A SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF JAMES ARMINIUS
James Arminius was born in Oudewater, a small town near Utrecht in Holland, in the year 1560. His parents were respectable persons of the middle rank in life, his father being an ingenious mechanic, by trade a cutler. His family name was Herman, or, according to some, Harmen. As was usual with learned men of that period, who either latinized their own names, or substituted for them such Latin names as agreed most nearly in sound or in signification with them, he selected the name of the celebrated leader of the Germans in the early part of the first century. While Arminius was yet an infant, his father died, and he, with a brother and sister, was left to the care of his widowed mother. Theodore Aemilius, a clergyman, distinguished for piety and learning, then resided at Utrecht, and, becoming acquainted with the circumstances of the family, he charged himself with the education of the child. With this excellent man Arminius resided till his fifteenth year, when death deprived him of his patron. During this period he exhibited traits of uncommon genius, and was thoroughly taught in the elements of science, and particularly in the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages. He was led to dedicate himself to the service of God, and became, though so young, exemplary for piety.
About this time, Rudolph Snellius, a native of Oudewater, then residing at Marpurg in Hessia, to which place he had retired from the tyranny of the Spaniards, and highly reputed for his learning, especially in mathematics and languages, visited his native land. Becoming acquainted with and interested in his young townsman, he invited him to go to Marpurg under his own patronage. Arminius accordingly accompanied him thither, but had been engaged in his studies at the University only a short time when the mournful intelligence reached him that his native town had been destroyed by the Spanish army. He returned to Holland, and found his worst fears realized in the information that his mother, brother and sister were among the victims of the indiscriminate slaughter, which had ensued on the capture of the town. He retraced his steps sadly to Marpurg, performing the whole journey on foot.
During the same year, 1575, the new Dutch University at Leyden was formed, under the auspices of William I, Prince of Orange. As soon as Arminius learned that the new institution had been opened for the admission of students, he at once prepared to return to Holland, and soon entered as a student at Leyden. He remained there six years, occupying the highest place in the estimation of his instructors, and of his fellow students. At the expiration of that period, in his twenty-second year, he was recommended to the municipal authorities of Amsterdam as a young man of the largest promise for future usefulness, and as especially worthy of their patronage. They at once assumed the expense of the completion of his academic studies, while Arminius, on his part, gave into their hands a written bond, by which he pledged himself to devote the remainder of his life, after his admission to holy orders, to the service of the church in that city, and to engage in no other work and in no other place without the special sanction of the Burgomasters.
He immediately went to Geneva, being attracted thither chiefly by the reputation of the celebrated Beza, who was then lecturing in that University. He remained there, however, but a short time, having given offense to some of the professors by defending Ramus and his system of dialectics in opposition to that of Aristotle. He now repaired to the University of Basle, and resided there a year, during a part of which, as was customary for undergraduates who had made the greatest proficiency, he delivered lectures on theological subjects out of the ordinary college course. By these and other exhibitions of his erudition, he acquired such reputation that, on the eve of his departure from Basle, the faculty of Theology in that University tendered him the title and degree of Doctor. This he modestly declined, alleging, as a reason, his youth. The feeling, which had been excited against him, in the University of Geneva, on account of his adherence to the philosophy of Ramus, having, to a considerable degree, subsided, he now returned to that University, and remained there three years, engaged in the study of divinity.
About the end of this period, several of his young countrymen, who had also been pursuing their studies at Geneva, departed on a tour through Italy, and Arminius determined to make a similar excursion. He was particularly inclined to this by a desire to hear James Zabarella, at that time highly distinguished as Professor of Philosophy in the University of Padua. He remained at Padua a short time, and also visited Rome and some other places in Italy. This tour was of considerable advantage to him, as it afforded him an opportunity to become acquainted, by personal observation, with "the mystery of iniquity" and may account for the zeal and strenuousness with which he afterwards opposed many of the doctrines and assumptions of the papacy. It was, however, temporarily to his disadvantage as he incurred the displeasure of his patrons, the Senate of Amsterdam. This displeasure probably originated in, it was certainly increased by the efforts of certain mischievous persons, who grievously misrepresented his motives and conduct in visiting Italy, and it was readily removed by the statements of Arminius on his return to Holland, which occurred in the autumn of 1587. In the beginning of the following year, after an examination before the Amsterdam Classis, he was licensed to preach, and by the request of the authorities of the church, he began his public ministry in that city. His efforts in the pulpit were received with so much favor, that he was unanimously called to the pastorate of the Dutch church in Amsterdam, and was ordained on the eleventh of August, 1588.
Circumstances occurred during the next year, which, in their result, exerted much influence on the doctrinal views of Arminius, and led, in the end, to his adoption of the system which bears his name. Coornhert, a deeply pious man, and one who had rendered important services to his country and the Reformation at the risk of his life, had in the year 1578, in a discussion with two Calvinistic ministers of Delft, in a masterly and popular manner, assailed the peculiar views of Calvin on Predestination, Justification, and the punishment of heretics by death. He afterwards published his views and advocated a theory substantially the same with that afterwards known as the Arminian theory, though some of his phraseology was not sufficiently guarded. His pamphlet was answered in 1589, by the ministers of Delft, but instead of defending the supralapsarian view of Calvin and Beza, which had been Coornhert's particular object of attack, they presented and defended the lower or sublapsarian views, and assailed the theory of Calvin and Beza. The pamphlet of the Delft ministers was transmitted by Martin Lydius, professor at Franeker, to Arminius, with the request that he would defend his former preceptor. At the same time, the ecclesiastical senate of Amsterdam requested him to expose and refute the errors of Coornhert. He at once commenced the work, but on accurately weighing the arguments in favor of the supralapsarian and sublapsarian views, he was at first inclined, instead of refuting, to embrace the latter. Continuing his researches, he betook himself to the most diligent study of the Scriptures, and carefully compared with them the writings of the early Fathers, and of later divines. The result of this investigation was his adoption of the particular theory of Predestination which bears his name. At first, for the sake of peace, he was very guarded in his expressions, and avoided special reference to the subject, but soon, becoming satisfied that such a course was inconsistent with his duty as a professed teacher of religion, he began modestly to testify his dissent from the received errors, especially in his occasional discourses on such passages of Scripture as obviously required an interpretation in accordance with his enlarged views of the Divine economy in the salvation of sinners. This became a settled practice with him in 1590.
