Chapter 3 Part 3

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

Meanwhile (not to waste time with these details) Arminius proceeded to investigate more thoroughly the generally received tenets of the Geneva School, respecting Divine Predestination, and strove with all his might to extricate himself from those doubts and difficulties in which he had hitherto stuck fast. While intent at this work, nothing interested him more than to discover that, here and there, other leaders of the Reformed Church, distinguished in like manner for learning and piety, were possessed with the self-same solicitude and desire. Pre-eminent among these at that time was Gellius Snecanus, a most learned minister of Friesland. This man having, in the year 1596, published his 'Introduction to the Ninth Chapter of the Romans,' Arminius was penetrated with the more delight that he found his views to coincide almost entirely with his own. On perusing the commentary of this writer (in whose judgment he reposed very much confidence), he at once discovered that he had taken the very same view of the scope of the apostle, and of the principal argument treated in this chapter, which he himself, when engaged in expounding the same portion, had shortly before propounded from the pulpit in Amsterdam. He ingenuously acknowledged that that chapter of Paul's epistle always appeared to him to be enveloped in thickest darkness, and to be of most difficult exposition, until by that course which Snecanus, and he himself some time before, had pursued, the light shone in and dispelled the gloom [Ex Epist. Arm. ad G. Snecan.].

Wherefore, prizing highly the work of this celebrated divine, he not only thanked him by letter, but also transmitted to him, on his part, an epistolary 'Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of the Romans,' for the sake of testifying their harmony of sentiment, and of proving that that well-known passage of the Apostle did little or nothing to confirm that decree of absolute election and reprobation which very many deduced from it. But he deemed it dutiful, in the circumstances, to use much circumspection; for the times in which he lived did not admit either of his safely impugning or freely advocating views in any respect at variance with that dismal opinion of a fatal decree to which, he devoutly believed, the most celebrated fathers of the Reformed Church, even as others, had been led to subscribe by a certain veneration for the Sacred Scriptures. He thought it advisable, therefore, above all, in order to disburden himself of his scruples on this subject, without tumult and uproar, and without disparaging those whose reputation it was of the utmost consequence to the Church to preserve inviolate, that he should communicate his thoughts (long kept to himself, and subjected to frequent revision) on the dogma above named, to several individuals of the highest name and authority, and confer with them privately both by tongue and pen. For if he had but proved his opinion to their satisfaction, he anticipated that there would be little difficulty in proving it to the rest, who all hung, for the most part, on the lips of these great men, and were likely, erelong, to make their appeal to them. Happen what might, he hoped to make it evident to every candid judge, that he had practised no arts of concealment, and had never shrunk from the judgment and scrutiny of any; but in the event of his becoming, in this way, more assured of the truth of his sentiments, he cherished the hope that the whole case would come Eventually to be submitted, in due form, under the sanction of public authority, to the solemn decision of a theological council, and the true and milder opinion on the subject duly and formally ratified [Ex Epist. dedic. praefixa Examini libelli Perkinsiani de Praedest. modo et ordine.]. Trusting to these considerations, and having now for some time made the Revds. M. Lydius, J. Taffin, and his colleague, J. Kuchlinus, cognisant of his doubts and his plans, at their instigation he resolved to open his mind on all those points to that great pillar of theology, and of the Reformed religion, well known for his moderation towards those, even Papists themselves, who differed from him in opinion [Beautifully characteristic of Junius is the following morceau, which we owe to Gerard Brandt, the father of our biographer:— 'In a company of French divines the following question was put to Junius, viz., "If you were to lose all your writings, but had it in your power to save one, which of them would you wish to keep?" He answered, "THE PEACEABLE CHRISTIAN — [a treatise intended to promote peace]— for the rest of my books I wrote as a divine, but this as a Christian." ' — Hist. of Reform, in Low Countries, vol. ii. p. 21. — TR.], Francis Junius, of Bourges, who in the University of Leyden, of all who at that time professed sacred literature, confessedly occupied the highest place.

