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
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.
CHAPTER VII.
TRIAL AND IMPRISONMENT OF GROTIUS. HIS ESCAPE FROM PRISON.
1618-1621.
While the Synod of Dort continued its sittings, Prince Maurice and his
party were actively employed in increasing the popular ferment against
Barneveldt, Grotius and Hoogerbetz; in collecting evidence of the
designs and practices of which they were accused, and in framing the
legal proceedings against them in such a manner as was most likely both
to procure their conviction, and to persuade the public of their guilt.
We have mentioned that their confinement took place on the 20th of
August 1618, and that they were removed from the Hague, the original
place of their imprisonment, to the Castle of Louvestein. On the 19th
November, the States General, at the instigation of Prince Maurice,
nominated twenty-six commissioners for their trial. All the prisoners
objected both to the jurisdiction of the commissioners, and to that of
the States General; and asserted that the States of Holland were their
only competent judges. They observed, at the same time, that many of the
judges were notoriously prejudiced against the Arminians.
[Sidenote: Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.]
The act of accusation contained many general charges, and many averments
of particular facts, supposed to substantiate them. It was alleged
against the prisoners, that they had disturbed the established religion
of the United Provinces; that, in direct contradiction of the articles
of union, they had asserted the right of each province to decide for
itself in matters of religion; that they had set up the authority and
interests of the States of Holland and West Friesland against those of
the States General; that they were the authors of the Insurrection at
Utrecht; had levied, in opposition to the orders of government, the
attendant soldiers; had raised jealousies between the Prince and several
of the Provincial States, and between these and the States General; and
that, by their habitual conduct, they had become public disturbers of
the tranquillity of the republic, and councillors and practisers of
schemes hostile to its welfare.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VII. 1618-1621.]
The Commissioners proceeded to the trial of Barneveldt. Uniformly
protesting against the competency of the tribunal, Barneveldt defended
himself with great firmness and ability. He controverted every article
of the accusation, and concluded his defence, by a long and pathetic
enumeration of the services, which he had rendered to the republic; and
of the numerous actions, by which he had shewn his attachment to Prince
William and Prince Maurice:--he proved that it had been principally
owing to him, that the Stadtholderate had been conferred on the latter.
He admitted that he had suspected the Prince of designs hostile to the
constitution of the United Provinces, and had opposed the Prince in
every measure, which appeared to have such a tendency; but he asserted
that he never had resorted to means which the laws or constitution of
the Provinces did not warrant. His arguments were unanswerable; but
Prince Maurice was determined on his ruin; and the Commissioners were
wholly subservient to the prince's views: they accordingly passed
unanimously a sentence of death upon Barneveldt.
[Sidenote: Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.]
Many of the princes of Europe expressed their dissatisfaction at these
proceedings: none so much as the French monarch. To him, the great merit
of Barneveldt had been long known. He considered that the conduct of
Prince Maurice was likely to involve the United Provinces in troubles,
of which Spain might take advantages. From personal regard to
Barneveldt, and with a view of terminating the discord, the monarch sent
an ambassador extraordinary to the United States, and ordered him to
join Du Maurier, his ambassador in ordinary, in soliciting them in
favour of the accused, and in labouring to restore the public
tranquillity. The ambassadors executed their commission with the
greatest zeal. They made many remonstrances, and had several audiences
both with the States and the Prince. The States, instigated by the
Prince, expressed great indignation at the proceedings of the
ambassadors.
All the accused were respectably allied, and had many friends: numerous
applications were made in their favour. They undeviatingly demeaned
themselves with the firmness and modest dignity of conscious innocence.
They persisted in denying the guilt attributed to them, and in
protesting against the competency of the tribunal. They made no
degrading submission. At a subsequent time, a son of Barneveldt having
been condemned to death, his mother applied to Prince Maurice, for his
pardon. The Prince observed to her, that she had made no such
application in behalf of her husband; "No," she replied, "I know my son
is guilty, I therefore solicit his pardon; I knew my husband was
innocent, I therefore solicited no pardon for him."
[Sidenote: CHAP. VII. 1618--1621.]
On Monday morning, May 13, 1619, Barneveldt was informed that he was to
be executed upon that day. He received the notification of it with great
firmness; he inquired whether Grotius and Hoogerbetz were to suffer:
being answered in the negative, he expressed much satisfaction,
observing that "they were of an age to be still able to serve the
republic."
"The scaffold for his execution," says Burigni, "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 yet
preserved in the _Mercure Francoise_. 'Burghers!' he said, 'I have
been always your faithful countryman; believe not that I die for
treason: I die 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: many came to gather the sand wet with his blood, to keep it
carefully in phials; and the crowd 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 Prince of Orange did in the field.
It is highly probable that the melancholy end of this illustrious
and unfortunate man was owing to his steadiness in opposing the
design of making Prince Maurice Dictator."[032]
[Sidenote: Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.]
The Prince pursued his triumph. Soon after the arrest of Grotius, the
States of Holland presented a petition to the Prince, representing the
arrest as a breach of their constitutional rights; the Prince referred
it to the States General. To these, therefore, they presented a similar
petition; praying at the same time, that Grotius might be tried by the
laws and usages of the Provinces of Holland: no regard was shewn to
their petitions.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VII. 1618--1621.]
Grotius had an invaluable friend:--he was no sooner arrested, than his
wife petitioned to share his confinement throughout the whole of his
imprisonment: it was denied. Grotius fell ill: she renewed the
application: it was absolutely rejected: but neither his wife, nor any
of the friends of Grotius ever recommended to him an unworthy
submission. He always denied the competency of the tribunal appointed to
try him: his wife and brother uniformly recommended him to persist in
his plea.
Much disregard of form took place, and many arbitrary acts were
perpetrated, in the proceedings against Grotius. On the 18th of May
1619, the Commissioners pronounced sentence against him. After
enumerating all the charges, of which he was accused, and asserting that
all were proved against him, the judges condemned him to perpetual
imprisonment, and his estates to be confiscated. The same sentence was
passed on Hoogerbetz; but the house of the latter was assigned to him
for his imprisonment.
On the 6th of June, Grotius was taken to Louvestein. It lies near
Gorcum, in South Holland, at the point of the island formed by the Vaal
and the Meuse. Twenty-four sous a day were allowed for his maintenance;
but his wife undertook to support him, during his confinement, from her
own estate. She was at length admitted into prison with him, on
condition that she should remain in it, while his imprisonment lasted.
[Sidenote: Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.]
At first, his confinement was very rigid: by degrees it was relaxed: his
wife was allowed to leave the prison for a few hours, twice in every
week. He was permitted to borrow books, and to correspond, except on
politics, with his friends.
He beguiled the tedious hours of confinement by study, relieving his
mind by varying its objects. Antient and modern literature equally
engaged his attention: Sundays he wholly dedicated to prayer and the
study of theology.
Twenty months of imprisonment thus passed away. His wife now began to
devise projects for his liberty. She had observed that he was not so
strictly watched as at first; that the guards, who examined the chest
used for the conveyance of his books and linen, being accustomed to see
nothing in it but books and linen, began to examine them loosely: at
length, they permitted the chest to pass without any examination. Upon
this, she formed her project for her husband's release.
She began to carry it into execution by cultivating an intimacy with the
wife of the commandant of Gorcum. To her, she lamented Grotius's
immoderate application to study; she informed her that it had made him
seriously ill; and that, in consequence of his illness, she had resolved
to take all his books from him, and restore them to their owners. She
circulated every where the account of his illness, and finally declared
that it had confined him to his bed.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VII. 1618--1621.]
In the mean time, the chest was accommodated to her purpose; and
particularly, some holes were bored in it, to let in air. Her maid and
the valet of Grotius were entrusted with the secret. The chest was
conveyed to Grotius's apartment. She then revealed her project to him,
and, after much entreaty, prevailed on him to get into the chest, and
leave her in the prison.
The books, which Grotius borrowed, were usually sent to Gorcum; and the
chest, which contained them, passed in a boat, from the prison at
Louvestein, to that town.
[Sidenote: His Escape from Prison.]
Big with the fate of Grotius, the chest, as soon as he was enclosed in
it, was moved into the boat. One of the soldiers, observing that it was
uncommonly heavy, insisted on its being opened, and its contents
examined; but, by the address of the maid, his scruples were removed,
and the chest was lodged in the boat. The passage from Louvestein to
Gorcum took a considerable time. The length of the chest did not exceed
three feet and a half. At length, it reached Gorcum: it was intended
that it should be deposited at the house of David Bazelaer, an Arminian
friend of Grotius, who resided at Gorcum. But, when the boat reached the
shore, a difficulty arose, how the chest was to be conveyed from the
spot, upon which it was to be landed, to Bazelaer's house. This
difficulty was removed by the maid's presence of mind; she told the
bystanders, that the chest contained glass, and that it must be moved
with particular care. Two chairmen were soon found, and they carefully
moved it on a horse-chair to the appointed place.
Bazelaer sent away his servants on different errands, opened the chest,
and received his friend with open arms. Grotius declared, that while he
was in the chest, he had felt much anxiety, but had suffered no other
inconvenience. Having dressed himself as a mason, with a rule and
trowel, he went, through the back door of Bazelaer's house, accompanied
by his maid, along the market-place, to a boat engaged for the purpose.
It conveyed them to Vervie in Brabant: there, he was safe. His maid then
left him, and, returning to his wife, communicated to her the agreeable
information of the success of the enterprise.
[Sidenote: Chap. VII. 1618-1621.]
As soon as Grotius's wife ascertained that he was in perfect safety, she
informed the guards of his escape: these communicated the intelligence
to the governor. He put her into close confinement; but in a few days,
an order of the States General set her at liberty, and permitted her to
carry with her every thing at Louvestein, which belonged to her. It is
impossible to think without pleasure of the meeting of Grotius and his
heroic wife. From Vervie he proceeded to Antwerp; a few days after his
arrival in that city, he addressed a letter to the States General: he
assured them, that, in procuring his liberty, he had used neither
violence nor corruption. He solemnly protested that his public conduct
had been blameless, and that the persecution he had suffered would never
lessen his attachment to his country.
[Sidenote: His Escape from Prison.]
It was on the 22d March 1621, that Grotius obtained his liberty. In the
same year, the truce, concluded for twelve years between Spain and the
United Provinces expired: it was expected, that the war would be resumed
with more fury than ever. But this did not happen; the war of thirty
years, which we shall afterwards have occasion to mention, had mixed the
contest between Spain and the United Provinces with the general military
plans and operations of the parties engaged in it, and had carried much
of the conflict from the Low Countries into Germany. Prince Maurice
still appeared at the head of the army of the United Provinces; but he
had lost, by his persecution of the Arminians, and his selfish
intrigues, the confidence of the people. Conspiracies against his life
were formed: fortune no longer favoured his arms. His attempts to compel
the Marquis Spinola to raise the siege of Breda were unsuccessful. This
reverse of fortune preyed upon his mind. He thought himself haunted by a
spectre of Barneveldt: he was frequently heard, during his last illness,
to exclaim, "Remove this head from me!" "This anecdote," says the author
of the _Resume de l'histoire de la Hollande_, "is related by all the
republican historians of the United Provinces; it is concealed by the
flatterers of the House of Orange.... To relate the remorse of princes
for their crimes, is one of the most useful duties of historians."
Prince Maurice died in 1625.
M. Le Clerc, in the 2d volume of the _Bibliotheque Choisee, art. 3_,
shews, by unquestionable facts and irresistible arguments, that both
Prince William and Prince Maurice sought to obtain the independent
sovereignty of the United Provinces. It was the aim of all their
successors: it has been effected in our times by means, which certainly
were foreseen by none.
CHAPTER VIII.
VORSTIUS,--JAMES I.
1622.
We must now carry back our readers to events which preceded the Synod of
Dort. We have mentioned the decease of Arminius: soon after it, a
circumstance took place, which, to the exquisite delight of the monarch,
who, at that time filled the British throne, involved him in the
theological disputes of the Belgic theologians.
Not long after the commencement of the Reformation, several bold
inquirers began to deny the trinity of persons in the Deity, the divine
authority of the Old and New Testament, and the existence of mystery in
the Christian dispensation. Both Catholics and Protestants united
against them. To avoid their hostilities, the maintainers of these
opinions fled to Poland, and, forming themselves into a distinct
congregation, published, in 1574, their First Catechism. They
established congregations at Cracow, Lubin, Pinczow, Luck and Smila:
but their most flourishing settlement was at Racow.
