THE SYNOD OF DORT.
1618.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VI. 1618.]
The States General determined that the Synod[024] should be composed of
twenty-six divines of the United Provinces, twenty-eight foreign
divines, five professors of divinity, and sixteen laymen;--seventy-five
members in the whole. The expence was calculated at 100,000 florins. The
English divines were, Dr. George Carlton, Bishop of Llandaff; Dr. Joseph
Hall, Dean of Worcester; John Davenant, professor of divinity, and
Master of Queen's college, Cambridge; Samuel Ward, Archdeacon of
Taunton, and head of Sidney college, Cambridge. To these were added,
Walter Balcanqual, a Scottish theologian, as representative of the
Scottish churches. The ever-memorable John Hales of Eaton, as that
learned and amiable person is justly termed by protestant writers, was
permitted to attend the debates of the Synod, but was not allowed to
speak, or take any part in its proceedings.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
We have mentioned that Arminius was converted to the opinions, which he
defended afterwards so strenuously, by the perusal of a work in support
of the opposite doctrine, which he had been desired to confute. In the
same manner, the proceedings of the Contra-Remonstrants, at the Synod of
Dort, made Mr. Hales a Remonstrant. We are informed by his friend Mr.
Faringdon, that, in his younger days, he was a Calvinist; but that some
explanations given by Episcopius of the text in John iii. 16, induced
him, as he himself said, to "bid John Calvin, Good Night." His letters
from Dort to Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague,
contain an interesting account of the proceedings of the assembly.[025]
[Sidenote: CHAP. VI. 1618.]
Dr. Heylin says, in his "Quinquarticular History," that the theologians
sent by King James to Dort, were inclined to condemn the Remonstrants;
but he intimates that the monarch acted from reasons of state; and that
he was more hostile to their persons than their doctrines: Brand makes
the same remark upon Prince Maurice. It seems to be admitted, that, in
the conference at Hampton Court, King James declared against absolute
predestination.[026]
The English divines arrived at the Hague on the 5th November 1618: they
were immediately presented to the States General, and most honourably
received.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
The King of France had permitted two Protestant theologians of his
kingdom to attend the Synod; but afterwards revoked the permission. The
French Protestant churches had deputed to it, the celebrated Peter de
Moulin and Andrew Rivet; but the King prohibited their attending it,
under severe penalties.
After the election of the members was finally adjusted, the Synod
appeared to be composed of about seventy Contra-Remonstrants and
fourteen Arminians.
It was opened on the 13th of November 1618. Two commissioners of the
States placed themselves on the right side of the chimney of the room;
the English divines were placed on the left; seats were kept vacant for
the French; the third place was assigned to the deputies from the
Palatinate; the fourth, to those from Hesse; the fifth, to the Swiss;
the sixth to the Genevans; the seventh to the theologians from Bremen;
and the eighth to those from Embden. The professors of theology were
placed immediately after the commissioners; then, the ministers and
elders of the country. By an arrangement, favoured by the States,
thirty-six ministers and twenty elders were added to the five
professors. Of this the Remonstrants complained, on the just ground,
that it evidently gave their adversaries an undue preponderance.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VI. 1618.]
The commissioners nominated the celebrated Daniel Heinsius secretary.
The Remonstrants objected to him; they admitted his extensive
acquaintance with polite literature, and his elegant taste; but
asserted, that he possessed no theological learning, and was prejudiced
against them. Episcopius was always considered to be at the head of the
Remonstrants: he has seldom been excelled in learning, eloquence, or
power of argumentation.
No further business than arranging the forms of sitting and voting, was
transacted at the _first session_ of the Synod. _At the second_, the
Synod constituted John Bogerman its president, and appointed two
assessors and two secretaries: all five were distinguished for their
known hostility to the Remonstrants. The appointment of Bogerman
particularly offended them, as he openly avowed it to be his opinion
that heretics should be punished by death; and had translated into the
Dutch language the celebrated treatise of Beza, _de hæreticis a civili
magistratu puniendis_, in which this doctrine is explicitly maintained
in its fullest extent.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
_In the third session_,--the deputies from Geneva produced their
commission: it was expressed in terms decidedly hostile to the
Remonstrants.
