Arminius James

Arminius James, (BeJg. Habmens,) was born at Oudewater, in Holland, in the year 1560. While he was yet an infant he lost his father; and Theodore AEmilius, a Clergyman residing in the same town, finding young Arminius fatherless, took charge of his education. Discovering in his youthful protege traits of uncommon genius, AEmilius, who had himself made no trifling sacrifices in the cause of truth, urged him to lay aside every consideration of worldly advancement, and to regard himself as devoted to God, and free to follow the dictates of an enlightened conscience.

When he had resided for some years at Utrecht, in the house of AEmilius, his prospects were suddenly beclouded by the death of his patron. But scarcely had that venerable man been consigned to the tomb, when Rudolph Snellius, who had long been absent from the Low Countries, rinding, on a visit to Utrecht, a young man from his own native place, in a destitute condition, and without a protector, determined at once to befriend him; and with that view, on his return to Hesse, took him back with him to Marpurgh, in the year 1575.

He had just become comfortably settled with his new patron, when intelligence arrived of the destruction of Oudewater by the Spaniards. This so affected him, that he spent a whole fortnight in weeping and lamentation; and at length determined, in the impatience of youthful affection, to leave Marpurgh, return to Holland, and once more see his native town, even in its ruins. He found that his mother, sister, brother, and other relations, had perished in the general carnage; and having gratified the first wish of his heart, he retraced his mournful steps to Marpurgh, and performed the whole of the journey on foot.

At this time the building of the new University at Leyden was commenced, under the auspices of the Prince of Orange; and as soon as he heard that it was completed, and ready for the reception of students, he made preparations for his return to Holland. Having entered the University with Peter Bertius, who accompanied him from Rotterdam, he soon distinguished himself above all his companions; and there was no branch of study to which he turned his attention, in which he did not excel.

In the year 1582, the Senate of Amsterdam took upon itself the expense of sending him to the University of Geneva. But, disgusted with the spirit of intolerance which prevailed there, he left Geneva, and went to Basle, which he found much more to his own taste. At Basle he publicly defended Peter Ramus and his dialectics, and gave lessons in his chambers on the Logic of that great master. During the autumnal recess, he delivered public lectures on Theological subjects; and on the eve of his return to Geneva, so high was the reputation which he had acquired, that the Theological Faculty of Basle offered to confer upon him the title of Doctor, at the public expense. This honour, however, he modestly declined, on the plea, that to bestow a Doctor's degree on so young a man, would tend to diminish the dignity and respect which should attach to such a title.

On going back to Geneva, he took the opportunity of making a tour through most of the states of Italy, before his return into Holland; and attended the lectures of James Zabarella, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Padua. While on this excursion, which occupied about seven months, he visited Rome, and thereby incurred the serious displeasure of his patrons, the Senators of Amsterdam. Reports were raised, that he had kissed the Pope's slipper, had attended the assemblies of the Jesuits, and had even gone so far as to abjure Protestantism, in all of which there was not a single word of truth. Yet he often mentioned it as one of the principal benefits derived from his Italian tour, that it had given him an opportunity of seeing "the mystery of iniquity," under a more disgusting form than his imagination could have conceived, or than any written description could have conveyed to him. At the expiration of his journey he returned to his studies at Geneva; but was recalled to Amsterdam after the lapse of a few months, and took back with him ample testimonials of his learning and piety.

When he was settled in the ministry, and had begun to preach, the prejudice excited against him by his journey into Italy, soon died away; and his pulpit talents excited universal admiration. But in the midst of his popularity a circumstance occurred, which involved him in great difficulties and trials. In preparing a reply to an attack, which had been made upon the views respecting Predestination held by Calvin and Beza, he became a convert to the opinions which he had undertaken to refute, and which have since been known by the name of Arminianism. This excited the rage of the Calvinistic party; but still he lived on the most friendly terms with his colleagues at Amsterdam. This state of things continued for fifteen years, at the expiration of which time, contrary to his own wishes, but at the urgent solicitation of many of his friends, and among them the Prince of Orange himself, he was appointed to the situation of Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden, vacant by the death of the learned Francis Junius.

A Doctor's degree was conferred upon him in the year 1603, and it was the first which had been presented to any one by the University of Leyden. But scarcely had he entered upon the duties of his new office, when Gomarus, his colleague, attacked him with great bitterness, and did all in his power to excite a spirit of hostility against him. Misrepresentation and calumny did their utmost to undermine the fair reputation which he had acquired; and, though his admirers were neither few nor uninfluential, the sensitiveness of his nature was such, that he gradually sank under the effects of the persecution to which he was exposed. His sufferings brought on a disease, which terminated fatally; and after lingering a few months, he died perfectly tranquil and full of hope, in the year 1609.

