Reformed doctrine of the absolute decrees | public authority to the common Helvetic of God, this principle, that whatever takes formulas of religion. It is usually called the place necessarily and unavoidably takes Formula Consensus. But this measure which place. Assuming this as true, they denied was intended to secure peace, became rather that men are by nature wicked or corrupt, the fruitful source of contentions and disand that human actions are some of them turbance. For many declared that they good and others bad. Hence they concluded could not conscientiously assent to this that men need not trouble themselves about Formula, and hence pernicious commotions a change of heart, nor be solicitous to obey arose in several places. In consequence of the divine law; that religion does not con- these, the canton of Basil and the republic sist in acting but in suffering; and that of Geneva, at the urgent solicitation of Jesus Christ inculcated this only, that we Frederick William of Brandenburg, in the patiently and cheerfully endure whatever year 1686 abrogated the Formula Conby the good pleasure of God occurs or be- sensus.3 In the other cantons, it with falls us, striving only to keep our minds difficulty retained its authority for some tranquil. Hattem in particular taught that time; but in our age, having given birth to Jesus Christ did not by his death appease the most violent quarrels, particularly in divine justice, nor expiate the sins of men; the university of Lausanne, it began to sink but that he signified to us there was nothing also in these cantons and to lose nearly all in us which could offend God, and in this its influence.1 way he made us just. These things appear to be perverse and inimical to all virtue, and yet neither of these men-unless I am wholly deceived-was so beside himself as to recommend iniquity, or to suppose that a person may safely follow his lusts. At least, the sentiment ascribed to them, that God punishes men by their sins not for them, seems to carry this import that unless a person bridles his lusts, he must suffer punishment both in this life and in that! to come; yet not by a divine infliction or by the sovereign will and pleasure of God, but by some law of nature. Both sects still exist, but they have discarded the names derived from their founders. CHAPTER III. HISTORY OF THE ARMINIANS OR REMON STRANTS. 1. FROM the bosom of the Reformed church, to its great injury, there originated in the present century two sects, the Arminians and the Quakers, the former owing its birth to an excessive regard for human 3 It must not be imagined from this expression of our historian, that this Form, entitled the Consensus, was abrogated at Basil by a positive edict. The case stood thus: Mr. Peter Werenfels, who was at the head of the Consistory of that city, paid such regard to the letter of the Elector as to avoid requiring a subscription to this Form from the candidates for the ministry, and 37. The churches of Switzerland from his conduct in this respect was imitated by his successors. The remonstrances of the Elector do not seem the year 1669 were in great fear lest the to have had the same effect upon those who governed religion handed down to them by their the church of Geneva; for the Consensus or Form of fathers and confirmed at the Synod of Dort, until the year 1706, when, without being abrogated by agreement maintained its credit and authority there should be contaminated with the doctrines any positive act, it fell into disuse. In several other already mentioned of the French divines, parts of Switzerland it was still imposed as a rule of faith, as appears by the letters addressed by George I. Amyraut, De la Place, and Capell. For king of England, as also by the king of Prussia, in the there were at that time among the asso-year 1723 to the Swiss Cantons, in order to procure the abrogation of this Form or Consensus, which was conciated ministers of Geneva, certain men sidered as an obstacle to the union of the Reformed and distinguished both for their eloquence and Lutheran churches. See the Mémoires pour servir à their erudition, who not only approved du Consensus, published in 8vo, at Amsterdam, in the those doctrines but endeavoured against year 1726.- Mucl. the will of their colleagues to induce others to embrace them.2 To restrain the efforts of these men, the principal divines of Switzerland in the year 1675 had a book drawn up by John Henry Heidegger, a very celebrated divine of Zurich, in oppo sition to the new doctrines of the Frenchmen; and with no great difficulty they persuaded the magistrates to annex it by 1 See Hase's Dissertation in the Museum Bremens. Theol. Philol. tom. ii. p. 144, &c.; Goeree, Kerkelyke und Wereldlycke Historie, Leyden, 1729, 4to; Bibliothèque Belgique, tome ii. p. 203, &c. 2 See Leti's Istoria Geneorina, parte iv. lib. v. p. 448 488, 497, &c. l'Histoire des Troubles arrivés en Suisse à l'Occasion vetica, Tubing. 