequence of this conference was like that
of all other disputes, especially in matters of religion, mens minds
were the more inflamed and provoked.
Arminius died on the 19th of October, 1609, some time before this
conference; and Grotius made his elogium in verse. He had hitherto
applied little to these matters, and even, writing to Rutgersius,
December 24, 1609, he ingenuously owns, he did not understand a great
part of them, because they were foreign to his profession. He had no
inclination to offend Gomar in commending Arminius: he speaks with great
moderation of their disputes, and doth not even affirm that the
sentiments of Arminius were the only true ones: but entering afterwards
into a more strict examination of those points, he was convinced that
the idea we ought to have of God's goodness and justice, and even the
earliest tradition of the church, favoured Arminius's system, and
contradicted that of Gomar: and in these sentiments he persevered till
his death.
II. The partisans of Arminius, desirous to efface the bad impressions
which Gomar's discourses and those of his adherents had made on the
minds of the public, met privately, and drew up a Remonstrance, dated
January 14, 1610, which they addressed to the States of Holland, setting
forth, that they did not believe, like their adversaries.
1. "That God, by an eternal and irreversible decree, had predestinated
men, whom he did not consider as created, and still less as culpable,
some to everlasting life, and others to everlasting death, without
regard to their good or evil actions, from his mere good pleasure, for
the praise of his Mercy, or his Justice, or, as others say, to manifest
his saving grace, his wisdom, and his absolute power: And that God has
also, by an eternal and immutable decree, preordained the proper methods
of executing his will, by which those who are predestinated to salvation
are saved in a necessary and inevitable manner, so that it is impossible
they should perish; and such as are predestinated to eternal death (who
are the greater part of mankind) are necessarily and inevitably damned,
so that they cannot be saved.
2. "That God, according to others, willing from all eternity to make a
decree for electing some men and rejecting others, considered the human
race not only as created, but also as fallen and corrupted in Adam and
Eve our first parents, and thereby deserving of the curse; and that he
resolved to deliver by his grace some men from this fall and damnation,
for the manifestation of his mercy, and to leave others, both young and
old, and even the children of those who are in the Covenant, and died in
their infancy, by his just judgment, under the curse, for the
manifestation of his justice; and this without any regard to the
repentance or the faith of the first, or the impenitence and unbelief of
the others. They pretend that for the execution of this decree God makes
use of means by which the Elect are necessarily and inevitably saved,
and the Reprobate necessarily and inevitably damned.
3. "That accordingly Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, did not die
for all men, but for those alone who were chosen in the first or second
manner, as he was only appointed Mediator for the salvation of the
Elect, and of no others.
4. "That in consequence of this the Spirit of God and of Christ works so
efficaciously in the Elect, that they cannot resist it; but must be
converted, believe, and be necessarily saved: That this irresistible
grace and strength is given to the Elect alone, and not to the
Reprobate, to whom God not only refuses this irresistible grace, but
even denies them necessary and sufficient grace for their conversion and
salvation, though they be called and solicited to accept it, without
compulsion, externally, by the revealed will of God; but the inward
strength necessary to conversion and faith is nevertheless denied them,
by the secret will of God.
5. "That those who receive true and justifying faith by this
irresistible power, cannot totally or finally lose it, even when they
fall into gross sins; but are guided and supported by this irresistible
strength, so that they cannot totally or finally fall away, or perish."
The Arminians afterwards added their own sentiments on these matters,
comprehended in five articles. They declare their belief,
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 _St. 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 apostacy 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 of it, desire, and do it. _St. John_
xv. 5. 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, of preventing, exciting,
concomitant, and co-operating 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 of 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 which
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 Arminians Confession of Faith, to which they gave the name
of Remonstrance, and thence were styled Remonstrants. It was drawn up by
Utengobard, Minister at the Hague, and signed by forty-six Ministers. It
was probably made in concert with Grotius, the intimate friend of
Utengobard, and at that time wholly employed in the subjects which were
disputed by the Arminians and Gomarists.
To resume in few words the doctrine of the Arminians, we shall say with
Bossuet[71], their principles were, That there is no absolute election,
nor gratuitous preference, by which God prepares for certain chosen
persons, and for them alone, the infallible means of bringing them to
glory; but that God offers to all men, and especially to those to whom
the gospel is preached, sufficient means to convert themselves; which
some make use of; and others not, without employing any other for the
Elect, than for the Reprobate: so that election is always conditional,
and a man may come short of it by failing in the condition: from whence
they conclude, first, that justifying grace may be lost totally, that
is, without any degree of it being left; and lost finally, that is,
without its ever being recovered: secondly, that there can be no
assurance of salvation.
FOOTNOTES:
[71] Hist. des Variations, Lib. xiv. 12. 30.
III. This remonstrance not satisfying the Gomarists, they opposed to it
a contra-remonstrance, which gained them the name of
Contra-Remonstrants. As these disputes gave the States a good deal of
uneasiness, they enjoined the Divines to deliver their thoughts of the
most proper means to put an end to them. The Remonstrants proposed a
Toleration; the Contra-Remonstrants, a national Synod, in which they
were sure of a majority. Both these opinions were laid before the
States, who declared for a toleration: this was the cause gained to the
Arminians; but the Gomarists were favoured by the People, and grew very
factious. The Grand-Pensionary, imagining that by making themselves
masters of the election of the ministers, the States would insensibly
appease these troubles, proposed the revival of an obsolete regulation,
made in the year 1591, by which the magistrates and consistory were each
to nominate four persons, who should chuse a Minister, to be afterwards
presented to the body of Magistrates, who might receive or reject him.
This motion was agreed to by the States, to the great mortification of
the Contra-Remonstrants: they complained that the States had exceeded
their power. Hence arose a grand contest who ought to be Judge in
ecclesiastical matters. The Arminians said it belonged to the Civil
Magistrate to decide them: the Gomarists maintained that the clergy
alone had that power. They separated themselves from the communion of
the Remonstrants[72], took possession of the churches by force, stirred
up seditions, wrote libels, and deposed the Arminian Ministers. In other
churches the Contra-Remonstrants were driven out as madmen and rioters.
These violences gave rise to schisms, some joining the old Ministers,
and others the new.
It was at this time of confusion Grotius was nominated Pensionary of
Rotterdam, and ordered to go over into England. It is imagined[73] he
had secret instructions to get the King and the principal divines of
the kingdom to favour the Arminians, and approve of the States conduct.
He had several conferences with his Majesty on that subject. At his
return to Holland he found the divisions increased. Barnevelt and he had
the direction of the States proceedings in this matter; and he was
appointed to draw up an edict which might restore tranquility. It was
approved by the States, and is as follows.
FOOTNOTES:
[72] Grot. Apolog. Cap. 9.
[73] Le Vassor, L. 4. p. 477.
IV. "Whereas great dissentions and disputes have arisen in the Churches
of this Country, on occasion of different explanations of some passages
of Holy Writ, which speak of Predestination and what relates to it; and
these contentions having been carried on with so much heat, that some
Divines have been accused of teaching directly, or at least indirectly,
that God has created some men to damn them; that he has laid certain men
under a necessity of sinning; that he invites some men to salvation to
whom he has resolved to deny it; other Divines are also charged with
believing that mens natural strength or works may operate their
salvation. Now these doctrines tending to the dishonour of God and the
Christian reformation, and being contrary to our sentiments, it has
appeared to us highly necessary, from a regard to the honour and glory
of God, and for the peace and harmony of the state, to condemn them. For
these causes, after having weighed the matter, and long examined it with
much conscience and circumspection, employing the authority which
belongs to us as rightful Sovereign, and agreeable to the example of the
Kings, Princes, and Cities which have embraced the Reformation, we have
ordained, and by these presents ordain, that in the interpretation of
the passages of Scripture above-mentioned every one give diligent heed
to the admonition of St. Paul, who teaches that no one should desire to
know more than he ought; but to think soberly, according as God has
dealt to every man the measure of faith; and agreeable to what the Holy
Scriptures every-where set forth, that salvation is of God alone, but
our destruction is of ourselves. Wherefore in the explanation of the
Scripture, as often as occasion shall offer, the Pastors shall declare
to the people, and instil into the minds of all under their care, that
men are not indebted for the beginning, the progress, and the completion
of their salvation, and even of faith, to their natural strength, or
works, but to the sole grace of God in Jesus Christ our Saviour; that we
have not merited it; that God has created no man to damn him; that God
has not laid us under a necessity of sinning, and that he invites no man
to be saved, to whom he has resolved to deny salvation. And, though in
the universities, in conversation, and in those places where the
Scriptures are expounded, passages may be treated of which relate to
predestination and what depends on it, and it may come to pass, as hath
happened formerly, and in our own times, to learned and good men, that
persons may give into these extremes and absurdities which we disapprove
and have forbidden; our will is, that they be not proposed publicly from
the pulpit to the people. But as to those who in relation to such
passages only believe and teach that God hath from all eternity chosen
to salvation, from the mere motion of his will, through Jesus Christ our
Saviour and Redeemer, those who by grace which they have not merited,
and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ our
Lord, and by free grace given them persevere in the faith to the end, we
will that they be not molested on that account, nor pressed to embrace
other sentiments, or teach other doctrine; for we judge these truths
sufficient for salvation; and proper for the instruction of Christians.
