The Life of Hugo Grotius Part 9

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 a.s.sembly of it met on _the 57th Session_, and formally expelled the Remonstrants from the Synod.

Episcopius exclaimed, "May G.o.d 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 amba.s.sador, 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 repet.i.tion 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, p.r.o.nounced 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sert 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 s.h.i.+p-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. .h.i.therto 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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.serted 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 princ.i.p.ally 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 const.i.tution of the United Provinces, and had opposed the Prince in every measure, which appeared to have such a tendency; but he a.s.serted that he never had resorted to means which the laws or const.i.tution 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 pa.s.sed 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 amba.s.sador extraordinary to the United States, and ordered him to join Du Maurier, his amba.s.sador in ordinary, in soliciting them in favour of the accused, and in labouring to restore the public tranquillity. The amba.s.sadors 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 amba.s.sadors.

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 gla.s.s; 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 pet.i.tion to the Prince, representing the arrest as a breach of their const.i.tutional rights; the Prince referred it to the States General. To these, therefore, they presented a similar pet.i.tion; 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 pet.i.tions.

[Sidenote: CHAP. VII. 1618--1621.]

Grotius had an invaluable friend:--he was no sooner arrested, than his wife pet.i.tioned 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 p.r.o.nounced sentence against him. After enumerating all the charges, of which he was accused, and a.s.serting that all were proved against him, the judges condemned him to perpetual imprisonment, and his estates to be confiscated. The same sentence was pa.s.sed on Hoogerbetz; but the house of the latter was a.s.signed to him for his imprisonment.

On the 6th of June, Grotius was taken to Louvestein. It lies near Gorc.u.m, 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.s 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 Gorc.u.m. 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.