1723, 4to; Mémoires pour servir à formed churches were decided. It condemned, I. The reason and the latter to a neglect of it. | embraced by most of the Dutch divines. The Arminians derived their name and their And this he was the more bold to do, berise from James Harmensen, or, as he chose cause he knew that many persons besides to be called in Latin, James Arminius; himself, and some of them men of the first a minister of the Gospel at Amsterdam | highest respectability, were averse from the and then professor of theology at Leyden, Genevan opinions on this subject; neither a man whom even his enemies commend for were the teachers required, either by the his ingenuity, acuteness, and piety.' They Belgic Confession or by any other public are also called Remonstrants, from the law, to think and teach just as Calvin did. petition they presented to the states of Arminius inculcated not without effect what Holland and West Friesland in 1610 which he deemed true, for he persuaded great was entitled a Remonstrance. And as the numbers to adopt his sentiments. But at friends of Calvinism presented another pe- the same time he drew on himself immense tition in opposition to this, under the title odium from the Calvinistic school, which of Counter Remonstrance, they obtained then flourished greatly in Holland. the name of Contra-Remonstrants. particular, Francis Gomar his colleague was very hostile to him. Such was the commencement of this long and most perplexing controversy. But Arminius died in 1609, just as it began to rage and to pervade the whole United Provinces. 2. Arminius, though trained from infancy in the Genevan doctrines and actually educated in the academy of Geneva, when he arrived at manhood abandoned the common doctrine of the majority in the Reformed church respecting predestination and the divine decrees, and went over to the side of those who believe that the love of God and the merits of our Saviour respect the whole human race. Time and reflecticu confirmed him in his sentiments; and when called to the office of a professor at Leyden he thought duty and candour required him publicly to teach his sentiments, and to oppose the opinions of Calvin which were The fullest account given of him is by Brand: in his Historia Vita Jac. Arminii, Leyden, 1724, 8vo, and republished with a preface and some notes by me, Brunswick, 1725, 8vo. Add the Nouveau Dictionnaire Hist. et Crit. tome i. p. 471, &c. [and the Creed of Arminius, with a brief sketch of his life and times, by Moses Stuart, in the Biblical Repertory, Andover, 1831, vol. i. No. ii. p. 226-308.-Mur.] The entire works of Arminius have been repeatedly published in a modeate sized quarto volume. I use the edition of Frankfort 1634, 4to. Those who wish to discover and estimate correctly the genius of the man, should read especially the Disputationes, both the public and the private. His manner of teaching partakes somewhat of the dark scholasticism of his age, and yet it approximates to that simplicity and perspicuity which his followers have regarded and still regard as among the primary excellencies of a theologian. The historians of the sect and its Confession are treated of by Köcher, Biblioth. Theol. Symbolica, p. 481, &c. [See also Francke's Diss. Theologica de Historia dogmatum Arminianorum, Keil, 1813, 8vo.-Mur.] Among their confessions may be reckoned, I. Their Remonstrance in 1610, which was presented to the States in vindication of Arminius and other divines accused of error, and was first printed in 1617. II. Their proper Confession of 1621, which Episcopius set forth. III. Their Apology in 1629, in reply to the confutation of their Confession by the Leyden divines, set forth also by Episcopius. IV. Their catechism of 1640 by Jo. Uytenbogaerd. V. Lastly, their Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena, Harderwyck, (or rather, printed on board a ship), 1620, 4to. These are very different from the Acta Synodi Dordr. published at Dort in folio.- Schl. * The occasion of this change is treated of by Bertius, Oratio in funus Arminii; by Brandt, l'ita Arminii, p. 22, and by nearly all the historians of these events. The change took place in 1591, as appears from the famous letter of Arminius to Grynæus written in this year, (and extant in the Biblioth. Bremensis Theol. Philologica, tom. iil. p. 384), for he there states his doubts. In 3. After the death of Arminius, the controversy was carried on for several years without any decisive advantage gained by either party. The wishes of the Arminians, who sought only to have their opinions tolerated in the state or republic, were not a little favoured by the first men in the commonwealth, such as John van Oldenbarnevelt, Hugo Grotius, Rombout Hoogerbeets, and others. For these persons supposed that in their free country every one might believe what he chose on subjects not determined by the Belgic Confession, and they used every means to