Gospel could not simply be called a manifestation of the Divine Predestination;" and he added, in the place of corollary, "that Castellio, Koornhert, and the Lutherans, had rashly and falsely objected against the Reformed [Calvinistic] Churches, (but especially against Calvin and Beza who had deserved well of the Church, and of the truth of Predestination against the Pelagians,) that this doctrine made God to be the author of sin !"-Arminius, who was present at this disputation from the commencement to the termination, endured the injury which had been inflicted, and took no notice of the envy that had been excited.

Though at that time indisposed in body, but not in mind, on the following day, (November 1, 1604,) he disclosed his feelings to Uitenbogaert in these words: "I know, and my conscience is my witness, that I have neither said nor done any thing by which I could give Gomarus cause of offence. I shall also be easily reconciled to him, though his conduct was most annoying; nay, I will be reconciled even with him of Amsterdam, provided he remain entirely silent. It is unlawful for me to hate any one, or to retain anger, how just soever it may be, against any person: I am taught this doctrine by the word, the Spirit, and the example of that God who is described to us in the scriptures. I wish He would teach me, not to be grieved on account of any thing, unless for that which may deservedly be attributed to me as a real fault. It is no part of my duty, to be responsible for that which another may say or do; and I should be very silly, if I permitted any man to exercise such a power over me, as to be able to disturb me when it is his pleasure. Let this encompass me as a wall of brass, I have no personal consciousness of being culpable. I will also proceed in the diligent enquiry into Truth, on which I have commenced; and in that study, by the favour of God, I will die, though I should be doomed to endure the hatred and envy of the whole world on that account. The disciple is not above his Lord. This is no new thing,-for the Truth to be rejected even by those in whom such a deed is most unbecoming, and who wish it not to be perceived."

But that he might not seem to have deserted the vindication of the Truth, which was wounded through his sides, and that he might not appear to be distrustful of his own cause, he composed, not long afterwards, for the sake of those who studied Divinity under his auspices, that most accurate "EXAMINATION of the Theses publicly proposed by Gomarus for Disputation,” which, many years after the death of Arminius, (1645,) was brought to light, with the Theses of Gomarus prefixed, by that very learned

individual, Stephen de Courcelles.* We must not omit to notice, on this occasion, that, by certain arguments which Arminius produced in this treatise, he induced Gomarus to change some things for the better in the amended Theses which he afterwards published on the Eternal Decree of God and on Divine Predestination. For he not only discarded the absurd opinion, that "the decrees of God are God himself" and defended the contrary proposition with all his strength, but he likewise gladly acknowledged in God Conditionate Knowledge, as the Schoolmen call it; and, by its aid, he attempted to remove from his opinion that great absurdity which would make God the author of the sin of the first man, and thus of all the other sins which have been thence deduced.

But though Gomarus, according to the confession of his chief admirers, seemed to have somewhat exceeded the limits of the Belgic Confession, in the opinion on Divine Predestination which he had publicly defended, and to have risen far higher than the doctrine which was generally delivered in the Reformed [Calvinistic] Churches; yet Arminius had to endure the greatest load of envy, and nothing was left unattempted by his adversaries which could have a tendency to affix a stigma of contumely on his increasing reputation. A rumour was quickly circulated through the city of Leyden, whence it spread through all the United Provinces, that considerable differences had arisen among the Professors of Divinity. Wool-sorters, Furriers, Weavers, and other workmen in that line of business, the principal part of them Flemings, with whom Leyden abounded, were constantly talking on this subject; and, through their gross ignorance of religious controversies, many of them ascribed the sentiments of Gomarus to Arminius, and those of Arminius to Gomarus.

In the beginning of the following year, (1605,) the official staff of the University, and the title of RECTOR MAGNIFICUS, were conferred on Arminius: But though his own dignity, and the benevolence of many persons towards him, were thus augmented; yet he soon found, that the minds of others were not the less alienated from him, and that they did not at all relax in their clandestine designs against him. Several of them also wrested his best words and actions, and gave them the worst interpretation.-If, for the confirmation of his opinions on some controverted points, he occasionally produced certain arguments, which were employed by the Popish writers, the Lutherans, and

* Brandt quotes the admirable commencement and a part of the conclusion, which I have omitted, as the treatise itself is included for the first time in this translation of "The Works of Arminius."

