The Life of the Truly Eminent and Learned Hugo Grotius Part 8

In the mean time it was believed at Louvestein that he was ill; and to give him time to get off, his wife gave out that his illness was dangerous; but as soon as she learnt by the maid's return that he was in Brabant, and consequently in safety, she told the guards, the bird was flown. They informed the Commandant, by this time returned from Heusden, who hastened to Grotius's wife, and asked her where she had hid her husband? She answered he might search for him: but being much pressed and even threatened, she confessed that she had caused him to be carried to Gorc.u.m in the book chest: and that she had done no more than kept her word to him, to take the first opportunity of setting her husband at liberty. The Commandant in a rage went immediately to Gorc.u.m, and acquainting the Magistrate with his prisoner's escape, both came to Dazelaer's, where they found the empty chest. On his return to Louvestein the Commandant confined Grotius's wife more closely: but presenting a pet.i.tion to the States-General, April 5, 1621, praying that she might be discharged, and Prince Maurice, to whom it was communicated, making no opposition, the majority were for setting her at liberty. Some indeed voted for detaining her a prisoner; but they were looked on as very barbarous, to want to punish a woman for an heroic action. Two days after presenting the pet.i.tion, she was discharged, and suffered to carry away every thing that belonged to her in Louvestein.

Grotius continued some time at Antwerp. March 30, he wrote to the States-General that in procuring his liberty he had employed neither violence nor corruption with his keepers; that he had nothing to reproach himself with in what he had done; that he gave those counsels which he thought best for appeasing the troubles that had arisen before he was concerned in public business; that he only obeyed the Magistrates of Rotterdam his masters, and the States of Holland his sovereigns; and that the persecution he had suffered would never diminish his love to his Country, for whose prosperity he heartily prayed.

Grotius's escape exercised the pens of the most famous poets of that period. Barlaeus wrote some very good verses on it[113]: and also celebrated his wife's magnanimity[114]. Rutgersius composed a poem on his imprisonment, in which he places the day of his arrest among the most unfortunate for the Republic[115]. Grotius himself wrote some verses on his happy deliverance, which were translated into Flemish by the famous poet John Van Vondel. He made also some lines on the chest to which he owed his liberty, and in the latter part of his life was at great pains to recover it[116].

Henry Dupuis, a learned man settled at Louvain, being informed that Grotius was at Antwerp, sent him a very handsome letter, to signify to him the share he took in the general joy of all good men, and offered him his house, and all that a true friend could give[117]: but Grotius chose rather to come to France, agreeable to the advice of Du Maurier and the President Jeannin; the latter a.s.suring him he might depend on the King's protection, the esteem of men of the greatest consideration, and his friendship.

But previous to the account of his journey to Paris it will be proper to say something of the writings that appeared relating to the disputes which divided the church and state.

Among the Ministers who opposed the Arminians Sibrand Lubert was one of the most zealous and in greatest reputation. This man was a Professor in the university of Francker: he wrote against Worstius, who was suspected of Socinianism; and insinuated that the States of Holland favoured that heresy. He also complained of their renewing the law of 1591, concerning the election of ministers, and their opposing the convocation of a National Synod. The States, incensed at his presumption, employed Grotius to write their Apology, which he published in 1613.

In this work he undertakes to shew that the Arminians have very different sentiments on grace from the Pelagians; that they join with the Greek and many Latin Fathers in their opinion about Predestination; that the Reformed did not always entertain such rigid sentiments, particularly Melancton, inferior to none in learning or piety; that since the rise of the disputes Arminius and Gomar had declared in writing, there was no difference between them in fundamentals; that after the dispute of those two Divines in presence of the States, it was determined that the two opinions might be tolerated; that since the death of Arminius twelve Ministers of the two parties having been heard, the States recommended to them mutual toleration and charity.

He afterwards proves that the Synod was not necessary; that it could be of little use, because mens minds were too much inflamed; that as it could not be a.s.sembled in the present circ.u.mstances, it belonged to the States to find out ways of accommodating these disputes, which did not regard fundamental articles; and that Socinus had no defenders in Holland. He afterwards treats of the power which he ascribes to the Sovereign in matters ecclesiastic, and his authority in convoking Councils. He says the Sovereign has a right to judge in Synods, either in person or by his commissioners, and to judge Synods themselves; in proof of which he advances what pa.s.sed in the first Councils; and regards as acts of jurisdiction and examination all that has been done by Princes for maintaining good order and polity. He is of opinion that public acts, even those which regard the doctrine of the Church, ought to proceed only from the Prince: he relates what Princes have done, at the solicitation of Bishops, for the a.s.sembling of Councils, as proofs of the Sovereign's authority over Councils; and omits nothing in antiquity that favours the authority of the Civil Magistrate in matters ecclesiastical, and especially in what regards elections: he shews that too much precaution, cannot be taken against the presumption of the reformed Ministers, who want to intermeddle with State Affairs, bringing with them their caprices and pa.s.sions. "Upon the whole (he says in the conclusion) the more I read Church history, the more evident it appears to me, that the evils we complain of are the same which have been complained of in all past ages."

