The Life of Hugo Grotius written by Charles Butler
C >>
Charles Butler >> The Life of Hugo Grotius
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14
[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.
CHAPTER VI.
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 haereticis 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_.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14