bring the Calvinists to bear with moderation the dissent of the opposite party: And even prince Maurice of Orange, the head of the commonwealth and who afterwards became the capital enemy of the Arminians, together with his mother and the court, was at first not averse from these views. Hence the conference between the parties at the Hague in 1611, hence also the discussion at Delft in 1613, and likewise the edict of the States of Holland in 1614 in favour of 3 No one has more copiously treated the whole history of the controversy and the public schism which arose from it than Gerhard Brandt, in his excellent work, The History of the Reformation in Belgium, written in Dutch, volumes ii. and iii. of which there are extant concise epitomes both in English and in French. To this may be added Uytenbogaerd's Ecclesiastical History [of the United Provinces, 1647, fol.] also written in Dutch; Limborch's Historia Vita Episcopii; and the Epistola Clarorum Virorum (commonly called Epistolæ Arminianorum), published by Limborch. Those who wish for a shorter narrative may consult Limborch's Relatio Historica de Origine et Progressu Controversiarum in Fœderato Belgio de Prædestinatione et Capitibus annexis, which is subjoined to the later editions of his Theologia Christiana. But all these were Arminians. Those who think proper to hear also the contrary party, may consult Trigland's Ecclesiastical History, written in Dutch, and some of the numerous writings which have been pub lished against the Remonstrants. peace, and all the other efforts to reconcile divine grace or energy, which heals the soul the brethren whom religion had separated of man, commences, advances, and perfects from each other. But the suspicion of the all that can be called truly good in man; Calvinists that the Arminians aimed at the and therefore all the good works [of men] overthrow of all religion, was so far from are ascribable to no one except to God only being allayed by these measures that it and to his grace, yet that this grace comdaily became more confirmed; and they pels no man against his will, though it may spiritedly censured the zeal of the magis- be repelled by his perverse will. V. That trates for interposing their authority in those who are united to Christ by faith are behalf of public peace.2 And whoever furnished with sufficient strength to overregards truth more than every other consi- come the snares of the devil and the allurederation must acknowledge that the Armi-ments of sin; but whether they can fall nians were not sufficiently cautious in re- from this state of grace and lose their faith gard to their intercourse and familiarity or not, does not yet sufficiently appear and with persons disposed to advance opinions very diverse from the Reformed religion; and in this way they gave great occasion to their adversaries to suspect them of everything bad and pernicious to the public religion. 4. The whole controversy, however, which after the synod at Dort assumed a very different form and was enlarged by many additions, was at this time confined to the doctrines of grace and predestination, and was comprehended by the Remonstrants in the five propositions, which are so well known under the name of the Five Points. For the Arminians taught:-I. That before the foundation of the world or from eternity, God decreed to bestow eternal salvation on those who, he foresaw, would maintain their faith in Christ Jesus inviolate until death; and on the other hand, to consign over to eternal punishment the unbelieving who resist the invitations of God to the end of their lives. II. That Jesus Christ by his death made expiation for the sins of all and every one of mankind, yet that none but believers can become partakers of this divine benefit. III. That no one can of himself, or by the powers of his free will, produce or generate faith in his own mind; but that man, being by nature evil and incompetent (ineptus) both to think and to do good, it is necessary he should be born again and renewed by God for Christ's sake, through the Holy Spirit. IV. That this 1 The authors who treat particularly of these events are mentioned by the writers of the general history, and in the 1st and 2d volumes of his Histoire de Louis XIII. has particularly treated of these troubles, deserves especially to be read. [But still more Van Wagenaer, History of the United Netherlands, vol. iv. p. 311, &c. of the German translation.