Having been settled more than two years in the ministry at Amsterdam, he was united in marriage to a young lady of great accomplishments and eminent piety, to whom, for some time previously, he had paid his addresses. Her name was Elizabeth Real. Her father, Laurence Jacobson Real, was a judge and senator of Amsterdam, whose name is immortalized in the Dutch annals of that period, for the decided part which he took in promoting the Reformation in the Low Countries, often, during the Spanish tyranny, at the risk of his property and life. With this lady, to whom he was married on the sixteenth of September, 1590, Arminius enjoyed uninterrupted and enviable domestic felicity. Their children were seven sons and two daughters, all of whom died in the flower of their youth, except Laurence, who became a merchant in Amsterdam, and Daniel, who gained the highest reputation in the profession of medicine.
The next thirteen years of Arminius' life, were spent in the ministry at Amsterdam, with eminent success and great popularity, especially with the laity. His occasional presentation of views different from those of ministers around him, who were, almost without exception, strongly Calvinistic, sometimes brought him into serious collision with them. In 1591, he expounded the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in 1593, the ninth chapter of the same epistle. In these expositions, he presented the views which are contained in his treatises on those chapters embraced in this edition of his works, and on each of these occasions, considerable excitement was produced against him. His interpretation of the seventh chapter, in particular, which is substantially the same with that adopted by a large proportion of the best modern commentators, including some who claim to be Calvinists, was then, and frequently afterwards, during his life, opposed with great acrimony.
About the end of 1602, the death of Francis Junius, Professor of Divinity at Leyden, occurred. The attention of the Curators of the University was immediately directed to Arminius, as the person most suitable to fill the vacant chair. The invitation, which was accordingly extended to him, met the most strenuous opposition from the authorities of Amsterdam, at whose disposal, as has been stated, Arminius had, in youth, placed his services for life. Their acquiescence in his transfer to Leyden was finally obtained through the special intercession of Uytenbogardt, the celebrated minister at the Hague, of N. Cromhoutius, of the Supreme Court of Holland, and of the Stadtholder himself, Maurice, Prince of Orange. Many of the ultra-calvinistic ministers protested violently against the call, to a position of so much importance, of one, whose sentiments, on what they considered vital points, were so heterodox as they deemed those of Arminius. In this, they were joined by Francis Gomarus, the Professor at Leyden. This man, at that time and subsequently during the life of Arminius, as well as after his death, in the religious contests which ensued between the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, manifested a very narrow and bitter spirit.
Having received the degree of Doctor of Divinity for the University of Leyden on the eleventh of July, 1603, he at once began to discharge the functions of Professor of Divinity. He soon discovered that the students in theology were involved in the intricate controversies and knotty questions of the schoolmen, rather than devoted to the study of the Scriptures. He endeavored at once to correct this evil, and to recall them to the Bible, as the fountain of truth. These efforts, and the fact that his views on Predestination were unpalatable to many, furnished opportunity and a motive to accuse him of an attempt to introduce innovations. Injurious reports were spread, and most unwarrantable means were used to injure his reputation with the government and the churches. Arminius endured these attacks with great equanimity, but did not publicly defend himself till 1608, when he vindicated himself in three different ways; first, in a letter to Hippolytus, a Collibus, Ambassador to the United Provinces from the Elector Palatine; secondly, in an "apology against thirty-one articles, etc," which, though written in 1608, was not published till the following year; and lastly, in his noble "Declaration of Sentiments," delivered on the thirtieth of October, 1608, before the States in a full assembly at the Hague.
Early in the following year, a bilious disorder, contracted by unremitting labor and study, and continued sitting, and to which, without doubt, the disquietude and grief produced in his mind by the malevolence of his opponents contributed much, became so violent that he was hardly able to leave his bed; but for some months, at intervals, though with great difficulty, he continued his lectures and attended to other duties of his professorship, until the twenty-fifth of July, when he held a public disputation on "the vocation of men to salvation," (see p. 570,) which was the last of his labors in the University. The excitement caused by some circumstances connected with that disputation, produced a violent paroxysm of his disease, from which he never recovered. He remained in acute physical pain, but with no abatement of his usual cheerfulness, and with entire acquiescence in the will of God, till the nineteenth of October, 1609. On that day, about noon, in the words of Bertius, "with his eyes lifted up to heaven, amidst the earnest prayers of those present, he calmly rendered up his spirit unto God, while each of the spectators exclaimed, '0 my soul, let me die the death of the righteous.'" Thus lived, and thus, at the age of forty-nine years, died James Arminius, distinguished among men, for the virtue and amiability of his private, domestic and social character; among Christians, for his charity towards those who differed from him in opinion; among preachers, for his zeal, eloquence and success; and among divines, for his acute, yet enlarged and comprehensive views of theology, his skill in argument, and his candor and courtesy in controversy. His motto was "BONA CONSCIENTIA PARADISUS." W.R.B.
Contents:
1-01. A Sketch of the Life of James Arminius
1-02. Orations of Arminius Oration 1 the Priesthood of Christ
1-03. Oration 2 the Object of Theology
1-04. Oration 3 the Author and the End of Theology
1-05. Oration 4 the Certainty of Sacred Theology
1-06. Oration 5 on Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians
1-07. A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius
1-08. The Apology or Defense
1-09. Articles 1 and 2
1-10. Article 3
1-11. Article 4
1-12. Article 5
1-13. Article 6
1-14. Article 7
1-15. Article 8
1-16. Article 9
1-17. Article 10
1-18. Article 11
1-19. Article 12
1-20. Articles 13 and 14
1-21. Article 15
1-22. Article 16
1-23. Article 17
1-24. Article 18
1-25. Article 19
1-26. Article 20
1-27. Article 21 (1.)
1-28. Article 22 (2.)
1-29. Article 23 (3.)
1-30. Article 24 (4.)
1-31. Article 25 (5.)
1-32. Article 26 (6.)
1-33. Article 27 (7.)
1-34. Article 28 (8.)
1-35. Article 29 (9.)
1-36. Article 30 (10.)
1-37. Article 31 (11.)