We moreover ordain, that all Pastors, in expounding the other articles
of the Christian faith, make use of explanations agreeable to the word
of God, to what is commonly received in the reformed churches, and what
has been taught in those of this country, which we have maintained and
protected, and now maintain and protect; that they exercise Christian
charity; and that they avoid greater divisions: for in this manner, we
judge, they ought to act for the good of the State and the Church, and
the restoration of her tranquility."
This Edict was too favourable to the Arminians not to give great offence
to the Contra-Remonstrants. They complained that it misrepresented their
sentiments[74] in order to render them odious, and that not only it
wanted the approbation of the Cities, but had not even been sent to
them: from whence they concluded that no regard was to be paid to it.
The States were very desirous that the King of Great Britain and the
English Bishops should be satisfied with the manner in which they had
explained themselves in the Edict: they were the more anxious as they
had reason to believe James unfavourable to the Arminians[75]. However
the King, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of England
allowed the doctrine of the Edict to be orthodox, and equally distant
from Manicheism and Pelagianism: the only thing which gave the King some
pain, was, to see the Civil Magistrate assume a right of making decrees
in matters of religion[76].
FOOTNOTES:
[74] Vossius, Ep. 3. p. 5. Pres. Vir. Epist. p. 388.
[75] Ep. Casaub. 933. Grot. Apolog. C. 6. Ep. Gr. 28, 29.
[76] Ep. Caus. 863.
V. This Edict served but to increase the troubles, by driving the
Gomarists, against whom it was levelled, into despair. The riots which
had already happened, and which they hourly apprehended, made the Grand
Pensionary Barnevelt propose to the States of Holland, that the
magistrates of the Cities of the Province should be impowered to raise
troops for the suppression of the rioters, and the security of their
towns. Dort, Amsterdam, and three others of the most favourable to the
Gomarists, protested against this step, which they regarded as a kind of
declaration of war against the Contra-Remonstrants. Barnevelt's motion
was, nevertheless, agreed to, and on the fourth of August, 1617, the
States issued a placard accordingly.
This fatal decree occasioned the death of the Grand Pensionary and the
ruin of Grotius, by incensing Prince Maurice of Nassau against them, who
looked upon the resolution of the States, taken without his consent, as
derogatory to his dignity of Governor and Captain General.
He had entertained a mortal enmity for several years against the Grand
Pensionary[77], who concluded the truce in 1609 without his concurrence.
Hitherto he had stifled his revenge for want of a proper opportunity of
executing it; but it blazed openly on occasion of this decree of the
States, which he considered as Barnevelt's act. He accused him of
labouring to diminish his authority: found fault with the Edict: that
was made to engage the two parties to live in peace; declared publicly
for the Gomarists, assisted at divine service only in their churches,
and forbad the soldiers to obey the States when they would employ them
to appease the riots. Some towns, however, levied men in consequence of
the States decree, whether they suspected their garrisons, or thought
there was no other way to suppress the enterprises of the rioters. The
Contra-Remonstrants seeing themselves powerfully protected by Prince
Maurice, separated from the communion of the Arminians in 1617.
FOOTNOTES:
[77] Grot. Hist. l. 17.
VI. Amsterdam, almost as powerful singly as all Holland, favoured the
Gomarists, and disapproved of the Toleration which the States wanted to
introduce. These resolved therefore to send a Deputation to that city,
in order to bring them over to their sentiments. The Deputies were
Grotius, Adrian Mathenes, Hugo Musius, and Gerard Deich. April 21, 1616,
they received their instructions to go to Amsterdam; on the morrow they
left the Hague, and arriving the same day at Amsterdam, sent to desire
the oldest Burgomaster to assemble the Town Council: they were told, the
Council would meet the 23d at three in the afternoon. They employed this
interval in removing a calumny spread by the Contra-Remonstrants, that
they were sent to change the religion. One of the City-Secretaries
waited on them to conduct them to the Council Chamber, and being come
there, Grotius, as spokesman, said, "That Sovereigns had a right to
watch over the proceedings of the Church; that the States had no
intention but to protect the reformed religion; that they ardently
desired the city of Amsterdam would agree with them in all that might
relate to the government of the Church and mutual toleration; that the
revival of the regulation of 1591, which gives the Magistrates a right
to chuse the Ministers, after being examined and found well affected to
the reformed religion, was of great service, by preventing the troubles
which followed the elections; of which there were several recent
instances: that mutual toleration was necessary when the difference in
opinion regarded only points not fundamental; that it had always been
practised by the reformed churches from the time of Calvin's
reformation; that it was more necessary in the doctrine of
Predestination, as this was a matter of great difficulty; that the first
reformers, though of different sentiments, tolerated one another; that
Bullinger and Melancton were tolerated by Beza and Calvin; that James I.
King of Great Britain, had advanced in his writings, that the two
opposite opinions concerning Predestination might be maintained without
danger of damnation; that Gomar himself declared Arminius had not erred
in fundamental points; that after the conference in 1611, the Ministers
of the two parties promised to the States of Holland to live in peace;
that the points controverted were not necessary to salvation, that they
were very difficult, that they never had been determined, either in the
ancient, or the reformed church; that the decisions of the councils held
in the church on occasion of Pelagianism enjoined only a belief, that
men are corrupted and have need of grace, and that the beginning of
grace is from God; that even the church of Rome permitted the Doctors of
different parties to dispute on these points; that it was not necessary
to call a synod to examine them, because the authority of a Sovereign is
sufficient in matters where only the preventing of schism for things
unnecessary to salvation, is in question; that the Sovereign has a right
to suppress disorders that arise in the church; that the business was
not a change of religion, but the hindrance of schism; that the King of
Great Britain and the Canton of Bern had justified the use of this right
by examples; that if the utility of a synod to inform the Sovereign what
he ought to do on such occasions should be maintained, it were easy to
answer, that it is not necessary to assemble a synod to know that men
must tolerate one another when their opinions differ concerning points
not necessary to salvation; that this was a truth acknowledged by
Calvin, Beza, Whittaker, Junius, Casaubon, Du Moulin, in fine by the
most famous Ministers, whose authority is at least equivalent to that of
a synod; that as the question was not about a point of heresy, there was
reason to apprehend the division would be increased by calling a synod,
so great was the ferment of mens minds; that, besides, the moderate
party in such synod would not be the most numerous; that perhaps the
Ecclesiastics would seek to diminish the sovereign authority; that they
might make decisions which could not be enforced without throwing the
Republic into the greatest confusion; that therefore, previous to the
convocation of a synod, mens minds ought to be prepared by gentle
methods; that the decree made in 1614 by the States of Holland, to which
the city of Amsterdam made some difficulty of submitting, was neither
partial, nor injurious to the reformed churches; that it was resolved
on after mature reflexion, and was in itself agreeable to sound
doctrine; that the reasonable men among the Contra-Remonstrants had
nothing to apprehend, since the deposition of some Ministers was
entirely owing to their attempts to introduce schism; that the
Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, not differing in essential points,
ought to tolerate one another, and agree on what they should preach;
that if a Toleration were not admitted, they must depose such as would
not submit to the decision that might be given, or introduce two
churches, either of which steps would trouble the State, whereas a
Toleration would restore tranquility and union, and favour the
assembling of an impartial synod that might labour with success to
restore peace to the church."
The Senate, after hearing this Speech, made answer, that they would take
it into consideration: and on the twenty-fifth of April the Burgomasters
visited the Deputies, and told them, they would send to the States of
Holland to acquaint them with their sentiments. Grotius, who perceived
his discourse had not gained the Senate, replied, that if the Senate
would mention their difficulties, the Deputies of the States would
endeavour to resolve them. The Burgomasters answered, that the Senate
did not intend to grant them a new audience; adding, that as there was
reason to apprehend some alteration in religion, it was their opinion,
that in the present circumstances a synod ought to be assembled; and
that the city of Amsterdam could not receive the Edict of 1614, without
endangering the Church, and risking the ruin of her trade. The Deputies
wanted to answer, but were refused to be heard. Grotius drew up in
writing an account of all that passed in this deputation, and presented
it to the States at his return[78]. He flattered himself for a while
with the hopes of some good effect from his deputation[79]: and the
disappointment chagrined him so much, that he was seized with a violent
fever, which had well nigh carried him off. It appeared plainly by the
blood taken from him that melancholy was the occasion of his disorder.
