Chapter 7 Part 3

The Life of James Arminius
Chapter 7, 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 his colleagues up to this time had stirred no strife against him, on the subject of the controversies thus agitated; nor had they given as much as the slightest indication, public or private, of a hostile spirit [Ex Epist. Arm. 3 Kal. Sept. 1604.]. For although Gomarus, who was engaged at this time in the Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, had given a public pledge that he would discuss all the opinions concerning predestination, to be followed by a statement and proof of his own, this, so far from striking terror into Arminius, led him rather to declare, 'that if that very distinguished man should advance such arguments as were incapable of being answered, he for his part would be the first to assent to his opinion and recant his own.' Thus maintaining entire for his colleagues the same liberty of defending their own opinion in which he himself rejoiced, he cherished the hope that they would by no means overstep the bounds of Christian charity and fraternal equity.

But alas, while thus secure, and meditating no evil, he was overtaken by a very vehement storm. For Gomarus did not think fit to wait till a proper opportunity should be furnished him for disputing on the subject of predestination, but either of his own accord, or, as is more probable, at the instigation of others, so far overstepped order, and his own proper turn, as to expose to public view certain theses on that selfsame subject, which, according to the sole custom of the Academy, and in his proper rotation, Arminius had already discussed; and reports spread throughout the city that he was about to descend into the arena against Arminius, in open war. The day intimated for holding this disputation, was the 31st October. When it came round, straightway Gomarus, in a preface sufficiently acrimonious, and with an excited countenance, stated the reasons which had impelled him, to hold this disputation out of the due order; and he advanced many things which were manifestly intended as an attack upon Arminius. As to the positions he defended, they hinged on this, 'that the object of predestination is creatures rational, salvable, damnable, creatable, fallible, and recoverable. Further, that from among these, indefinitely foreknown, God, as absolute sovereign, of his own right and good pleasure, foreordained, on the one hand, certain individuals, to his own supernatural ends, namely, eternal life, and creation in an entire state of original righteousness, and holiness of life; and also on the other hand destined other individuals, eternally rejected from eternal life, to death and everlasting ignominy, and to the ways leading thereto, namely, to creation in a state of integrity, permission to fall into sin, loss of original righteousness, and abandonment in that loss; for this end, that by this way of acting, he might make known his most sovereign authority, wrath, and power on the reprobate, and the glory of his saving grace in relation to the elect.' Yea, more; on that same occasion this doctor asserted and openly maintained, 'that the gospel could not be simply called the manifestation of the divine predestination;' and added, by way of corollary, that, 'Castellio, Coornhert, and the Lutherans, falsely object to the Reformed Churches, and in particular to Calvin and Beza, who did signal service to the Church, and to the truth of predestination, in opposition to the Pelagians, that God by this doctrine is made the author of sin.'

Arminius, who was present at this disputation from beginning to end, stomached the insult, and bore in silence whatever odium was thus created against him. Nay, sick in body at the time, though not in mind, he, on the day following that on which the disputation was held (Nov. 1), opened his mind to Uitenbogaert in the following words :— 'I know, and have the testimony of conscience, that I have neither said nor done aught to afford Gomarus just cause of offence. I will readily return to favour even with him, though his conduct has been most offensive — yea, and with him of Amsterdam also, if he will henceforth but hold his peace. It is not lawful for me to hate any one, or long to retain wrath against any one, however just: that God who is described to us in the Bible instructs me to this effect by his word, Spirit, and example. Would that he might teach me to be moved by nothing, except when any blame is justly attributable to myself. It is not my part to answer for what another says or does; and I should be foolish were I to concede to any one so much of right in me, as that he should be able to disturb me as often as he had a mind. Be this my brazen wall — a conscience void of offence. 'Forward still let me go in my begun search after truth, and therein let me die, with the good God on my side, even if, on this account, I must needs incur the hatred and ill-will of the whole world! The disciple is not above his master. No new thing is this, for the truth to be rejected even by those whom such conduct least beseems, and who least of all wish to incur such a charge.' [Ex Epist. Arm. 1 Nov., 1604, script].

