§1
After ninety years of dissensions, hatreds embittered by many injuries, a war made deadly by the bitterness of words and deeds—an Evangelical war—the Calvinists seek peace from a General Synod. But because faithful peace, the nursling of truth, the enemy of simulation, ignorant of frauds, execrates and flees heresies, disguise, and deceit, the same men, cast down from hope of sincere concord, pursue its handmaids, truces; construct images of false peace; and contrive syncretisms. Therefore, since I treated the Union and Synod of the Evangelicals in a separate book, I have determined now to treat Syncretism.
Syncretism is a false, simulated, insidious peace; a cunning concealment of hatreds; malice intent upon an opportunity for vengeance; fire placed beneath deceptive ash; a danger ingeniously covered; enmity flattering by a show of duty; a shadow of alliances, disciple of Machiavelli, daughter of Epicurus, plague of human society, and death of piety. Pareus has again brought forth this monster in an unhappy birth, with Heidelberg Wisdom acting as midwife, although it was pierced and cut apart by so many books and colloquies of the Lutherans and commands of princes. My intention is to propose a discussion rather than my judgment concerning it. I therefore examine the case; the states and princes to whom it pertains will pronounce sentence.
§2
But if anyone who will read my discussion should by chance wonder why I—a member of the Society of JESUS and a pupil of sacred studies, whose whole course and every part of duty demands peace, flourishes by peace, and is weakened and broken by war—should seem less favorable to peace of any kind, I, always an adviser and author of peace, ask and entreat him to hear the reason for my purpose without offense and, having heard it, to weigh it. In this judgment I neither implore the benevolence of a friend nor refuse to undergo the judgment of an enemy; this cause stands sufficiently by its own equity.
All will understand that I oppose not peace but the most foul war which lurks beneath the name of peace; not truces, but syncretisms, the seedbeds of plots and wars. I venerate peace. Truces, as certain forerunners of peace which carry the olive branch, the insignia of their mistress Peace, I receive and embrace with my whole mind. But if those same truces, clothed in the spoils of true peace, conceal war; if beneath a peace-bearing bough they hurl a hidden death-bearing spear, I abominate them as insidious simulation, poison of concord, plague of sincerity, and the disgrace and stain of Germany—that is, of the ruling nation.
Peace is an uncertain good even when it is earnestly sought and sincerely given, when the minds of those making the compact are allied by mutual love, not merely their fidelity bound by letters and oath, because we do not know the hearts of those with whom we wish to maintain it. If, therefore, no one is secure in true friendship, with what great care must we flee Syncretism, which includes fraud in both fact and name, and which by the very fact that it is Syncretism possesses an express profession of simulated love for a time and future hatred? For when Syncretism most cunningly feigns peace, it acts so that it may overthrow by hidden plots the enemy whom it cannot lay low openly.
The most holy and learned Augustine rightly judged concerning these things in City of God, Book XIX, chapter 5: “There are no more hidden plots than those which lie concealed in the simulation of duty or under some name of intimacy. For by taking precautions you can easily avoid the man who is openly an adversary. But this hidden, intestine, and domestic evil not only arises, but even overwhelms a man before he can foresee and discover it. Therefore that divine utterance, ‘And a man’s enemies are those of his household,’ is heard with great pain of heart; for although someone may be so strong that he bears with an even mind, or so vigilant that he guards by provident counsel against, the things which simulated friendship contrives against him, nevertheless, when he experiences those perfidious men to be the worst, if he himself is good he must be gravely tormented by their evil, whether they were always evil and pretended to be good or were changed from goodness into that malice. If, then, the house, the common refuge amid these evils of the human race, is not safe, what of the city? The greater it is, the fuller is its forum of civil and criminal suits, even if not only turbulent but often bloody seditions and civil wars are at rest. Cities are sometimes free from their outcomes, never from their dangers.”
