He had entertained a mortal enmity for several years against the Grand Pensionary[77], who concluded the truce in 1609 without his concurrence.  Hitherto he had stifled his revenge for want of a proper opportunity of executing it; but it blazed openly on occasion of this decree of the States, which he considered as Barnevelt’s act.  He accused him of labouring to diminish his authority:  found fault with the Edict:  that was made to engage the two parties to live in peace; declared publicly for the Gomarists, assisted at divine service only in their churches, and forbad the soldiers to obey the States when they would employ them to appease the riots.  Some towns, however, levied men in consequence of the States decree, whether they suspected their garrisons, or thought there was no other way to suppress the enterprises of the rioters.  The Contra-Remonstrants seeing themselves powerfully protected by Prince Maurice, separated from the communion of the Arminians in 1617.

FOOTNOTES: 

[77] Grot.  Hist. l. 17.

VI.  Amsterdam, almost as powerful singly as all Holland, favoured the Gomarists, and disapproved of the Toleration which the States wanted to introduce.  These resolved therefore to send a Deputation to that city, in order to bring them over to their sentiments.  The Deputies were Grotius, Adrian Mathenes, Hugo Musius, and Gerard Deich.  April 21, 1616, they received their instructions to go to Amsterdam; on the morrow they left the Hague, and arriving the same day at Amsterdam, sent to desire the oldest Burgomaster to assemble the Town Council:  they were told, the Council would meet the 23d at three in the afternoon.  They employed this interval in removing a calumny spread by the Contra-Remonstrants, that they were sent to change the religion.  One of the City-Secretaries waited on them to conduct them to the Council Chamber, and being come there, Grotius, as spokesman, said, “That Sovereigns had a right to watch over the proceedings of the Church; that the States had no intention but to protect the reformed religion; that they ardently desired the city of Amsterdam would agree with them in all that might relate to the government of the Church and mutual toleration; that the revival of the regulation of 1591, which gives the Magistrates a right to chuse the Ministers, after being examined and found well affected to the reformed religion, was of great service, by preventing the troubles which followed the elections; of which there were several recent instances:  that mutual toleration was necessary when the difference in opinion regarded only points not fundamental; that it had always been practised by the reformed churches from the time of Calvin’s reformation; that it was more necessary in the doctrine of Predestination, as this was a matter of great difficulty; that the first reformers, though of different sentiments, tolerated one another; that Bullinger and Melancton were tolerated by Beza and