treats of the events of that year, are mistaken. | The author speaks at first of the events of that year, and afterwards mentions the death of Arminius as something distinct, and not chronologically connected with the letter of Adgandestrius, though it serves to throw light on the subject. Tacitus (i. 58), when speaking of the son of Arminius, whom Strabo (p. 292, Cas.) calls Thumelicus, says that he was educated at Ravenna, and he promises to speak of his future fortunes; but that part of Tacitus in which the account of Thumelicus might have appeared is lost. As to the name Arminius, it is generally believed that it is the Romanized form of Hermann. The eminent rank which Arminius holds in the history of his own times has induced many distinguished writers to treat his life with particular minuteness. (The best of these works are:-L. von Ledebur, Das Land und Volk der Bructerer, Berlin, 1827; Sökeland, Ueber die Verhältnisse und Wohnsitze der Deutschen Völker zwischen dem Rhein und der Weser zur Zeit der Römer, Münster, 1835; A. von Wersebe, Völker und VölkerBündnisse des alten Deutschlands, Hanover, 1826; G. W. von Düring, Wo schlug Hermann den Varus? Ein strategischer Versuch über die Feldzüge der Römer im nordwestlichen Deutschland, Leipzig, 1825; C. v. M., Ueber die Römerstrasse am rechten Ufer des NiederRheins von dem Winterlager Vetera Castra ausgehend zur Feste Aliso, über die Pontes Longi zu den Marsen und zu der niedern Weser, Berlin, 1834. The learned work of Roth, "Hermann und Marbod," as well as those of Von Hammerstein, Tappe, Clostermeier, and others, deserve equal attention.) The dangers to which Germany has been exposed for two centuries by the invasions of foreign nations and by civil wars have given to the name of Arminius a universal popularity. This national feeling showed itself energetically during the last ten years, when it was proposed to erect a monument to the memory of Arminius, a plan which met with universal approbation, and, notwithstanding the gigantic proportions of the proposed monument, was so liberally supported that it will be finished in less than two years hence. The monument is to be erected on the highest summit of the Osning, a conical mountain of 1800 feet elevation above the sea, and visible at a great distance. It is a bronze statue of Arminius, who holds a sword erected in his right hand, his face turned towards the Rhine. The height of this statue will be eighty feet, and it will stand on a pedestal one hundred feet high, supported by oak-trees as columns, and adorned by oak-branches and leaves in the form of Gothic ornaments. It has been calculated that this statue will be clearly visible at a distance of sixty miles. (Tacitus, Annales, i. 55, 57—70; ii. 7—23, 44, 45, 88; Dion Cassius, lvi. 18-24; Velleius Pater culus, ii. 117-120; Florus, iv. 12; Suetonius, Augustus, xxiii. 7.) W.P. 66 ARMI'NIUS, JACOBUS, the founder of the Arminian Church, was born in the year 1560, at Oudewater, a small town of Holland, through which the little river Issel flows. His real name in Latin was Jacobus Hermanni, which in Dutch is Jacob Harmensen. For Harmensen he adopted the Latinized form Arminius, evidently at an early period of his life. As Oudewater means in Dutch "Old Water," Veteres Aquæ, Arminius is generally surnamed in his works Veteraquinas. He lost his father, Hermann, who was a cutler, in his infancy; and his mother, Angelica, was left with two sons and a daughter in very straitened circumstances. But the young Arminius found a protector in Theodorus Æmilius, who had once been a Roman Catholic priest, but had renounced his religion because he considered the sacrifice of the mass idolatrous. Æmilius took Arminius with him to Utrecht, and sent him to the school of that place. In his fifteenth year Arminius lost his kind patron by death; but another protector, a native of Oudewater, named Rudolph Snellius, took him under his care, and removed him to Marburg, the capital of Upper Hesse (1575). Arminius had scarcely arrived at Marburg, when he heard that his native town had been sacked by the Spaniards and the inhabitants put to the sword. Hurrying back to Oudewater, he found that his mother, sister, brother, and his other relations had been killed. He returned to Marburg on foot. He went thence to Rotterdam, and was received into the house of Peter Bertius, the pastor of the Reformed Church in that town. In the same year, 1575, he was sent, with Peter Bertius the younger, who afterwards pronounced his funeral oration, to the University of Leiden, which had just been founded. After he had studied at Leiden for six years, "the directors of the body of merchants" of Amsterdam undertook to bear the expenses of his future education for the ministry. Arminius signed an agreement, 13th September, 1581, that after he had been ordained he would not serve in the church of any other city without the permission of the burgomasters of Amsterdam. In 1582 he was sent to Geneva, which was then the great school of theology for all the Reformed churches, and where the doctrines of Calvin were then taught in their most rigorous shape by Theodore Beza. At Geneva, Arminius formed that close friendship which united him through life with Uyttenbogaert of