ARMINIO and ARMINIANISM. — A. is the author of the anti-Calvinist Protestant movement that took its name from him.
1. LIFE AND DOCTRINE OF A
Jacob A. (Harmenen), b. in 1560 at Oudewater (in Lat. Veteres Aquae, whence his nickname Veteres Aquinas), studied at Leiden from 1575 to 1582, then was a disciple of Beza in Geneva and of Grineo in Amsterdam, and in 1603 became professor of theology at Leiden. At that time, the struggle between the supralapsarii and the infralapsarii was raging in the Netherlands. Both parties accepted the Calvinist decree as an indisputable truth; but the former maintained that the divine decree of the damnation or salvation of human beings preceded the creation of Adam and required, for its fulfilment, the decree of the first man’s sin; the infralapsarians, on the contrary, affirmed that only after Adam’s condemnation had God decreed the election or condemnation of human beings. The supralapsarian doctrine, supported by Beza, had been attacked by Theodore Kornhert, and A. was entrusted with its defence. On this occasion A. studied the question in depth and, applying the principle of “free examination,” became convinced that the doctrine of God’s absolute decree, in either formulation, made God the author of sin, restricted his grace, left many without hope of salvation, and gave those who considered themselves elect a false security, without any ethical foundation. He therefore expounded his doctrines simply, without wishing to provoke controversy or attack his adversaries, believing in the legitimacy of “free examination” and, as a consequence, in the toleration of differing doctrines. Instead, his conclusions became the cause of bitter and profound theological struggles and divisions, which continued for a long time even after A.’s death (which occurred in 1609).The Dutch Calvinists were among the most rigorous followers of Calvin’s extreme doctrines; the theory of the “damned mass” manifested itself in acts of extreme severity toward all non-Calvinists, and principally against Catholics and their doctrines, as is shown, among other things, by the martyrdom of the martyrs of Gorkum and by the merciless cruelty with which Catholicism was uprooted from the Portuguese colonies they had conquered. It was therefore natural that they should rise up violently against A. Among the most determined was one of A.’s own colleagues, also a professor at the University of Leiden, Francis Gomar (1563–1641), who expounded the extreme consequences of the Calvinist decree and supralapsarianism as follows (cf. Works, III, 608, 609, cited by Harrison): “In the first act or moment, God willed to condemn certain rational creatures, but he could not condemn them unless they existed; in the second moment he decreed the creation of man; but he had to condemn him justly, and for this it was necessary that man sin, and therefore he created him without sin and imposed certain laws upon him; in the third moment he determined that he should transgress them. In this way he secured the purpose of creation, namely, the condemnation of rational creatures, for his glory.”
After A.’s death, his supporters continued the struggle against these doctrines. Among them were statesmen, such as Oldenbarneveldt (1547–1619)
and the statholder Maurice of Nassau (1567–1625) himself, who subsequently changed his mind, perhaps more for political and personal reasons directed against Oldenbarneveldt than for theological reasons. There were also notable theologians such as Simon Episcopius (1583–1643), Wittenbogaert, A.’s close friend (1557–1644), and the famous jurist Grotius (1583–1645), who reduced the doctrines expounded by A. to five propositions which, signed by 45 ministers, were presented in 1610 to the States General.
They are known by the name of “remonstrances” (remontrances), and their supporters by that of “Remonstrants” (remontrants). The first established conditional election, that is, election dependent upon God’s foreknowledge of faith in the elect and of its absence in the damned. The second affirmed the universal value of the atonement of Jesus Christ, in the sense that Our Lord willed it for all, although not all are saved. The third professed man’s inability to exercise saving faith and to perform good works without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The fourth declared that divine grace is indispensable for every act of the spiritual life, but is not irresistible. The fifth explained that the grace of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to overcome temptations and sins, but that final perseverance is uncertain for all the faithful. The Arminians subsequently elaborated this point by maintaining that grace can be lost.
The controversy known as “quintipartite” was conducted over these five propositions or articles of Arminian faith; it could be settled neither by the Hague conference of 1610 nor by that of Delft in 1613. Nor did a decree of the States General of 1614, which promulgated reconciliation and prohibited controversy, have any effect. The Calvinists were so hostile to the Arminians that they refused to obey and demanded their suppression even by bloodshed, if it could not be achieved by other means. Then the Prince of Orange, who had already become anti-Arminian, and the States General convened the famous Synod of Dort or Dordrecht, which lasted from 13 November 1618 until the end of April 1619.