-Schl. we therefore omit to name them. Yet Le Vassor, who 2 The conduct of the magistrates, who sought to quiet the commotions by their interposition, and who employed not only persuasion but likewise commands, was eloquently and learnedly defended by Hugo Grotius in two treatises. The one, which is in everybody's hands and has been often printed, is a general treatise, entitled De Jure Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra; the other descends to particulars, and is entitled Ordinum Hollandiae et Westfrisia Pietas a multorum Calumniis l'indicata, Leyden, 1613, 4to. must be ascertained by a careful examina- and 5. The Arminians, supported by the friendship of the magistrates, viewed their cause as safe or at least as not desperate, when suddenly an unexpected storm entirely prostrated it. There arose first concealed ill-will, and afterwards hostility, between the principal administrators of the new Belgic republic. On the one part were John van Oldenbarnevelt, a very distinguished man, Hugo Grotius, and Rombout Hoogerbeets, and on the other the stadtholder, Maurice prince of Orange. Ac The history of these Five Articles, especially among the English, was written by Heylin, and translated from English into Dutch by Brandt and published at Rotterdam in 1687, 8vo. [These Articles were exhibited by the Remonstrants in the conference at the Hague in the year 1611, or two years after the death of Arminius.Mur. 3 6. Without delay, at the instance of cording to some authors, Maurice wished to | pretence. The cause of the Arminians be created count of Holland, a design which could not be brought before a civil tribunal, his father William had before entertained; because their alleged offence was not against according to others, he only wished to the laws but the religion of the country. obtain more authority and power than To procure their condemnation therefore, a appeared consistent with the liberties of the more sacred tribunal or a council must be state; at least (as no one denies), he was called, agreeably to the practice of the regarded by the leading men as seeking Genevans, who think all spiritual matters supreme dominion with the subversion of and controversies should be decided in ecliberty. The head men of the republic clesiastical councils. whom we have mentioned, and who were also patrons of the Arminians, resisted these designs. The Remonstrants strenuously supported their defenders, without whom they could not remain in safety; and on the other hand, their adversaries accommodated themselves to the views and wishes of the prince, and inflamed his already irri-corum, qui Hollandia, Westfrisiæque et Vicinis quitated mind by various new suspicions. Therefore, kindling with indignation, he resolved on the destruction of those who guided the commonwealth with their counsels and of the Arminians who were their supporters, and at the same time joined himself to the party of the Calvinists. Those leading men in the republic above mentioned were there fore thrown into prison. Oldenbarnevelt, a man of great respectability and venerable both for his grey hairs and for his long and faithful public services, was consigned to a capital punishment. Grotius and Hoogerbeets were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, 2 under I know not what 1 That Maurice aimed at the dignity of count of Holland is stated by Aubrey, from the representations of his father Benjamin de Maurier, the French ambassador to Holland, in his Mém. pour servir à l'Hist. de Hollande et des autres Provinces Unies, sec. ii. p. 216, ed. Paris, 1697, 8vo. According to Aubrey, Oldenbarnevelt disapproved and resisted this design of the prince, and Maurice revenged this temerity by the capital punishment of this great patriot. The truth of this statement is opposed at great length by Le Vassor, in his Histoire de Louis XIII. tome ii. par. ii. p. 123, &c. But Le Clerc, in his Biblioth. Choisie, tome ii. p. 134, &c. and in his Historia Provinciarum Belgii Federati, takes great pains to substantiate the truth of this statement of Aubrey, or rather of Aubrey's father; and he also shows that Maurice's father had the same designs. It is not necessary we should decide this dispute. It is sufficient for our purpose that Maurice was viewed by Oldenbarnevelt and his friends as wishing to subvert the liberties of his country and to obtain supreme power (which no one denies); and that this was the cause of Oldenbarnevelt's cagerness to weaken the influence of Maurice and to check the progress of his power; whence arose the indignation of Maurice and the calamities of the Arminians who adhered to Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius. 2 That the general course of events 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, Le Clerc, in his Historia Provinciarum Belgii Federati, and his Bibliothéque Choisie, tome ii. p. 134, &c. and Grotius, in his Apologeticum busdam Nationibus ex Legibus præfuerunt ante Muturepublished. The Life of John van Oldenbarnevelt, tionem quæ evenit A.D. 1618, Paris, 1640, 12mo, and often 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 Brandt, entitled Historie van 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, from the history of the life and actions of Hugo Gro1723, 4to. This whole subject receives also much light tius, very carefully compiled, chiefly from unpublished papers, by Caspar Brandt and Adrian Cattenburg. This great and noble work was published in two large volumes, entitled Historie van het Leven des Heeren Huig de Groot beschreven tot den Anfang van zyn Zweden aan't Hof van Vranckryck, door Casp. Brandt, Gesandschap wegens de Koninginne en Kroone van en vervolgt tot zyn Doodt door Adrian van Cattenburgh, Dordrecht en Amsterd. 