1-38. Conclusion
1-39. Nine Questions
1-40. Remarks
1-41. Public Disputations
1-42. Disputations
1-43. Disputation 1 on the Authority and Certainty of the Sacred Scriptures
1-44. Disputation 2 on the Sufficiency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures
1-45. Disputation 3 on the Sufficiency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures in Opposition to Human Traditions
1-46. Disputation 4 on the Nature of God
1-47. 1. on the Understanding of God
1-48. 2. on the Will of God
1-49. Disputation 5 on the Person of the Father and the Son
1-50. Disputation 6 on the Holy Spirit
1-51. Disputation 7 on the First Sin of the First Man
1-52. Disputation 8 on Actual Sins
1-53. Disputation 9 on the Righteousness and Efficacy of the Providence of God Concerning Evil
1-54. Disputation 10 on the Righteousness and Efficacy of the Providence of God Concerning Evil
1-55. Disputation 11 on the Free Will of Man and Its Powers
1-56. Disputation 12 the Law of God
1-57. Disputation 13 on the Comparison of the Law and the Gospel
1-58. Disputation 14 on the Offices of Our Lord Jesus Christ
1-59. Disputation 15 on Divine Predestination
1-60. Disputation 16 on the Vocation of Men to Salvation
1-61. Disputation 17 on Repentance
1-62. Disputation 18 on the Church and Its Head
1-63. Disputation 19 on the Justification of Man Before God
1-64. Disputation 20 on Christian Liberty
1-65. Disputation 21 on the Roman Pontiff, and the Principal Titles Which are Attributed to Him
1-66. Disputation 22 the Case of All the Protestant or Reformed Churches
1-67. Disputation 23 on Idolatry
1-68. Disputation 24 on the Invocation of Saints
1-69. Disputation 25 on Magistracy
2-001. Private Disputations
2-002. On the Principal Articles of the Christian Religion. Commenced By the Author Chiefly for the Purpose of Forming a System of Divinity
2-003. Disputation 1 on Theology
2-004. Disputation 2 on the Manner in Which Theology Must Be Taught
2-005. Disputation 3 on Blessedness, the End of Theology
2-006. Disputation 4 on Religion
2-007. Disputation 5 on the Rule of Religion, the Word of God, and the Scriptures in Particular
2-008. Disputation 6 on the Authority and Certainty of the Holy Scriptures
2-009. Disputation 7 on the Perfection of the Scriptures
2-010. Disputation 8 on the Perspicuity of the Scriptures
2-011. Disputation 9 on the Meanings and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures
2-012. Disputation 10 on the Efficacy of the Scriptures
2-013. Disputation 11 on Religion in a Stricter Sense
2-014. Disputation 12 on the Christian Religion, Its Name and Relation
2-015. Disputation 13 on the Christian Religion, With Regard to the Matter Generally
2-016. Disputation 14 on the Object of the Christian Religion: and, First, About God, Its Primary Object, and What God Is
2-017. Disputation 15 on the Nature of God
2-018. Disputation 16 on the Life of God
2-019. Disputation 17 on the Understanding of God
2-020. Disputation 18 on the Will of God
2-021. Disputation 19 on the Various Distinctions of the Will of God
2-022. Disputation 20 on the Attributes of God Which Come to Be Considered Under His Will and, First
2-023. Disputation 21 on Those Attributes of God
2-024. Disputation 22 on the Power or Capability of God
2-025. Disputation 23 on the Perfection, Blessedness and Glory of God
2-026. Disputation 24 on Creation
2-027. Disputation 25 on Angels in General and in Particular
2-028. Disputation 26 on the Creation of Man After the Image of God
2-029. Disputation 27 on the Lordship or Dominion of God
2-030. Disputation 28 on the Providence of God
2-031. Disputation 29 on the Covenant Into Which God Entered With Our First Parents
2-032. Disputation 30 the Manner in Which Man Conducted Himself for Fulfilling the First Covenant
2-033. Disputation 31 on the Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents
2-034. Disputation 32 on the Necessity of the Christian Religion
2-035. Disputation 33 on the Restoration of Man
2-036. Disputation 34 on the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ
2-037. Disputation 35 on the Priestly Office of Christ
2-038. Disputation 36 on the Prophetical Office of Christ
2-039. Disputation 37 on the Regal Office of Christ
2-040. Disputation 38 on the States of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation
2-041. Disputation 39 on the Will, and Command of God the Father and of Christ, By Which They Will and Command
2-042. Disputation 40 on the Predestination of Believers
2-043. Disputation 41 on the Predestination of the Means to the End
2-044. Disputation 42 on the Vocation of Sinful Men to Christ, and to a Participation of Salvation in Him
2-045. Disputation 43 on the Repentance By Which Men Answer to the Divine Vocation
2-046. Disputation 44 on Faith in God and Christ
2-047. Disputation 45 on the Union of Believers With Christ
2-048. Disputation 46 on the Communion of Believers With Christ, and Particularly With His Death
2-049. Disputation 47 the Communion of Believers With Christ in Regard to His Life
2-050. Disputation 48 on Justification
2-051. Disputation 49 on the Sanctification of Man
2-052. Disputation 50 on the Church of God and of Christ:
2-053. Disputation 51 on the Church of the Old Testament, or Under the Promise
2-054. Disputation 52 on the Church of the New Testament, or Under the Gospel
2-055. Disputation 53 on the Head and the Marks of the Church
2-056. Disputation 54 on the Catholic Church, Her Parts and Relations
2-057. Disputation 55 on the Power of the Church in Delivering Doctrines
2-058. Disputation 56 on the Power of the Church in Enacting Laws
2-059. Disputation 57 on the Power of the Church in Administering Justice, or on Ecclesiastical Discipline
2-060. Disputation 58 on Councils
2-061. Disputation 59 on the Ecclesiastical Ministrations of
2-062. Disputation 60 on Sacraments in General
2-063. Disputation 61 on the Sacraments of the Old Testament, the Tree of Life, Circumcision
2-064. Disputation 62 on the Sacraments
2-065. Disputation 63 on Baptism and Paedo-baptism
2-066. Disputation 64 on the Lord's Supper
2-067. Disputation 65 on the Popish Mass
2-068. Disputation 66 on the Five False Sacraments
2-069. Disputation 67 on the Worship of God in General
2-070. Disputation 68 on the Precepts of Divine Worship in General
2-071. Disputation 69 on Obedience, the Formal Object of All the Divine Precepts
2-072. Disputation 70 on Obedience to the Commands of God in General
2-073. Disputation 71 on the Material Object of the Precepts of the Law in General
2-074. Disputation 72 the Love, Fear, Trust, and Honor Which are Due From Man to God
2-075. Disputation 73 on Particular Acts of Obedience, or Those Which are Prescribed in Each Precept, or
2-076. Disputation 74 on the First Command in the Decalogue
2-077. Disputation 75 on the Second Command in the Decalogue
2-078. Disputation 76 on the Third Precept of the Decalogue
2-079. Disputation 77 on the Fourth Command in the Decalogue
2-080. Disputation 78 on the Fifth Command in the Decalogue
2-081. Disputation 79 on the Sixth Precept
2-082. Dedication
2-083. A Dissertation of the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
2-084. First Part 1. the Thesis to Be Proved
2-085. 2. the Connection of the Seventh Chapter With the Sixth
2-086. The Ancient Fathers
2-087. Modern Divines
2-088. 3. Recapitulation
2-089. 4. the Connection Between the Seventh and the Eighth Chapters
2-090. Second Part
2-091. 2. the Most Ancient and Most Respectable of the Christian
