not what pretence'. The cause of the Arminians could not be brought before a civil tribunal, because their alleged offence was such as is here stated, will not be denied at the present day, when the times of excitement have gone by, even by the patrons of Calvinistic sentiments, who are ingenuous. And they may grant this without injury to their cause. For if their ancestors, (though I wish neither to deny nor to affirm the fact,) while guarding and defending their religious opinions, either from the customs of the age, or from the ebullitions of passion, were not so considerate and provident as they should have been, no candid and wise man will thence infer, that these their sons are bad men, or their cause an iniquitous one. Because it is well known, that many bad things are often done by men by no means bad, and that a good cause is often defended in an unjustifiable manner. For illustration and confirmation of the facts here concisely stated, the best authorities, in addition to those already mentioned, are John le Clerc, in his Historia Provinciarum Belgii Foederati, and his Bibliothèque Choisi, tom. ii. p. 134, &c. and Hugo Grotius, in his Apologeticum eorum, qui Hollandia, Westfrisiæque et ricinis quibusdam nationibus ex legibus præfuerunt ante mutationem quæ evenit, A. D. 1618. Paris, 1640. 12mo. and often republished. The Life of John van Oldenbarnevelt, written in Dutch, was printed at the Hague, 1648. 4to. A history of the trial of the three celebrated Dutchmen above named, was elegantly compiled from authentic documents, by Gerhard Brandt, entitled, Historie can de Rechtspleginge gehouden in den Jaaren, 1618 et 1619, omtrent de drie gevangene Heeren Johann van Oldenbarneveld, Rombout Hoogerbeets, Hugo de Groot; of which I have before me the third edition, with notes, Rotterdam, 1723. 4to. This whole subject receives also much light from the history of the life and actions of Hugo Grotius, very carefully compiled, chiefly from unpublished papers, by Caspar Brandt and Adrian Cattenberg. This great and noble work was published in two large volumes, entitled, Historie van het Leven des Heeren Huig de Groot VOL. IV. beschreven tot den Anfang van zyn Gesandschap wegens de Koninginne en Kroone van Zweden aan't Hof can Vranckryck, door Casp. Brandt, en cervolgt tot zyn Doodt door Adrian van Cattenburgh, Dordrecht en Amsterd. 1727. 2 vols. folio. Those who wish to get a near view and full knowledge of this great man, must by all means consult this great work. For all the other accounts of his life that are extant are insipid and unanimated, presenting only a shadow of this great hero. Nor is the most recent Life of Grotius, in French, by Burigny, (republished, from the Paris edition, in Holland, 1753. 2 vols. 8vo.) much better: at least it does not satisfy one who is desirous of a thorough knowledge of the transactions. ["There appeared in Holland a warm vindication of the memory of this great man, in a work published at Delft in 1727, and entitled, Grotii Manes ab iniquis Obtrectationibus vindicati; accedit Scriptorum ejus, tum editorum tum ineditorum, Conspectus triplex. See the following note." Macl.] 9 ["Dr. Mosheim, however impartial, seems to have consulted more the authors of one side than of the other; probably because they are more numerous and more universally known. When he published this history, the world was not favoured with the Letters, Memoirs, and Negotiations of Sir Dudley Carleton; which Lord Royston (now Earl of Hardwick) drew forth some years ago from his inestimable treasure of historical manuscripts, and presented to the public, or rather at first to a select number of persons, to whom he distributed a small number of copies of these Negotiations, printed at his own expense. They were soon translated both into Dutch and French; and though it cannot be affirmed that the spirit of party is no where discoverable in them, yet they contain anecdotes with respect both to Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius, that the Arminians and the other patrons of these two great men have been studious to conceal. These anecdotes, though they may not be at all sufficient to justify Y was not against the laws but the religion of the country. To procure their condemnation, therefore, a more religious tribunal, or a council, must be called; agreeably to the practice of the Genevans, who think all spiritual matters and controversies should be decided in ecclesiastical councils. § 6. Without delay, delegates were assembled, at the instance of Maurice', at Dort, a city in Holland, from the United Provinces, and from Hesse, England, the Palatinate, Bremen, and Switzerland; who held, in the years 1618 and 1619, what is called the Synod of Dort. Before it appeared to defend their cause the leading men of the Arminian sect; at the head of whom, and their chief orator, was Simon Episcopius, a disciple of Arminius, and professor of theology at Leyden; a man distinguished, as his enemies admit, for acuteness, learning, and fluency. But scarcely had Episcopius saluted the judges in a grave and eloquent address, when difficulties arose to interrupt the whole impending discussion. The Arminians wished to commence the defence of their cause by attacking the sentiments of their adversaries the Calvinists: this the judges disapproved, deciding that the accused must first explain and prove their own doctrines, before they proceeded to confute those who differed from them. Perhaps the Arminians hoped, that a full exposure of the odious consequences they could attach to the Calvinistic doctrine, would enkindle in the minds of the people present a hatred of it; while the Calvinists feared, lest the mighty genius and fine eloquence of Episcopius might injure their cause in the view of the multitude 2. As the severities exercised against these eminent men, would, however, have prevented Dr. Mosheim from saying, that he knew not under what pretext they were arrested." Macl.- Mosheim's Latin is, "criminum nescio quorum nomine;" which Schlegel here understands to mean, upon some unimportant charges. Tr.] 1 ["Our author always forgets to mention the order issued out by the States General, for the convocation of this famous synod; and by his manner of expressing himself, and particularly by the phrase Mauritio auctore, would seem to insinuate that it was by the prince that this assembly was called together. The legitimacy of the manner of convoking this synod was questioned by Oldenbarnevelt, who maintained that the States General had no sort of authority in matters of religion, not even the power of assembling a synod; affirming that this was an act of sovereignty that belonged to each province separately and respectively." See Carleton's Letters, &c. Mac.] 2 [Perhaps also another reason why both parties were so stiff on this point was, that the members of the synod were not themselves of one mind in regard to the doctrine of predestina the Arminians could by no means be persuaded to comply with the wishes of the synod, they were dismissed from the council, and complained that they had been treated unjustly, But the judges, after examining their published writings, pronounced them, though absent and unheard, guilty of corrupting theology, and holding pestilential errors: and it was coincident with this sentence, that they should be excluded from the communion of the church, and be deprived of authority to teach. That there was fault on both sides in this matter, no candid and good man will deny: but which party was most in the wrong, this is not the place to decide". § 7. We cannot here discuss either the purity and virtues, or the iniquity and faults of the fathers at Dort. In extolling the former, the Calvinists, and in exaggerating the latter, the Arminians- -if I do not misjudge are over zealous and That among the judges of the Arminians, there were active'. tion; for some of them were Supralapsarians, and others Infralapsarians: and in general, the doctrine of reprobation presented so many difficult points, that the members of the synod deemed it advisable to prescribe to the Remonstrants the mode of confutation and defence, and thus to retain in their own hands the direction of the whole discussion: while the Remonstrants hoped, perhaps, that the diversity of opinion among the members of the synod would prove advantageous to them, if they could have liberty to expatiate widely on the doctrine of reprobation, and divide somewhat the votes of the judges. This is no improbable conjecture of Van Wagenaer, in his Geschichte de Vereinigten Niederlande, vol. iv. p. 451. Schl.] 3 The writers on the council of Dort are enumerated by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Biblioth. Græca, vol. xi. p. 723. The most copious of them all is Gerhard Brandt, in his History of the Reformation in the Netherlands, vol. ii. and iii. But as he was himself an Arminian; with his narration should be compared the work of James Leydecker, in which the purity and integrity of the synod of Dort are vindicated, in answer to Brandt: Eere can de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht Voorgestaan en Bevestigd tegen de Beschuldingen van G. Brandt, vol. i. Amster. 1705. vol. ii. 1707. 4to. After formally comparing them, I did not find any very enormous errors in Brandt nor do these two writers disagree so much about the facts, as about the causes and import of the facts. John Hales, an Englishman, who belonged to neither party, has related simply what he saw; and his Letters, written from the scene of this council, I myself published some time ago, with notes, Hamburg, 1724. 8vo. [He was chaplain to the English ambassador at the Hague, Sir Dudley Carleton, and was king James's secret envoy, sent to watch the movements of the synod. His letters, addressed to Carleton, were published under the title of the Golden Remains of the ever memorable John Hales of Eton College, 1659. 4to. Dr. Mosheim translated them into Latin, prefixed a long preface, and added some notes. Tr.] 4 All that the Arminians deemed faulty in this council, they collected in a concise and neatly written book, frequently printed: Nulliteyten, Mishandelinghen, end onbyllicke Proceduren des nationalen Synodi ghehouden binnen Dordrecht, anno 1618, 1619, in't korte ende rouwe afgheworpen, 1619. 4to. men who were not only learned, but also honest and religious, who acted in great sincerity, and who had no suspicion that they were doing any thing wrong, is not to be doubted at all. On the other hand, these facts are too clear and obvious to escape the sight of any one :-I. That the destruction of the Arminian sect was determined upon before the council was called'; and that these fathers were called together, not to inquire whether this sect might be tolerated or not, but to promulge a sentence long before passed, with some becoming formality, with the appearance of justice, and with the consent of the foreign theologians.