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.