2. Developments in the Controversy, and the Synod
Jan Freeke
3. Developments in the controversy. In 1602, two of the three theological professors at the University of Leiden died as a result of the plague. One of these, Junius, had intimated to Professor Gomarus, who survived the plague, that he did not wish Arminius to take his place. He warned that serious trouble would result in Church and in state, if that was to happen. Yet the name of Arminius came up as a possible successor. Initially, Gomarus resisted the appointment, but he gave in after a meeting with Arminius at the house of a member of the University board. Arminius was appointed professor of theology at Leiden University in 1603.
This position involved giving lectures and the organisation of debates among students on theological subjects. In 1604 a debate was held on predestination and, as a result, Arminius’ views became a public issue. Concerns were raised, not only at the University, but also in the Church. The Church called Arminius to account for his views. Arminius refused this, as he was not accountable to the Church, but to the board of the University.
In 1608 Arminius lodged a petition with the Regional Council of Holland, because of the opposition that he met with. The Council ordered the Supreme Court to organise a meeting between Arminius and Gomarus and a few of their colleagues, in order to resolve the differences. The official verdict after the meeting was that there were no substantial differences between their views. Gomarus disagreed with the verdict, however, and commented that he would not wish to appear before God’s judgement seat with the views of his colleague. Gomarus was concerned that more was at stake than a different view on predestination. Particularly: are we justified only by the imputed righteousness of Christ, or is there also a meritorious role for faith in the justification of a sinner?
Arminius submitted an exposition of his views to the Regional Council of Holland. He also asked for a revision of the confession of faith and the
1Based on a lecture given at the Theological Conference in October 2019. Last month’s article dealt with the background to the controversy and summarised the life of Arminius and his views.
catechism to be put on the agenda of a forthcoming Synod. The above developments led to tensions in the relationship between Church and state in Holland. The Government ordered another conference to take place. This conference came to an abrupt end, because of Arminius’ illness and subsequent death in 1609.
The year 1609 is also important in the political sphere. In that year a ceasefire agreement was concluded with the King of Spain for a period of 12 years: 1609 to 1621. This led to severe tensions between Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and Prince Maurice. Van Oldenbarnevelt arranged this truce against the will of Prince Maurice, who wanted the war to continue.
In the meantime, the attitude of the Church toward Arminians became generally more suspicious and hostile. In response a number of Arminian ministers, with Johannes Uytenbogaert as their leader, submitted a Remonstrance to the Regional Council of Holland in 1610. This contained a statement of their views and a request for protection. The Council then wrote to all the Church presbyteries in the region and ordered them to tolerate Arminian views.
In response to the Remonstrance and the Council’s instructions, delegates of the Church met and petitioned the Council not to impose Arminian doctrine on the Church. The Council ordered another conference to take place between theologians of the two sides. This conference took place in The Hague in March 1611. During that conference, the Church delegates submitted a Counter-Remonstrance to the Council. This contained their views on the issues at stake and a request to the Council to call a Synod to resolve the controversy. Because of these documents, Arminians have often been called “Remonstranten” and Calvinists “Contra-Remonstranten”.
In 1613 another conference was held between the two parties in Delft. Its purpose was to find a way to restore peace in the Church and to come up with a proposal which could be put to the Church for its approval. This conference ended without result.
In 1614 the Regional Council of Holland issued a “Resolution for peace in the Churches”. It was an instruction to the Church not to raise issues of controversy and to promote charity and peace in the Church. This measure encouraged many local councils to interfere in church matters such as the calling and suspension of ministers. This led to serious unrest in the Church. People of Calvinist persuasion started to attend separate services, often in a house, or in a church in a neighbouring place, rather than worshipping under an Arminian minister in the local church. Many local councils tried to suppress these meetings, through fines and other punishments.
In 1617 the Regional Council of Holland issued a “Severe Resolution”,
which authorised local councils to raise local armies to help them suppress any rebellion. These armies were under local council control and were not accountable to the States-General. The country was in danger of walking into a civil war.
Then came a turn of events: Prince Maurice, the chief commander of the States-General Army, openly sided with the Calvinists. He started to worship with the Calvinist minister Rosaeus in the Monastery Chapel (or Kloosterkerk) in The Hague, instead of worshipping under Johannes Uytenbogaert, the Court Chaplain.
Prince Maurice took action to enforce the authority of the States-General. He visited several places and ordered local armies to put down their weapons. This happened almost without resistance. In a number of local councils, existing councillors were replaced by others. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and several of his companions were imprisoned. The Court Chaplain, Johannes Uytenbogaert, fled the country.
On 4 October 1617 the States-General decided that a national Synod was to be held. A committee was appointed to make preparations for this Synod.
4. Synod of Dordt. The Synod was held in Dordrecht from 13 November 1618 till 29 May 1619. Johannes Bogerman, a minister in Leeuwarden (Friesland) was chosen as the Moderator. There were representatives from:
(1) The Dutch Church. Among the delegates sent by the Church from each of the Regions in the Dutch Republic there were about twice as many ministers as elders. This may have been because of the necessity to hold the proceedings in Latin, given the international composition of the Synod.
(2) The Universities. There were a total of five theological professors from the four Dutch universities. One of them was Franciscus Gomarus, then professor at Groningen University.
(3) The States-General. The States-General had taken the decision to call the Synod and they had no fewer than 18 representatives at the Synod. This created the ironic situation that the Arminians, who always favoured the influence of the civil government in the Church, were now faced with a civil government opposed to them. On the other hand, the Calvinists, who always favoured the Church’s independence from the state, were now faced with a Synod, held under the auspices of the civil government.
(4) Churches from abroad. The issues, which divided the Church in the Netherlands, were issues not confined within national boundaries. In view of this, it was decided to invite representatives from other European Protestant Churches. Representatives were sent from most of these Churches: from England, from several German cities and regions (Bremen, Emden, the Palatinate (with Heidelberg), Hesse and Nassau) and from Switzerland
(Zurich, Basel, Bern and Geneva). Only the Church in France was not represented, because the King of France did not give the Huguenots permission to leave the country. The 27 foreign delegates present had a considerable input to the proceedings at the Synod and the final Canons adopted. At the same time, their participation gave the Canons greater significance in the development of Reformed Protestantism in Europe.
The Arminians chosen to appear before the Synod held a pre-meeting in Rotterdam. At that meeting they chose their main spokesman. This was Episcopius, who had succeeded Arminius as professor of divinity at Leiden University. They also agreed that the Synod should be treated as a conference and not as a church court, authorised to take binding decisions on the doctrinal issues involved.
Although the Synod began on 14 November 1618, the Arminians did not arrive until December 6. From then on, the Synod proceedings were very difficult and cumbersome. One of the first actions of Episcopius was to make a long address in which he accused the Calvinists of being the real separatists and in which he advocated liberty of opinion with regard to deep and complicated theological issues. Shortly after this, his colleague gave an address in which he pleaded for a revision of the Church’s confessional standards. On December 11 they submitted a protest, stating that the Synod was not a lawful assembly. These actions made an unfavourable impression on the foreign delegates at the Synod.
When the Synod asked the Arminians to state their views clearly, they tended to evade the issue. In their answers they focused on a criticism of their perception of Calvinism, with great emphasis on the doctrine of reprobation and the difficult issues related to this. By doing this they hoped to divide the members of Synod, some of whom had stronger views on the doctrine of election than others – that is, supralapsarian or infralapsarian. On December 21 they submitted 113 objections to The Belgic Confession, to be followed on December 27 by even more objections to The Heidelberg Catechism. These objections were generally framed in the form of questions: Are confessions of faith infallible? What about the unity of the Church, given the differences between confessions of faith? Do confessions of faith not contain both essential and non-essential doctrines? Should the latter not be taken out? This way of dealing by the Arminians exhausted the patience of the Synod and on 14 January 1619 the Moderator of Synod, Johannes Bogerman, sent them away, after an emotional speech. Rather than question them, the Synod agreed instead to judge the Arminians from their writings.
It was arranged that the various groups of representatives in the Synod (for example, regional delegates, the Dutch professors of divinity, the rep-
representatives from Geneva) would examine these opinions separately. Their findings and judgements were read to the full meetings of Synod from 7 to 21 March 1619. Following this, the meetings of Synod were suspended for three weeks. During that period, a Synod committee prepared a set of Canons in draft. These were debated by the full Synod, which finalised and approved the Canons on 25 April 1619. The Synod also ruled that Arminians would be suspended from holding office in the Church, until they repented of their errors.
The Canons were publicly read during a service in the main church of Dordrecht on 6 May 1619. Shortly after that, the foreign delegates left the city. During the remaining part of May, the Synod reconvened as a Dutch Synod to deal with national issues: the relation between Church and state, and the organisation of the Church. The main business of the Synod had been finished, as the Synod had now ruled on the Arminian controversy.