Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Yet this very disputation at which Arminius attended as Moderator, afforded fresh nutriment to the unjust suspicions which the malevolent cherished against him; and rumours were circulated in all directions, that he held erroneous sentiments about the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of the Son of God. But in this, he accounted himself infelicitous, and lamented that prejudice prevailed so much, that all the blame was immediately cast upon him, whenever any dissension arose, and even when he had defended an opinion which was most generally received; and that those persons were not only excused, but commended, who had given occasion to dissension by their novel and most monstrous modes of speaking. To him, this seemed a strange thing; and he thought there existed no reasons why he could justly and deservedly be supposed, on account of the preceding Disputation, to cherish any thing monstrous in doctrine.* In the same letter he

declares, that he had taught nothing on this topic which was not founded on the authority of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as on that of ancient and modern divines; and that it was not his wish to have any correction or amendment made on this point of doctrine as it was generally received by the Reformed Churches in Holland. He likewise adduced Beza, the guide and instructor of his youth, as associated with him in sentiment on this subject: For, in his Preface to the Dialogues of St. Athanasius on the Trinity, he makes an excuse for Calvin, " that he did not observe sufficient accuracy in discriminating between the two expressions, The Son is [PER] by himself, and, The Son is [A] from himself."

Our author, about the same time, was called to endure another calumny, not much dissimilar to the one to which we have now alluded. The sole cause of it was this: Holding a public disputation on the person of the Son of God, he embraced that opportunity, while explaining, in a very learned manner, the economy of our salvation as administered by the Father, through the Son and the Holy Spirit, to admonish his auditors, that an accurate regard must be had to the order which is observed in every part of the Sacred Pages; and that those things which on this subject were peculiarly ascribed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, ought to be distinct objects of consideration. Some passages of the Old and the New Testament, which are usually cited in confirmation of the Consubstantiality and Co-essentiality of the Trinity, had been occasionally explained by Arminius in another manner: This circumstance also tended to

His Letter to Uitenbogaert, 1st Sept., 1606.

increase the audacity of calumny. But he felt confident that all equitable judges of things would be persuaded, that nothing could, by any semblance of truth, be collected from it that was at all adverse to the true Christian faith.-With regard to the first of these occasions of calumniating, he thought it was seized upon to little purpose, since all those who had learnt from the Holy Scriptures, that the Father was in the Son reconciling the world to himself, and administered the word of reconciliation by the Holy Spirit, would be abundantly conscious, that, in [contemplating] the economy of human salvation, the order which subsisted between the Persons of the Trinity was to be taken into consideration, and their attributes ought not to be confounded, unless a man was desirous of falling into the heresy of the Patri-passionists [those who held, that God the Father suffered on the cross.]-In his opinion likewise, no more labour was to be expended in refuting the second slander, which had been objected against him, of having explained a few passages of Holy Writ in a way somewhat different from that of some others. For if any offence was committed by such a different interpretation, he knew that the same crime must be imputed to Calvin himself, who, beyond most divines, had on this point taken great liberties, and yet had been defended, by the celebrated Paræus, against Hunnius's book, entitled Calvin Judaizing.

But from the very elegant Theses which Arminius wrote on this article of the Christian Faith, the equitable reader may decide for himself what his sentiments were respecting the Holy Trinity, and how undeservedly about this period he was accused by some persons of Arianism, Socinianism, and other crimes of that description. He declares, on a different occasion, in the following words, the aim and the method which he proposed to himself when discussing this subject:-"Most of those who are acquainted with me know the great timidity, and the uncommon anxiety of conscience, with which I treat the sublime doctrine of a Trinity of Persons. My whole method of instruction demonstrates, that, when explaining this point, I feel no delight in inventing new phrases for myself, which were unknown to the Scriptures and to the orthodox among the Ancient Fathers in their explanation of this point, or in employing such novel ones as others have devised. My auditors will bear testimony to my willingness to endure those who use other modes of speaking on this subject, provided the meaning which they intend be sound." In a letter to Uitenbogaert, dated September 1, 1606,

* Answer to 31 Defamatory Articles.

to remove all suspicion of Socinianism, he openly testified, "that so far was it possible for him to be found guilty of this offence, that, on the contrary, he was confident he could produce certain arguments, provided the Synod would grant him its ready attention, which would tend still more forcibly to convict the Socinians, or at least to answer in a more appropriate manner their arguments and objections." On the testimony of John Narsius, who was one of his pupils, Arminius is said soon afterwards to have publicly and professedly refuted certain of the principal and most high-commended dogmas of Socinus, but especially his book On the Saviour: This he did so completely and largely, and with such solidity, as no one before him, and probably none since that time, has done.

