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]
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.
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.
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 thefirst sessionof 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.
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.
The5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Sessionsof the intermediate fortnight, were consumed in debates upon a projected new translation of the Scriptures;the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20thand21st Sessionswere employed in discussions, upon a new catechism, and other ecclesiastical arrangements.
CHAP. VI. 1618.
The22d Sessionwas held on the 6thof 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 toconferwith 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.
Inthe 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.
The Synod of Dort.
The24th Sessionwas 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 duringthe 27th and 28th Sessions.
Onthe 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; themagistratemight coerce him, and thechurchmight publicly excommunicate him as a violator of the law of God."
The dispute was more violent inthe 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.
Inthe 31st Session, the Remonstrants presented to the Synod a writing, containing their sentiments upon Predestination,-the first and most important of the five articles.
CHAP. VI. 1618.
Inthe 34th Session, they presented their sentiments upon the four other articles; and inthe 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 its46th 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 onthe 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.
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.
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.
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."
CHAP VI. 1618.
The Synod of Dort.
For the publication ofActs 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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 theMercure Françoise. '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]
"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 theMercure Françoise. '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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Bréda 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 theResumé 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 theBibliotheque Choisée, 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.
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.
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.
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."
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 Treatisede Deoto 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.
CHAP. VIII. 1622.
Vorstius.-James I.
With some intimation of their independence, the States replied, that "the case was oftheircognizance;" that "they would examine it;" and that, "if it should appear that Vorstius maintained the doctrines imputed to him, they would not suffer him to live among them." The monarch's orthodoxy was not satisfied with this answer. He repeated his suggestions, that the States should proceed against Vorstius; and hinted, that if the doctrines should be proved against him, and if he should persist in them, burning might be a proper punishment for him. The monarch added that, if the States did not use their utmost endeavours to extirpate the rising heresy, he should publicly protest against their conduct; that, in quality of defender of the faith, he would exhort all Protestant churches to join in one general resolution to extinguish the abomination, and would, as sovereign of his own dominions, prohibit his subjects to frequent so pestilential a place as the University of Leyden. To his menaces he added the terrors of his pen, and published a "Confutation of Vorstius."
By the advice of the States, Vorstius replied to his royal adversary in a most respectful manner; still, the royal adversary was not satisfied. Finally, the States condemned the obnoxious doctrines of Vorstius, divested him of all his offices; and sentenced him to perpetual banishment. Vorstius remained concealed during two years; then found an asylum in the dominions of the Duke of Holstein, who, as we have mentioned, took the remains of the Arminians into his protection.
Vorstius died in 1622.
GROTIUS AFTER HIS ESCAPE FROM PRISON, TILL HIS APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADOR FROM SWEDEN TO THE COURT OF FRANCE.
1621-1634.
Soon after the escape of Grotius from prison, he repaired to Paris: in this, he followed the advice of Du Maurier, the French ambassador at the Hague. His works had made him known in every part of Europe, in which learning was cultivated: but persons properly qualified to appreciate their merit, existed no where in such abundance as at Paris: he was personally esteemed and regarded by the monarch; and the principal officers of state were attached to him. Paris was also recommended to him by its libraries, the easy access to them, and the habitual intercourse of the men of letters, who, during, at least, a great part of the year, made that city their place of residence.
From the Escape of Grotius till his appointment of Ambassador.
Grotius arrived at Paris on the 13th of April 1621. He was immediately noticed by a multitude of persons of distinction and rank; but it was not till March 1622, that he was presented to the king. His majesty received him graciously, and settled upon him a pension of 3,000 livres. The Prince of Condé, the Chancellor, and the Keeper of the Seals, had exerted themselves to dispose the king in his favour. His majesty professed kindness towards those, who had been persecuted by the States; and issued an edict, dated the 22d April 1622, by which he took them under his protection, in the same manner as if they were his own subjects; he even extended this benefit to their children. The celebrated President Jeannin was one of the most active and useful of Grotius's friends; but he died soon after Grotius arrived at Paris.
Grotius, during his stay in that city, attended frequently the courts of justice. He observed the wretched style of oratory, which at that time, prevailed in them. It was, in some measure, corrected byPatruandLe Maitre; but it did not reach its best state, till the end of the reign of Lewis XIV. The rhetorical march and laboured amplifications allowed at the French bar, are offensive to English ears. Has any nation produced a more perfect style of forensic or judicial eloquence, than that ofSir William Grant? The wisdom and justice ofLord Stowell'sdecisions, and the admirable arguments by which he explains or illustrates them, are known and acknowledged by every Court.
CHAP. IX. 1621-1634
Grotius's love of his native country continued unabated; all his views, all his hopes, were directed thither. With these feelings he wrote hisApology. He composed it in the Dutch language, and translated it afterwards into Latin: it was published in 1622. He dedicated it to the people of Holland and West Friesland. It is divided into twenty chapters; in the first, he argues the important point, that each of the United Provinces is sovereign and independent of the States General, and that the authority of these is confined to the defence of the provinces against their enemies. In the second chapter, he applies the position to ecclesiastical concerns; these, he says, are subject to the sovereign power of each State. In the following chapters, he descends into the particular charges against him; defending himself against all the crimes and irregularities of which he was accused, and shewing the informality of the judicial proceedings by which he and his companions in misfortune were tried and condemned.