The Life of Hugo Grotius Part 7

Unfortunately, the Christians engaged in these ungrateful speculations: their disputes chiefly turned upon the effect, which motive, suggested by grace, or the divine favour, has upon will. Does it necessitate?

then, there is no free-will,--no merit,--no demerit. Does it not necessitate? then, in the choice of good, man acts by his own power, and thus achieves a good of which G.o.d is not the author.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

The dispute was brought to an issue by _Pelagius_ and his disciples.

They held, that man acts independently of divine grace, both in the choice and execution of good. This independence was denied by _St.

Augustin_, he a.s.serted, that man co-operates with grace, yet, that grace begins, advances and brings to perfection every thing in man, which can be justly called good. _St. Thomas of Aquin_ new-modelled the system of St. Augustin, and used new terms in describing it: his subtile distinctions, in the opinion of many, considerably improved it.

_Calvin_ aggravated the doctrine of St. Augustin. He maintained,[017]

that the everlasting condition of mankind in the future world, was determined from all eternity, by the _unchangeable order_ of the Deity; and that this _absolute_ determination of his will was the only source of _happiness or misery_ to individuals. Thus Calvin maintained, without any qualification, that G.o.d, from all eternity has doomed one part of mankind to everlasting happiness, the other to everlasting misery; and, was led to make this distinction, without regard to the merit or demerit of the object, and by no other reason or motive than his own pleasure.

_Luther_,[018] in opposition to Calvin, maintained, that the _divine decrees_ respecting the salvation or misery of men, are founded upon a previous knowledge of their sentiments and characters; or, in other words, that G.o.d, foreseeing from all eternity the faith and virtue of some, and the incredulity or wickedness of others, has reserved eternal happiness for the former, and eternal misery for the latter.

[Sidenote: Disputes on the Free-will of Man.]

These, and other doctrinal differences, separated the Protestants into the adherents to the creed of Luther, and the adherents to the creed of Calvin. The United Provinces were among the latter: the creed of Calvin was, as we have mentioned, one of the fundamental laws of the Union.

The Calvinistic doctrine, that G.o.d, from all eternity, consigns one portion of mankind, without any fault on their side, to everlasting torments, shocks our feelings, and is totally repugnant to the notions entertained by us of the goodness and justice of the Deity: it is not therefore surprising that it should be called in question. From the first, several objected to it; but it was not till the successes of the United Provinces appeared to afford them a near prospect of triumph, that the opposers of Calvin's doctrine formed themselves into a party, and occasioned a public sensation.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

The celebrated JAMES ARMINIUS[019] was at their head. He was born in 1560, at Oudewater in Holland, of respectable parents. He lost his father in his infancy, and was indebted, for the first rudiments of his education, to a clergyman, who had imbibed some opinions of the reformed religion. Under his tuition, Arminius studied, during some time, at Utrecht. After the clergyman's decease, Rudolphus Snellius, a clergyman of eminence, took Arminius under his protection, and, in 1575, placed him at Marpurgh. There, he heard of the taking of Oudewater by the Spaniards, and their ma.s.sacre of its inhabitants. His mother, sister, and two brothers were among the victims. On the first intelligence of the calamity he repaired to Oudewater, in hopes that the account of it might have been exaggerated. Finding it true, he retired to Leyden: there, his severe application to study, and the regularity of his morals, gained him universal esteem. In 1563, he was sent to Geneva, at the expense of the magistrates of Amsterdam, to perfect his studies under the care of Beza. Unfortunately, by adopting the philosophical principles, of _Ramus_, and unguardedly professing them, he displeased some leading men of the university, and was obliged to leave it: he then went to Basle. There, his reputation having preceded him, he was received with great kindness: the faculty of divinity offered him a doctor's degree; but a general wish for his return being expressed at Geneva, he declined the honour, and returned to that city. He then visited Italy, and, during some months, studied under Zabarella, a famous philosopher, who then lectured at Padua. In 1588, Arminius was ordained minister at Amsterdam.

[Sidenote: Arminius.]

Some theologians of Delft having attacked the sentiments of Calvin and Beza upon predestination, and given great offence by it, they defended themselves by a book, ent.i.tled; "An Answer to certain Arguments of Beza and Calvin, in the treatise concerning Predestination; or upon the ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans." They transmitted their defence to Martin Lydius, a partisan of the divines whom it attacked; he sent it to Arminius, with a request that he would answer it. Arminius undertook the task, and attentively examined and weighed the arguments on each side; the result was, that he embraced the opinions which he had been called upon to confute, and even went further than the ministers of Delft. Upon this account, the friends of the rejected principles raised a great clamour against him; but were quieted by the intervention of the magistrates. The opinions, which Arminius adopted, he endeavoured to propagate. They are contained in the Remonstrance of his disciples, which we shall afterwards transcribe.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