AP. R.)

by others beside the Calvinists, ignorant persons immediately exclaimed, that he had deserted and gone over to the camp of the enemy. It was likewise imputed to him as a fault, that according to his expressed opinion, certain [ficulnea] flimsy and shallow arguments, which were very inappropriate, but had been used for establishing some of the doctrines of the Christian Faith and for defending their truth from the scoffs of adversaries, ought by all means to be rejected; and that others, which possessed far greater potency, ought in preference to be used: But, in delivering such an opinion as this, he had only imitated Calvin himself, who gave a [novel and] widely different interpretation to several passages in the Old Testament, which had been too frequently quoted in a rash manner, by the Ancient Fathers of the Church, for proving the Eternal Divinity of Christ.-Nor were there wanting persons who converted it into a crime in Arminius, that he had delivered to his pupils, for their private transcription, some of his own treatises in manuscript, which embraced his opinions on several controversies: But those who brought forward this charge, had forgotten, that the celebrated Junius himself and others had, before him, used the same liberty.

Though the dispute on the subject of Predestination was commenced in the University, yet the interests of the Churches would probably not have sustained the least injury, had it been confined within the walls of the University, or to private conferences between Professors and Ministers, and had it been conducted with that good faith, moderation and prudence which such a discussion demanded; yet the Churches incurred far greater danger, after many persons had filled the whole country This was the and the neighbouring districts with false rumours.

lamentable origin of those public complaints and acrimonious declamations against Arminius with which the churches in every. direction at that time resounded, such as these, "Novel doctrines are introduced: The doctrine which has hitherto been received by the Reformed, is changed: The ancient heresies are suspended on a new pole: And the most sedulous exertions must be used, to prevent the Church from receiving any injury." Among other declaimers of this class who flourished at that period, was Festus Hommius, one of the ministers of the Church at Leyden. This man wounded the reputation of Arminius by clandestine slanders; circulated false and scandalous rumours respecting his words and actions; and imputed many crimes to him when absent, which he refused to mention in his presence.*

The anecdote, which Brandt immediately adds, is related in a subsequent part of this volume, page 405.

The pupils and admirers of Arminius began, about the same time, to be accused of the very crimes with which he was charged; and the discourses and arguments which they employed to confirm the subjects of christian doctrine, were wrested and misrepresented. A report was raised, that those of them who had left the University, or had gone to other Universities, most perversely insulted the Reformed Churches, by their disputes, contradictions, and reproaches against the received doctrine. Persons were not wanting who, in a subtle and artful manner sedulously watched some of the students of Divinity that were on terms of familiarity with the Professor and attended his private Lectures; and from the incautious answers, which it is not uncommon for very young men occasionally to return, (though often contrary to the sentiments of their master,) these persons derived matter, and embraced the opportunity, foully to traduce Arminius himself among the people.*

Some of the Classes, and other ecclesiastical assemblies, began to insitute a more severe scrutiny among those of his pupils who came before them for examination; and made remarks upon their words and deeds with greater harshness than ought to have been done. In proof of this narrative, the case of John Narsius may be adduced, who at that time studied Divinity in a creditable manner under Arminius, and afterwards became a celebrated pastor of the Church of Grave. Being young man of great experience and of a very polished genius, he was educated at the expence of the Republic of Amsterdam, with a view to Holy Orders. Though, in the year immediately preceding, he had given complete satisfaction to the pastors of that celebrated city when examined by them; yet he could not avoid the suspicion of having imbibed impious opinions from his master. It was the pleasure, therefore, of these pastors, on the 13th of January, 1605, to commit to writing certain theological questions, for the purpose of ascertaining his sentiments, and to command Narsius likewise to return a written answer. That a more accurate judgment may be formed of the controversies which were then under discussion, it will be useful in this place to enumerate those questions, and the answers of Narsius. I. Does God direct and govern the free will of man in such a manner, that he neither ought nor can do any thing in any other way, or any further, than in that which God has decreed?

