Sunday, December 14, 2008

Chapter 3 Part 2

The Life of James Arminius
Chapter 3, Part 2 of 3.


This biography of James Arminius was written in Latin by Caspar Brandt, published by Gerard Brandt in 1724, and translated to English by John Guthrie in 1854.
--------------------

Some hot-headed zealots, however, determined that the matter should not rest here, stirred up fresh strifes against Arminius; and by dint of incessant slanders they so far succeeded, that the Presbytery, convened without his knowledge on the 22nd April, resolved, 'That he be called upon to declare distinctly, and without any circumlocution, his opinion on all the articles of faith; and that, in the event of his demurring to this request, certain theses and antitheses be forthwith prepared, on which a conference shall be held with him.' [Vide acta Presbyt. Amstel. citata a Triglaudio in Hist. Eccles. pag. 284.]. As soon as Arminius received intimation of this counsel and decree, which he did on the 6th May, he decided that it was not his duty to give an immediate reply, but that, on the contrary, he ought to petition the Presbytery for a reasonable space of time to consider the matter. At a meeting of the Presbytery a few weeks after (on the 20th May), some of its members reminded him of the matter, and ceased not to rake up the old embers of strife; when Arminius, starting to. his feet in the midst of them, challenged all, with a loud voice, to stand forth, whosoever they were, that had a mind to produce aught from his discourses that was worthy of censure [Ex schedulis Arminii.]. No one rising, some one of them threw out the solitary objection, 'That from the testimony of Martinists, Anabaptists, and even libertines themselves, who gloried in his discourses on the ninth chapter of the Romans, it was not unwarrantable to infer that he had taught and maintained something different from that which was taught by his brother ministers, and everywhere taught by Reformed divines.' This consequence Arminius denied, and said, 'That to him it appeared strange, that men of so many conflicting opinions could applaud his discourses, but that no one of his own order — no one of this meeting — had heard anything which could be shown to be at variance with the Word of God, and the received formularies of consent.' To this one of the elders rejoined, 'That it must indeed be admitted that he had been rigidly on his guard against openly advancing anything worthy of censure; but that he had nevertheless employed ambiguous and equivocal modes of speech.' Arminius here asserted his innocence, and demanded proof of the above allegation, that he might the better avoid, for the time to come, such modes of speech; but no one was found who would undertake the task of substantiating that charge.

Nor was this all. A few days after (on the 27th May), at the very next meeting of the Ecclesiastical Senate, Arminius, perceiving that the minds of many were not yet set at rest, called out twice or thrice in the open meeting for the secret calumniators of his name, and ordered them to produce in his presence whatever they had against him. This challenge being given, Kuchlinus immediately asked 'Where Plancius was now;' and began to urge on him 'That, as he had occasionally, in the absence of Arminius, started doubts as to his doctrine, he should come out with them now that Arminius was present and within hearing. This was the proper place; this the fit time to speak out his mind.' [This is more smartly expressed in the original by the pungent proverb, 'hie Rhodum, hie saltum esse.' — TR.] Pressed by this summons, and called upon by Arminius to stand forth as his adversary, Plancius repudiated that insidious name of adversary, but acknowledged that he had observed several things in the discourses of Arminius which did not correspond with sufficient exactness to the doctrines received by the Reformed Church. The sum of his accusation was as follows: —

I. Arminius, when expounding the ninth chapter of the Romans, had taught 'that no one is condemned except on account of sin' — thereby excluding all infants from condemnation.

II. He had also declared 'that too much could not be ascribed to good works, nor could they be sufficiently commended, provided no merit were attributed to them.'

III. He had affirmed that 'Angels are not immortal.' [Ex schedulis Arminii. Vide vitam Uitenb. Belgico idiomate ab ipso conscript. edit. 1645. p. 54.]

To these several heads of charge Arminius replied.