1727, 2 vols. fol. Those who wish to get a near view and full knowledge of this great man must by all means consult this work; for all the other accounts of his life which 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 1757, and entitled, Grotii Manes ab Iniquis Obtrectationibus Vindicati; accedit Scriptorum ejus, tum Editorum tum Ineditorum, Conspectus Triplex. See the following note.- Macl. 3 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 nowhere discoverable in them, yet they contain anecdotes with respect both to Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius, which 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 the severities exercised against these eminent men, would however have prevented 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, apon some unimportant charges.-Mur. 1 7. We cannot here discuss either the purity and virtues or the iniquities and faults of the fathers at Dort. In extolling the former the Calvinists, and in exagge rating the latter the Arminians, if I do not mistake, are over-zealous and active." That among the judges of the Arminians there were 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 anything wrong, is not to be doubted at all. On the other hand, these facts were too clear and obvious to escape the notice of any one:-I. That the destruction of the Arminian sect was determined upon before the council was called; and these fathers were called toge Maurice, delegates were assembled at Dort, | pestilential errors; and it was coincident a city in Holland, from the United Pro- with this sentence that they should be exvinces and from Hesse, England, the Pala- cluded from the communion of the church tinate, Bremen, and Switzerland, who held and be deprived of authority to teach. in the years 1618 and 1619 what is called That there was fault on both sides in this the Synod of Dort. Before it, appeared on matter no candid and good man will deny, citation, in defence of their cause, the lead- but which party was most in the wrong ing men of the Arminian sect, at the head this is not the place to decide.3 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 embarrassing 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 a hatred of it in the minds of the people present, while the. Calvinists feared lest the mighty genius and fine eloquence of Episcopius might injure their cause in the view of the multitude.2 the Arminians could by no means be persuaded to comply with the wishes of the synod they were dismissed from the council, and they 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 As 1 Our author always forgets to mention the order issued 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 StatesGeneral 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 which belonged to cach province separately and respectively. See Carleton's Letters in Hales' Golden Remains, &c.-Macl. 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 predestination; 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 their judges. This is the not improbable conjecture of Van Wagenaer, in his Geschichte der vereinigten Niederlande, vol. iv. p. 451.Schl. 3 The writers on the synod of Dort are enumerated by Fabricius, Biblioth. Græca, tom. xi. p. 723. The most copious of them all is 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 Leydecker, in which the purity and integrity of the synod of Dort are vindicated in answer to Brandt, Eere van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht voorgestaan en bevestigd tegen de Beschuldingen van G. Brandt, vol. i. Amsterd. 1705, vol. ii. 1707, 4to. After formally comparing them, I did not find any very enormous errors in Brandt; nor do these 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. Mosheim translated them into Latin, prefixed a long preface and added some notes. Mur. [See also Hallam's Introduction to the Litera ture of Europe, vol. iii. p. 79 and 81-89; Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, Buch's translation, vol. ii. p. 206, two writers disagree so much about the facts as about &c.-R. 4 All that the Arminians deemed faulty in this coun cil they collected in a concise and neatly-written book, frequently printed: Nulliteyten, Mishandelinghen, ende onbyllicke Proceduren des nationalen Synodi ghehouden binnen Dordrecht anno 1618, 1619, in't korte ende rouwe afgheworpen, 1619, 4to. 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 was already determined on before the council was convened at Dort. The election of Bogermann, who possessed the soul of an inquisitor, to the presi dency 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 |