Accordingly, being invited, early in the year 1597, to the marriage of the Rev. J. Kuchlinus — who, having sometime previously undertaken the office of professor, had contracted a matrimonial engagement with the aunt of Arminius — he set out for Leyden; and on that occasion, on a certain afternoon, he entered fully and freely into conversation with Junius on the cause of the fall of our first parents, and on the mode of that fall, namely, how far it may be regarded as contingent, and how far as necessary. The occasion, materials, and scope of this interview were furnished by a certain treatise on that subject which Junius had lately published. In the course of it, Arminius started various doubts and difficulties respecting the mystery of divine providence and infinite prescience [Vide pleniorem hujus rei narrat. in Epist. Armin. ad Uitenb. 7. Febr. 1597.]. They also entered into the question — 'How, admitting that immutable and fixed decree which the followers of Calvin and Beza attributed to God, man could be said to have nevertheless voluntarily fallen, and to have been master of his own actions?' [Vid. Epist. Eccles, in folio Amst. 1684, edit. pag. 33, 34, 35.]. To these, and other difficulties of the same description, Junius replied in such a manner, and cleared up so ably and satisfactorily the nature of things contingent, and of things necessary, that Arminius shortly after declared, in a letter to Uitenbogaert, 'that he had been as much charmed with the answers of Junius as if he had discovered an immense treasure;' and further, 'that in comparison with a knowledge sure and satisfactory to his own mind on points relating to providence and predestination, on which he had now, for seven years, been perplexed with distracting doubts, he set a trivial value on all the wealth of Croesus and of Midas, and on the treasures of the whole world.' On perceiving, moreover, that the sentiments of this very eminent divine, on the points above-named, did not differ from his own, and that this interview with him thus far had turned out according to his wish, he took occasion to discuss some points also connected with predestination, not so much to obtain information respecting them — which, owing to the limited time, and the advancing evening, was scarcely practicable — as to intimate that it was a subject in which he stuck fast, and that he hoped to be able, by his aid, to get himself speedily extricated. This aid Junius most kindly promised him, if he would communicate, by letter, whatever points were agitating his mind. On this they exchanged a pledge of silence, lest, by the officious zeal of certain parties, some mischief should chance to befall the one or the other. Arminius, accordingly, overjoyed at the offer, and deeming the opportunity too precious to be neglected, sent him, a few months after, an epistolary disquisition concerning the truth of different opinions on the subject of predestination, in which a variety of arguments were advanced to prove that the sentiments of certain parties laboured under many difficulties [Ex Epist. Dedic. Bertii Epistolicae huic Arm. cum Junio collatioui praefixa.]. In particular, as, in the estimation of not a few, the illustrious Junius himself, treading in the footsteps of the Thomists, seemed not so much to abandon as merely to shade off that harsher sentiment of Calvin and Beza (for he held the subject of predestination to be, not man as whom God had not yet decreed to create, nor man viewed as created with the foreknowledge of his fall, but man viewed as created, in so far as he, furnished with natural gifts, was invited to avail himself of a supernatural good — a position which Junius repeatedly defended in the university), Arminius attempted to prove, by a few select arguments, that both opinions (that is, both his and Calvin's), in addition to other disadvantages, involved the necessity of sin, and, consequently, that recourse must be had to a third (that is, his own), which presupposed the creation and the fall. On the strength of this position, it was his intention to proceed further and at length affirm the decree of God concerning the salvation of believers, and the condemnation of unbelievers. But to this communication Junius replied some considerable time after, and sent, too, in his turn, a written statement which, to use the words of Arminius himself, was 'truly pious, learned, and full of brotherly love.' We may give the introductory part of this reply, as it stands, in proof of the consummate modesty, and of the gentleness of spirit, which characterised that distinguished man.