2-092. 3. the Opinion of St. Augustine
2-093. 4. Our Opinion Is Supported By Several Writers of the Middle Ages
2-094. 5. the Favorable Testimonies of More Recent Divines
2-095. Third Part 1. This Opinion Is Neither Heretical nor Allied to Any Heresy
2-096. 2. Our Opinion Is Directly Opposed to the Pelagian Heresy
2-097. Fourth Part the Opposite Opinion Is Approved By None of the Ancient Doctors of the Church
2-098. Fifth Part 1. the Opposite Opinion Is Injurious to Grace and Hurtful to Good Morals
2-099. 2. Various Objections in Favor of the Common Interpretation Answered
2-100. A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus a Collibus
2-101. Introduction
2-102. A Letter to Hippolytus a Collibus
2-103. 2. the Providence of God
2-104. 3. Divine Predestination
2-105. 4. Grace and Free Will
2-106. 5. Justification
2-107. Certain Articles
2-108. A Letter on the Sin Against the Holy Ghost
3-001. A Friendly Discussion Between James Arminius & Francis Junius, Concerning Predestination, Conducted By Means of Letters
3-002. Reply of Francis Junius
3-003. First Proposition of Arminius
3-004. The Reply of Francis Junius to the First Proposition of Arminius
3-005. The Reply of James Arminius to the Answer
3-006. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-007. Second Proposition of Arminius
3-008. The Answer of Junius to the Second Proposition
3-009. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-010. Third Proposition of Arminius
3-011. Answer of Junius
3-012. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-013. Fourth Proposition of Arminius
3-014. The Answer of Junius
3-015. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-016. Fifth Proposition of Arminius
3-017. The Reply of Junius to the Fifth Proposition
3-018. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-019. Sixth Proposition of Arminius
3-020. Answer of Junius
3-021. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-022. Seventh Proposition of Arminius
3-023. Answer of Junius
3-024. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-025. Eighth Proposition of Arminius
3-026. Answer of Junius
3-027. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-028. Ninth Proposition of Arminius
3-029. The Answer of Junius to the Ninth Proposition
3-030. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-031. Tenth Proposition of Arminius
3-032. Answer of Junius
3-033. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-034. Eleventh Proposition of Arminius
3-035. Answer of Junius
3-036. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-037. Twelfth Proposition of Arminius
3-038. Answer of Junius
3-039. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-040. Thirteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-041. Answer of Junius
3-042. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-043. Fourteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-044. Answer of Junius
3-045. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-046. Fifteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-047. Answer of Junius
3-048. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-049. Sixteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-050. Answer of Junius to the Sixteenth Proposition
3-051. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-052. Seventeenth Proposition of Arminius
3-053. Reply of Junius to the Seventeenth Proposition
3-054. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-055. Eighteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-056. Answer of Junius
3-057. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-058. Nineteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-059. Answer of Junius
3-060. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-061. Twentieth Proposition of Arminius
3-062. Answer of Junius
3-063. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-064. Twenty-first Proposition of Arminius
3-065. Answer of Julius to the Twenty-first Proposition
3-066. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-067. Twenty-second Proposition of Arminius
3-068. Answer of Junius
3-069. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-070. Twenty-third Proposition of Arminius
3-071. Answer of Junius
3-072. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-073. Twenty-fourth Proposition of Arminius
3-074. Answer of Junius to the Twenty-fourth Proposition
3-075. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-076. Twenty-fifth Proposition of Arminius
3-077. Reply of Junius to the Twenty-fifth Proposition
3-078. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-079. Twenty-sixth Proposition of Arminius
3-080. Reply of Junius to the Twenty-sixth Proposition
3-081. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-082. Twenty-seventh Proposition of Arminius
3-083. Answer of Junius
3-084. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-085. Appendix Theses of Dr. Francis Junius Concerning Divine Predestination, Composed, in These Very Words, By Himself, and Publicly Discussed, Under His Direction, By William Coddaeus, in the University of Leyden, in the Year 1593 — Also Some Brief Annotations of James Arminius
3-086. Thesis 1
3-087. Thesis 2
3-088. Thesis 3
3-089. Thesis 4
3-090. Thesis 5
3-091. Thesis 6
3-092. Thesis 7
3-093. Thesis 8
3-094. Thesis 9
3-095. Thesis 10
3-096. Thesis 11
3-097. Thesis 12
3-098. Thesis 13
3-099. Thesis 14
3-100. Thesis 15
3-101. Thesis 16
3-102. Thesis 17
3-103. Thesis 18
3-104. Thesis 19
3-105. Thesis 20
3-106. An Examination By Rev. James Arminius, D. D. of a Treatise; Concerning the Order and Mode of Predestination and the Amplitude of Divine Grace By Rev. William Perkins, D.d., a Theological Writer in England Also, an Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
3-107. Examination of the Epistle
3-108. Examination of the Treatise
3-109. Examination of the Answer of Perkins to Certain Allegations Against the Advocates of Unconditional Predestination
3-110. Discussion of the Subject of Permission
3-111. An Examination of the Treatise of William Perkins Concerning the Order and Mode of Predestination
3-112. Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
James Arminius was born in Oudewater, a small town near Utrecht in Holland, in the year 1560. His parents were respectable persons of the middle rank in life, his father being an ingenious mechanic, by trade a cutler. His family name was Herman, or, according to some, Harmen. As was usual with learned men of that period, who either latinized their own names, or substituted for them such Latin names as agreed most nearly in sound or in signification with them, he selected the name of the celebrated leader of the Germans in the early part of the first century. While Arminius was yet an infant, his father died, and he, with a brother and sister, was left to the care of his widowed mother. Theodore Aemilius, a clergyman, distinguished for piety and learning, then resided at Utrecht, and, becoming acquainted with the circumstances of the family, he charged himself with the education of the child. With this excellent man Arminius resided till his fifteenth year, when death deprived him of his patron. During this period he exhibited traits of uncommon genius, and was thoroughly taught in the elements of science, and particularly in the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages. He was led to dedicate himself to the service of God, and became, though so young, exemplary for piety.