_In the fourth session_,--the grand preliminary question,--in what
manner the Remonstrants were to be summoned,--came under consideration.
After much argument, it was settled, by a great majority of voices, that
"Episcopius and some other Remonstrants should within a fortnight,
appear before the Synod, as the sovereign ecclesiastical tribunal of the
United States."
The Remonstrants and the advocates of their cause protested against this
proceeding: they called in question the authority of the Synod to sit as
judges upon them, or even to decide any point of doctrine definitively:
they averred it contrary to the evangelical liberty professed and taught
by the first Reformers. Every friend to the true principles of the
reformation must admit the force of this objection.
The _5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Sessions_
of the intermediate fortnight, were consumed in debates upon a projected
new translation of the Scriptures; _the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th,
19th, 20th_ and _21st Sessions_ were employed in discussions,
upon a new catechism, and other ecclesiastical arrangements.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VI. 1618.]
The _22d Session_ was held on the 6_th_ of December. The
Remonstrants appeared before the Synod, and requested further time for
preparing their defence on the articles with which they were charged.
Their request was denied: and Episcopius having said, that "They wished
to enter into a conference with the Synod," a resolution was passed, by
which the Synod declared, that "the Remonstrants had not been cited to
_confer_ with the Synod; but to propound their opinions, and submit
to its judgment."
The Remonstrants then paid their visits to the foreign theologians:
these they found greatly prejudiced against them; they therefore
published two short writings, explaining and justifying their
sentiments.
In _the 23d Session_, Episcopius made a long discourse. Mr.
John Hales praised it highly, in a letter addressed by him to the
English ambassador An oath was prescribed to the members, by which they
promised, that, in the examination of the five articles, "or any other
points of doctrine which should be discussed, they would confine
themselves to the Scriptures, and resort to no human authority." But,
what was the Synod itself more than human authority? The oath was not
tendered to the Remonstrants; it was declined by the Swiss.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
The _24th Session_ was consumed in debates: _on the 25th_,
Episcopius read a long document, and afterwards presented it to the
Synod. He protested in it against the authority of the Synod, and asked
the searching question, whether the Calvinists would "submit to a Synod
of Lutherans?" To this question, no answer was given: an angry
discussion followed.
It continued during _the 27th and 28th Sessions_.
On _the 29th_, the opinions of foreign divines were produced in
favour of the authority of the Synod: those of the English divines, and
the divines of Bremen, were expressed with more moderation than the
others. The divines of Geneva stated, that, "if a person obstinately
refused to submit to the just decisions of the church, he might be
proceeded against in two ways; the _magistrate_ might coerce him,
and the _church_ might publicly excommunicate him as a violator of
the law of God."
The dispute was more violent in _the 30th Session_.
Finally, the Remonstrants agreed to propound their sentiments in
writing; but with an express salvo, of their right to liberty of
conscience, and to retain their objections to the authority of the
Synod.
In _the 31st Session_, the Remonstrants presented to the
Synod a writing, containing their sentiments upon Predestination,--the
first and most important of the five articles.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VI. 1618.]
In _the 34th Session_, they presented their sentiments upon the
four other articles; and in _the 39th Session_, upon the Catechism
of Heidelberg. The Synod had enjoined them to confine themselves to
explanations of their own doctrine, and to abstain from controverting
the doctrines of the Calvinists. These debates carried the Synod to its
_46th Session_.
In that session, the resolution of the States General upon the
proceedings of the Synod was produced. They declared by it, that "the
Remonstrants were obliged to submit to the decrees of the Synod,"--and
that "if they persisted in their disobedience to them, both the censures
of the church, and the penalties by which the States punished violators
of public authority, should be inflicted upon them." The States ordered
the Remonstrants to remain, in the meantime, in the town.
The Remonstrants persisting in their refusal to acknowledge the
authority of the Synod, an assembly of it met on _the 57th
Session_, and formally expelled the Remonstrants from the Synod.
Episcopius exclaimed, "May God decide between the Synod and us!" "I
appeal," said Niellius, "from the injustice of the Synod, to the throne
of Jesus Christ." All remained firm in their protestation.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
Mr. Hales and Mr. Balcanqual, in their letters to the English
ambassador, blame the proceedings of the Synod.[027] The only question
between the Synod and the Remonstrants was, whether the latter would
submit to acknowledge the authority of the former. This, the
Remonstrants uniformly refused to do. In almost every Synod there was a
repetition of the same demand, and of the same answer. By every English
reader, the demand of the Synod will be thought exorbitant.
[Sidenote: CHAP VI. 1618.]
The Synod relaxed afterwards so far, as to permit the Remonstrants to
deliver their sentiments in writing: they did it at great length. But
they still persisted in objecting to the authority of the Synod, and to
be examined by it. The Synod therefore proceeded against them in their
absence; and ultimately, on the 24th of April 1610, pronounced them
guilty of pestilential errors, and corruptors of the true religion. The
five articles were formally condemned; Episcopius and the other
ministers were deposed.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
"There are conclusions," says Grotius,[028] in a letter written by him
in the same year, "in the canons of the Synod of Dort, of which, if good
Melancthon were again to make his appearance, he would express his
disapprobation, and with which Bullinger would be no less grieved; there
are others, which alienate all the Lutherans from the Calvinists;
although amity and concord are desirable between them and us at this
juncture. There are some points in them, which forbid the Greek churches
from uniting with us, though they are very favourable to us; but there
are others of the Dort canons, which admit of no controversy.--It is
possible that they may recall to mind my labours for unity. Even those
writings, which I published since my calamity, have not been diverted
from the same peaceful object." If ever any Protestant divines deserved
the reproach cast by Mr. Gibbon,[029] on the first reformers in general,
"of being ambitious to succeed the tyrants whom they had dethroned,"
they were the members of the Synod of Dort.
The Synod was closed on the 29th of May.
The sentence passed by it on the Remonstrants was approved by the States
General on the 3d July 1619. On the same day, the Arminian ministers,
who had been detained at Dort, were, by a sentence of the States
General, banished or imprisoned, deprived of their employments, and the
effects of some were confiscated. Similar severities were exercised on
the Arminians in most of the territories subject to the States General.
To avoid the persecution, some fled to Antwerp, some to France, the
greater part to Holstein. There, under the wise protection of the
reigning duke, they settled, and afterwards built a town, which from him
they called Friedericstadt.
They continued to assert the irregularity of the Synod: the Bishop of
Meaux shrewdly observed, that "they employed against the authority of
the Synod, the same arguments as the Protestants use against the
authority of the Council of Trent."
[Sidenote: CHAP VI. 1618.]
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
For the publication of _Acts of the Council_, divines were chosen
out of various districts of the United Provinces: their edition of the
Acts was published at Dort in the year 1620, in folio, in the types of
the Elzevirs; and was soon afterwards republished with greater
correctness, in the same year, at Hanover, in quarto, with an addition
of a copious index.--An Epistle of their High Mightinesses the States
General, addressed to the Monarchs, Kings, Princes, Counts, Cities and
Magistrates of the Christian world, and vouching for the authority and
authenticity of the Acts,[030] is prefixed to this edition. The
Remonstrants published an edition of the Acts in 1620, in 4to.: it is
said,[031] that from a fear of their adversaries, it was printed on
ship-board.
Here, the history of the Arminians, so far as it is connected with that
part of the Life of Grotius to which our subject has hitherto led us,
seems to close. We shall hereafter be called upon to resume it.