-II. That the enemies and accusers of the Arminians were their judges; and that the president of the council, John Bogermann, exceeded almost all others in 5 [Maclaine says: "This assertion is of too weighty a nature to be advanced without sufficient proof. Our author quotes no authority for it."Schlegel replies: The proofs lie in the whole progress of the events. And a man must be ignorant of the human heart, and wholly unacquainted with the history of ecclesiastical councils, not to draw the natural conclusion, from what preceded the council, that the condemnation of the Arminians The was already determined on, before the council was convened at Dort. election of Bogermann, who possessed the soul of an Inquisitor, to the presidency of the synod, would lead us to no other conclusion. The assessors of the president, and the scribes of the council, were known to be zealous Contra-Remonstrants. And so early as the year 1617, in the month of July, the Contra-Remonstrants declared, at the Hague," that they regarded the Remonstrants, and those who embraced the sentiments of the Remonstrants, to be false teachers (pro falsis doctoribus); and that they only waited for a national synod, of which there then appeared to be a bright prospect, so that in it there might be made a legitimate secession from the Remonstrants, which should be put in execution after an ecclesiastical trial. See Phil, a Limborch's Relatio Historica de Origine et Progressu Controversiar. in Foederato Belgio, p. 18. The provincial synods, that were held before the synod of Dort, so arranged every thing as to give the Contra-Remonstrants the upper hand. In particular, they deposed Remonstrant ministers, as e. g. Uytenbogaart, Grevinchovius, and others. And in electing ministers to attend the national synod, the Remonstrants were wholly passed by: and only from the district of Utrecht, were two Remonstrant delegates sent to Dort; and even these were excluded, as soon as the cause of the Remonstrants came on. See Limborch, loc. cit. and Wagenaer's History of the United Netherlands, (in German,) vol. iv. p. 446, &c. Thus far Schlegel.-Undoubtedly, nearly or quite every minister in Holland had an opinion formed, with regard to the correctness of the doctrines of the Remonstrants, and the propriety of permitting their propagation. It could not be otherwise, as these opinions had been preached and published, abundantly, for ten years, and had been the great theme of discussion among theologians. In such circumstances, to be ignorant of the Arminian doctrines, or to have no opinion concerning them, would have been altogether unbecoming in a clergyman. It was therefore a thing of course, and no reproach upon their characters, that the divines at Dort should come together with opinions already made up, on the theological questions they were to discuss. Tr.] 6 [Bogermann was minister of Leeuwarden, an avowed enemy of the Arminians, who had already written against them, and who was so full of the persecuting spirit of Beza, that he hatred of this sect.-III. That neither the Dutch nor the foreign divines had liberty to decide according to their own pleasure, but were obliged to decide according to the instructions which they brought with them from their princes and magistrates'.-IV. That, in the council itself, the voice of the illustrious and very honourable men who appeared as the legates of Maurice and the States-General, had more influence than that of the theologians who sat as the judges.-V. That the promise made to the Arminians when summoned before the council, that they should have liberty to state, explain, and defend their opinions as far as they were able, and deemed it necessary, was violated by the council". § 8. The Arminians, being adjudged enemies of their country and of religion, were subjected to severe animadversion. First, they were all deprived both of their sacred and their civil offices; and then, their preachers were ordered to refrain from had translated into Dutch Beza's book, de Hæreticis a Magistratu puniendis. And his whole behaviour at the synod, showed that he was better qualified to be the papal legate at a council of Trent than the moderator of a Protestant synod. Schl.-Bogermann was doubtless too zealous, and in several instances, too severe and passionate in his speeches. But his intolerant spirit was the spirit of the age. Christian forbearance and tenderness towards the erring was then no where well understood and duly practised. Tr.] 7 ["Here our author has fallen into a palpable mistake. The Dutch divines had no commission, but from their respective consistories, or subordinate ecclesiastical assemblies; nor are they ever the depositaries of the orders of their magistrates, who have lay deputies to represent them both in provincial and national synods. As to the English and other foreign doctors that appeared in the synod of Dort, the case perhaps may have been somewhat different." Macl.] 8 See Mich. le Vassor's Histoire du Règne de Louis XIII., tom. iii. livr. xii. pp. 365, 366, and my notes on J. Hale's Historia Concilii Dordraceni, p. 394-400.-[The words of the promise were, "Liberum illis fore, ut pro ponant, explicent, et defendant, quantum possent et necessarium judicarent, opiniones SUAS." This promise, the Arminians contended, gave them liberty to state so many of their own doctrines, and in such an order, as they pleased; and also to state their views of the sentiments or doctrines of their opposers, and to refute them, as fully and in such a manner as they pleased. Whether this was a fair and reasonable construction of the words of the promise, and such a construction as the synod was bound to admit, the reader will judge. Yet it was the refusal of this and the requiring the Remonstrants to state and defend only their own sentiments, and to proceed in regard to them methodically, that the Remonstrants complained of, as a violation of the promise made them. See the Remonstrants' views of a proper council, presented to the Synod, December 10th; the decree of the Synod of the 29th Dec., and the Synod's explanation of it, December 29; and also the communication of the Remonstrants to the Synod, on the 21st of January; all which documents are given by the Remonstrants themselves, in their Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena, pt. i. pp. 4, &c. 140, &c. 159, &c. Tr.] |