Moreover, that he might not appear to have abandoned the defence of the truth, at which, through him, a stab had been dealt, or to have any misgivings with respect to his own cause, he composed not long after, for the benefit of those who under him were devoutly prosecuting the study of theology, that highly-finished Examination of the Theses exposed to view by Gomarus for public discussion, which, many years after his decease, was (in 1645) given to the world, along with these same theses of Gomarus, by that very learned man, Stephen Curcellaeus. This golden little treatise is characterised by the same acuteness, strength of reasoning, and transparency of learned diction which distinguish his other writings; and he appears to have presented his eminent colleague with a copy of it. Mark, reader, this most generous preface to it, which is well entitled to a place in our narrative: 'In the highest degree useful, and above all things necessary, is that admonition of the Apostle which commands us to prove and devoutly to examine the dogmas propounded in the Church before we approve and receive them as truths. For seeing that, if we except apostles and prophets, the most eminent doctors of the Church are not placed beyond the liability of error, it does happen that they advance some things occasionally which are not taught by God in his Word, but which they either themselves have excogitated in their own human spirit, or received from others to whose authority they attribute more than is meet. Nay, this very thing may happen even at the time when they themselves think that they have thoroughly examined the dogmas they propound according to the standard of Scripture. Such being the case, do not take it ill, illustrious Gomarus, if I weigh according to Scripture, and candidly and temperately explain what I desiderate in those theses on predestination which you penned not so long ago, and publicly exhibited as matter for disputation. I testify solemnly, and in the presence of God, that I take upon me this task not from the desire of contention, but in the endeavour to investigate and find out the truth, to the end that the truth may more and more become known and everywhere obtain in the Church of Christ. That you also set before you this aim when you addressed yourself to that disputation, I am thoroughly assured. In mind and end, then, we agree, however in judgment we may chance to differ. Of this difference I take, as in duty bound, God speaking in the Scriptures to be the arbiter; and devoutly venerating his majesty and supplicating his favour, let me now address myself to my task.'

These statements being premised, and a basis laid for his treatise, he proceeds to build thereupon his considerations on the several propositions of Gomarus, and of the proofs of these noted down on the margin. Eminently masculine and judicious is his reply to the corollary of Gomarus in which he complains of some who preferred against the Reformed Church, and its principal doctors, the charge of blasphemy. Here Arminius wisely judges that it to ought be borne in mind, 'that it is one thing avowedly to make God the author of sin, and another thing to teach somewhat in ignorance from which one could legitimately infer that God, by that doctrine, was made the author of sin. The former could not be fastened upon any of the doctors of the Reformed Church; and whatever Castellio, Coornhert, and others, had urged, perhaps somewhat too offensively, against them, was grounded solely on this consideration, that in their opinion that offensive conclusion was fairly and legitimately deducible from the doctrine of those divines. But in identifying the Reformed Churches with the learned Calvin and Beza, Gomarus had done more than he was warranted to do. What some eminent doctors professed could not perpetually be laid to the charge of the churches, unless it were clearly evident that the same doctrine had been approved by the churches, and embodied in their Confessions. Moreover, setting aside all considerations of persons, or sinister intention as respects objectors, the naked arguments they advanced were entitled to examination. Celebrity of name exempted no one from the liability to err; and the first teachers of the Reformed may be held entitled to the highest esteem and gratitude of the Church, although they may not perhaps have seen sufficiently through all those things by which it had been deformed. It was false to rank with Pelagians those who impugned the opinion which Gomarus maintained on the subject of predestination, it being as clear as noon-day, from the ancient ecclesiastical synods, that the Pelagian doctrines could be rejected even by those who nevertheless by no means assented to the opinion contained in the above theses of Gomarus. Augustine himself could solidly confute the errors of the Pelagians, and at the same time omit that doctrine which he taught on the subject of divine predestination. Nay, even that opinion which Gomarus and several others delivered on that subject differed very materially from the opinion of Augustine, and supposed many things which Augustine would by no means have granted. It is incumbent on us to avoid the breakers not of Pelegianism only, but also of Manichaeism, and of errors still more infamous. For his part, after attentively weighing the doctrine, not so much of the entire Reformed Church as of Gomarus and certain others, he felt thoroughly persuaded that it followed from it that God was the author of sin; at the same time he also testified and declared that he heartily detested all the tenets of the Pelagian doctrine as these had been condemned in the synods of Mileve, Orange, and Jerusalem; and if any one could prove that aught akin to these was deducible from the sentiments he had above set forth, he would that very instant change his opinion.'

Thus writes Arminius; nor would we judge it dutiful to forbear mentioning in this connexion, that Gomarus, at a subsequent period, pressed by certain arguments advanced by Arminius in the treatise just referred to, introduced several changes for the better into his later theses on the subject of the eternal decree and predestination of God. For besides that he abandoned that absurd opinion, 'that the decrees of God are nought other than God himself,' and maintained the direct contrary with all his might, he was also glad to admit that there is in God what the schoolmen call a conditionate knowledge, by the aid of which he sought to rid his opinion of that enormous monstrosity which made God the author of the sin of the first man, and consequently of all the rest which proceed from it [Ex praefat. S. Curcellaei in Examen Gomari Thes.].