He was removed to Delft[80], where he found himself better. As he was
forbid to do anything which required application, he wrote to Vossius
that he was very desirous to see him for a few days, or at least a few
hours; that it would be the means of restoring his health, since
conversation with true friends is the best remedy against melancholy. He
employed the time of his recovery in examining himself on the part he
had acted in the present disputes; and the more he reflected on it, the
less reason he found for blushing or repentance. He foresaw the danger
he incurred; but his resolution was taken, not to change his conduct,
and to refer the event to Providence.
FOOTNOTES:
[78] Grotius delivered his speech in Dutch. It was translated into Latin
by Theodorus Schrivelius, and printed in the third tome of his
theological works.
[79] Ep. 77.
[80] Ep. 83.
VII. The States of Holland, wholly employed in seeking ways to compound
matters, had come to a resolution on the twenty-first of February, 1617,
that certain wise and learned men should be chosen to draw up a Rule or
Formula, to which the Ministers of the two parties should be obliged to
conform; that nothing should be advanced in it contrary to the doctrine
of the reformed Churches; that it should be shewn to Prince Maurice,
and, after having his opinion, presented to the States, that they might
examine what was most for God's honour, the people's safety, and the
Nation's tranquillity.
In consequence of this resolution Grotius prepared a writing to be
presented to Prince Maurice, importing, That the States were desirous
the ministers should teach a doctrine agreeable to that of the Reformed
Churches, and that those who departed from it should be proceeded
against in the way of Church Censure, or even by the Civil Magistrate;
that the five Articles of the Remonstrants doctrine should be examined
in a Synod of Holland, and the decision carried to a Synod of all the
Provinces; that previous to its meeting, the Sovereignty of each
Province in things sacred should be settled; that no definition should
be fixed without an unanimous content; that if they could not agree they
should endeavour to convene a General Council of the Reformed Churches;
that in the mean time a severe Edict be published against rioters and
the authors of defamatory libels; that the ministers be charged not to
treat one another abusively; that after the holding of the Council they
should examine what was proper to be added to the Union of Utrecht
concerning the authority of the Provinces in matters of Religion.
This project did not please the Prince: he wanted a national Synod, of
which the States of Holland were afraid, because they foresaw the
Contra-Remonstrants would have more power in it than the Arminians, who
would consequently be condemned by it; and that instead of forwarding
the peace, it would increase the confusion and disorder.
The States-General, entirely devoted to Prince Maurice, determined, in
spite of the States of Holland, to convoke a national Synod in Holland
itself, at Dort. The Provinces of Holland, Utrecht, and Overyssel
protested against this resolution: Barnevelt was so thunderstruck by it,
that he wanted to resign his place of Grand Pensionary: But Holland, who
needed more than ever the counsels of such an experienced Minister,
sending a Deputation to beseech him not to abandon the Republic in times
of so much difficulty[81], he thought it his duty to yield to the
intreaties of his masters, and resumed the functions of his office.
FOOTNOTES:
[81] Grotii manes, p. 78.
VIII. Prince Maurice of Nassau, however, who saw with the utmost
displeasure several Cities, agreeable to the permission granted them by
the particular States, levy a new Militia without his consent, engaged
the States-General to write to the Provinces and Magistrates of those
Cities, enjoining them to disband the new levies, which were styled the
Attendant Soldiers: but the particular States, who looked on themselves
as sovereigns, and the Cities, who thought themselves obliged to obey
only the orders of the States of their Province, paid no attention to
the Letters of the States General[82]. The Prince considering this
conduct as a Rebellion, concerted with the States-General that he should
march in person with the troops under his command, to get these soldiers
who were levied irregularly, disbanded; that he should depose the
Arminian magistrates, and turn out the Ministers of their party.
The Prince accordingly set out, accompanied by the Deputies of the
States-General, in the year 1618. Beginning with the Province of
Gueldres, he removed from the Senate of Nimeguen all who were known or
suspected to favour Arminianism; and turned out the Ministers, obliging
them instantly to leave the town. At Overyssel he met with no
opposition. In Arnheim there was a numerous garrison of Attendant
Soldiers; but the Prince having intelligence in the place, got into it
by night: and the soldiers seeing themselves betrayed, laid down their
arms. Some Senators were deposed, and the Secretary of the Council
banished the City.
The States of Holland, knowing that the Prince was to treat Utrecht in
the same manner, sent thither Grotius, and Hoogerbetz, Pensionary of
Leyden. Their instructions bore, first that they should consider and
resolve on some method of opposing the commission given by the
States-General to Prince Maurice: secondly, that they should consult in
what manner the union between the particular States of the Provinces
might be strengthened, for their mutual aid and assistance.
The Magistrates of Utrecht, in consequence of the advices given them,
doubled the guards at the gates, and armed all the militia they could
assemble. Grotius and Hoogerbetz promised that the States of Holland
would not abandon them on this occasion when their sovereignty was at
stake: they also brought Letters from the States to the principal
officers of the ordinary garrison, tending to persuade them that it was
their duty to obey the States of Utrecht, who paid them, and to resist
the Stadtholder.
Every thing seemed ready for enabling the city to make a vigorous
resistance: the Burghers had taken up arms, and the Attendant Soldiers
were posted in the principal quarters of the town. These dispositions
did not divert the Prince from his design of seizing it. The old
garrison, from a jealousy of the new, declared for him; this occasioned
a mutiny: some of the Burghers left the interest of the city, which
being unprovided of good officers, the Prince and the Deputies of the
States found means to enter, and reduce it. The Prince being now master
of the town, disbanded the Attendant Soldiers, made Ledenberg, Secretary
of the States, and some Senators, prisoners, and turned out of their
places those who had distinguished themselves by their resistance,
putting in their room such as he could depend on. The States-General at
the same time published an Ordonnance at the Hague for disbanding the
new levies. Grotius, who was returned to Rotterdam, finding resistance
would only occasion new troubles, advised the city even before receiving
the Ordonnance of the States-General, to dismiss the Attendant Soldiers.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] La Neuvill's Hist. of Holland. B. iii. c. 5.
IX. The Prince of Orange's revenge was not yet satisfied: that was the
name Maurice went by after the death of his brother Philip William,
which happened at Brussels February 21, 1618. The destruction of the
Grand Pensionary he had resolved on. In an extraordinary assembly of
eight persons, who called themselves the States-General, he got an
Ordonnance passed, without any previous information, as Grotius
complained afterwards; importing, that Barnevelt, Grotius, and
Hoogerbetz should be taken into custody.
Accordingly on the 29th[83] of August, 1618, as Barnevelt was in the
court of the Castle of the Hague[84] returning home from the Assembly of
the States of Holland, one of the Prince of Orange's guards, attended
with some soldiers, commanded him, in the name of the States-General, to
follow him: He was carried to a room in the Castle, and there confined.
The Prince had sent to acquaint Grotius and Hoogerbetz that he wanted to
speak with them: they immediately came, and were arrested.
The same day was published the following Placard: "Messieurs the
States-General desire to acquaint all persons, that to avert the great
peril which threatened the United Provinces, and restore and establish
in the said Provinces harmony, peace, and tranquillity, they have caused
to be imprisoned John de Barnevelt, Advocate-General of Holland and West
Friesland, Romulus Hoogerbetz, and Hugo Grotius, it having been
discovered and made manifest that they were the first authors of the
insurrection at Utrecht, and of an attempt which would have been not
only highly prejudicial to the country and Province, but to several
other Cities. For these causes they have ordered, that the said three
persons be arrested and confined in the Castle of the Hague, till they
give an account of the administration of their offices." This Placard
was without any signature.
A report was at the same time spread by the prisoners enemies, that
Barnevelt and Grotius received money from the Spaniards to deliver up to
them the United Provinces; that they took money in 1609 to conclude the
truce; that they fomented the disputes in order to disunite the
Provinces; and that they had engaged to introduce into Holland the
public exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion.
It is said that Barnevelt had notice of the resolution taken to
apprehend him; that he talked of it to his friends; and told them he was
so secure in his innocence, he did not fear to take even his enemies for
judges, if any should dare to attack his conduct. It was represented to
him, that there were seasons of fanaticism and fury, in which innocence
was sacrificed to the violence of powerful enemies: but the testimony of
a good conscience hindered his attending to these remonstrances.