As the language of Arminius seemed to express notions, more consonant than those of Calvin, to the sentiments entertained by rational Christians, of the goodness and justice of the Deity, it is not surprising that they found many advocates among the learned and moderate; but some ardent spirits were offended by them, and instilled their dislike of them into the populace. This, Arminius was soon made to feel. In 1603, he was appointed, on the death of Francis Junius, to a professors.h.i.+p of theology in the university of Leyden: great efforts were made, first to prevent, and afterwards to procure a recision of his appointment. He was accused of having said in a sermon, that "G.o.d had not yet sent his letter of divorce to the church of Rome;" but his friends produced a work of Francis Junius, his predecessor in the theological chair, in which that celebrated theologian had used the same expression. Arminius was also accused by his adversaries, of elevating the action of reason in the choice of good, at the expense of grace. To this Arminius replied, by accusing his adversaries of sacrificing reason entirely to grace. But the greater number of the enemies of Arminius supported their charges against him, by making it a question of authority: "the States," they said, "had decided the question, by adopting Calvin's doctrine at the union; so that the gainsayers of it were guilty of treason." The friends of Arminius replied, that he did not deny Calvin's doctrine, but merely explained it.

[Sidenote: Arminius.]

Thus they disputed;

"And found no end, in wandering mazes lost."

Milton.

In fact, the subject,--as the writer has more than once observed,--is above human reason: the day will come, "when the Almighty will be judged, and will overcome;"--when the secret of his councils will be unfolded, and their justice and goodness made manifest to all.[020]

The friends of Arminius also observed, that he was by no means singular in his doctrine; that it was favoured by professors in Gueldres, Friesland, Utrecht, and other parts of Holland; and, that in all the provinces, it was patronized by the higher ranks of the laity. Was it fitting, they asked, that the peace of the church, and the tranquillity of the state, should be disturbed by such a dispute? by a dispute which affected no essential article of christianity; no civil, no moral, no religious observation?

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

The princ.i.p.al adversary of Arminius was _Gomarus_, also a professor of theology at Leyden. When the election of Arminius was proposed, Gomarus announced suspicions of his orthodoxy; he afterwards raised his tone, and accused Arminius of Pelagianism, of secretly inclining to the church of Rome, and holding principles which led to general scepticism and infidelity.

Arminius died on the 19th October 1609.

Grotius made his eulogium in verse. He had hitherto applied little to these matters; he acknowledges, in a letter written in 1609, his general ignorance of them. Entering afterwards into the dispute, he became convinced that the idea, which we ought to have of the goodness and justice of G.o.d, and even the language of the scriptures and the early fathers of the church, favoured the system of Arminius, and contradicted that of Gomarus.

The prejudices against the Arminians increasing, they drew up a Remonstrance, dated the 14th January 1610, and addressed it to the States of Holland. It begins by stating what they do not believe: it afterwards propounds their own sentiments in the five articles following:[021]

[Sidenote: Remonstrance.]

1. "That G.o.d, by an eternal and immutable decree in Jesus Christ his son, before the world was created, resolved to save in Jesus Christ, on account of Jesus Christ, and through Jesus Christ, those, from among mankind fallen in sin, who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in his same son Jesus; and through the same grace continue in the faith and obedience to the end; and, on the contrary, to leave under sin, and wrath, and to condemn the obstinate and unbelieving, as having no part in Christ; according to what is said _St. John_ iii. 36.

2. "That accordingly, Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world, died for all and every man; and by his death on the cross has merited for all, reconciliation with G.o.d, and remission of sin; in such manner nevertheless, that no one can partake of them but believers, according to the words of Jesus, _St. John_ iii. 16., 1 _John_ ii.

2.

3. "That man hath not saving faith of himself, and by the strength of his own free will; since, while in a state of sin and apostasy, he cannot of himself think, desire, or do, that which is truly good, which is what is chiefly meant by saving faith; but it is necessary that G.o.d in Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Spirit, regenerate and renew him in his understanding and affections, or in his will and all his powers; that he may know the true good, meditate on it, desire, and do it. _St. John_ xv. 5.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

4. "That to this grace of G.o.d is owing the beginning, the progression, and accomplishment of all good; in such manner, that even the regenerate, without this antecedent, or preventing, exciting, concomitant, and cooperating grace, cannot think that, which is good, desire or practise it; nor resist any temptation to evil; so that all the good works or actions he can conceive, spring from the grace of G.o.d; that as to what regards the manner of operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is said of several, they resisted the Holy Spirit. See _Acts_ vii. and other places.

