Synod.  These two weighty declarations gained for the two parties henceforth the names of Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.  For the next three years a fierce controversy raged in every province, pulpit replying to pulpit, and pamphlet to pamphlet.  The Contra-Remonstrants roundly accused their adversaries of holding Pelagian and Socinian opinions and of being Papists in disguise.  This last accusation drew to their side the great majority of the Protestant population, but the Remonstrants had many adherents among the burgher-regents, and they could count upon a majority in the Estates of Holland, Utrecht and Overyssel, and they had the powerful support of Oldenbarneveldt.

The Advocate was no theologian, and on the doctrinal points in dispute he probably held no very clear views.  He inclined, however, to the Arminians because of their greater tolerance, and above all for their readiness to acknowledge the authority of the State as supreme, in religious as well as in civil matters.  He was anxious to bring about an accommodation which should give satisfaction to both parties, but he was dealing with fanatics, and the fires of religious bigotry when once kindled are difficult to quench.  And now was seen a curious object lesson in the many-headed character of the government of the United Netherlands.  A majority of the provinces in the States-General favoured the Contra-Remonstrants.  The Estates of Holland, however, under the influence of Oldenbarneveldt by a small majority refused the Contra-Remonstrant demand and resolved to take drastic action against the Gomarists.  But a number of the representative towns in Holland, and among them Amsterdam, declined to enforce the resolution.  At Rotterdam, on the other hand, and in the other town-councils, where the Arminians had the majority, the Gomarist preachers were expelled from their pulpits; and the Advocate was determined by coercion, if necessary, to enforce the authority of the Estates throughout the province.  But coercion without the use of the military force was impossible in face of the growing uprising of popular passion; and the military forces could not be employed without the consent of the stadholder.  Thus in 1617, with the question of civil war in Holland trembling in the balance, the ultimate decision lay with the stadholder; and Maurice after long hesitation determined to throw the sword of the soldier into the scale against the influence of the statesman.

Maurice had not as yet openly broken with his father’s old friend, whose immense services to the republic during the greater part of four decades he fully recognised.  As to the questions now in dispute the stadholder was to an even less degree than the Advocate a zealous theologian.  It is reported that he declared that he did not know whether predestination was blue or green.  His court-chaplain, Uyttenbogaert, was a leading Arminian; and both his step-mother, Louise (see p. 78), to whose opinions he attached much weight,