I therefore consult the safety of all when I disclose the frauds of a few. I do not sound the trumpet, but dissuade from Syncretism; I remove suspicions and simulations as impediments to true peace, because a union and concord of minds cannot otherwise be entered. A subscription can indeed be persuaded from the credulous, commanded from the weaker, extorted from those who fear, and an agreement signed with the unwilling; peace cannot exist without the benevolence and mutual concord of minds. But if my discussion is suspect to Lutherans of the Augsburg Confession, let them inspect and consult their own consciences, to which I appeal. Does Pareus propose, obtrude, and urge Syncretism for the honor and increase of the Augsburg Confession and Lutheran religion, or for the propagation of Calvinism and destruction of Lutheranism?
§3
Who does not know how greatly it concerns the Empire and the state that the arts of the most fraudulent men be banished and crushed? Who is so ignorant—not merely of German generosity and sincerity but of human affairs universally—as not to marvel that a man existed who arrived at such shamelessness that he did not hesitate to offer a most disgraceful, insidious, and dangerous thing to most serene and illustrious kings and princes and most ample states, and to publish a very large book as prophet of such levity, perfidy, and fraudulence? Do new Machiavellis everywhere contrive too few imitations of alliances and friendships? Has so manifold a faith produced too little perfidy, and does it produce too little every hour? Old and cunning theologian, do you think the world so destitute of its own vices that you, a teacher of deception and artisan of syncretizing, judge that examples of fraud from an infamous nation must be brought into the morals of our age? Why do you obtrude ancient and foreign crimes upon a world as though it could not perish by recent ones?
But let us grant that you obtained the Syncretism you urged. Is there doubt how much disgrace will cling to the princes of Germany if they allow themselves to be bound by your faithless and foxlike pacification? You order them συγκρητίζεσθαι [to syncretize]. If they hear you, therefore, they will be:
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργοί.
Cretans always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
If anyone sees them, he will employ the old expression, ὁ κρὴς πρὸς τὸν κρῆτα [the Cretan against the Cretan], or κρὴς κρῆτα κρητίζονται [a Cretan and a Cretan play the Cretan], or assuredly ὁ κρὴς πρὸς αἰγινίτην [the Cretan against the Aeginetan], or more clearly, Ἀλώπεκι ἴσον πρὸς ἑτέραν ἀλώπεκα [a fox matched against another fox]. Do you prepare to transfer the ancient reproaches of a most foul and deceitful nation, now almost dead, to the Teutonic nobles? Are those men, in whom are German constancy and gravity, Roman majesty, and the right of the August Empire, so worthless to you that you do not fear to liken them to Cretans? You desire them to be συγκεκρητικευμένους [syncretized], that is, joined together by a fraudulent peace full of hatreds, so that when they assemble at the diets that maxim from the formula of trust may perish: “Among good men, affairs are conducted well.” Let the supreme law of those syncretizing then be: “With a fox, act the fox.” Let foreign nations laugh at us and say, “Behold a Cretan with a Cretan, a Cretan with an Aeginetan.”
But let us despise the sayings of foreigners. What shame can survive in so disgraceful a matter? Can peace exist even thus? What will enticements of words and lies of countenances profit those who profess Syncretism? They confess that they simulate friendship in appearance so that they may await an opportunity to harm those joined with them without danger to themselves. I would wish to see the princes themselves, or at least the faces of envoys composed for favor, and to hear the soft words of those whose aim is to display peace in their countenance and store hatreds in their minds. For the man who syncretizes is a friend only in words; with his mouth he regulates arts of flattery, κακὰ βυσσοδομεύει [he plots evils in the depths], and in his inmost mind constructs evil.
Yet let Pareus conquer even here. Let Calvinism fill every vein of German sincerity with Cretan blood and alter nature with a Circean drug, so that they are now not Germans—faithful and generous—but rather Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies. What alliances and commerce with foreign kings and peoples will they be able to hope for? Who will endure conversing with them? Who will either send or receive envoys whose fraudulence the titles of Syncretism show upon an open forehead? Who is so foolish as to believe men who by professed fraud contrive plots against their countrymen?
§4
Flee these things, O kings, O princes, O states which rejoice to be named from the Gospel. It does not belong to your blood, dignity, or utility to imbue our country with the frauds of Cretans and Oxydracae. Unless you take timely precautions, there is danger that not only your faith but also your fidelity will be called into doubt, and that your colleagues and foreign princes will spurn all your promises, writings, and oaths as arts of fraudulent simulation rather than signs of a true and constant mind. Indeed, I have long heard the whispers of many who more often consider what you may at some time determine and do by the counsel of Cretan ministers than what belongs to your duty. They fear lest you someday approve those whom you hear praying so often about Syncretism and frauds. Although they judge this foreign to your disposition, they nevertheless consider it unnecessary to experience it at their own peril. But we shall treat these things individually hereafter.
§5
I have thus far explained the notion and nature of Syncretism; nevertheless, for the sake of those who desire a fuller explanation, I shall make the whole matter clear by an example. Holland gave us one complete in every feature of Syncretism, and all the clearer and more perfect because that Syncretism was not between Calvinists and Lutherans, who fight diametrically, but coalesced within the Calvinist nation between the Rigid and the Soft.
The matter occurred in this way. At the beginning of the introduction of Calvinism into Belgium there was a fierce dissension among the Reformers. The more Rigid then conquered, but the Soft regained strength in Arminius and his associates and in 1606, at the Synod of Gorinchem, obtained a censure of the Palatine Catechism and Belgic Confession. By such labor and the favor of the Estates they brought matters to the point that they almost depressed the others. After many colloquies and writings, both were ordered to present their opinion about entering concord and to offer counsel publicly.
The counsel of the Soft, who from the title of their published little book call themselves Remonstrants, was this:
- Mutual charity and benevolence must be cultivated.
- Abuse and condemnations must be suspended.
- A synod must decide the controversies.
- They must be permitted to defend their opinion and ordain ministers who agreed with them. They were prepared for these things.
But the Rigid, who from another writing call themselves Counter-Remonstrants, judged thus:
- Exacerbations and dissensions could be met only by a national synod.
- Through the postponement of a synod until the twentieth year, so many stumbling blocks had arisen.
- All who wished to be and be called ministers of the Reformed Churches ought to submit themselves to a synod as litigants on either side.
- If a synod could not be held, the judgment of foreign academies must be obeyed.
- In good conscience they could choose no other path of peace; if they themselves attempted another, the other pastors would not agree and even their hearers would depart from them.
- Neither party should be forbidden to teach or dispute concerning the matter, for by this prohibition truth would be oppressed.
- Nevertheless, neither party should be permitted freely to propose its doctrine; for this would occur with immense scandal and offense if in one city it were taught in this manner, in another otherwise, indeed in one and the same church and chair thus before noon and the contrary after noon. From this would follow harmful confusions, scandals, and schisms, to the devastation of the churches.
- The adversaries, the Remonstrants or Soft, must therefore be commanded to keep their opinion on the five disputed articles within themselves and not propose or urge it in a sermon or otherwise in writing, publicly or privately; nor should they attack or refute the opinion of the Rigid or Counter-Remonstrants which opposed these articles.
- Nevertheless, the Counter-Remonstrants must be commanded to dispute moderately against the Soft or Remonstrants and assail them.
- Meanwhile no one who agrees with the Remonstrants must be ordained.
§6
At last, for the peace of their churches, the Estates made a decree in January 1614. By it they ordered men to remain quiet until the future synod, to be wise unto sobriety, to tolerate and bear others—in one word, to observe a truce; all were to possess the same right, and the Remonstrants were to suffer no trouble because of their religion. They also forbade the horrible decrees of the Rigid to be taught, such as: that some men were created by God for damnation; that a necessity of sinning was imposed upon someone; that some are invited by God to salvation although he has altogether not decreed to give them salvation; and so forth.
Behold, reader, after so many years of most bitter disputations, writings, anathemas, thunderings, and combats, Syncretism commanded by the magistrate between two battle lines of one Calvinism. Let us now see what followed, yet in such a way that we also weigh the laws of Syncretism enacted by the Rigid.
§7
First, they especially urge a synod because they hoped to surpass by numbers those whom the Remonstrants surpassed in eloquence, industry, and the magistrate’s favor.
Second, a most unjust law is proposed by the Rigid: the Soft are permitted neither publicly nor privately to propose their doctrine, defend their opinion in books or sermons, assail others, or ordain anyone from their own flock. The Rigid deny that the Soft should be tolerated any longer; they say they have been tolerated more than enough. They assert it to be unjust that they implore the protection of the nobles—the Estates—against every ecclesiastical censure.
Third, that is the true face of Syncretism: they impose silence upon the Soft, judge accusation equitable, and wish the respondent’s voice cut off. They reason not foolishly: victory is easy if you contend with a mute, if the accused is denied the defense always conceded among all nations by divine right. For how will truth, weakened by so many calumnies and agitated by so many hatreds, be restored by the equity of judges and stand if it is condemned unheard and undefended? It is an altogether barbarous crime, known neither to the altars of Lyon nor of Scythia, that a man should perish like a guilty person when the protection of innocence was denied him.
Fourth, the ordination of the Soft is forbidden. By a most cunning design they procure two advantages for their sect in a few words: the pursuits of the Soft are diminished when hope of honor and gain has been removed, and, succession denied, they must be reduced to fewness. But the decree of the Estates concerning mutual toleration and moderation made the cause of the Remonstrants or Soft better, as I said. Could the hardness of the Rigid be bent by the decree? Nicholas Grevinchovius, one of the six chosen disputants, writes thus in the dedicatory epistle of his disputation on two questions:
“But just as the same purple delights men and offends bulls, so the decree turned the minds of some toward counsels of peace, but provoked and sharpened others still more for battle. I know that this decree was suspect, and indeed hateful, to some for this reason alone: that it was promulgated by the illustrious Estates, not by a synod. Others, contrary to what the king of Great Britain had advised, judged that those disputes should be quieted neither by public authority nor any moderation, but terminated in favor of one party by theological decisions and synodal anathemas. Thus from that time no less rioting occurred than before, nor did those brothers rush more sluggishly against their fellow ministers and the more moderate churches than the most hostile and sworn enemies. This very church”—Rotterdam—“in which I serve the Lord is a witness, and you, most ample lords, are eyewitnesses with how great an effort and what a mass of invented suspicions, putrid calumnies, and most false accusations they labored at this one thing: that, the minds of the hearers being alienated, they might render our sermons less frequented and our churches deserted.”
He then continues to explain their arts: disturbing the people by tribunician declamations; driving ignorant rural presbyters mad; preoccupying judges by the atrocity of suspicions; and leading square and simple rural presbyters by the ears. He treats these things at greater length. At last matters reached the point that the Rigid flew about freely in contempt of every decree of the Estates.
The history which Grevinchovius relates there is worthy of remembrance; I shall report it in his words: “I remember that, after hearing a most virulent sermon in a neighboring church, I sought from the presbytery a friendly conference about it with S. Gruterus, the minister of that church. But after many most bitter insults, what at last? A peremptory response: if I were a Turk or Jew, I could and ought to be admitted to a colloquy; but as a heretic more wicked than those, I was not to be heard but avoided by Paul’s command.” These things after the pleasant colloquy, these things after Syncretism had been decreed. But is this the end? Is immense anger and savage madness content with a moderate disaster?