ANSWER. I reply in the affirmative, provided this precaution be used, not to represent Divine Providence directing the free will of man, so as to destroy it.

II. Does God govern the actions of wicked men in such a manner, that they act, or have it in their power to act, in no other way than that which God has determined?

ANS.-Yes; if this question be received in the sense, that the persons who went to seize Christ were not able to effect their purpose till God granted his permission.

III. Whatever things are done contingently with regard to men, (that is, so as that they either MAY or MAY NOT be done, and may come to pass as well in THIS MANNER as in that,) are those things also done contingently with regard to Providence and the Divine Decree ?

ANS. Since the word "contingently" is found neither in the Sacred volume, in the Dutch Confession, nor even in the Palatine Catechism, and since it is understood in various ways by the Scholastic Writers, allow yourselves, I beseech you, brethren, to be satisfied with this my confession: " Nothing happens by chance; but

*

About the same time when this affair occurred, his uncle and colleague, John Kuchlinus, regent of the Theological College, created Arminius no little trouble. For he pretended to feel an

whatever things are done, whether they be matters of great or of trivial consequence, good or evil, they are all subject to the governance and direction of Divine Providence: So that those things which to us seem to be uncertain, and to happen casually, do still happen certainly and immutably with regard to the most wise and omnipotent Providence of God and of his eternal decree; and yet so, that He is not the author of the evil which is committed."

IV. Can the same place be always assigned to free will in good and in evil actions ? ANS.A free will that is inclined to evil alone, belongs to man since the fall and in his depraved state, so that he is the slave of sin and of Satan.

V. Have men, before regeneration, a good will, which is truly good; and have they true faith?

Axs.-Man, when considered since his fall, has from himself neither a good will which is truly good, nor faith, nor regeneration.

VI. Are all those to whom the Divine Law has been made known, able to exercise true repentance, and duly to turn themselves to God?

Axs. By no means,

VII. Is the power to believe, always supplied to all those to whom the evangelical doctrine is announced, and by the same labour?

ANS-Of himself no faculty [or power] to believe, appertains to man; but whosoever they be who at any time believe, they receive that faith in no other way than by the special illumination of the Holy Spirit; So that Faith is the gift of God, bestowed gratuitously, and without any regard being had to merits. But with respect to the other questions, namely, The kind of grace which God bestows through the preaching of the gospel, and immediately after it :- By what means that heavenly force operates on the intellect and the will, and concurs with them :-And whether common grace of the same kind be bestowed on those who do not believe in Christ,' through or [præter] against the preaching of the evangelical doctrine, by which they can believe, and thus be rendered inexcusable by it:-Concerning these and other questions, 1 find nothing certain in the Belgic Confession and the Catechism; nor dare I at present determine any thing either on this part or on thaf. But I am willing to` adhere to the Confession and the Catechism, and I wish to show myself docile. VIII. Is there in all men original sin? Is it through the souls of the parents, way?

Whence is it derived into human nature?
through their bodies, or by some other

ANS.-Original sin has place in all mortal men, with the exception of Christ. But whether it descends to us through the soul or through the body, is not, in my opinion, sufficiently manifest from the Sacred Writings. But I have believed, that, by the wonderful yet just appointment of God, it is derived to us from the fall of Adam, in whom we all have sinned.

IX. Is it in reference to ecclesiastical discipline that St. Matthew says, (xviii. 17, 18,) Tell it to the Church,' &c.: Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;' &c. ?

ANS.-I believe, that ecclesiastical discipline was instituted by God; nor will I deny, that the passage which is cited has reference to that matter.

Such were the answers of Narsius; out of whose mouth, had he happened to express himself too incautiously, some persons endeavoured to extract something by which they might assail with cavils Arminius his preceptor. But however great the caution which he employed in the preceding replies, he could not satisfy those ecclesiastical hyper-critics. On the contrary, he became the more suspected and odious in their eyes from the close intimacy which subsisted between him and his master: And he had afterwards to submit to the same treatment as that which Arminius endured;