2. SYNOD OF DORT
The Protestant Gangale (Calvin, p. 59) expresses himself as follows concerning the Synod: “The Calvinist Synod convened at Dort, under the auspices of Maurice of Nassau, was the final word in defence of the Calvinist faith against the crisis that rationalism was opening within Protestantism. Later we shall indeed have the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1643 and the Lutheran ‘consensus repentitus’ of 1664, but the final word of integral, stubborn, heroic, unreasonable defence was pronounced at Dort with the ‘five points’ of Calvinism [there were not ‘five points’ but ‘five heads of doctrine’, each with many points] in the winter of 1618.”Representatives came there from Switzerland, France, England, Scotland, Transylvania, and the German Calvinists. The attitude of the Synod was completely one-sided. It refused to hear the exposition of Arminian doctrine, which was to have been delivered by Simon Episcopius, professor of theology at Leiden; indeed, it regarded him and his companions as accused and guilty parties, who had only to think about defending themselves. Faced with this attitude of the Synod, all the Arminians withdrew.
The five Arminian propositions were examined unilaterally. In five heads, corresponding to the five propositions, Calvinist doctrine was first expounded in the strictest and most traditional sense, and this was followed by the condemnation of Arminian doctrine. The first head, which deals with «De divina praedestinatione et annexis et capitibus», contains 18 articles and the condemnation of nine errors: 27 canons in all. The second deals with «De morte Christi et hominum per eam redemptione», with 9 articles and the condemnation of seven errors: 16 canons in all. The third and fourth are grouped under the title «De hominis corruptione et conversione ad Deum, eiusque
modo», with 17 articles and nine condemnations: 26 canons in all. The fifth finally deals with «De perseverantia sanctorum», with 15 articles and the condemnation of nine errors: 24 canons in all. These 93 canons are the famous “Canons of Dort.” The judgement was then exceedingly severe. The Arminians were regarded as guilty of «corruptiae religionis, scissae Ecclesiae unitatis, gravissimorum scandalorum et pervicaciae», and were therefore deprived of every ecclesiastical office, removed from their positions, and declared unfit to exercise any academic function, until «per seriam respiscentiam, dictis, factis, studiis contrariis abunde comprobatam, Ecclesiae satisfaciant».
The persecution was implacable. Oldenbarneveldt was condemned to death (1619), although it is said that Maurice of Nassau did this, moved rather by political and personal reasons; 300 ministers were exiled, and the others were fined and imprisoned. Even the eminent jurist of worldwide renown, Grotius, was condemned to perpetual imprisonment, from which, however, he was able to escape. At the death of Maurice, in 1625, his brother and successor Frederick Henry showed himself more tolerant, so that some Arminians were able to return to their homeland and Simon Episcopius was able to found an Arminian school in Amsterdam with an antitrinitarian and universalist tendency. Arminianism, as such, has only a few churches in Holland.
3. ARMINIANISM AFTER THE SYNOD OF DORT
But if the importance of Arminianism as a sect is almost nil, as a doctrine it was and still is important, because Arminius and his followers were ardent champions of the doctrine of “free inquiry.”From the “free inquiry” into Holy Scripture, and without any contact or sympathy with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, Arminius deduced conclusions concerning God’s foreknowledge, the universal value of the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, etc., that were much more akin to Catholic doctrine than those of any other heretic. For this reason, in England, during the Puritan ferment, the adherents of his doctrines were accused of being “papists.” On the other hand, since the Arminians upheld the absolute supremacy of reason in the individual interpretation of Holy Scripture, many of his followers inclined toward Socinianism (in the English colonies of North America, the names of Socinus and Arminius sounded identical), and others toward rationalism. Finally, the Arminian doctrine according to which everyone could derive his own individual interpretation from Holy Scripture gradually spread the idea that all opinions ought to be respected, and from this arose religious indifference, which led to religious toleration among Protestants, at first only toward the other sects and then also toward Catholics. An example of this Arminian polymorphism was seen in England. During the civil and religious wars of the seventeenth century, the name Arminians, and also that of papists, was given to all those who denied Calvin’s decree, that is, to the Anglicans of the High Church. After the restoration of the Stuarts (1660), a part of the Anglicans—the Latitudinarians—who insisted on toleration of the other sects, in turn received the name of Arminians. A great propagator of Arminian doctrines in the eighteenth century was the founder of the Methodists, Giovanni Wesley, whereas his companion Whitefield embraced Calvinist doctrines instead and founded the Calvinist Methodists. Among the Scottish Presbyterians, celebrated for their attachment to Calvinism, there are now not a few who have abandoned the rigid Calvinist doctrine and accepted Arminian doctrine. It is not uncommon to hear them use expressions such as this: “We are Calvinists when we pray, but Arminians in our works” (cf. R. H. Benson, Non Catholic-Denominations, London 1910, p. 94). The Waldensians, who form part of the “alliance of Presbyterian Churches,” are even more explicit. In the Manuale compendio di verità fondamentali it is stated plainly: “The theory of a double predestination of some to salvation and others to perdition cannot be sustained by scriptural arguments and is repugnant to Christian sentiment.” The same Dutchmen, who before Arminius had shown themselves such ruthless persecutors of Catholics, some years after the Synod of Dort rescued the Jesuit missionary, Isaac Jogues, from the hands of the Iroquois, and in time became the most tolerant among Protestants.