The liberality of his sentiments did not long remain unknown to the Socinians, who, as Pareus says, claimed him as their own. His new designation among them was Taleeua; and the views broached by him, and advocated by his followers, were deemed, by the more orthodox in Holland and the neighbouring countries, if not actually Socinian, yet little else than Socinianism veiled under a thin disguise. Hence the titles of such works as the following. "Sociniano-Remonstrantismus: hoc est, Evidens Demonstratio, qua Remonstrantes cum Socinianis sive Reipsa, sive Verbis, sive etiam Methodo, in pluribus Confessionis suse Partibus consentire ostenditur, per Nic. Bodecherum, etc. Lugd. Bat. 1624," 4to. "Johannis Peltii Harmonia Remonstrantium et Socinianorum in variis Religionis Christianse Dogmatibus non infimis, etc. Lugd. Bat. 1633," 4to. The object of these works is sufficiently explained by their titles; nor can it be denied, by any one who will be at the trouble of making the comparison for himself, that the leading doctrines of the Arminians, or Remonstrants, as taught by their earliest and most enlightened advocates in Holland, are more nearly allied, in spirit, to Unitarianism, than to any other form of Christianity.

It would be alien from the object of the present work, to enter into a discussion of "the Five Points," on which the controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians principally turned; namely, Predestination, Original Sin, Particular Redemption, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. But it may not be deemed irrelevant to give Arminius's views respecting the Trinity in his own words.

"I have taught, and still teach," says he, "that the Father has never been without his Word and Spirit;—but that the Word and the Spirit are not to be considered in the Father under the notion of properties, as Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, or Power, but under that of really existing persons, to whom it belongs to be, to live, to understand, to will, to be capable, and to do or act, all of which, when united, are indications and proofs of a person;—but that they are so in the Father as to be also from the Father, in a certain order of origin, not through collaterality, to be referred to the Father;—and that they are from the Father, neither by creation, nor by decision,but by a most wonderful and inexplicable internal emanation, which, with respect to the Son, the Ancient Church called generation,but which, with respect to the Holy Spirit, was denominated spiration or breathing, a term required by the very word Spirit. But about this breathing I do not interpose my judgment,—whether it a from the Father and the Son, as the Latin Fathers express themselves,—or from the Father through the Son, as the Greek Fathers prefer to define it; because this matter, I confess, far surpasses my capacity. If on any subject we ought to speak and think with sobriety, in my opinion, it must be on this."t Two pages further on he says, " By the Sonis signified a certain mode of having the Divine Essence, which is through communication from the Father, that is, through generation.—Let these double ternaries be taken into consideration, which are opposed to each other in one series: To have Deity: To have Deity from the Father: To have Deity from no one: To Be God: To Be The Son: To Be The Fatheh:

and it will be evident, that among themselves they mutually correspond with each other, thus:—' To have Deity,' and ' to be God:' 'To have Deity from the Father,' and 'to be the Son:' 'To have Deity from no one,' and ' to be the Father,' are consentaneous, though under the word 'Father,' as an affirmative, that is not signified which has its essence from no one: For this is signified by the word 'Ingenitus'which is attributed to the Father, though not with strictness, but only to signify that the Father has not his essence by the mode of generation. But the word 'Fatheb,' by its own force and meaning is conclusive on this point: For where order is established, it is necessary that a beginning be made from some first person or thing, otherwise there will be confusion proceeding onwards ad infinitum. But, with respect to origin, He who is the First in this order has his origin from no one: He who is the Second, has his origin from the First: He who is the Third, has his origin from the First and Second, or from the First through the Second. Were not this the real state of the matter, there would be a Collaterality, which would make as many Gods as there were collateral persons laid down; sincethe Unity of the Deity in the Trinity is defended against the Antitrinitarians solely by the relation of origin, and of order according to origin."

In 1621, some years after the death of Arminius, his disciple, Simon Episcopius, drew up a Confession of Faith, bearing the following title. "Confessio, sive Declaratio Sentential Pastorum qui in fcederato Belgio Remonstrantcs vocantur, super proecipuis Articulis Religionis Christianse.'' It was submitted to the Brethren, and unanimously approved by those who remained in communion with the Remonstrant body; and in this important document, their sentiments on the subject of the Trinity are set forth in the following terms.

"1. God is to be considered distinctly in three persons or substances, as he has exhibited himself in the word of God, and as such to be known and contemplated by us. This Trinity of persons is known to us as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. One of these divine persons or hypostases in the Godhead is ayatrut, that is, unoriginatcd or unbegotten; the other begotten or generated by the Father, or the Father's only-begotten; and the other proceeding alike and emanating from the Father by the Son.

2. The Father alone is underived or unbegotten, but has from all eternity communicated his own divinity to his onlybegotten Son, made a Son, not indeed by creation, as angels were made the sons of God; not by adoption, as we, who are believers, are constituted sons of God; nor merely by a gracious communication of Divine might or glory as being mediator, but by a real, though mysterious and ineffable, generation; and also to the Holy Spirit, who hath, from all eternity, proceeded from both, by an incomprehensible emanation or spiration. Therefore the Father is justly held to be the fountain or origin of the whole Deity.

3. The Son, therefore, and Holy Spirit, as to their real being or substance, are truly distinct from the Father ; nevertheless, they are really partakers of the same Godhead, and absolutely distinguished by the same divine essence with the Father, which appears most evident from the Holy Scripture giving them the same titles, and attributing to them the same properties as to the Father. Hence the Apostles' Creed on this subject, which we cordially believe, and whose declarations we adopt; that is, we 'believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, &c.—And in the Holy Ghost, &c.'

4. The above declarations are sufficient in relation to this holy mystery, a subject which we think it is expedient and becoming always to treat with modesty, prudence, and religious reverence; and we hold it to be the safest course, when speaking of this profound subject, to express ourselves, as much as possible, in the very words, and according to the mode and phrases in which it is presented to us by the Holy Ghost himself, seeing that the Spirit of God himself must best know himself, and is the most capable of stating and exhibiting his own nature and being; and so far as it was necessary to be declared and revealed, it has pleased him to reveal it to us. It is therefore especially becoming in us, that with reverence, humility, and devout feeling, we follow the mode thus presented to us of speaking on this subject, until we be permitted to see God face to face, when in the glory of that bright and celestial world, he will perfectly make known himself to us, amidst the unclouded visions and manifestations of his being and will."

The views taken of this Confession, at the time of its publication, were various. Some regarded it as a new source of heresies: others approved of its sentiments as sound and orthodox. But few probably could read the part of it above quoted, and not be struck with the absence of those phrases, which usually give the tone to orthodox Confessions. Unlike the generality of such compositions, it represents the Father as the sole fountain of divinity. Instead of referring, in the way of approbation, to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, it overlooks these, for the purpose of expressing its concurrence in the simpler language of that of the Apostles; and although it is not altogether free from terms of human invention, it deprecates a departure from scriptural language in treating upon such subjects. But, what is of still greater importance, it is not found to tally, in all respects, with the published opinions of some of the Remonstrants themselves. Peltius, indeed, undertakes to shew, by extracts from some of their writers, that there were among them those who agreed with the disciples of Socinus, in advocating the following opinions. 1, That there is no trinity of persons; 2, that God the Father is the eternal, sole and only God; 3, that Christ, the Son of God, cannot properly be called *, or God of himself; 4, that the eternal generation of the Son from God is contrary to reason and truth; 5, that Christ is called God, or the Son of God, not in respect of essence, but dominion; 6, that Christ is to be adored by us, not in respect of his essence, but of his divine authority and office; 7, that the Holy Ghost is not true God, or a person; and, 8, that the Holy Ghost is called God, in respect of operation, and of the gifts of God. These observations, perhaps, cannot be more suitably brought to a close, than by the following extract from Dr. Maclaine's translation of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.

"It is a common opinion, that the ancient Arminians, who flourished before the Synod of Dort, were much more sound in their opinions, and strict in their morals, than those who have lived after this period: that Arminius himself only rejected the Calvinistical doctrine of absolute decrees, and what he took to be its immediate consequences, adopting, in all other points, the doctrines received in the Reformed Churches; but that his disciples, and more especially Episcopius, had boldly transgressed the bounds that had been wisely prescribed by their master, and had gone over to the Pelagians, and even to the Socinians. Such, I say, is the opinion commonly entertained concerning this matter. But it appears, on the contrary, evident to me, that Arminius himself had laid the plan of that theological system, that was, in after times, embraced by his followers, and that he had instilled the main principles of it into the minds of his disciples; and that these latter, and particularly Episcopius, did really no more than bring this plan to a greater degree of perfection, and propagate, with more courage and perspicuity, the doctrines it contained. I have the testimony of Arminius to support this notion, besides many others that might be alleged in its behalf; for in the last will made by this eminent man, a little before his death, he plainly and positively declares, that the great object he had in view, in all his theological and ministerial labours, was to unite in one community, cemented by the bonds of fraternal charity, all sects and denominations of Christians, the Papists excepted; his words, as they are recorded in the funeral oration, which was composed on occasion of his death by Rertius, are as follow: 'Ea proposui et docuiquse ad propagationem amplificationemque vcritatis religionis Christianae, veri Dei cultus, communis pietatis, et sanctse inter homines conversationis, denique ad convenientem Christiana nomini tranquillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent conferre, excludens ex iis Papatum, cum quo nulla unitas fidei, nullum pietatis aut Christianas pacis vinculum servari potest.' These words, in their amount, coincide perfectly with the modern system of Arminianism, which extends the limits of the Christian Church, and relaxes the bonds of fraternal communion in such a manner, that Christians of all sects and of all denominations, whatever their sentiments and opinions may be, (Papists excepted,) formed into one religious body, and live together in brotherly love and concord."