[Sidenote: Vorstius--James I.]
They spread their doctrines over each bank of the Danube, and at length
penetrated Italy. There, they were adopted by Loelius Socinus. After
many peregrinations in different parts of Europe, he finally settled at
Zurich. Faustus Socinus, his nephew, inherited his sentiments; and, on
this account, was obliged to quit Zurich. After many wanderings, he
fixed his residence at Racow. There, he was received with open arms by
the new communion, and completed their system of theology. From him,
they derived their appellation of SOCINIANS. Their doctrine is expressed
in the Racovian catechism, published, in the Polish language, in 1605.
Other editions of it have appeared. An English translation of the
edition of 1605, was published at Amsterdam in 1652: Dr. Toulmin, in his
Life of Socinus, ascribes it, seemingly by conjecture, to Mr. John
Biddle. In 1818, Mr. Rees published a new translation of it, prefixing
to it an interesting historical preface.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VIII. 1622.]
Among the disciples of Arminius, was the celebrated CONRADE VORSTIUS,
born at Cologne in 1569, of parents in reduced circumstances: he was
soon remarked for his diligence and irreproachable conduct; and was, in
1605, appointed to a professor's chair at Steinfurth. In 1610, he
quitted it, and was named to succeed Arminius, in the chair of Professor
of Theology, at Leyden. "He was beloved and honoured," says Mr.
Chalmers, "at Steinfurth; there, he enjoyed the utmost tranquillity, and
was in the highest reputation; he doubtless foresaw, that in the state
in which the controversies of Arminius and Gomarus were at that time, he
should meet with great opposition in Holland. But he was tempted by the
glory he should gain by supporting a party, which was weakened by
Arminius's death."
[Sidenote: Vorstius--James I.]
He had previously published his Treatise "_de Deo_." Some passages
in it were thought to favour the doctrine of Arminius; some, to lead to
Socinianism; and some, to have an ulterior tendency. That Arminius
himself discovers these views in his writings, has been frequently
asserted. Doctor Maclaine, the learned translator of Mosheim's
Ecclesiastical History,[033] observes it to be a common opinion, that
"the disciples of Arminius, and more especially Episcopius, had boldly
transgressed the bounds, that had been wisely prescribed by their
master, and had gone ever to the Pelagians, and even to the Socinians."
"Such," continues Dr. Maclaine, "is the opinion commonly entertained
upon this matter. But it appears on the contrary evident to me, that
Arminius himself had laid the plan of the theological system, that was,
in after times embraced by his followers; that he had instilled the
principles of it into the minds of his disciples; and that these latter
did really no more than bring this plan to a greater degree of
perfection, and propagate with more courage and perspicuity the
doctrines it contains." To prove this assertion, the Doctor cites a
passage from the Will of Arminius, in which he declares, that "his view
in all his theological and ministerial labours, was to unite in one
community, cemented by the bonds of fraternal charity, all sects and
denominations of Christians, the papists excepted." "These words, on
this account," continues Dr. Maclaine, "coincide perfectly with the
modern system of Arminianism, which extends the limits of the christian
church, and relaxes the bonds of fraternal communion in such a manner,
that Christians of all sects and all denominations, whatever their sects
and opinions may be, (Papists excepted) may be formed into one religious
body, and live together in brotherly love and concord." It is not
surprising that in the state of religious effervescence, in which the
minds of men were at the time of which we are now speaking, a suspicion
that Vorstius entertained the sentiments we have mentioned, or
sentiments nearly approaching to them, should have rendered him a
subject of jealousy. So greatly was this the case, that the
Contra-remonstrants appealed against his doctrines to several Protestant
states, and represented to them the doctrine of Vorstius in the most
odious light. Our James I. accepted the appeal: by a royal proclamation,
he caused Vorstius's Treatise _de Deo_ to be burnt in London, and each
of the English Universities. He drew up a list, of the several heresies,
which he had discovered in it, commanded his resident at the Hague to
notify them to the States; to express his horror of them, and his
detestation of those, who should tolerate them.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 | 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14