This account of the work is sufficient to shew that the author, with much erudition, was strangely misled: if the proofs he makes use of are susceptible of different interpretations, he has not sufficiently unravelled their ambiguity and intent. It was received with great satisfaction by the Magistrates of Holland[118]: and the States returned him public thanks on the 31st of October, 1613, in very honorable terms.

Casaubon[119] and Vossius[120] speak of this book with the highest commendation: but the Gomarists were greatly dissatisfied with it[121].

Bogerman wrote some notes on it, serving to confute it; which were suppressed. Sibrand's friends complained that the author had dipt his pen in gall, and not in ink: and Sibrand himself wrote an answer, to which Grotius replied in some short remarks, exposing the false citations, the errors, and abusive language of his adversary.

Sibrand's work was condemned by the States: but five years after, June 28, 1618, on the imprisonment of Grotius, the States revoked the condemnation. Grotius's desire to bring about an union of sentiments led him, in 1613, while in England, to compose a small treatise, ent.i.tled, _A Reconciliation of the different Opinions on Predestination and Grace_. This piece contains a display of the Arminian system, which he endeavours to place in the most favourable light[122].

The Edict which Grotius prepared by desire of the States[123], ordering the two parties to tolerate each other, having been warmly attacked by the Contra-Remonstrants, Grotius reprinted it, with a collection of pa.s.sages justifying it against their censures. He afterwards wrote a defence of that decree, in which he complains of the schismatical spirit of the Gomarists; proves that the States did all that depended on them to reconcile mens minds: maintains, against an anonymous writer, to whom he gives the name of _Lucifuga_, that it is false the Remonstrants gave the draught of that Edict; a.s.serts, on the contrary, that several things are omitted in it, which they wished to be inserted, and which had even an appearance of reason and justice; and sets forth the moderation and equity of the Edict upon the whole. Grotius did not finish this work; but on occasion of the dispute concerning the power of Sovereigns in things sacred; he composed a very considerable treatise. He had already handled this subject in a tract on the Piety of the States of Holland: he examines it more thoroughly in this, proceeding on the same principles. It is certain that this book may be read with some profit[124], that it contains many curious things, but some others also that are very bold, and very false. Such as are acquainted with the just rights of the two powers will never grant to Grotius, that the Sovereign has a right to judge in councils, to alter their decisions, and to depose the Ministers of the Church. Most of the proofs on which he builds consist of ambiguous pa.s.sages, which he strains to his opinion by forced explanations. This work discovers rather the great lawyer, than the exact divine; and, what is singular, the author is afraid he has not granted enough to the Civil Magistrate, and been too favourable to the claims of the Clergy. He knew, however, that it would not please the King of Great Britain; and the Bishops of that kingdom were of opinion he had given too much authority to the Secular Power in things sacred: It is probable the Letter sent by the States of Holland and West-Friesland, in 1618, to King James I. was written by Grotius: it is his style and sentiments. The States, who foresaw that the troubles would still go on increasing, begin with a short recital of the rise of these disputes; they afterwards desire his Majesty to examine whether in the present circ.u.mstances a Synod would be of use, and whether there was not reason to apprehend it might occasion a schism: they ask the King to grant them his protection, and promise to employ their authority in supporting truth, and driving away error.

Endeavours being used to render the Remonstrants odious by accusing them of Socinianism; Grotius, to shew that his sentiments were very different from those of Socinus, attacks him in a treatise, ent.i.tled, _A Defence of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, against Faustus Socinus_. This work was read with great applause by all who did not profess an open enmity to the author; and many of the reformed Divines allowed that the subject had never been handled with more learning and strength of argument. It was approved of by several learned men in Germany and England, particularly the famous Overal, Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry.

We find in this treatise, as in all those of Grotius, many learned discussions, which prove his profound knowledge of sacred and profane antiquity. In treating of the expiatory sacrifices of the Pagans, he examines with great depth of learning the custom of sacrificing men, which obtained in all nations.

Grotius's enemies were very active in depreciating the merit of this work. Herman Ravespenger, Professor at Groningen, attacked it with so much rudeness, that Balthasar Lydius, who, however, was not of the Arminian party, told him his criticism was wretched, and he was ready to answer it. The Gomarists, far from recovering from their prejudices, took occasion from the book of the Satisfaction of Christ to accuse the author of Semi-pelagianism. He did not think it worth while to defend himself against an anonymous author[125], because in his book of the Piety of the States of Holland he had spoken of Semi-pelagianism as a very grievous error. Afterwards he enquired in an express treatise, whether the Arminians were Pelagians, and fully cleared them of teaching that heresy.

It was during these contests, that he collected _The sentiments of the Greeks and Romans on fate and man's power_. He translated all that he found in the Ancients on this subject; and first published it at Paris in 1624.

FOOTNOTES:

[109] Le Clerc Hist. lib. 9. p. 71.

[110] Du Maurier.

[111] Grotii manes, p. 208.

[112] Ep. 196.

[113] Praest. Vir. Epist. p. 655.

[114] Grotii manes, p. 230.

[115] Ibid. p. 204. He compared Grotius to Moses, Observat. Hallens. 15.

l. 7. p. 336.

[116] Ep. 720 p. 670.

[117] He wrote also some lines on the chest, in which Grotius was confined.

[118] Burman's Collection of Letters, let. 211.

[119] Ep. 925.

[120] Ep. 1.

[121] Ep. Utengobardi. Praest. Vir. Ep. p. 383.

[122] It is printed among his theological works.

[123] See above, -- IV.

[124] L'Abbe Longlet, Catalogue des Auteurs du Droit Canenique, p. 175.

[125] Ep. 19. p. 760.

BOOK III.

Grotius was at no loss what country to chuse for his asylum. As he was invited by the men of learning in France, and sought after by the virtuous Ministers whom Lewis XIII. honoured with his confidence, he gave the preference to Paris, where he had already many friends. Du Maurier, the French amba.s.sador in Holland, sent him from the Hague to Antwerp several letters of recommendation to persons in France: the President Jeannin[126] wrote him, that he might depend on the king's protection, who was informed by many good men that he had been unjustly condemned in his own country; promising him, at the same time, the friendship of the men of greatest distinction in France, and a.s.suring him he would do him all the service that lay in his power. Grotius, therefore, set out for Paris with confidence. He would not ask an escort[127] though he was not without apprehension of some violence from the Dutch; but chose rather to travel in disguise and by bye-roads.

He arrived at Paris on the 13th of April, 1621, at night. The King was at Fontainbleau. Boissise, who had been Amba.s.sador Extraordinary in Holland at the time of Barnevelt's trial, had not followed his Majesty; but waited for Grotius at Paris, to direct him how to act. He a.s.sured him that the King bore him much good-will, that he did not doubt his Majesty would in a little time give him effective proofs of it, and advised him to continue at Paris till his friends did something for him.

Grotius visited M. de Vic, and the President Jeannin, who received him with the greatest marks of friendship, and repeated what Boissise had already said. The States-General, in the mean time, ordered their Amba.s.sadors to do him every ill-office; a commission which they executed with the greatest zeal. They did all they could to destroy his reputation, but it was too well established to be shaken. The revenge he took was by speaking of his Country like a zealous citizen; and by seeking every occasion to serve her: this gained him the applause of the King, who could not help admiring the greatness of his proceeding.

When the Dutch Amba.s.sadors saw that the French Ministry were favourably disposed towards Grotius, and that in all appearance the King would speedily give him public marks of his esteem, they spread a report that he had applied to the French Ministry, to use their influence with the States-General for obtaining his pardon: they added, that the Ministry, after praising the good disposition he was in, a.s.sured him the King suffered him in France only because he knew these were his sentiments, and that the way to obtain a pension from the Court was by seeking to recover the favour of the States-General.

Grotius, informed of these reports, publicly declared he never acknowledged that he had failed in any part of his conduct whilst in place, and that his conscience bore him witness he had done nothing contrary to Law. In a Letter[128] to Du Maurier he speaks of this slander as what gave him great uneasiness. "An atrocious lye has been spread, which vexes me extremely: it is reported that I being at liberty have asked pardon, which I absolutely refused to do, even when it would have saved me from ignominy, imprisonment, and the loss of my estate."

There was yet another sort of people of whom Grotius had no reason to be very fond[129]: these were the Ministers of Charenton. They had received the decisions of the Synod of Dort, and held the Remonstrants in abhorrence: they would not therefore admit Grotius into their Communion.

But excepting these few all the French strove who should shew him greatest civilities. Messieurs du Puis and Peyresc[130] made haste to visit him as soon as they heard of his arrival. May 14, 1621, he writes to Du Maurier that he had as much pleasure at Paris, as he had chagrin in prison; that the Great gave him on all occasions marks of their esteem, and the men of learning antic.i.p.ated his wishes. The only thing that troubled his joy for his happy escape was the thought of having left in prison a wife to whom he had so great reason to be attached[131]: this grieved him so much, as he afterwards declared, that, had they kept her still in prison, he would have surrendered himself to his persecutors, rather than have been separated from her for ever.

The famous Peyresc took occasion to say, that by Grotius's arrival at Paris the Dutch had made amends to France for having formerly carried away from it the great Scaliger: this thought gave rise to two Latin Epigrams[132].

FOOTNOTES:

[126] Praest. Vir. Epist. p 656.

[127] Ep. 136.

[128] Ep. 147.

[129] Du Maurier, p. 409.

[130] Ep 137.