Chapter 5 Part 3

The Life of James Arminius
Chapter 5, 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.
--------------------

But they, not deeming it of any consequence to attend to this warning, straightway divulged the same doubts respecting Arminius, which they had brought out in that conference, to the Grand Pensionary of the States of Holland, as well as the curators of the Academy, commending the Academy to their care, and adding the request that they would see to it that the peace of the institution be not disturbed. They replied in general terms, that 'they would take care of that matter.' [Ex Diario MS. Uitenb.].

But the curators, suspecting on good grounds that certain parties were pushing this business with far too great animosity, and that under it there lurked much envy against Arminius — nay, further, that if by this pretext of heterodoxy he should be driven from the professorship, his public usefulness also would be very apt to be sacrificed in that church to the ministry of which he had devoted himself — were of opinion that it was their duty still to prosecute the call. More than that, Arminius having taken a journey to the Hague at this conjuncture (January 21, 1603), to despatch some ecclesiastical business in name of the Amsterdam Classis, they called him into their presence, informed him of their determination, and begged that he would not scruple to give them the hope and pledge that he would accept the office of professor; and that they would take steps, and strive with all their weight, to induce the magistrates and church of Amsterdam to give in like manner their consent to the arrangement. This, however, Arminius modestly declined, giving the same reply that he had previously given to Uitenbogaert, and to the other delegates of the academic council.

Shortly after, having returned home, and obtained an opportunity of holding a familiar interview with that minister of Delft (Arnold Cornelis) who had presided at the above-mentioned conference held at the Hague, and who was spending some days in Amsterdam, he began (Jan. 27) to deal with him freely — partly complaining of the injurious judgment of certain individuals, and partly clearing and defending himself. He added, that 'that method of acting did not appear to him to be sufficiently Christian, and that another ought to be adopted of a more positive sort, and more in accordance with Christian candour.' [Ex Epist. Arm. inedita Script. ad Uitenb. 28 Jan. 1603.]. Still further, referring to that conference, and to the steps which, thus far, the deputies of the churches had taken against him, Arminius observed: [Namely to Uitenbogaert, in the letter referred to in the preceding note, giving an account of his interview with Cornelis the day before, and containing the expressions quoted in the previous sentence.—TR.] —'It seems evident to me, that all their deliberations and acts have proceeded from a certain groundless fear, induced by the calumnious reports respecting me of certain individuals whom I have declared myself easily able to confute with the actual truth, if opportunity and place were only granted me for defending myself.'

But a suspicion once entertained of the heterodoxy of Arminius had fixed its roots too deeply in the minds of those entrusted with the welfare of the churches, (viz., the deputies) to allow themselves to be deterred from their undertaking by any arguments of his. Wherefore, taking into consideration the proceedings up to that point of the curators of the Academy, these ecclesiastical deputies set out for the Hague towards the end of February; and in the presence of Oldenbarneveldt renewed the same complaint that they had formerly lodged as to the dangers to which the Academy would be exposed by this call of Arminius, following it up with the request that he would not refuse to exert his influence with these same curators in order to impede its progress. The grounds on which they contended were the same as before, with the addition of this other, by the colleague of Arminius, Werner Helmichius, namely, that only very lately Arminius had taught in public that 'God had not yet sent a bill of divorcement to the Church of Rome.' [Vide Vitam Uitenb. cap. v. Trigland. Hist. Eccles.]. These words Arminius had used in the course of expounding the second chapter of Revelation, and thence some of his enemies had snatched a handle for the suspicion that he had an undue leaning towards that very impure Church, and had undertaken its defence.

But it escaped Helmichius, and even the most honourable the Grand Pensionary of Holland, to whom at first sight such a saying appeared absurd, that F. Junius, besides often and openly maintaining the same opinion in his public prelections and disputations, had given that exposition almost in the self-same words, in a certain excellent treatise On the Church. On this account, Uitenbogaert, the moment he was informed of the accusation referred to, handed in that treatise to this most eminent man for his perusal; and added that many besides Junius, and these too of no mean name among Reformed divines, had expressly maintained the same thing, not with the view of patronising that meretricious Church, but rather to set forth the benignity of the supreme and ever-blessed God, who, inasmuch as certain traces of Christianity still remained in that Church, was even yet urging it to repentance.