About this time, Rudolph Snellius, a native of Oudewater, then residing at Marpurg in Hessia, to which place he had retired from the tyranny of the Spaniards, and highly reputed for his learning, especially in mathematics and languages, visited his native land. Becoming acquainted with and interested in his young townsman, he invited him to go to Marpurg under his own patronage. Arminius accordingly accompanied him thither, but had been engaged in his studies at the University only a short time when the mournful intelligence reached him that his native town had been destroyed by the Spanish army. He returned to Holland, and found his worst fears realized in the information that his mother, brother and sister were among the victims of the indiscriminate slaughter, which had ensued on the capture of the town. He retraced his steps sadly to Marpurg, performing the whole journey on foot.
During the same year, 1575, the new Dutch University at Leyden was formed, under the auspices of William I, Prince of Orange. As soon as Arminius learned that the new institution had been opened for the admission of students, he at once prepared to return to Holland, and soon entered as a student at Leyden. He remained there six years, occupying the highest place in the estimation of his instructors, and of his fellow students. At the expiration of that period, in his twenty-second year, he was recommended to the municipal authorities of Amsterdam as a young man of the largest promise for future usefulness, and as especially worthy of their patronage. They at once assumed the expense of the completion of his academic studies, while Arminius, on his part, gave into their hands a written bond, by which he pledged himself to devote the remainder of his life, after his admission to holy orders, to the service of the church in that city, and to engage in no other work and in no other place without the special sanction of the Burgomasters.
He immediately went to Geneva, being attracted thither chiefly by the reputation of the celebrated Beza, who was then lecturing in that University. He remained there, however, but a short time, having given offense to some of the professors by defending Ramus and his system of dialectics in opposition to that of Aristotle. He now repaired to the University of Basle, and resided there a year, during a part of which, as was customary for undergraduates who had made the greatest proficiency, he delivered lectures on theological subjects out of the ordinary college course. By these and other exhibitions of his erudition, he acquired such reputation that, on the eve of his departure from Basle, the faculty of Theology in that University tendered him the title and degree of Doctor. This he modestly declined, alleging, as a reason, his youth. The feeling, which had been excited against him, in the University of Geneva, on account of his adherence to the philosophy of Ramus, having, to a considerable degree, subsided, he now returned to that University, and remained there three years, engaged in the study of divinity.
About the end of this period, several of his young countrymen, who had also been pursuing their studies at Geneva, departed on a tour through Italy, and Arminius determined to make a similar excursion. He was particularly inclined to this by a desire to hear James Zabarella, at that time highly distinguished as Professor of Philosophy in the University of Padua. He remained at Padua a short time, and also visited Rome and some other places in Italy. This tour was of considerable advantage to him, as it afforded him an opportunity to become acquainted, by personal observation, with "the mystery of iniquity" and may account for the zeal and strenuousness with which he afterwards opposed many of the doctrines and assumptions of the papacy. It was, however, temporarily to his disadvantage as he incurred the displeasure of his patrons, the Senate of Amsterdam. This displeasure probably originated in, it was certainly increased by the efforts of certain mischievous persons, who grievously misrepresented his motives and conduct in visiting Italy, and it was readily removed by the statements of Arminius on his return to Holland, which occurred in the autumn of 1587. In the beginning of the following year, after an examination before the Amsterdam Classis, he was licensed to preach, and by the request of the authorities of the church, he began his public ministry in that city. His efforts in the pulpit were received with so much favor, that he was unanimously called to the pastorate of the Dutch church in Amsterdam, and was ordained on the eleventh of August, 1588.
Circumstances occurred during the next year, which, in their result, exerted much influence on the doctrinal views of Arminius, and led, in the end, to his adoption of the system which bears his name. Coornhert, a deeply pious man, and one who had rendered important services to his country and the Reformation at the risk of his life, had in the year 1578, in a discussion with two Calvinistic ministers of Delft, in a masterly and popular manner, assailed the peculiar views of Calvin on Predestination, Justification, and the punishment of heretics by death. He afterwards published his views and advocated a theory substantially the same with that afterwards known as the Arminian theory, though some of his phraseology was not sufficiently guarded. His pamphlet was answered in 1589, by the ministers of Delft, but instead of defending the supralapsarian view of Calvin and Beza, which had been Coornhert's particular object of attack, they presented and defended the lower or sublapsarian views, and assailed the theory of Calvin and Beza. The pamphlet of the Delft ministers was transmitted by Martin Lydius, professor at Franeker, to Arminius, with the request that he would defend his former preceptor. At the same time, the ecclesiastical senate of Amsterdam requested him to expose and refute the errors of Coornhert. He at once commenced the work, but on accurately weighing the arguments in favor of the supralapsarian and sublapsarian views, he was at first inclined, instead of refuting, to embrace the latter. Continuing his researches, he betook himself to the most diligent study of the Scriptures, and carefully compared with them the writings of the early Fathers, and of later divines. The result of this investigation was his adoption of the particular theory of Predestination which bears his name. At first, for the sake of peace, he was very guarded in his expressions, and avoided special reference to the subject, but soon, becoming satisfied that such a course was inconsistent with his duty as a professed teacher of religion, he began modestly to testify his dissent from the received errors, especially in his occasional discourses on such passages of Scripture as obviously required an interpretation in accordance with his enlarged views of the Divine economy in the salvation of sinners. This became a settled practice with him in 1590.
Having been settled more than two years in the ministry at Amsterdam, he was united in marriage to a young lady of great accomplishments and eminent piety, to whom, for some time previously, he had paid his addresses. Her name was Elizabeth Real. Her father, Laurence Jacobson Real, was a judge and senator of Amsterdam, whose name is immortalized in the Dutch annals of that period, for the decided part which he took in promoting the Reformation in the Low Countries, often, during the Spanish tyranny, at the risk of his property and life. With this lady, to whom he was married on the sixteenth of September, 1590, Arminius enjoyed uninterrupted and enviable domestic felicity. Their children were seven sons and two daughters, all of whom died in the flower of their youth, except Laurence, who became a merchant in Amsterdam, and Daniel, who gained the highest reputation in the profession of medicine.
The next thirteen years of Arminius' life, were spent in the ministry at Amsterdam, with eminent success and great popularity, especially with the laity. His occasional presentation of views different from those of ministers around him, who were, almost without exception, strongly Calvinistic, sometimes brought him into serious collision with them. In 1591, he expounded the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in 1593, the ninth chapter of the same epistle. In these expositions, he presented the views which are contained in his treatises on those chapters embraced in this edition of his works, and on each of these occasions, considerable excitement was produced against him. His interpretation of the seventh chapter, in particular, which is substantially the same with that adopted by a large proportion of the best modern commentators, including some who claim to be Calvinists, was then, and frequently afterwards, during his life, opposed with great acrimony.
About the end of 1602, the death of Francis Junius, Professor of Divinity at Leyden, occurred. The attention of the Curators of the University was immediately directed to Arminius, as the person most suitable to fill the vacant chair. The invitation, which was accordingly extended to him, met the most strenuous opposition from the authorities of Amsterdam, at whose disposal, as has been stated, Arminius had, in youth, placed his services for life. Their acquiescence in his transfer to Leyden was finally obtained through the special intercession of Uytenbogardt, the celebrated minister at the Hague, of N. Cromhoutius, of the Supreme Court of Holland, and of the Stadtholder himself, Maurice, Prince of Orange. Many of the ultra-calvinistic ministers protested violently against the call, to a position of so much importance, of one, whose sentiments, on what they considered vital points, were so heterodox as they deemed those of Arminius. In this, they were joined by Francis Gomarus, the Professor at Leyden. This man, at that time and subsequently during the life of Arminius, as well as after his death, in the religious contests which ensued between the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, manifested a very narrow and bitter spirit.
Having received the degree of Doctor of Divinity for the University of Leyden on the eleventh of July, 1603, he at once began to discharge the functions of Professor of Divinity. He soon discovered that the students in theology were involved in the intricate controversies and knotty questions of the schoolmen, rather than devoted to the study of the Scriptures. He endeavored at once to correct this evil, and to recall them to the Bible, as the fountain of truth. These efforts, and the fact that his views on Predestination were unpalatable to many, furnished opportunity and a motive to accuse him of an attempt to introduce innovations. Injurious reports were spread, and most unwarrantable means were used to injure his reputation with the government and the churches. Arminius endured these attacks with great equanimity, but did not publicly defend himself till 1608, when he vindicated himself in three different ways; first, in a letter to Hippolytus, a Collibus, Ambassador to the United Provinces from the Elector Palatine; secondly, in an "apology against thirty-one articles, etc," which, though written in 1608, was not published till the following year; and lastly, in his noble "Declaration of Sentiments," delivered on the thirtieth of October, 1608, before the States in a full assembly at the Hague.
Early in the following year, a bilious disorder, contracted by unremitting labor and study, and continued sitting, and to which, without doubt, the disquietude and grief produced in his mind by the malevolence of his opponents contributed much, became so violent that he was hardly able to leave his bed; but for some months, at intervals, though with great difficulty, he continued his lectures and attended to other duties of his professorship, until the twenty-fifth of July, when he held a public disputation on "the vocation of men to salvation," (see p. 570,) which was the last of his labors in the University. The excitement caused by some circumstances connected with that disputation, produced a violent paroxysm of his disease, from which he never recovered. He remained in acute physical pain, but with no abatement of his usual cheerfulness, and with entire acquiescence in the will of God, till the nineteenth of October, 1609. On that day, about noon, in the words of Bertius, "with his eyes lifted up to heaven, amidst the earnest prayers of those present, he calmly rendered up his spirit unto God, while each of the spectators exclaimed, '0 my soul, let me die the death of the righteous.'" Thus lived, and thus, at the age of forty-nine years, died James Arminius, distinguished among men, for the virtue and amiability of his private, domestic and social character; among Christians, for his charity towards those who differed from him in opinion; among preachers, for his zeal, eloquence and success; and among divines, for his acute, yet enlarged and comprehensive views of theology, his skill in argument, and his candor and courtesy in controversy. His motto was "BONA CONSCIENTIA PARADISUS." W.R.B.
Contents:
1-01. A Sketch of the Life of James Arminius
1-02. Orations of Arminius Oration 1 the Priesthood of Christ
1-03. Oration 2 the Object of Theology
1-04. Oration 3 the Author and the End of Theology
1-05. Oration 4 the Certainty of Sacred Theology
1-06. Oration 5 on Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians
1-07. A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius
1-08. The Apology or Defense
1-09. Articles 1 and 2
1-10. Article 3
1-11. Article 4
1-12. Article 5
1-13. Article 6
1-14. Article 7
1-15. Article 8
1-16. Article 9
1-17. Article 10
1-18. Article 11
1-19. Article 12
1-20. Articles 13 and 14
1-21. Article 15
1-22. Article 16
1-23. Article 17
1-24. Article 18
1-25. Article 19
1-26. Article 20
1-27. Article 21 (1.)
1-28. Article 22 (2.)
1-29. Article 23 (3.)
1-30. Article 24 (4.)
1-31. Article 25 (5.)
1-32. Article 26 (6.)
1-33. Article 27 (7.)
1-34. Article 28 (8.)
1-35. Article 29 (9.)
1-36. Article 30 (10.)
1-37. Article 31 (11.)
1-38. Conclusion
1-39. Nine Questions
1-40. Remarks
1-41. Public Disputations
1-42. Disputations
1-43. Disputation 1 on the Authority and Certainty of the Sacred Scriptures
1-44. Disputation 2 on the Sufficiency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures
1-45. Disputation 3 on the Sufficiency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures in Opposition to Human Traditions
1-46. Disputation 4 on the Nature of God
1-47. 1. on the Understanding of God
1-48. 2. on the Will of God
1-49. Disputation 5 on the Person of the Father and the Son
1-50. Disputation 6 on the Holy Spirit
1-51. Disputation 7 on the First Sin of the First Man
1-52. Disputation 8 on Actual Sins
1-53. Disputation 9 on the Righteousness and Efficacy of the Providence of God Concerning Evil
1-54. Disputation 10 on the Righteousness and Efficacy of the Providence of God Concerning Evil
1-55. Disputation 11 on the Free Will of Man and Its Powers
1-56. Disputation 12 the Law of God
1-57. Disputation 13 on the Comparison of the Law and the Gospel
1-58. Disputation 14 on the Offices of Our Lord Jesus Christ
1-59. Disputation 15 on Divine Predestination
1-60. Disputation 16 on the Vocation of Men to Salvation
1-61. Disputation 17 on Repentance
1-62. Disputation 18 on the Church and Its Head
1-63. Disputation 19 on the Justification of Man Before God
1-64. Disputation 20 on Christian Liberty
1-65. Disputation 21 on the Roman Pontiff, and the Principal Titles Which are Attributed to Him
1-66. Disputation 22 the Case of All the Protestant or Reformed Churches
1-67. Disputation 23 on Idolatry
1-68. Disputation 24 on the Invocation of Saints
1-69. Disputation 25 on Magistracy
2-001. Private Disputations
2-002. On the Principal Articles of the Christian Religion. Commenced By the Author Chiefly for the Purpose of Forming a System of Divinity
2-003. Disputation 1 on Theology
2-004. Disputation 2 on the Manner in Which Theology Must Be Taught
2-005. Disputation 3 on Blessedness, the End of Theology
2-006. Disputation 4 on Religion
2-007. Disputation 5 on the Rule of Religion, the Word of God, and the Scriptures in Particular
2-008. Disputation 6 on the Authority and Certainty of the Holy Scriptures
2-009. Disputation 7 on the Perfection of the Scriptures
2-010. Disputation 8 on the Perspicuity of the Scriptures
2-011. Disputation 9 on the Meanings and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures
2-012. Disputation 10 on the Efficacy of the Scriptures
2-013. Disputation 11 on Religion in a Stricter Sense
2-014. Disputation 12 on the Christian Religion, Its Name and Relation
2-015. Disputation 13 on the Christian Religion, With Regard to the Matter Generally
2-016. Disputation 14 on the Object of the Christian Religion: and, First, About God, Its Primary Object, and What God Is
2-017. Disputation 15 on the Nature of God
2-018. Disputation 16 on the Life of God
2-019. Disputation 17 on the Understanding of God
2-020. Disputation 18 on the Will of God
2-021. Disputation 19 on the Various Distinctions of the Will of God
2-022. Disputation 20 on the Attributes of God Which Come to Be Considered Under His Will and, First
2-023. Disputation 21 on Those Attributes of God
2-024. Disputation 22 on the Power or Capability of God
2-025. Disputation 23 on the Perfection, Blessedness and Glory of God
2-026. Disputation 24 on Creation
2-027. Disputation 25 on Angels in General and in Particular
2-028. Disputation 26 on the Creation of Man After the Image of God
2-029. Disputation 27 on the Lordship or Dominion of God
2-030. Disputation 28 on the Providence of God
2-031. Disputation 29 on the Covenant Into Which God Entered With Our First Parents
2-032. Disputation 30 the Manner in Which Man Conducted Himself for Fulfilling the First Covenant
2-033. Disputation 31 on the Effects of the Sin of Our First Parents
2-034. Disputation 32 on the Necessity of the Christian Religion
2-035. Disputation 33 on the Restoration of Man
2-036. Disputation 34 on the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ
2-037. Disputation 35 on the Priestly Office of Christ
2-038. Disputation 36 on the Prophetical Office of Christ
2-039. Disputation 37 on the Regal Office of Christ
2-040. Disputation 38 on the States of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation
2-041. Disputation 39 on the Will, and Command of God the Father and of Christ, By Which They Will and Command
2-042. Disputation 40 on the Predestination of Believers
2-043. Disputation 41 on the Predestination of the Means to the End
2-044. Disputation 42 on the Vocation of Sinful Men to Christ, and to a Participation of Salvation in Him
2-045. Disputation 43 on the Repentance By Which Men Answer to the Divine Vocation
2-046. Disputation 44 on Faith in God and Christ
2-047. Disputation 45 on the Union of Believers With Christ
2-048. Disputation 46 on the Communion of Believers With Christ, and Particularly With His Death
2-049. Disputation 47 the Communion of Believers With Christ in Regard to His Life
2-050. Disputation 48 on Justification
2-051. Disputation 49 on the Sanctification of Man
2-052. Disputation 50 on the Church of God and of Christ:
2-053. Disputation 51 on the Church of the Old Testament, or Under the Promise
2-054. Disputation 52 on the Church of the New Testament, or Under the Gospel
2-055. Disputation 53 on the Head and the Marks of the Church
2-056. Disputation 54 on the Catholic Church, Her Parts and Relations
2-057. Disputation 55 on the Power of the Church in Delivering Doctrines
2-058. Disputation 56 on the Power of the Church in Enacting Laws
2-059. Disputation 57 on the Power of the Church in Administering Justice, or on Ecclesiastical Discipline
2-060. Disputation 58 on Councils
2-061. Disputation 59 on the Ecclesiastical Ministrations of
2-062. Disputation 60 on Sacraments in General
2-063. Disputation 61 on the Sacraments of the Old Testament, the Tree of Life, Circumcision
2-064. Disputation 62 on the Sacraments
2-065. Disputation 63 on Baptism and Paedo-baptism
2-066. Disputation 64 on the Lord's Supper
2-067. Disputation 65 on the Popish Mass
2-068. Disputation 66 on the Five False Sacraments
2-069. Disputation 67 on the Worship of God in General
2-070. Disputation 68 on the Precepts of Divine Worship in General
2-071. Disputation 69 on Obedience, the Formal Object of All the Divine Precepts
2-072. Disputation 70 on Obedience to the Commands of God in General
2-073. Disputation 71 on the Material Object of the Precepts of the Law in General
2-074. Disputation 72 the Love, Fear, Trust, and Honor Which are Due From Man to God
2-075. Disputation 73 on Particular Acts of Obedience, or Those Which are Prescribed in Each Precept, or
2-076. Disputation 74 on the First Command in the Decalogue
2-077. Disputation 75 on the Second Command in the Decalogue
2-078. Disputation 76 on the Third Precept of the Decalogue
2-079. Disputation 77 on the Fourth Command in the Decalogue
2-080. Disputation 78 on the Fifth Command in the Decalogue
2-081. Disputation 79 on the Sixth Precept
2-082. Dedication
2-083. A Dissertation of the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
2-084. First Part 1. the Thesis to Be Proved
2-085. 2. the Connection of the Seventh Chapter With the Sixth
2-086. The Ancient Fathers
2-087. Modern Divines
2-088. 3. Recapitulation
2-089. 4. the Connection Between the Seventh and the Eighth Chapters
2-090. Second Part
2-091. 2. the Most Ancient and Most Respectable of the Christian
2-092. 3. the Opinion of St. Augustine
2-093. 4. Our Opinion Is Supported By Several Writers of the Middle Ages
2-094. 5. the Favorable Testimonies of More Recent Divines
2-095. Third Part 1. This Opinion Is Neither Heretical nor Allied to Any Heresy
2-096. 2. Our Opinion Is Directly Opposed to the Pelagian Heresy
2-097. Fourth Part the Opposite Opinion Is Approved By None of the Ancient Doctors of the Church
2-098. Fifth Part 1. the Opposite Opinion Is Injurious to Grace and Hurtful to Good Morals
2-099. 2. Various Objections in Favor of the Common Interpretation Answered
2-100. A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus a Collibus
2-101. Introduction
2-102. A Letter to Hippolytus a Collibus
2-103. 2. the Providence of God
2-104. 3. Divine Predestination
2-105. 4. Grace and Free Will
2-106. 5. Justification
2-107. Certain Articles
2-108. A Letter on the Sin Against the Holy Ghost
3-001. A Friendly Discussion Between James Arminius & Francis Junius, Concerning Predestination, Conducted By Means of Letters
3-002. Reply of Francis Junius
3-003. First Proposition of Arminius
3-004. The Reply of Francis Junius to the First Proposition of Arminius
3-005. The Reply of James Arminius to the Answer
3-006. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-007. Second Proposition of Arminius
3-008. The Answer of Junius to the Second Proposition
3-009. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-010. Third Proposition of Arminius
3-011. Answer of Junius
3-012. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-013. Fourth Proposition of Arminius
3-014. The Answer of Junius
3-015. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-016. Fifth Proposition of Arminius
3-017. The Reply of Junius to the Fifth Proposition
3-018. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-019. Sixth Proposition of Arminius
3-020. Answer of Junius
3-021. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-022. Seventh Proposition of Arminius
3-023. Answer of Junius
3-024. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-025. Eighth Proposition of Arminius
3-026. Answer of Junius
3-027. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-028. Ninth Proposition of Arminius
3-029. The Answer of Junius to the Ninth Proposition
3-030. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-031. Tenth Proposition of Arminius
3-032. Answer of Junius
3-033. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-034. Eleventh Proposition of Arminius
3-035. Answer of Junius
3-036. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-037. Twelfth Proposition of Arminius
3-038. Answer of Junius
3-039. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-040. Thirteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-041. Answer of Junius
3-042. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-043. Fourteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-044. Answer of Junius
3-045. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-046. Fifteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-047. Answer of Junius
3-048. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-049. Sixteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-050. Answer of Junius to the Sixteenth Proposition
3-051. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-052. Seventeenth Proposition of Arminius
3-053. Reply of Junius to the Seventeenth Proposition
3-054. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-055. Eighteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-056. Answer of Junius
3-057. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-058. Nineteenth Proposition of Arminius
3-059. Answer of Junius
3-060. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-061. Twentieth Proposition of Arminius
3-062. Answer of Junius
3-063. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-064. Twenty-first Proposition of Arminius
3-065. Answer of Julius to the Twenty-first Proposition
3-066. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-067. Twenty-second Proposition of Arminius
3-068. Answer of Junius
3-069. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-070. Twenty-third Proposition of Arminius
3-071. Answer of Junius
3-072. The Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-073. Twenty-fourth Proposition of Arminius
3-074. Answer of Junius to the Twenty-fourth Proposition
3-075. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-076. Twenty-fifth Proposition of Arminius
3-077. Reply of Junius to the Twenty-fifth Proposition
3-078. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-079. Twenty-sixth Proposition of Arminius
3-080. Reply of Junius to the Twenty-sixth Proposition
3-081. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-082. Twenty-seventh Proposition of Arminius
3-083. Answer of Junius
3-084. Reply of Arminius to the Answer
3-085. Appendix Theses of Dr. Francis Junius Concerning Divine Predestination, Composed, in These Very Words, By Himself, and Publicly Discussed, Under His Direction, By William Coddaeus, in the University of Leyden, in the Year 1593 — Also Some Brief Annotations of James Arminius
3-086. Thesis 1
3-087. Thesis 2
3-088. Thesis 3
3-089. Thesis 4
3-090. Thesis 5
3-091. Thesis 6
3-092. Thesis 7
3-093. Thesis 8
3-094. Thesis 9
3-095. Thesis 10
3-096. Thesis 11
3-097. Thesis 12
3-098. Thesis 13
3-099. Thesis 14
3-100. Thesis 15
3-101. Thesis 16
3-102. Thesis 17
3-103. Thesis 18
3-104. Thesis 19
3-105. Thesis 20
3-106. An Examination By Rev. James Arminius, D. D. of a Treatise; Concerning the Order and Mode of Predestination and the Amplitude of Divine Grace By Rev. William Perkins, D.d., a Theological Writer in England Also, an Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
3-107. Examination of the Epistle
3-108. Examination of the Treatise
3-109. Examination of the Answer of Perkins to Certain Allegations Against the Advocates of Unconditional Predestination
3-110. Discussion of the Subject of Permission
3-111. An Examination of the Treatise of William Perkins Concerning the Order and Mode of Predestination
3-112. Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