Behold another stratagem proper and natural to Syncretism. While in the sight of the Estates they debate peaceably, cover hatreds with their countenance and frauds with bland speech, call one another brothers in almost every period, syncretize most splendidly, and most cunningly feign friendship, the same men most hostilely and bitterly assail their associates and brothers. For because they saw that the Estates were more favorable toward the Remonstrants or Soft than to appear likely to obey the desire and anger of the Rigid and condemn those men undefended, that hard nation of the Rigid, ignorant of yielding and tenacious in urging its purpose, contrives their utter destruction from elsewhere. It prepares a most powerful and fervent foreign enemy against the Remonstrants, who by speech may inflame the Estates of Holland toward the destruction of their brothers, move them by authority, and almost compel them by power.
I report the history from the Remonstrants’ supplicatory book: “Moreover,” they say, “since no one is ignorant what was recently written under the title of the king of Great Britain to the most powerful States General concerning the late pious and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, Lord JACOB ARMINIUS—who in those letters is disgraced with the appellation ‘enemy of God,’ and his disciples with the titles ‘sectarians, plagues, heretics, indeed atheistic sectarians whose heresy it is expedient to suppress and root out promptly and in the very blade’—the Remonstrants judge that they too are touched and injured by these words. Yet they are no more Arminians than Calvinists or Lutherans; for they profess themselves Christians, ministers of the Reformed Church, by no means infected with heresy or a sect, much less—which is horrible to say—an atheistic sect, but agreeing in the foundation of doctrine and faith with the churches of Great Britain, faithful citizens of their country, humble subjects, the most humble servants of your illustrious lordships and of his Sacred Royal Majesty, for whose safety, long life, preservation, and happy government they ardently pray to the Lord God, King of kings.
“It seemed good to the Remonstrants, with the greatest submission, to ask and entreat your illustrious lordships to grant them, with your good leave—as their innocence in this matter is best known to you—permission to enter upon some safe and honorable way of defending themselves and most humbly and submissively admonishing the said Royal Majesty concerning both Lord Arminius of pious memory, whom they confidently believe to have been and to be not an enemy but a friend of God, and themselves, as men who wish to be cleared and freed before the whole world from the gravest accusations, intolerable to any Christian person.”
§8
A spectacle harsh even to waves and shores, but unexpected and mournful to the Remonstrants: in their own country, before their own magistrate, chosen theologians and presidents of churches dispute about faith, religion, charity, holiness, and mutual toleration; instruct one another with fraternal words; write counsels of peace to their magistrate; offer themselves to a synod and pledge to stand by its judgment. While they display these splendid things in Holland to the gaping people, they most cruelly prosecute the same men in Britain as guilty, affirming them to be sectarians, plagues, heretics, atheistic sectarians, liable to the gravest accusations intolerable to any Christian, and judging that they must promptly be suppressed and rooted out in the very blade. They acted with such art that the king believed, with such passion that he quickly dictated a sentence and by letter urged a foreign magistrate to suppress and root them out. The outcome of the judgment, the severity of the royal sentence, and the transmarine embassy show what were the cunning and atrocity of the accusers.
Perhaps the Counter-Remonstrants were not the authors of so atrocious and perfidious an accusation carried to a transmarine tribunal, nor did the Rigid summon the deadly sentence from the island when domestic equity obstructed them. I would therefore wish them to clear themselves, or the most serene king, who alone can do so, to absolve them from suspicion. For by naming definite accusers he will show the rest to be immune, if not from communion in an approved crime, at least from the perpetration of the deed.