As to the first, when he affirmed that sin is the cause of condemnation, he did not by these words except original sin; nor did Plancius rightly understand the nature of our original taint if he meant to exclude it from the designation of sin.

The second, relating to what he had affirmed of good works, he was so far from disclaiming, that he would defend it as the truth.

Here Plancius put the question — 'If justification, then, was to be ascribed to good works also, provided no merit were ascribed to them?'

Arminius replied, 'That justification is to be ascribed, not to works, but to faith; in proof of which St Paul says, in Romans iv. 4th and 5th — "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." '

As to the third head of charge, that relating to angels, he acknowledged that he had given vent to that opinion, and defended it with solid arguments, never indeed in public, but privately on one occasion in the house of Plancius; adding, that it was still his opinion that immortality was the peculiar attribute of God alone — this being evident from the testimony of Paul in 1st Timothy vi. 16. The angels, indeed, were, and would continue to be, happy and immortal spirits, not however by virtue of their nature, but by the external sustentation of God, eternally preserving them in being — just as human bodies before the fall were mortal, and susceptible of dissolution, but yet would never have been subjected to death, had not sin supervened.

This discussion with Plancius he followed up by the declaration, 'That up to that hour, he had never, so far as he knew, taught anything at variance with the Confession and Catechism; and that he received the several articles and doctrines of faith, comprehended in these writings, in the very sense in which they were everywhere explained by the Reformed Church. The only scruple of which he was then conscious, related to the interpretation of the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession, to the terms of which, however, he willingly adhered.' [Ex Actis Presbyt. Amstel.]. On this understanding', the Presbytery decided, 'That there was no necessity for any further dealing with Arminius in regard to this matter, but that fraternal fellowship continue to be cultivated with him, until the true and genuine sense of the article just named should be more clearly opened up to him by the blessing of God, and by the interpretation of a General Synod.' [Vid. Trig-land. Hist. Eccles. p. 284.].

A reconciliation being thus effected with his colleagues, and the disputes that had arisen respecting his discourses being allayed, he was permitted after that to live at peace in the Church. At subsequent periods, indeed, the envy of certain parties led them to strew secret snares in his path, and to put an injurious construction, occasionally, upon some of his best words and deeds. This he experienced when engaged with the exposition of the thirteenth chapter of the Romans, where, in the course of profound and learned discussions on the various duties of magistrates, he was thought by some to have conceded to them too much of charge and jurisdiction in matters of religion. But we find it nowhere recorded that on the ground of these and other things of the like trivial importance, proceedings were openly and publicly instituted against him. From this time, therefore, in an active and uninterrupted course, he not only prosecuted that series of lectures, but also prosecuted, concurrently therewith, on stated days, his exposition of the Prophecies of Malachi, which he completed in sixty-nine discourses. Moreover, by his indefatigable study of theology, and his solid acquirements, no less, in the liberal arts, he became increasingly every day the ornament and the boast, not only of the Church, but even of the Republic and people of Amsterdam. Hence, when in course of the year 1594, it was in agitation to remodel the elementary schools, the illustrious Senate of the city thought fit to make choice of him in preference to others, to whom the charge of performing this office should, by public appointment, be committed. Wherefore, acting the part, on this occasion, of a most faithful governor of schools, he drew up, with the view of reducing them to a better state, those scholastic regulations which, exhibiting alike the duties of master and pupil, are statedly rehearsed to this day, every half year, in the Choir of the New Temple at Amsterdam, by the rectors of that institution, at the close of the spring and autumn examinations. This is proved by the very autograph of these laws, in the handwriting of Arminius himself, which is preserved to this day by that eminent leader of the Remonstrants, and professor of theology among them — Philip Limborch. That distinguished man, too, the director of the Amsterdam school, to whom, as respects our studies, we are under the deepest obligation — the incomparable Adrian Junius, of Utrecht, used often to refer with pride to their having obtained a framer of laws of such great celebrity, and to congratulate the school of Amsterdam on that behalf.

No comments: