Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Remonstrant-Counter-Remonstrant Debates: Crafting a Principled Defense of Toleration after the Synod of Dordrecht (1619–1650)

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Church History and Religious Culture

The debate about toleration occasioned by the condemnation, exile and later return of the Remonstrant leaders during and after the Truce in the Dutch Revolt has often been noted but not examined in detail. Based on the plethora of pamphlets and tracts for and against toleration that these years produced, this article analyzes the arguments and motivations for religious coexistence and freedom of conscience formulated by Simon Episcopius, Johannes Uytenbogaert, and other Remonstrants, in constant polemic interaction with their Contra-Remonstrant opponents. In the course of the debate the Erastian role of the magistrate was hollowed out and the importance of religious inclusion emphasized, but with the understanding that absent a reconciliation with their Gomarist counterparts, the pluriform reality existing within the Dutch Republic should be maintained and safeguarded. Accused of a sectarianism incongruent with their former position, the Remonstrant protagonists were compelled to develop a principled defense of their request for the free practice of their faith as well as of their refusal to tolerate the intolerant. Accused of licentiousness, they reluctantly formulated their own restrictive creedal formula. They presented the unmolested presence in the Republic of various sects as an enriching rather than a nefarious situation, rejected dogmatism and the monopolizing of truth, and argued plausibly that the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the 1579 Union of Utrecht is meaningless unless it include the freedom to practice one's faith.

Affiliations: 1: Professor of History, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA;, Email:


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Church History and Religious Culture — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation