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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution: 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 a.s.sembly, which consisted of eight persons only, yet a.s.suming to act as the States General, the Prince procured an ordonnance to be pa.s.sed, 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 amba.s.sador at the Hague, contain an interesting account of the proceedings of the a.s.sembly.[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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.serted, 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 const.i.tuted John Bogerman its president, and appointed two a.s.sessors 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 pa.s.sed, 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 amba.s.sador 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 doc.u.ment, 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 G.o.d."

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_.