'The cause of my long silence, esteemed brother, has been Tertullian, with whom, you are aware, I have now for a considerable time been engaged [Junius here alludes to his Notes on Tertullian, a work with which, it appears, he was at this time occupied. — TR.]. Meanwhile, I put your letter in a drawer out of my sight, that, as soon as I had time to do so, I might remember the duty I owed you and attend to the tenor of your request. And indeed you wish me to give you a clear explanation of a very grave question — a question the amount of truth involved in which God alone fully knows. What is sufficient he has revealed in the written Word, which, according to the will of God, we each consult. What is your opinion, and what is not, you plainly state: what is my opinion you wish me to declare; that by this mutual encounter and disclosure of mind, we may elucidate truth on the subject of Divine grace. According to the measure which God hath dealt to me, I will do what I can, and state whatever I know of this most stupendous mystery, whether I should be seeing in truth, or through the glass of opinion; that what is of God you may share with me, and what we see not you may investigate with me — as far as may be found in the Word. What is of my opinion, merely, if you should see further than I do, kindly and fraternally disclose, and by salutary counsel recall me into the way of truth. Of preliminary points I will here say nothing, my wish being to proceed at once to the subject itself, as tending more to "the use of edifying," which the Apostle enjoins. All, as I judge, are zealous for piety and truth; but all do not, on this account, amid their piety, see the whole truth [The original has 'omnes quaerunt,' a typographical mistake for 'omnem vident.' Comp. Collatio in Arm. oper. p. 159. — TR.]. We all know in part, and prophesy in part: and day by day does the Spirit of truth lead us into all truth [1 Cor. xiii. 9; John xvi. 13.]. Part of the truth we perceive, and part we teach: the rest will the Spirit of truth, in his own time, give to them that ask it. May he therefore give to both of us to receive and to communicate the truth.'

Thus far the distinguished Junius: in the drift of whose very learned reply, however, when more thoroughly examined, Arminius could by no means acquiesce. His conviction was, that this very acute divine, partly by giving a common aspect to the object of predestination (which is almost incomprehensible), and partly by straining the language of authors, wished, on this subject, to compound one opinion out of many, contrary to the mind of those by whom these opinions were severally maintained [Ex Epist. dedic. collationi huic praefixa.]. Hence, after careful perusal of the documents, Arminius had resolved to bring the begun correspondence to a close, and to impose silence on himself for the time being; but he learned, shortly after, that his epistolary discussion had been communicated, by Junius himself, to one who boarded in his house, and in whom he reposed too much confidence; that this individual had transcribed it; and that, in consequence, it had taken wing, and got into circulation among the students, so much so, that his colleague Plancius twitted him with sufficient bitterness, as having got his mouth effectually stopped by the reply of Junius. In these circumstances, he deemed it his duty to ply the web of that correspondence to the end. Roused, accordingly, by the occasion, and trusting to the courtesy of Junius himself, he drew up new and succinct considerations on his reply, under the barbarous name of Replicae. At the conclusion of this piece, and by way of postscript, he declared 'that he had submitted these considerations to the eminent Junius, not so much from a desire to confute him, as to elicit from him more extended explanations, with a view to obtain satisfaction on the point in question, and get his mind set at rest.' He added, 'that if he had written anything contrary to the truth, his prayer was, that God would forgive him, and point out to him the truth; but if, on the other hand, he had advanced aught that was agreeable to the truth, his prayer was, that God would confirm him in it, and incline Junius to embrace it, that through him greater authority might thereby be daily conceded to the truth, and that it might be propagated more and more.' To these considerations of Arminius, however (which, at a period long subsequent, after the death of Junius, were enlarged by their author), Junius never replied; and (for what reason is not known) he retained them in his possession for an entire period of six years, even to the last day of his life. [Gerard Brandt, the father of our biographer, leaves his readers to account for the silence of Junius, either on the ground that it might have done harm to have stirred the question further in such times, or 'that he found himself pressed too home, and, as the friends of Arminius think, knew not what to say to some of the points of his reply.' — Hist. of Reform. in Low Countries, vol. ii. p. 20. — TR.]