A few days after Grotius' arrest, his wife presented a petition, praying
that she might have leave to stay with her husband till the end of the
process. This grace was refused: she was not even permitted to see him;
and having asked to speak to him in presence of his guards, they were so
hard-hearted, as to deny even this slight favour.
Some days after these imprisonments, the Prince of Orange and the
Deputies of the States-General made a tour through the towns of Holland.
They had the power in their hands, and the Arminians were in the
greatest consternation. The Prince met with no opposition to his
designs: he deposed such magistrates as were relations or friends of the
three illustrious prisoners, putting in their place others that were
wholly devoted to him; and obliged some towns to receive a garrison,
particularly Rotterdam. The Arminians had hitherto been the more
powerful party there[85], and had excluded the Contra-Remonstrants from
preaching in the great Church: but the Prince took that church from
them, and gave it, with all the rest, to the Gomarists, leaving only two
to the Arminians. He placed a garrison of an hundred men in the town and
turned out and banished the Ministers who had distinguished themselves
by their zeal for Arminianism, such as Vorstius, Utengobard, and
Episcopius. Ledenberg, Secretary of Utrecht, hearing of these violences,
was so terrified, that he made away with himself in prison.
FOOTNOTES:
[83] Du Maurier says the three prisoners were arrested the 22d of
August; others assure us it was the 24th. La Neuville, Le Clerc. But it
is evident from what Grotius says himself, Ep. 104, that it was the
29th.
[84] Le Clerc.
[85] Mercure François, an. 1617.
X. The warmest opposers of a National Synod being disabled from giving
any further obstruction, the States-General proceeded to the holding of
it. The States of Holland, who in May, 1618, had renewed their protest
against the convocation of a National Synod, frightened by the violences
exercised against the three illustrious prisoners, at last gave their
consent; and it met at Dort.
It was opened on the fifteenth of November, 1618, in the name of the
States-General, who assisted at it by their Deputies; and was composed
of about seventy Contra-Remonstrants, with only fourteen Arminians. John
Bogerman, Minister of Leewarden in Friesland, was chosen President, and
had with him four assessors; all five declared enemies of the Arminians.
On the tenth of December the Remonstrants brought in a long Writing,
containing their reasons for not acknowledging the Synod, as being an
illegal assembly where the parties made themselves Judges, contrary to
the laws of equity and the Canons of the Church. They further shewed,
that most of those who composed the pretended synod were guilty of the
schism complained of; that it was publickly notorious they were their
declared enemies, and consequently incompetent judges. They afterwards
proposed twelve conditions, without which they could not acknowledge the
authority of the Synod, nor submit to any of its decisions. This paper
put the Synod into a very ill humour. Next day the Arminians giving in
a protest, it was censured, and a decree of the Deputies of the
States-General ordered that the Synod should proceed, without regarding
the protest.
The Arminians wanted to leave Dort; but an order from the States-General
obliged them to stay. Their five articles were condemned; and Episcopius
and the other Arminian ministers deposed, and declared guilty of
corrupting religion, breaking the unity of the Church, and occasioning
great scandal. The Synod's sentence was approved by the States-General
on the second of July, 1619. The same day the Arminian Ministers who had
been detained at Dort, were banished, or imprisoned: they were deprived
of their employments, and the effects of several were confiscated. They
continued to assert the irregularity of this Council; and the Bishop of
Meaux observes, that they employed the same arguments which the
Protestants use against the Roman-Catholics concerning the Council of
Trent.
XI. The Prisoners were not brought to their trial till after the rising
of the Synod of Dort. Their confinement had caused great murmuring in
the Province of Holland: for not only all honest men were persuaded of
their innocence; but it was also evident that the sovereignty of the
province of Holland had been openly violated. On the 29th of August,
1618, under the first surprise that an event of this nature must
occasion, when it was mentioned in the Assembly of the States-General,
the Deputies of the Province of Holland expressed great concern; they
complained the rights of Holland had been invaded; adding, that they
would ask their constituents what was to be done in such a melancholy
and singular occurrence. The City of Rotterdam and some others made loud
complaints: They acknowledged that if the three Prisoners were guilty of
treason, or of unlawful correspondence with the Spaniards, they ought to
be prosecuted; but maintained that they could not be legally tried but
by the States of Holland, who alone were their Sovereigns. The Prince of
Orange and the States-General found no way of putting a stop to the
opposition of such Magistrates as were zealous for their Country, or
friends to the Prisoners, but by deposing them. Nothing now remained to
obstruct the Prince of Orange in his projects of revenge: The States of
Holland, not being in a situation to hinder these violences, unwillingly
left the management of this affair to the States-General: but were so
much persuaded of the injustice done them, and the invasion made on
their Sovereignty, that in the end of January 1619[86], notwithstanding
the change of Deputies, they passed a Decree, importing that what had
been done in the imprisonment of the Grand Pensionary, and the
Pensionaries of Rotterdam and Leyden, should not be made a precedent for
the future.
The States-General, desirous of making an end of this affair, on the
nineteenth of November, 1618, nominated twenty-six Commissioners, chosen
from among the Nobility and Magistrates of the Seven Provinces, who were
ordered to repair to the Hague to try the Prisoners. The Decree
appointing these Judges mentioned that the Accused were taken into
custody to secure the tranquillity of the Republic, to hinder the ruin
of Religion and the destruction of the Union, and prevent disturbance
and bloodshed: they were represented as ambitious men, who sought by
secret practices to embroil the State: And to give some appearance of
satisfaction to Holland, it was said in the Decree, that the
States-General had issued it without prejudice to the rights of the
Provinces. Care was taken to chuse for Judges the declared enemies of
the Prisoners. Barnevelt objected to them; representing that he could
not be tried by the States-General: but no regard was paid to his
exceptions. Thus he was obliged to answer before incompetent judges,
who were notoriously known to have sworn his ruin. He entered a protest,
that his answering before them should not be construed an approbation of
their infringement of the jurisdiction of Holland.
In fine, after many iniquitous steps, which will be more particularly
mentioned in Grotius' trial, Barnevelt was condemned to be beheaded. The
principal grounds[87] of his condemnation were, That he had disturbed
religion; that he had advanced that each Province in its own
jurisdiction might decide in matters of religion, without the other
Provinces having a right to take cognizance of it; that he diverted the
King of France from sending the Reformed ministers of his Kingdom to the
Synod of Dort; preferred the interests of the particular States of
Holland and West Friesland to those of the States-General; made use of
the name of the States of Holland and West Friesland for holding
conventicles and unlawful assemblies; occasioned the insurrection at
Utrecht; authorised the levying of the Attendant Soldiers; slandered
Prince Maurice, accusing him of aspiring to the sovereignty of the
United Provinces; and that he received large sums from foreign Princes,
which he concealed from the State.
FOOTNOTES:
[86] Grotius, Apology, c. 15.
[87] La Neuville, lib. 3. c. 16.
XII. Lewis XIII. who had an affection for the United Provinces, with
which he was connected by their common interest, beheld the domestic
troubles of Holland with concern. The Prisoners, especially Barnevelt,
whose merit was well known at the Court of France, were held by him in
particular esteem. When he heard of their arrest he nominated Thumeri de
Boissise his Ambassador extraordinary to Holland, ordering him to repair
thither, immediately, and join Du Maurier the Ambassador in ordinary, in
soliciting the States-General in favour of the Accused, and labouring to
restore the public tranquillity.
December 12, 1618, they presented to the States-General a Writing from
the King, asking that the prisoners might have justice done them; that
their judges might be persons impartial and dispassionate; that the
States would rather chuse mild, than rigorous measures: "And, said the
Ministers, his Majesty will take for a high offence the little regard
you pay to his counsels, his prayers, and his friendship, which for the
future will be as much cooled as it was heretofore warm in your
interest."
The States made answer on the nineteenth of December following, that
they would act with all the lenity and clemency which justice and the
safety of the State would permit; and that they hoped the King would
leave it to their prudence.
The French Ambassadors continued their solicitations[88]; but the answer
made them March 23, 1619, must have left them no hope: it represented
the Prisoners as turbulent men, suspected of very heinous crimes, and
almost convicted of conspiring against the Republic, and projecting and
attempting to destroy the Union and the State. This answer was certainly
concerted with Prince Maurice, who was highly offended that the King of
France should interest himself so much to save men whom he looked on as
his declared enemies. Boissise quitted Holland, leaving Du Maurier alone
to act in favour of the Accused. On Monday morning, May 13, 1619, the
Ambassador was informed, that sentence had been passed the Day before,
and that Barnevelt was to be executed that day. He went immediately to
the Assembly of the States to get the execution suspended, but was
refused audience: he wrote to the States, conjuring them by the regard
they ought to have for the King his master, not to spill the blood of a
Minister who had served them so faithfully; and, if they would not
pardon him, to confine him to one of his country houses, his friends
being bound for him; or banish him the country for ever. This Letter had
no effect: their resolution was taken to destroy him. When the Grand
Pensionary was informed of his sentence, he seemed less moved at it,
than for the fate of Grotius and Hoogerbetz: he asked if they also were
to die? adding, It would be great pity: they are still able to do great
service to the Republic. The scaffold for his execution 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 preserved in
the _Mercure François_: "Burghers, said he, I have been always your
faithful countryman: believe not that I die for treason; but 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: for many came to gather the sand wet with his blood, to
keep it carefully in phials: and the croud 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 Princes of Orange did in the field. It is
highly probable that the melancholy end of this illustrious and
unfortunate man, to whom the Dutch are partly indebted for their
liberty, was owing to his steadiness in opposing the design of making
Prince Maurice Dictator. But this is a question discussed by several
writers[89], and foreign to our subject.
The French ministry discovered no resentment at the little attention
paid by the States General to Lewis's solicitations. There is reason to
think Barnevelt would have met with less cruel treatment, or at least
that France would not have passed it over so easily, had Cardinal
Richelieu, who was soon after Prime Minister, been then in place: for a
book[90] ascribed to him censures the conduct of Messieurs de Luines,
who were in power at that time, with regard to this affair.
FOOTNOTES:
[88] Apology, c. 15.
[89] See Du Maurier, Le Vassor, La Neuville, Le Clerc.
[90] Hist. de la mere & du fils, t. 2. p. 380.
XIII. Grotius's trial did not come on till five days after Barnevelt's
execution. September 3, 1618, the fourth day after he was arrested, the
Burgomasters of Rotterdam presented a petition to the Prince of
Orange[91], setting forth, that they had heard with great grief that
Grotius, Counsellor and Pensionary of Rotterdam, being at the Hague at
the assembly of the States, was arrested by order of the States General;
and representing to his Excellency that it was a breach of privilege, by
which no Deputy could be arrested during the sitting of the States; and
as they stood in need of Grotius's assistance and counsels, praying that
he, as Governor of Holland and West-Friesland, would prevail with the
States General to set him at liberty, and put him in the same situation
he was in before his imprisonment, promising to guard him at Rotterdam
or elsewhere, that he might be forthcoming to answer any charge brought
against him by the States General. The Prince gave only for answer, that
the affair concerned the States General. Their petition having had no
effect, on the 10th of September, 1618, the city of Rotterdam sent a
deputation to the States of Holland, praying that Grotius and the other
persons accused might be tried according to the custom of the country.
But the States themselves were under oppression.
Grotius's wife petitioned[92] for leave to continue with her husband
whilst his cause was depending; but this favour was denied her. On his
falling ill, she again pressed to be allowed to visit him, they had the
cruelty to hinder her: she offered not to speak to him but in presence
of his guards; this was also refused. Thus all the time of his
confinement at the Hague, no one was permitted to see him, even when he
lay dangerously ill.
We may judge to what length his enemies carried their blindness and
fury, by the following passage related by Selden[93]. When Grotius was
arrested, some who bore him ill-will, prevailed with Carleton,
Ambassador from Great Britain at the Hague, to make a complaint against
his book _Of the Freedom of the Ocean_: the Ambassador was not ashamed
to maintain that the States ought to make an example of him, to prevent
others from defending an opinion that might occasion a misunderstanding
between the two nations. Carleton and his advisers were the dupes of
this contemptible step: the States General paid no regard to his
complaint. The proposal was shameful in itself. Could they think that it
would be made a crime in Grotius to have written a book, dictated by his
love to his country, and deserving a recompence from the States to whom
it had been of great use in the dispute with England concerning the
right of navigation?
At the first examination which Grotius underwent, he answered[94] that
he was of the Province of Holland, Minister of a city of Holland; that
he had been arrested on the territories of Holland; that he acknowledged
no judges but that province, and was ready to justify all he had done.
He maintained that the States General had no jurisdiction over him, and
consequently could not nominate his Judges. He alledged also the
privilege of the citizens of Rotterdam and demanded permission to set
forth his reasons before the States of Holland and the States General;
and that the validity of his objections might be determined by Judges of
Holland. All these things were denied him. They insisted that he should
plead: he protested against this violence; but this did not hinder them
from proceeding against him, in contempt of all forms. He had been
allowed the use of pen and ink[95], but, after his first examination,
they were taken away.
The rigour and injustice, with which he and the other prisoners were
treated, are scarce conceivable. He tells us, that when they knew they
were bad, they chose that time to examine them; that they did not give
them liberty to defend themselves; that they threatened, and teazed them
to give immediate answers; and that they would not read over to them
their examinations. Grotius having asked leave to write his defence,
they allowed him for that purpose only five hours, and one sheet of
paper. He was always persuaded, that if he would own he had
transgressed, and ask pardon, they would set him at liberty: but as he
had nothing to reproach himself with, he would never take any step that
might infer consciousness of guilt. His wife, his father, brother, and
friends approved of this resolution[96].
On the 18th of May, 1619, the Commissioners pronounced sentence against
him, which we shall give at length.
"Whereas[97] Hugo Grotius, who was Pensionary of the Magistrates of
Rotterdam, and at present a prisoner before the Commissaries appointed
by the States General to try him, has acknowledged without being put to
the torture.
That he ventured to endeavour to overturn religion, to oppress and
afflict the Church of God, and for that end advanced heinous things
pernicious to the Republic, particularly, that each Province has singly
a right to decree in matters of religion, and that the others ought not
to take cognizance of the disputes which arise on this subject in a
particular province; that against order, and the custom of the reformed
churches, he endeavoured to get opinions received which are contrary to
the doctrine of those churches, without being sufficiently examined;
that he opposed the convocation of a National Synod in the name of the
States General, though it was judged by the King of Great Britain,
Prince Maurice, the majority of the nation, and the principal persons of
the province of Holland, a necessary and certain remedy for the
disorders which had crept into religion; that he advanced the convening
a synod would be prejudicial to the right of sovereignty belonging to
the province of Holland, unless the whole or the greater part of the
province would consent to it.
That he held private meetings with the Deputies of some towns, with
design to procure a majority in the assembly of the States of Holland.
That without the orders of the States of Holland, Utrecht, and
Overyssel, he ventured to make an act in the name of those provinces, in
the house of John Barnevelt, protesting against what the Deputies of the
other provinces might do, and declaring they would be the cause of the
disorders that the Synod might produce; which act he read in the
assembly of the States of Holland without being required, and carried it
to the assembly of the States-General.
That he made eight Deputies of the cities send back the letter of the
States-General for the convocation of the Synod.
That he wrote to the King of France in the name of the States of
Holland, informing him that the name of the States-General was falsly
made use of in the Letters for convoking the Synod, and desiring his
Majesty not to suffer his subjects to attend the Synod, and to protect
Holland against the other provinces.
That, by the counsel of Barnevelt, he bestirred himself to get Ministers
to come to the Synod who were of the new opinion.
That he embroiled the Republic in order to get every thing passed
according to his fancy and caprice.
That he assisted in so far changing the form of government, that those
who complained of oppression were not admitted to be heard, and the
Magistrates of cities disobeyed the orders they received.
That by the advice of John Barnevelt he held private meetings with the
Deputies of some towns, whose deliberations were carried to the States
of Holland, to serve for the model of their resolutions.
That he was concerned in the odious decree of the 4th of August, 1617,
permitting the cities of Holland to raise new troops for their defence,
and to require of them an oath of fidelity to those cities.
That he gave it as his opinion, the city of Rotterdam should raise those
soldiers.
That he also advised the city of Delft to raise them; that he wanted to
lay the expence of these new levies on the Generality.
That he asserted these new soldiers were not obliged to obey the
States-General, if their orders were contrary to those of the cities.
That he sent back the French auxiliaries in order to employ the money
assigned for their subsistance in paying the new soldiers.
That he pretended these soldiers ought to serve even against the
States-General and against Prince Maurice.
That he wanted to prevail with the cities to make a new union.
That he held conferences with a foreign Ambassador.
That he was concerned in the deputation sent to the Brille to oppose
Prince Maurice.
That, on the 14th of May, 1618, he made an act with eight Deputies of
cities, by virtue of which they were permitted to oppose what the
States-General might do for accelerating the holding of the Synod; which
act they wanted to get approved by the States of Utrecht; that he
endeavoured to divert the Deputies of Utrecht from disbanding their new
troops agreeable to the intention of the States of that province, by
promising them assistance.
That he accused the States-General, as well as Prince Maurice, of evil
designs.
That he maintained, they ought to be resisted, and the revenue and
forces of the State employed against them.
That he said the disbanding the new soldiers would increase the boldness
of the Disaffected, and the disorders in the State; that the ordinary
troops were not sufficient; that the members of the province of Holland
would abundantly succour such as did not obey the States-General; that
he suffered himself to be deputed to Utrecht to offer his assistance to
the States and the City; that this deputation was ordered only by a few
Nobles, three Deputies of Cities, and some Deputies to the States of
Holland, who had no instructions on that subject from their
Constituents.
That his acknowledged design, and that of those deputed to Utrecht, was
to engage the States to require the ordinary soldiers to obey the States
of Utrecht, in prejudice of the obedience due to the States-General.
That he carried Letters of Barnevelt, which had not been read in the
assembly of the States of Holland, declaring, that the soldiers ought to
obey the States, and oppose whatever might be done against them.
That he had combined with Ledemberg in the measures to be taken for
preventing the new soldiers from being disbanded by the States of
Utrecht.
That he spoke against the States-General and against Prince Maurice in
the assembly of the States of Utrecht; that he assisted the States of
Utrecht in preparing their answer to Prince Maurice and the States
General, by which they refused to acknowledge these Deputies as sent by
the States-General, though they were in fact; that he held a conference
with the Bailly of the city of Utrecht on the measures to be taken for
resisting Prince Maurice if he should come to Utrecht to disband the
new soldiers; and that he endeavoured to prevail with the States of
Utrecht to have recourse to open force on this occasion.
That he wanted to make the ordinary garrison oppose the Deputies of the
States-General when their orders were contrary to those of the States of
Utrecht; threatening to stop their pay if they did otherwise.
That he advised the Bailly of Utrecht to obey only the Deputies of
Holland or the States of Utrecht.
That he conferred with the said Bailly on the means of hindering Prince
Maurice from introducing soldiers into Utrecht; which might have
occasioned much bloodshed in the city, and put the Prince and the
Republic in the greatest danger; and which gave rise to dissentions and
new treaties, contrary to the union of the provinces: whence the public
order in Church and State was disturbed, the finances of the State
exhausted, divisions arose between the States-General and the Provinces,
and the union was on the point of being broke.
For these causes the Judges appointed to try this affair, administring
justice in the name of the States-General, condemn the said Hugo Grotius
to perpetual imprisonment; and to be carried to the place appointed by
the States-General, there to be guarded with all precaution, and
confined the rest of his days; and declare his estate confiscated.
Hague, May 18, 1619."
Grotius, who enters into an examination of this sentence, charges it
with many falsities: he maintains[98] that it makes him say several
things which he constantly denied: and that he never acknowledged
himself guilty. What is mentioned in the sentence concerning the
deputation to Utrecht, he shews to be palpably false[99]. On the 20th of
July, 1618, he acquaints us, certain Deputies to the States of Holland
wanted to go home; that the assembly was summoned for the 24th; that
some Deputies were indeed absent that day, but the Curators of the
Republic of those Cities, agreeable to the order they had received,
supplied their place; that the assembly was composed of the Deputies of
Harlem, Delft, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude, Rotterdam, Alcmaër, and the
Nobles; that the Deputies of the other cities were summoned; that their
absence could not stay the proceedings of the rest; that, excepting the
Deputies of Amsterdam, all the others agreed to the deputation sent to
Utrecht; that it was thrice approved; and that the Deputies at their
return received the thanks of the States, who defrayed the expence of
their journey.
Grotius complains that he was not examined on the tenth part of the
facts specified in his sentence, that his examination was not read over
to him; in fine, that he was no ways reprehensible, since in all he did,
he exactly followed the orders of the States of Holland, or those of the
city of Rotterdam[100], as the States and the City allowed; and that if
he was to be tried, it ought to be by Judges of Rotterdam, according to
the privileges of that city. Hoogerbetz was also condemned to perpetual
banishment. The body of Ledemberg, Secretary of the States of Utrecht,
who, as hath been said, put an end to his life in gaol, was affixed in
the coffin to a gibbet. Moerbergen, Counsellor of Utrecht, had only his
country-house, for his prison, because, suffering himself to be moved by
the tears of his wife and children, he made a kind of submission
bordering on those which they wanted to draw from Hoogerbetz and
Grotius.
The Judges who condemned them were so ignorant of the laws, that they
decreed penalties which are only enacted against persons convicted of
high treason, yet omitted mentioning in the sentence that Grotius was
guilty of that crime. They were told of this irregularity, and saw they
were in the wrong: to remedy it, they declared, a whole year after the
trial, without rehearing the cause, that their intention was to condemn
Grotius and his accomplices as guilty of high-treason; which step was
the more irregular[101], as delegated judges cannot, by law, add to
their sentence after it is passed. This addition deprived Grotius's wife
of the liberty of redeeming, at a moderate price, her husband's estate;
a privilege which the law allows in all cases but those of treason. His
estate was therefore confiscated: but by this he was no great loser. At
that time he was very far from being rich: his father being alive, what
properly belonged to him was only the savings of his salary and his
wife's fortune.
FOOTNOTES:
[91] Hug. Grotii votum, p. 664.
[92] Apol. c. 13.
[93] Mare clausum l. 1. p. 198.
[94] Apol. c. 15.
[95] Apol. c. 13.
[96] Ibid. c. 16.
[97] Ibid. c. 19.
[98] Dedication of his Apology.
[99] Apol. c. 13. 17.
[100] Hug. Grotii votum, p. 669.
[101] Ep. Gr. 161.
XIV. In consequence of the sentence passed against Grotius, the
States-General ordered him to be carried from the Hague to the fortress
of Louvestein near Gorcum in South Holland, at the point of the island
formed by the Vahal and the Meuse; which was done on the 6th of June,
1619; and twenty-four sols per day assigned for his maintenance, and as
much for Hoogerbetz: but their wives declared they had enough to support
their husbands, and that they chose to be without an allowance which
they looked on as an affront. Grotius' father asked permission to see
his son; but was denied. They consented to admit his wife into
Louvestein, but if she came out, she was not to be suffered to go back.
In the sequel it was granted her that she might come abroad twice a
week.
Grotius became now more sensible than ever of the advantages men derive
from a love of the Sciences. Exile and captivity, the greatest evils
that can befal Ministers of ordinary merit, restored to him that
tranquillity to which he had been for some years a stranger. Study
became his business and consolation. From the time he was a prisoner at
the Hague[102], whilst he had the use of pen and ink, he employed
himself in writing a Latin piece on the means of accommodating the
present disputes. This treatise was presented to Prince Maurice; but it
did not mollify the indignation he had conceived against the
Remonstrants. Grotius maintained in it, as he had done often before,
that notwithstanding difference of opinion in some points relating to
grace and predestination, a mutual toleration ought to take place, and
no separation be made.
We have still several of his letters written from Louvestein, which
acquaint us in what manner he spent his time. He gave Vossius an account
of his studies. In the first of those Letters, without date, he observes
to him that he had resumed the study of the Law, which had been long
interrupted by his multiplicity of business; that the rest of his time
he devoted to the study of Morality; which had led him to translate all
the Maxims of the Poets collected by Stobæus, and the fragments of
Menander and Philemon. He likewise purposed to extract from the Comic
and Tragic Authors of Greece what related to Morality, and was omitted
by Stobæus, and to translate it into free verse, like that of the Latin
Comic writers. With regard to his translation of the fragments of the
Greek Tragic authors, he intended that the verses of his Latin
translation should resemble those of the original, excepting in the
chorus's, which he would put into the verse that best suited him. He was
in doubt whether he ought to print these additions with Stobæus, and
asks Vossius's opinion whether he should place them at the end, or
entirely new-mould that collection. Sundays he employed in reading
treatises on the truth of the Christian religion, and even spent some of
his spare hours in this study: on other days, when his ordinary labour
was over, he meditated some work in Flemish on religion. The subject
which he liked best at that time was Christ's love to mankind: he no
doubt intended to confute the extravagant opinions of the Gomarists. He
purposed also to write a Commentary on the Sermon on the mount.
Time seemed to pass very fast amidst these several projects. December
15, 1619, he writes Vossius, that the Muses, which were always his
delight, even when immersed in business, were now his consolation, and
appeared more amiable than ever. He wrote some short Notes on the New
Testament: these he intended to send to Erpenius, who was projecting a
new edition of it; but a fit of illness obliged him to lay them
aside[103]. When he was able to resume his studies, he composed in Dutch
verse his treatise _Of the Truth of the Christian Religion_, and sent it
to Vossius; who thought some places of it obscure. It makes no mention
of the Trinity or Incarnation, because, the authority and authenticity
of the sacred Books once proved, these great points ought to be held
demonstrated. Those who since Grotius have written against infidelity
with greatest success, have followed his example. Sacred and profane
authors employed him alternately. In the end of the year 1620[104] he
promises his brother to send him his observations on Seneca's Tragedies:
These he had written at Vossius's desire[105]. He acknowledges his
conjectures are sometimes very bold; but is not so attached to them, but
he will submit them to Vossius, and leaves them entirely to him. We have
seen that Du Maurier employed his best offices for Barnevelt and
Grotius. From the time they were arrested all correspondence between the
Ambassador and Grotius was probably cut off till the beginning of 1621;
for it is not till the fifteenth of January that year, he returns him
his thanks[106]. He says it is impossible for him to express his
obligations to the Most Christian King, to his wife Council, and to Du
Maurier in particular, for the pains they took to assist him in his
misfortunes; that tho' their intentions had not the effect which might
have been hoped for, it gave him great consolation to find persons of
such importance interest themselves in his troubles. He calls his
conscience, as the judge he most respected, to witness, that all he
intended was the prevention of schism; that he never had a thought of
making any innovation in the Republic; that he only purposed the
supporting the rights of his Sovereigns, without invading the legal
authority of the States-General; that such as were in the secret of
affairs knew that his whole crime was refusing to comply with the
caprices of those who wanted to rule according to their fancies; and
that he chose rather to lose his estate and his health, than to ask
pardon for a fault he had never committed.
Du Maurier losing his lady about this time, Grotius writes him, February
27, 1621, a very handsome consolatory letter, in which he deduces with
great eloquence every ground of support that Philosophy and Religion can
suggest in that melancholly event. The only method he took to unbend and
recreate himself, was to go from one work to another. He translated the
_Phoenissæ_ of Euripides: wrote his _Institutions of the Laws of
Holland_ in Dutch: and composed some short Instructions for his daughter
Cornelia[107] in the form of a Catechism, and in Flemish verse,
containing an hundred and eighty-five Questions and Answers: it was
printed at the Hague in 1619. The author afterwards translated it into
the same number of Latin verses for the use of his son: it is added in
the later editions of his Poems. He wrote also, while under confinement,
a Dialogue in Dutch verse between a father and a son, on the necessity
of silence, explaining the use and abuse of Speech, and shewing the
advantages of taciturnity. In fine, he collected, when in prison, the
materials of his _Apology_[108].
FOOTNOTES:
[102] Apolog. Pref.
[103] Ep. 126.
[104] Ep. 23. p. 761.
[105] Ep. 132.
[106] Ep. 133.
[107] Mem. Litt. de la Gr. Bretagne, t. xi. p. 66.
[108] Ep. 144.
XV. Grotius had been above eighteen months shut up in Louvestein, when,
on the eleventh of January, 1621[109], Muys-van-Holi, his declared
enemy, who had been one of his judges, informed the States-General, that
he had advice from good hands their prisoner was seeking to make his
escape: some persons were sent to Louvestein to examine into this
matter; but notwithstanding all the enquiry that could be made, they
found no reason to believe that Grotius had laid any plot to get out.
His wife however was wholly employed in contriving how to set him at
liberty. He had been permitted[110] to borrow books of his friends, and
when he had done with them, they were carried back in a chest with his
foul linen, which was sent to Gorcum, a town near Louvestein, to be
washed. The first year his guards were very exact in examining the chest
when it went from Louvestein; but being used to find in it only books
and linen, they grew tired of searching, and did not take the trouble to
open it. Grotius' wife observing their negligence, purposed to take
advantage of it. She represented to her husband that it was in his power
to get out of prison when he pleased, if he would put himself in the
chest that carried his books. However, not to endanger his health, she
caused holes to be bored opposite to the part where his face was to be,
to breathe at; and made him try if he could continue shut up in that
confined posture as long as it would require to go from Louvestein to
Gorcum. Finding it might be done, she resolved to seize the first
favourable opportunity.
It soon offered. The Commandant of Louvestein[111] going to Heusden to
raise recruits, Grotius' wife made a visit to his lady, and told her in
conversation, that she was desirous of sending away a chest full of
books, for her husband was so weak, it gave her great uneasiness to see
him study with such application. Having thus prepared the Commandant's
wife, she returned to her husband's apartment, and in concert with a
valet and a maid, who were in the secret, shut him up in the chest. At
the same time, that people might not be surprised at not seeing him, she
spread a report of his being ill. Two soldiers carried the chest: one of
them, finding it heavier than usual, said, There must be an Arminian in
it: this was a kind of proverb that had lately come into use. Grotius'
wife, who was present, answered with great coldness, There are indeed
Arminian books in it. The chest was brought down on a ladder, with great
difficulty. The soldier insisted on its being opened, to see what was in
it; he even went and informed the Commandant's wife that the weight of
the chest gave him reason to think there was something suspicious
contained in it, and that it would be proper to have it opened. She
would not; whether it was that she was willing to wink at the thing, or
through negligence: she told him that Grotius' wife had assured her
there was nothing but books in it; and that they might carry it to the
boat. It is affirmed that a soldier's wife who was present, said there
was more than one example of prisoners making their escape in boxes. The
chest however was put into the boat, and Grotius' maid, who was in the
secret, had orders to go with it to Gorcum, and put it into a house
there. When it came to Gorcum, they wanted to put it on a sledge; but
the maid telling the boatman there were some brittle things in it, and
begging of him to take care how it was carried, it was put on a horse,
and brought by two chairmen to David Dazelaer's, a friend of Grotius,
and brother-in-law to Erpenius, having married his sister[112]. When
every body was gone, the maid opened the chest. Grotius had felt no
inconvenience in it, though its length was not above three feet and a
half. He got out, dressed himself like a mason, with a rule and a
trowel, and went by Dazelaer's back-door, through the market-place to
the gate that leads to the river, and stept into a boat which carried
him to Valvic in Brabant. At this place he made himself known to some
Arminians; and hired a carriage to Antwerp, taking the necessary
precautions not to be known by the way: it was not the Spaniards he
feared, for there was then a truce between them and the United
Provinces. He alighted at Antwerp at the house of Nicholas Grevincovius,
who had been formerly a Minister at Amsterdam; and made himself known to
no body but him. It was on the 22d of March, 1621, that Grotius thus
recovered his liberty.
In the mean time it was believed at Louvestein that he was ill; and to
give him time to get off, his wife gave out that his illness was
dangerous; but as soon as she learnt by the maid's return that he was in
Brabant, and consequently in safety, she told the guards, the bird was
flown. They informed the Commandant, by this time returned from Heusden,
who hastened to Grotius's wife, and asked her where she had hid her
husband? She answered he might search for him: but being much pressed
and even threatened, she confessed that she had caused him to be carried
to Gorcum in the book chest: and that she had done no more than kept her
word to him, to take the first opportunity of setting her husband at
liberty. The Commandant in a rage went immediately to Gorcum, and
acquainting the Magistrate with his prisoner's escape, both came to
Dazelaer's, where they found the empty chest. On his return to
Louvestein the Commandant confined Grotius's wife more closely: but
presenting a petition to the States-General, April 5, 1621, praying that
she might be discharged, and Prince Maurice, to whom it was
communicated, making no opposition, the majority were for setting her at
liberty. Some indeed voted for detaining her a prisoner; but they were
looked on as very barbarous, to want to punish a woman for an heroic
action. Two days after presenting the petition, she was discharged, and
suffered to carry away every thing that belonged to her in Louvestein.
Grotius continued some time at Antwerp. March 30, he wrote to the
States-General that in procuring his liberty he had employed neither
violence nor corruption with his keepers; that he had nothing to
reproach himself with in what he had done; that he gave those counsels
which he thought best for appeasing the troubles that had arisen before
he was concerned in public business; that he only obeyed the Magistrates
of Rotterdam his masters, and the States of Holland his sovereigns; and
that the persecution he had suffered would never diminish his love to
his Country, for whose prosperity he heartily prayed.
Grotius's escape exercised the pens of the most famous poets of that
period. Barlæus wrote some very good verses on it[113]: and also
celebrated his wife's magnanimity[114]. Rutgersius composed a poem on
his imprisonment, in which he places the day of his arrest among the
most unfortunate for the Republic[115]. Grotius himself wrote some
verses on his happy deliverance, which were translated into Flemish by
the famous poet John Van Vondel. He made also some lines on the chest to
which he owed his liberty, and in the latter part of his life was at
great pains to recover it[116].