Utrecht, whom Arminius used to call his sacred anchor. During his residence at Geneva he gave great offence to some of the Aristotelian teachers of the Geneva school, by advocating in public and lecturing in private to his friends on the Logic of Ramus. He had imbibed a love for the philosophical and logical principles of Ramus from his patron | evitable, no less than damnation. Arminius was requested to refute the work of the ministers of Delft. Fresh from the lessons of Beza he consented, but as he examined the arguments of Beza and the ministers, he began to doubt which of the two views to adopt. The more he considered that hypothesis which he had undertaken to refute, the more he became inclined to embrace it himself, and doubts as to the truth of the whole Calvinistic theory arose in his mind. He determined, therefore, to lay aside the design of writing any answer, and to devote himself to a serious examination of the question of predestination. Meanwhile, on the 16th of September, 1590, he married Elizabeth Reael, daughter of Laurent Reael, a judge and senator of Amsterdam. In the course of his sermons at Amsterdam, Arminius commenced an exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. In 1591, his interpretation of the seventh chapter-that the apostle was speaking of one who was still unregenerate, though in the next degree below regeneration-subjected him to a charge of Pelagianism, as attributing too much good to the unregenerate man. He endeavoured to justify himself in a conference which he held with his colleague in the ministry, Plancius; but the disputes between him and Plancius continued till the next year, when the magistrates of Amsterdam exhorted them both to keep quiet. Again, in 1593, his interpretation of the ninth chapter renewed the disputes between him and the other ministers of Amsterdam. This ninth chapter was regarded by the advocates of absolute predestination as their stronghold, but Arminius interpreted it as if it had nothing to do with the doctrine. The consistory of Amsterdam gave an audience to the contending parties, and ordered them to cease all controversy, until a general synod could be summoned to determine the subject of the dispute. In 1589 occurred an event which eventually led Arminius to renounce the theological opinions in which he had been carefully brought up, and propagate other doctrines. Arminius, however, did not publicly proTheodore Coornhert of Amsterdam pub- pound those peculiar doctrines on predestilished several works, in which he attacked nation and grace which constitute Arminianthe doctrine of predestination, which was ism, as distinguished from Calvinism, until taught by Beza and the Geneva school. the year 1604, when he was professor of To obviate Coornhert's objections, some mi- divinity in the University of Leiden. As nisters of Delft proposed a change in Beza's early as 1591, soon after he had read the doctrine. They agreed with Beza that di- works of Coornhert, he expressed his doubts vine predestination was the antecedent, un- as to the Calvinistic doctrine in his letconditional, and immutable decree of God ter to Grynæus, which is extant in the concerning the salvation or damnation of "Bibliotheca Bremensis Theolog. Philoloeach individual; but whereas Beza repre- gica," tom. iii. p. 384; in 1596 he sent to sented man, not considered as fallen or even Gellius Snecanus his "Analysis of the Ninth as created, as the object of this unconditional Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans," in decree, the ministers of Delft made this which he declares that this chapter does not peremptory decree subordinate to the crea- support the decree of absolute election and retion and fall of man. They thought this probation; in 1597 he held his Friendly hypothesis would do away with Coornhert's Conference with Francis Junius" (Du Jon); objection, that the doctrine of absolute de- and in 1598 he wrote his examination of the crees represented God as the author of sin- work of Perkins: yet his election to the proas such decrees made sin necessary and in-fessorship at Leiden proves that he had not A yet openly proposed his whole theory. general suspicion of his heterodoxy had gone abroad, but he either had not systematised his views, or he was afraid to express them fully. to settle the disputes about predestination. The States-General granted permission, on the 15th of March, 1606, to convoke the synod. On the 22nd of May, 1607, an assembly was held at the Hague, at which Arminius was present, to settle the manner in which the synod was to be held. In 1608, Arminius himself and his friend Uyttenbogaert applied to the States of Holland to convoke a Synod, that these grave controversies might be settled. In the same year Arminius and Gomar held a conference before the Supreme Court of the Hague, which declared in its report that these two professors differed on points of little importance, and unessential to religion. Arminius gave in an account of his opinions to the States at the Hague on the 30th of October, 1608. The Before the proposed synod could be held Arminius died. All these disputes embittered his life and hastened his end. disease which carried him off at last had long lain latent. It broke out on the 7th of February, 1609; but he recovered so far as to resume the usual duties of his professorship, though still weak. At last he sunk under his disorder, and expired 19th October, 1609. His death was most painful; and to bodily pain was added mental anguish at the misrepresentations, as he deemed them, of his religious opinions. "O dreadful and tormenting anguish," says his friend Bartius, in the funeral oration upon Arminius: "How often have we heard him in bitter groans cry out, when by himself, as the prophet did, 'O me, O mother, why did you bear me, a man at enmity with all the world? I have neither put out to usury nor taken in upon usury from any one, and yet every one curseth me.' Then he would recover his reason again, and be calm and sedate." Brandt omits this particular, and says that he died in peace. The enemies of Arminius attributed his sufferings to divine vengeance. Seven sons and two daughters survived him. The curators of the University of Leiden allowed his wife and children a pension. In 1602 a pestilential disease raged at Amsterdam and the neighbouring towns, during which Arminius showed the greatest courage and kindness in visiting the sick. The disease carried off two of the professors of the University of Leiden, Lucas Trelcatius, the elder, and Francis Junius, professor of divinity. The curators of the University turned their eyes upon Arminius as a fit successor to Junius; but it was only after repeated applications on the part of the University that the authorities of Amsterdam consented to give him permission to leave on the 15th of April, 1603. As he was suspected of holding heterodox opinions, before he was finally appointed he held a conference with Francis Gomar, who was also professor of divinity at Leiden, and who became afterwards his capital enemy, at the Hague, the 6th of May, 1603; and the result was, that Gomar declared the suspicions entertained of Arminius to be groundless. He underwent another examination, a private one, conducted by Gomar, for the degree of doctor of divinity, which he received the 11th of July, 1603. Arminius was the first on whom the University of Leiden conferred the degree of doctor. On the 7th of February, 1604, Arminius propounded certain theses on predestination, of which the sum was this: "Divine Predestination is the decree of God in Christ, by which he has decreed with himself from eternity, to justify, adopt, and gift with eternal life, to the praise of his glorious grace, the faithful whom he has decreed to gift with faith. On the other hand, Reprobation is the decree of the anger or severe will of God, by which he has determined from eternity, for the purpose of showing his anger and power, to condemn to eternal death, as placed out of union with Christ, the unbelieving who, by their own fault and the just judgment of God, are not to believe." On the last day of October, Gomar openly attacked these positions of Arminius, and from this day may be dated the long series of tumults which ensued. In 1605 Arminius was created Rector Magnificus of the University, which office he quitted February 8th, 1606. Meanwhile the disputes continued. Festus Hommius, a minister of Leiden, Janus Kuch-strants. lin, principal of the Theological College, and the uncle of Arminius, were among his warmest adversaries. Deputies from the churches of all the provinces of Holland, and deputies from the Synod of Leiden, required from him a conference on the subject of his opinions. Preachers attacked him from the pulpit as a Pelagian, and worse than a Pelagian. A National Synod, which had not been held for twenty years, was demanded, In 1610 the followers of Arminius, who had become numerous, presented a petition to the States of Holland and West Friesland, which was called a "Remonstrance." They were named Remonstrants in consequence; and as the Calvinists presented a "Counter-Remonstrance," they were called Contra-Remon After the death of Arminius the controversy between his disciples and their opponents raged more fiercely. Attempts were made by the authorities to reconcile the two contending parties, by a conference between them at the Hague in 1611, a discussion at Delft in 1613, and also by an edict in 1614, enjoining peace. At last the StatesGeneral issued an order for the assembling of a National Synod. It met at Dort, in Holland, and opened 13th November, 1618. Its sittings continued through this year and the next. This famous synod condemned entirely "five Articles' in which the Arminians expressed their opinions. These articles had been drawn up in 1610, presented in the conference at the Hague in 1611, and finally laid before the Synod of Dort. To fix the sense of the passages in the Scriptures which related to the dispute, a new Dutch translation of the whole Bible, from the original Hebrew and Greek, was undertaken at the command of the synod. This new version was published in 1637. The Arminians being dissatisfied with the version of the New Testament, made another version of the New Testament, from the Greek, which was published at Amsterdam in 1680. The Arminians were subjected to severe penalties. They were all deprived of their sacred and civil offices, and their ministers were forbidden to preach. Many retired to Antwerp and France: a considerable body emigrated to Holstein, upon the invitation of Friederich, Duke of Holstein, and built the town of Frederickstadt in the duchy of Schleswig. Among the ministers who accompanied this colony were Conrad Vorstius, Nicholas Grevinchovius, Simon Goulart, Janus Narsius, John Grevius, Marcus Walther. After the death of Maurice in 1625, the Arminians were allowed to return by his brother and successor, Friederich Heinrich. The exiles from France and the Spanish Netherlands came back and established congregations in various places, particularly at Rotterdam and Am-buted to the grace of God in Christ. But as sterdam. At Amsterdam they founded a school, where two professors prepared students for the ministry: one taught theology; and the other history, philosophy, and the learned languages. Simon Episcopius was the first professor of theology at Amsterdam, and many celebrated men succeeded him in the course of time; among whom were Stephen Curcellæus (Etienne de Courcelles), Arnold Pöllenburg, Philip Limborch, John le Clerc, Adrian van Cattenburgh, and John James Wetstein. It is questioned how far Arminius himself departed from the opinions entertained by the Calvinists, and whether he taught his disciples those doctrines which they afterwards professed. His works show that his followers expressed their master's sentiments on the points of predestination and grace in the famous Five Articles. These articles are drawn up almost entirely in words which may be found in his writings. The following is a literal translation of them : 1. God, by an eternal and immutable decree ordained in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world to save in Christ, because of Christ, and through Christ, from out of the human race, which is fallen and subject to sin, those who by the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in the same his Son, and who by the same grace persevere unto the end in that faith and the obedience of faith; but, on the contrary, to leave in sin and subject to wrath those who are not converted and are unbelieving, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the Gospel, John iii. 36. 2. To which end Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all and each one, so that he has gained for all, through the death of Christ, reconciliation and remission of sins; on this condition, however, that no one in reality enjoys that remission of sins except the faithful man, and this, too, according to the Gospel, John iii. 16, and 1 John ii. 2. 3. But man has not from himself, or by the power of his freewill, saving faith, inasmuch as in the state of defection and sin he cannot think or do of himself anything good, which is, indeed, really good, such as saving faith is; but it is necessary for him to be born again and renewed by God in Christ through his Holy Spirit, in his mind, affections or will, and all his faculties, so that he may be able to understand, think, wish, and perform something good, according to that saying of Christ in John xv. 5. 4. It is this grace of God which begins, promotes, and perfects everything good, and this to such a degree that even the regenerate man without this preceding or adventitious grace, exciting, consequent, and co-operating, can neither think, wish, or do anything good, nor even resist any evil temptation: so that all the good works which we can think of are to be attrito the manner of the operation of that grace, it is not irresistible, for it is said of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit, in Acts vii. 51, and many other places. 5. Those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and, therefore, partake of his vivifying Spirit, have abundance of means by which they may fight against Satin, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and obtain the victory, always, however, by the aid of the grace of the Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ assists them by his Spirit in all temptations, and stretches out his hand; and provided they are ready for the contest, and seek his aid, and are not wanting to their duty, he strengthens them to such a degree that they cannot be seduced or snatched from the hands of Christ by any fraud of Satan or violence, according to that saying, John x. 28. "No one shall pluck them out of my hand." But whether these very persons cannot by their own negligence desert the commencement of their being in Christ, and embrace again the present world, fall back from the holy doctrine once committed to them, make shipwreck of their conscience, and fall from grace; this must be more fully examined and weighed by the Holy Scripture, before men can teach it with full tranquillity of mind and confidence. The last proposition the Arminians afterwards so completely modified as to assert ex plicitly that it is possible for a true believer | the sake of religion." The Arminians excluded the Roman Catholics from their communion, because they considered the Roman Catholics persecutors. to lose his faith and fall from grace. The Arminians at first explained these five propositions, in such manner that they taught the Lutheran doctrine. But their adversaries asserted that they were Pelagians and Socinians