5. "That those, who by a lively faith are engrafted into Christ, and consequently made partakers of his quickening spirit, are furnished with sufficient strength to be able to combat, and even overcome Satan, sin, the world, and their own l.u.s.ts; and all this, as is carefully to be observed, by the a.s.sistance of the grace and the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ succours them by his spirit in all temptations, reaches to them his hand, (provided they be willing to engage, ask his a.s.sistance, and are not wanting to themselves,) supports and strengthens them: so, that they cannot be led away by any wile or violence of Satan, or s.n.a.t.c.hed out of Christ's hands, as he says himself, _St. John_ x. _My sheep shall no man pluck out of my hands_. For the rest, if it be asked whether these may not through negligence let go the confidence they had from the beginning, (Heb. iii. 6.) cleave again to the present world, depart from the holy doctrine, which was delivered, make s.h.i.+pwreck of a good conscience? (2 Pet. i. 10., Jude iii., 1 Tim.

i. 19., Heb. xii. 15.) This must be previously examined with more care, by the Scriptures, to be able to teach it with full a.s.surance to others."

Such is the Confession of Faith of the Arminians: they gave it the name of _Remonstrance_; and were styled from it REMONSTRANTS. It was drawn up by _Utengobard_, minister at the Hague, with the help, it is supposed, of Grotius: it was signed by forty-six ministers.

[Sidenote: Contra-Remonstrance.]

The Gomarists opposed to it a _Contra-Remonstrance_; which gave them the name of the CONTRA-REMONSTRANTS.

It was about this time, that Grotius was elected Pensionary of Rotterdam, and ordered to England: it has been suggested, that he had secret instructions from the Arminians, to induce king James to favour their principles.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

We are informed, by Mr. Nichols, (_Calvinism and Arminianism compared_,)[022] that the Arminians sent to King James by Grotius, a true state of their case; that Grotius found an adversary in _Archbishop Abbott_, and friends in _Bishops Andrews_ and _Overal_; and that by their advice the monarch addressed to the States General, a wise and conciliatory letter.

The irritation of the public mind increasing, the States of Holland, to restore tranquillity, published an edict of Pacification, by which they strongly enjoined forbearance, toleration, and silence. This was favourable to the Arminians, but it increased the violence of the _Contra-remonstrants_. Thus, it became a signal of war. The States of Holland transmitted it to King James: his Majesty, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the other English prelates, allowed its doctrine to be orthodox.

[Sidenote: Remonstrants--Contra-Remonstrants.]

Still, the troubles in Holland augmented: riots took place and greater riots were apprehended. In an evil hour, Barneveldt, the Grand-Pensionary, proposed to the States of Holland, that the magistrates of the cities of that province should he empowered to raise troops for the suppression of the rioters. Amsterdam, Dort, and other towns, that favoured the Gomarists, protested against this measure, styling it a declaration of war against the Contra-remonstrants. Yet, on the 4th August 1617, Barneveldt's proposition was agreed to, and promulgated.

We have mentioned the enmity of Prince Maurice to Barneveldt, on account of his having promoted the armistice of 1609, and his favouring the republican party. The Prince professed to consider the edict of Pacification as derogatory of his authority, and forbade the soldiers to obey the States, if they should be ordered to act against the rioters.

He publicly declared, that he favoured the Gomarists; he a.s.sisted, at the divine service, in their churches only, and shewed them every other mark of public favour. Exulting in this powerful support, the Gomarists separated themselves, formally, from the Arminians.

[Sidenote: CHAP. V. 1610-1617.]

To bring over Amsterdam to their sentiments, the States of Holland sent a deputation to the burgomasters of that city, and placed Grotius at its head. On the day after their arrival in Amsterdam, the burgomasters a.s.sembled to receive the deputies. Grotius addressed them in an argumentative and eloquent speech. He urged the necessity and advantage of religious toleration, particularly upon theoretical points of doctrine. He observed to the a.s.sembly, that Bullinger and Melancthon had been tolerated by Deza and Calvin; that James, the King of Great Britain, had advanced, in his writings, that each of the two opposite opinions on Predestination might be maintained without danger of reprobation; that Gomarus himself had declared that Arminius had not erred in any fundamental article of Christian doctrine; that the contested articles were of a very abstruse nature; that the affirmative or negative of the doctrines expressed in them, had not been determined; and that toleration would restore tranquillity and union, and favour the a.s.sembling of a numerous and respectable synod, which might labour with success in restoring peace to the church.

Grotius delivered his speech in the Dutch language; it was afterwards translated into Latin; all, who heard, admired it; but it produced no effect on them. The deputies were uncivilly dismissed; and the oration of Grotius, by an order of the States General, was suppressed.[023]

[Sidenote: Feuds of the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.]

He was much affected by the bad success of his mission: he was seized with a fever, which nearly proved fatal to him. Many of his friends sought to persuade him to retire from the contest: he told them that he had taken his resolution after deep deliberation; that he was aware of his danger, and that he submitted the event to providence.