This act of Helmichius, moreover, was regarded by the patrons of Arminius as anything but handsome; for they deemed it most iniquitous that this eminent clergyman had not only ventured, in the presence of a man of such great authority, to defame an absent colleague, and that too without ever having communicated with him on the matter, but also that he should demand of that same high personage to keep secret evinced that he by no means acquiesced in the opinion of the great Calvin on Predestination, and that this circumstance was fraught with imminent danger to the Academy. Uitenbogaert owned that that opinion laboured under serious difficulties which he himself was not able to extenuate or remove; but from this there was no ground to apprehend dissension, provided Arminius, while temperately maintaining a milder view of that question, accepted in a fair and liberal spirit the modest defence which Gomarus and others might put forth for their opinion. Here Helmichius affirmed that the doctrine of an absolute decree of Reprobation had been received by the Reformed Church; and that those who were of a different sentiment might be tolerated in the Church, provided they imposed silence on themselves and abstained from running that doctrine down. Uitenbogaert replied, that he for his part was one who could not assent to that opinion, which, in fact, ought by no means to be attributed to the entire Church of the Reformed, but only to certain particular divines. Nay it was those rather who rejected that horrible decree (as Calvin himself calls it, in express terms, when treating of Reprobation) that ought to be asked to bear patiently with its patrons and defenders. Further, on Helmichius asserting somewhat warmly that there were certain parties in Amsterdam who were prepared to establish against Arminius more charges still, and of greater weight, should this academic invitation be further pressed, Uitenbogaert rejoined, that 'insinuations of this kind were made in manifest contravention of the law of charity, yea, and of truth. He perceived that a tyranny altogether new, and which he would by no means submit to, had been introduced into the Reformed Church. Individuals there were who spoke of that Church none otherwise than if it were exempt from all liability to error, and stood in need of no further reform. Hence no one dissenting, even in how trivial soever a degree, was to be tolerated: and the blot of heresy was to be forthwith daubed upon those who owned as much as a slight difference, or even doubt, in respect to any article of faith and doctrine. As an effusion from this bitter fountain, a certain minister had ventured to call Arminius a heretic. In this way all liberty of friendly conference on points of Christian doctrine was precluded; and from this it was to be feared still greater troubles would arise.'

This conversation was scarcely ended when the celebrated Gomarus also came to the Hague, and had a lengthened interview with Uitenbogaert on the same affair. On this occasion Gomarus, with a mind thoroughly excited (as far as it might be allowed to conjecture from his countenance), began to rate him for his commendation of Arminius, whom he styled a man of impure doctrine — adding that he (Uitenbogaert) had rashly mixed himself up with academic affairs. This commendatory act Uitenbogaert vindicated on a multitude of grounds, and strove with all his might to wipe away the injurious aspersions from his absent friend; when immediately Gomarus, producing the reply of Armiuius to the communication of Junius (which a few days previously, he stated, had been handed to him by Casimir, the son of Francis Junius), declared that he would prove directly that Arminius maintained not only impure, but even impious doctrine [Ex Diario MS. Uitenb.]. To substantiate this allegation he instantly quoted, from the very autograph of Arminius, the following statement: that 'by no divine decree is the human will determined either to the one side or the other' — adding, 'That is an impious sentiment!' To this Uitenbogaert replied, that 'it was not impious to say that God did not determine those things which he himself was unwilling to determine. Arminius would render a just reason for that saying. Nay more, the very celebrated Junius had said nearly the same thing in his treatise "On the first Sin of Adam." '

Quitting this subject, Gomarus turned the conversation into another channel, alleging that the opinion of Arminius on the seventh chapter of Romans was manifestly at variance with the doctrine of the churches. Here Uitenbogaert put the question, on which article it was of the Confession and Catechism that the above-named interpretation impinged? Gomarus replied, that the doctrine of the churches was to be determined not only by these received formularies, but to a very great extent from the consent of the pastors. But to this Uitenbogaert rejoined, that a saying of this description savoured of Popery; and that he knew no other consent of the churches in doctrine but that which is contained in the express words of the Confession.

On this, Gomarus made reference to the subject of Predestination, and acknowledged that that decree might be modestly discussed, and Arminius borne with, provided he would deport himself with moderation. Then Uitenbogaert at length seizing this opportunity, gravely and courteously admonished this divine 'not to give way to his own feelings more than was meet, and allow himself to be carried away by the perverse judgments of others respecting Arminius;' adding, 'that Arminius never would undertake this office without, in the first instance, holding a friendly conference with him in reference to these and other difficulties. Nothing did Arminius desire more than to cultivate a fraternal friendship with him; and his resolution was rather to keep aloof from that office for ever than furnish occasion, even the least, for ecclesiastial strifes. Of strifes there were enough everywhere. Peace ought to be studied; nor did he doubt but that Arminius would give him the most ample satisfaction.' On this Gomarus calmly and candidly rejoined, 'that this was what he preeminently desired; that then Arminius would be to him a most acceptable colleague; and that he would tolerate all things which could be borne with consistently with the maintenance of peace and with integrity of conscience.'