at heart. It cannot be denied that, after the Synod of Dort, the chief Arminian teachers gave these propositions such an in- | terpretation that they seemed to differ very little from those who say that men do not require divine aid to be converted and lead a holy life; and some of their teachers, undoubtedly, incline towards Socinianism. Up to the time of the Synod of Dort these five points alone constituted the differences between the Arminians and the Calvinists. After the Synod of Dort, Arminianism became a very indefinite thing, and the Arminians had no system of theology. They point to the "Confession," which was drawn up by Episcopius, as their formula and rule of faith: but it is capable of various interpretations, and their several teachers interpret it in different ways; nor are they bound down to it by any oath or promise. The only doctrine to which the Arminians have adhered throughout is this that the merits of the Saviour extend to every one, and that none perish by any fixed and inevitable decree of God, but all by their own fault. But even this doctrine of the universal love of God to man is variously explained by their different doctors. On other, and the most weighty, doctrines of Christianity, their teachers advance very different opinions. The great object which the Arminians openly professed after the time of the Synod of Dort, was to unite into one family the various bodies of Christians, excepting the Roman Catholics, however they may differ in points of doctrine or church government. With this view the leading principle which they laid down is-that very few things are necessary to be believed for salvation; and that every one may think as he pleases concerning God and religion, provided he lives a pious and virtuous life. Some suppose that the Apostles' Creed is the test which they offer for communion; but "they are mistaken," says John le Clerc, one of the most distinguished among the Arminians; "the Arminians offer communion to all who receive the Holy Scripture as the sole rule of faith and manners, and who are neither idolators nor persecutors." (Bibliothèque Ancienne et Moderne, tom. xxv. p. 119.) In the preface to his Latin translation of Hammond's New Testament, where he addresses the learned among the Remonstrants (p. 3), the same authority says, "You are accustomed to profess that they alone are excluded from your community who are contaminated by idolatry; who do not hold the Scripture as the rule of faith; who tread under foot the holy precepts of Christ by an impure life; and, finally, those who persecute others for The man who drew up this system, and who was the greatest Arminian teacher, was Simon Episcopius. But that the aim of Arminius was to unite all sects of Christians, with the exception of Roman Catholics, into one community, is manifest from a passage in his will, where he says, "I have studied to inculcate everything which might contribute, according to the word of God, to the propagation and increase of truth, of the Christian religion, of the true worship of God, of general piety, and a holy conversation among men; and finally, to that tranquillity and peace which befit the Christian name, excluding Papacy, with which no unity of faith, no bond of piety, or of Christian peace can be maintained." The testimony of Brandt, the biographer of Arminius (p. 439), is to the same effect, and may be added to the proof from the will which Mosheim adduced in support of the statement, that Arminius taught his followers that form of religion which Episcopius and others more boldly announced. Arminius was of the middling height; his eyes were black and keen, his countenance calm, his limbs well-knit and strong; his voice was weak, but agreeable; and he had the power of adapting its tones to the subject which he was treating. His disposition and conversation were cheerful. His whole history shows that he was a man of a bold and inquiring spirit. In the preface to the Decrees of the Synod of Dort he is described as a man of a lively and well-exercised mind; but "he was never pleased with anything but what came recommended to him under some show of novelty; so that he seemed to dislike the doctrines received in the churches for this very reason, that they were received." His own answer was, that truth and candour obliged him to oppose doctrines which in his opinion made God the author of sin, and that his views were not opposed to the Belgic Confession. While, on the one hand, King James I. of England called him "an enemy to God," in a letter, of the year 1611, to the States of the United Provinces: his admirers say that "in all things which constitute a grave and Christian man, and a consummate doctor of the Church, as far as human infirmities allowed, he was second to none." His enemies allowed that his life was irreproachable. He fasted frequently. His motto was, "A good conscience is Paradise." The works of Arminius do not show any great knowledge of the Fathers or ecclesiastical antiquity; but they contain evidence of a clear and vigorous mind. His manner is exceedingly methodical and rather scholastic, but his style is characterized by that simplicity and clearness which his followers have always regarded as one of the chief excellen |