But it is admitted that they accused them. Those who wished their brothers to perish undefended, imposed silence, and judged them intolerable and more wicked than Turks and Jews—and this contrary to the magistrate’s public decree—why is it marvelous if they reported the matter more harshly to the defender of the faith because the Estates seemed too gentle? Moreover, no one except a rigid Calvinist condemns those articles of the Remonstrants about which the controversy exists. Therefore those alone accused who alone possessed a cause for accusation. Thirdly, we ought neither to suspect, nor will his panegyrists concede, that the most prudent king judged most severely in a most grave cause upon the information of an uncertain or unknown accuser. Who, then, accused? Were they not the leaders of the Rigid, who knew the Soft most intimately and could report certain, attested, and seen things? Those men, I say, who foresaw the ruin of the colloquy and perceived themselves conquered by reason and the judgment of the Estates.
§9
I have produced an example of Syncretism which may instruct even the rudest man. What more Cretan could be devised even in Crete itself than the Rigid displayed for us in Holland? At home they dispute fraternally, utter holy words drawn from the sanctuary of Scripture as signs of false benevolence in simulated love, compose laws of peace, and undertake a truce at the command of the Estates. Meanwhile they abuse the authority and power of a foreign king for the destruction of their associates and brothers. They hoped that those whom they could not conquer would be given over as guilty to royal favor, and that the Estates would not dare deny what they so ardently demanded: that they stake the reputation and life of a few to earn the friendship of an allied king.
They were not ignorant that the Briton held the key of the federated provinces; that without his aid navigation was unsafe; that Zeeland and Holland were bound to him by heavy pledges; that cities were occupied by an English garrison; that many Englishmen were in Belgium; and that not a few Belgians preferred royal Majesty to the modest rank of their own Estates. The Rigid judged that all these protections of favor, power, authority, proximity, appearance, and fear must be employed against the safety of their brothers with whom they had been syncretized.
§10
Do not expect another condition of Syncretism or hope for other alliances, Lutherans—or, if other, ones much worse in many ways. For the articles about which they dispute belong as much to you as to the Soft. They teach: first, that reprobation was not made without regard to sin; second, that Christ died for all and each; third, that grace is so given that many can nevertheless resist the Holy Spirit; fourth, they demand that whether faith and justice can be lost be demonstrated from Scripture, for they candidly profess that they doubt. They utterly deny that they have any other dispute with their brothers.
On account of the same articles you will have to sustain the same judgments against you. They will proclaim silence to you, deny that you should be tolerated, and declaim that you are more wicked than Turks and Jews. However the theologians flatter and lie with their countenance about charity, simulate fraternity in words and embrace, nevertheless a tempest stirred by the flatterers will come and, armed with royal forces, a storm will strike you. You will be sectarians, plagues, heretics, atheistic sectarians, liable to the gravest accusations intolerable to any Christian person as soon as they become stronger; hence you must promptly, indeed in the very blade, be suppressed and rooted out lest you be able to grow into shrubs.
They will rise against you the more cruelly in proportion as they possess more causes for conquering you, and the more eagerly as the prize of victory is greater and succession to more splendid wealth is hoped for. For in you they will not allege those errors which they pursue by so distant a judgment and avenge so cruelly among the Remonstrants—errors which British courtiers scarcely understand, much less rural ignoramuses, or “square men,” as Grevinchovius calls them. They judge that they possess greater reason for raging against you: namely, monstrous ubiquity, the conqueror of all articles of faith; impanation; ἀρτολατρείαν [bread-worship]; Osiandrism; Flacianism; and the other horrible and abominable portents of heresies summoned from hell.
Fraternal names will then be far away, when you are called worse than those now judged more wicked than Turks and Jews. Nor will you be able to complain; for he who admits Syncretism brings frauds into the compact. He who introduced a condition of deceiving into the counsel ought not to grieve at the outcome. Who will pity an enchanter struck by a serpent? To whom is death unexpected if he wanders carelessly around a lion’s mouth? Flee the very long whales which display the faces of Sirens in the Netherlands but possess the tail of scorpions in Britain. If the deceitful fiction of one or another entices you, let the examples of the most bitter persecutions which those who took too little caution for themselves were compelled to undergo deter you. And let this be the example of Calvinist Syncretism.