The younger Brandt afterwards begins to give an authentic account of the Preparatory Convention, and other ecclesiastical transactions of the year 1607, which I have related from him in the General Introduction. He then proceeds to narrate other facts, connected with the history of Arminius, in the following man

ner:

More ample materials were afforded to the increase of these dissensions, by a little pamphlet which had been published this year (1607) at Gouda: It was designed for imbuing the minds of children with pious principles, and was afterwards known under the title of the Gouda Catechism. This small work had been composed, by the pastors of the Church of Gouda, by way of experiment, to try whether the Magistrates of their city could convert it to the use of the common schools, and substitute it in the place of the Heidelberg Catechism,† which, they were fully aware, contained questions which were far too lofty, and couched under ambiguous expressions. As soon as this pamphlet was published, it became the subject of very opposite criticisms. The admirers of Arminius praised it, - partly because the authors of it had in the general arrangement of the work followed the Palatine model, and yet appeared to have admitted into it nothing that was opposed to christian doctrine; and partly, perhaps chiefly, because it cut off every pretext for meddling with certain difficult and disputable dogmas, and, breathing the primitive simplicity of Christianity, comprehended the Articles of Belief in few words, and those no other than such as were previously dictated in the Sacred Oracles themselves. But there

See his Letter to F. Sandius, Senator in the Court of Guelderland, dated Sept. 12, 1612, in Præst. ac Erudit. Vir. Epistolæ, p. 327.

+ The Heidelberg Catechism could not, up to that period, and till some years afterwards, gain admission into the schools of Gouda.

immediately arose, from the other party, some persons who publicly condemned this small book, and evinced their detestation of it by declaring, "that there never was any monstrous or horrid opinion which might not be veiled under language so general; that simplicity was very suitable to primitive times, when those evils which were then unknown did not require any remedies; but that, when errors afterwards increased, forms of speaking were invented to drive the erroneous wanderers from their hiding-places; that this pamphlet either entirely took away or omitted the principal articles of the Christian Faith, and in this way held out a signal to those who were fond of innovation; and that Servetus himself would have readily subscribed such a document."* Thus that which one party asserted to be agreeable to Divine Truth, was called by the other a covert for heresies; and the liberty of the one was the complete unsettling of things according to the other. R. Donteklok embraced this opportunity to grasp his pen, and in a work from the press, not only commenced a refutation of this Gouda Catechism, but, at the instigation of some malevolent individuals, likewise traduced with sufficient virulence those who had held different sentiments from the rest concerning the mode of holding the National Synod: He also obliquely and nearly without disguise pointed at Arminius, as though this small book had been prepared by his assistance. But although Arminius was not greatly averse to its publication, and afterwards acknowledged that the pastors of Gouda had consulted him previous to its appearance, and that he had expressed his assent to the reasons which they gave in explanation why it should be published; yet he never touched any part of the pamphlet, and rendered no assistance whatever in its composition. Besides, in his opinion and that of others, this pamphlet would have laid entirely neglected, had not the indigested clamours of several persons procured for it a higher authority than that to which it was entitled.

But calumny was not content to be confined within these limits; disdaining, therefore, all the restraints of humanity, it circulated, about the same period, a most foul and slanderous rumour about Arminius and Uitenbogaert: It was reported, that the Pope of Rome had addressed them in a letter composed in terms of the utmost courtesy, and, holding out to them the hopes of an immense income, he had recommended them to patronize the Church of Rome. How distant this report was

See the Letter of Sybrandus Lubbertus to Oldenbarneveldt, dated Oct. 16, 1608, in Præstant. ac Erudit. Vir. Epistolæ, p. 215. See also the remarks of Dr. Berriman, p. 234, and Episcopius's character of Arminius in the Preface to this volume.

4

from even the semblance of truth, will appear in a subsequent part of this narrative. See Page 298.

Another rumour, nearly allied to this splendid falsehood, was one which at the same time was circulated among the populace : Arminius, it was said, usually recommended to the students under his care, not only the productions of Castellio and Koornhert, but likewise and principally those of Suarez and other Jesuits; and he spoke contemptuously of the writings of Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Zanchius, Ursinus, and other eminent divines of the Reformed Church. These and other slanders of the same kind, which were spread against him in all directions, through Germany, France, England, and Savoy, were received by Arminius without any commotion of spirit, except of pity for the brethren. who could sin so grievously against God and their neighbour: According to his own testimony, he considered that no other effect was produced by these attempts and the preposterous diligence of the brethren, "than that he, an insignificant individual, (who could not possibly attain to celebrity by his own virtues, and concerning whom scarcely a person out of Holland would otherwise deign either to know or speak any thing,) was thus rendered every day famous and noble."-I wish to relate in his words, rather than in my own, how remote from the truth was this report of his having recommended authors of inferior note, when it was first conveyed to different places as well as to Amsterdam. The following is an extract from a letter which he addressed, May 3, 1607, to Sebastian Egberts, the principal Senator in the government of Amsterdam:*_" I can bestow no other title than that of a FALSEHOOD on the report which is in circulation, that I persuade the students to read the books of the Jesuits and of Koornhert: For none of them have interrogated me on this point, and I never of my own accord uttered a word on the subject. But, after the Holy Scriptures, (the perusal of which I earnestly inculcate more than any other person, as the whole University as well as the consciences of my colleagues will testify,) I exhort them to read the Commentaries of Calvin, on whom I bestow higher praise than Helmichius ever did, as he confessed to me himself. For I tell them, that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation, than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the Ancient Christian Fathers: So that, in a certain eminent Spirit of Prophecy, I give the preeminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all,

The preceding part of this letter is quoted in p. 671 and 544.

« AnteriorContinua »