Henry Dupuis, a learned man settled at Louvain, being informed that
Grotius was at Antwerp, sent him a very handsome letter, to signify to
him the share he took in the general joy of all good men, and offered
him his house, and all that a true friend could give[117]: but Grotius
chose rather to come to France, agreeable to the advice of Du Maurier
and the President Jeannin; the latter assuring him he might depend on
the King's protection, the esteem of men of the greatest consideration,
and his friendship.
But previous to the account of his journey to Paris it will be proper to
say something of the writings that appeared relating to the disputes
which divided the church and state.
Among the Ministers who opposed the Arminians Sibrand Lubert was one of
the most zealous and in greatest reputation. This man was a Professor in
the university of Francker: he wrote against Worstius, who was suspected
of Socinianism; and insinuated that the States of Holland favoured that
heresy. He also complained of their renewing the law of 1591, concerning
the election of ministers, and their opposing the convocation of a
National Synod. The States, incensed at his presumption, employed
Grotius to write their Apology, which he published in 1613.
In this work he undertakes to shew that the Arminians have very
different sentiments on grace from the Pelagians; that they join with
the Greek and many Latin Fathers in their opinion about Predestination;
that the Reformed did not always entertain such rigid sentiments,
particularly Melancton, inferior to none in learning or piety; that
since the rise of the disputes Arminius and Gomar had declared in
writing, there was no difference between them in fundamentals; that
after the dispute of those two Divines in presence of the States, it was
determined that the two opinions might be tolerated; that since the
death of Arminius twelve Ministers of the two parties having been
heard, the States recommended to them mutual toleration and charity.
He afterwards proves that the Synod was not necessary; that it could be
of little use, because mens minds were too much inflamed; that as it
could not be assembled in the present circumstances, it belonged to the
States to find out ways of accommodating these disputes, which did not
regard fundamental articles; and that Socinus had no defenders in
Holland. He afterwards treats of the power which he ascribes to the
Sovereign in matters ecclesiastic, and his authority in convoking
Councils. He says the Sovereign has a right to judge in Synods, either
in person or by his commissioners, and to judge Synods themselves; in
proof of which he advances what passed in the first Councils; and
regards as acts of jurisdiction and examination all that has been done
by Princes for maintaining good order and polity. He is of opinion that
public acts, even those which regard the doctrine of the Church, ought
to proceed only from the Prince: he relates what Princes have done, at
the solicitation of Bishops, for the assembling of Councils, as proofs
of the Sovereign's authority over Councils; and omits nothing in
antiquity that favours the authority of the Civil Magistrate in matters
ecclesiastical, and especially in what regards elections: he shews that
too much precaution, cannot be taken against the presumption of the
reformed Ministers, who want to intermeddle with State Affairs, bringing
with them their caprices and passions. "Upon the whole (he says in the
conclusion) the more I read Church history, the more evident it appears
to me, that the evils we complain of are the same which have been
complained of in all past ages."
This account of the work is sufficient to shew that the author, with
much erudition, was strangely misled: if the proofs he makes use of are
susceptible of different interpretations, he has not sufficiently
unravelled their ambiguity and intent. It was received with great
satisfaction by the Magistrates of Holland[118]: and the States returned
him public thanks on the 31st of October, 1613, in very honorable terms.
Casaubon[119] and Vossius[120] speak of this book with the highest
commendation: but the Gomarists were greatly dissatisfied with it[121].
Bogerman wrote some notes on it, serving to confute it; which were
suppressed. Sibrand's friends complained that the author had dipt his
pen in gall, and not in ink: and Sibrand himself wrote an answer, to
which Grotius replied in some short remarks, exposing the false
citations, the errors, and abusive language of his adversary.
Sibrand's work was condemned by the States: but five years after, June
28, 1618, on the imprisonment of Grotius, the States revoked the
condemnation. Grotius's desire to bring about an union of sentiments led
him, in 1613, while in England, to compose a small treatise, entitled,
_A Reconciliation of the different Opinions on Predestination and
Grace_. This piece contains a display of the Arminian system, which he
endeavours to place in the most favourable light[122].
The Edict which Grotius prepared by desire of the States[123], ordering
the two parties to tolerate each other, having been warmly attacked by
the Contra-Remonstrants, Grotius reprinted it, with a collection of
passages justifying it against their censures. He afterwards wrote a
defence of that decree, in which he complains of the schismatical spirit
of the Gomarists; proves that the States did all that depended on them
to reconcile mens minds: maintains, against an anonymous writer, to whom
he gives the name of _Lucifuga_, that it is false the Remonstrants gave
the draught of that Edict; asserts, on the contrary, that several things
are omitted in it, which they wished to be inserted, and which had even
an appearance of reason and justice; and sets forth the moderation and
equity of the Edict upon the whole. Grotius did not finish this work;
but on occasion of the dispute concerning the power of Sovereigns in
things sacred; he composed a very considerable treatise. He had already
handled this subject in a tract on the Piety of the States of Holland:
he examines it more thoroughly in this, proceeding on the same
principles. It is certain that this book may be read with some
profit[124], that it contains many curious things, but some others also
that are very bold, and very false. Such as are acquainted with the just
rights of the two powers will never grant to Grotius, that the Sovereign
has a right to judge in councils, to alter their decisions, and to
depose the Ministers of the Church. Most of the proofs on which he
builds consist of ambiguous passages, which he strains to his opinion by
forced explanations. This work discovers rather the great lawyer, than
the exact divine; and, what is singular, the author is afraid he has not
granted enough to the Civil Magistrate, and been too favourable to the
claims of the Clergy. He knew, however, that it would not please the
King of Great Britain; and the Bishops of that kingdom were of opinion
he had given too much authority to the Secular Power in things sacred:
It is probable the Letter sent by the States of Holland and
West-Friesland, in 1618, to King James I. was written by Grotius: it is
his style and sentiments. The States, who foresaw that the troubles
would still go on increasing, begin with a short recital of the rise of
these disputes; they afterwards desire his Majesty to examine whether in
the present circumstances a Synod would be of use, and whether there
was not reason to apprehend it might occasion a schism: they ask the
King to grant them his protection, and promise to employ their authority
in supporting truth, and driving away error.
Endeavours being used to render the Remonstrants odious by accusing them
of Socinianism; Grotius, to shew that his sentiments were very different
from those of Socinus, attacks him in a treatise, entitled, _A Defence
of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, against
Faustus Socinus_. This work was read with great applause by all who did
not profess an open enmity to the author; and many of the reformed
Divines allowed that the subject had never been handled with more
learning and strength of argument. It was approved of by several learned
men in Germany and England, particularly the famous Overal, Bishop of
Litchfield and Coventry.
We find in this treatise, as in all those of Grotius, many learned
discussions, which prove his profound knowledge of sacred and profane
antiquity. In treating of the expiatory sacrifices of the Pagans, he
examines with great depth of learning the custom of sacrificing men,
which obtained in all nations.
Grotius's enemies were very active in depreciating the merit of this
work. Herman Ravespenger, Professor at Groningen, attacked it with so
much rudeness, that Balthasar Lydius, who, however, was not of the
Arminian party, told him his criticism was wretched, and he was ready to
answer it. The Gomarists, far from recovering from their prejudices,
took occasion from the book of the Satisfaction of Christ to accuse the
author of Semi-pelagianism. He did not think it worth while to defend
himself against an anonymous author[125], because in his book of the
Piety of the States of Holland he had spoken of Semi-pelagianism as a
very grievous error. Afterwards he enquired in an express treatise,
whether the Arminians were Pelagians, and fully cleared them of teaching
that heresy.
It was during these contests, that he collected _The sentiments of the
Greeks and Romans on fate and man's power_. He translated all that he
found in the Ancients on this subject; and first published it at Paris
in 1624.
FOOTNOTES:
[109] Le Clerc Hist. lib. 9. p. 71.
[110] Du Maurier.
[111] Grotii manes, p. 208.
[112] Ep. 196.
[113] Præst. Vir. Epist. p. 655.
[114] Grotii manes, p. 230.
[115] Ibid. p. 204. He compared Grotius to Moses, Observat. Hallens. 15.
l. 7. p. 336.
[116] Ep. 720 p. 670.
[117] He wrote also some lines on the chest, in which Grotius was
confined.
[118] Burman's Collection of Letters, let. 211.
[119] Ep. 925.
[120] Ep. 1.
[121] Ep. Utengobardi. Præst. Vir. Ep. p. 383.
[122] It is printed among his theological works.
[123] See above, § IV.
[124] L'Abbé Longlet, Catalogue des Auteurs du Droit Canenique, p. 175.
[125] Ep. 19. p. 760.