A LETTER
BY
THE REV. JAMES ARMINIUS, D.D.
A NATIVE OF OUDEWATER, IN HOLLAND
TO HIS EXCELLENCY, THE NOBLE LORD, HIPPOLYTUS A COLLIBUS,
AMBASSADOR, FROM THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE, THE ELECTOR PALATINE,
TO THE SEVEN UNITED DUTCH PROVINCES,
JAMES ARMINIUS WISHES HEALTH AND SUCCESS

MOST HONORABLE Sir:

When I was lately admitted to a conversation with you, youhad the kindness to intimate to me the reports which you understood had beencirculated at Heidelberg about my heterodoxy in certain articles of our faith;and you gave me this information, not only that you might yourself hear fromme personally the whole truth about the matter, but, much more, that, bythe intervention of your good offices, the suspicions concerning me, whichhave been so unfairly conceived and propagated, might be removed from theminds of other persons, since this is a course which truth requires. I endeavoredat that interview, with diligence and seriousness to comply with your obligingrequest, and by returning a frank and open reply to each of those questionswhich your excellency proposed, I instantly disclosed my sentiments aboutthose several Articles. For, in addition to my being bound to do this, bymy duty as a Christian man, and especially as a divine, such a course ofconduct was demanded from me by the great candor, condescension and benevolencewhich you exhibited towards me.

But my explanation was so agreeable to your excellency,(which I ascribe to an act of the divine Benignity towards me,) as to induceyou, on that occasion, to think it requisite that those propositions of mineshould be

committed to writing and transmitted to you, not only forthe purpose of being thus enabled the more certainly and firmly to form yourown judgment about the matter when you had maturely reflected upon it, butalso with the design of communicating my written answers to others, thatthey might confute the calumny and vindicate my innocence. Having followedthe counsel of your prudence, and firmly relying on the same hope, I nowaccede to your further wishes, in this letter; and I entreat your excellencyto have the goodness to peruse its contents with the same candor and equanimityas were displayed when you listened to their delivery. Unless my mind greatlydeceives me, your excellency will find in this letter that which will notonly be able to obliterate, but also completely to eradicate, every unjustsuspicion concerning me, from the minds of those good men who know that everyone is the best interpreter of his own sentiments, and that the utmost creditis to be given to him who sacredly, and in the presence of God, bears testimonyto his own meaning.

The articles of doctrine about which your excellency madeinquiries, were, as far as my memory serves me, the following: the Divinityof the Son of God, Providence, Divine Predestination, Grace and Free Will,and Justification. Beside these, you inquired about the things which concernedour opinions, in answer to the interrogatories of the States of Holland,concerning the mode of holding the proposed synod. But as the latter relateto that most eminent man, the Revelation John Uytenbogard, minister of thechurch at the Hague, as much as to me, I leave them to be explained by him,whose residence is much nearer to that of your excellency.

With regard to all these doctrinal Articles, I confidentlydeclare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in theuniversity, which contravenes the sacred writings, that ought to be withus the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to theDutch Confession of Faith, or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our strictformularies of consent. In proof of this assertion I might produce, as mostclear and unquestionable testimonies, the theses which I have composed onthese several Articles, and which have been discussed as Public Disputationsin the university; but as those theses are not entirely in readiness forevery one, and can be with difficulty transmitted, I will now treat uponeach of them specially, as far as I shall conceive it necessary.

1. THE DIVINITY OF THE SON OF GOD.

Concerning the divinity of the Son of God, I have taught,and still teach, that the Father has never been without his Word and hisSpirit, but that the Word and the Spirit are not to be considered in theFather under the notion of properties, as wisdom, goodness, justice, or power,but under that of really existing persons, to whom it belongs to be, to live,to understand, to will, to be capable, and to do or act, all of which, whenunited, are indications and proofs of a person, but that they are so in theFather as to be also from the Father, in a certain order of origin, not throughcollaterality, to be referred to the Father, and that they are from the Fatherneither by creation nor by decision but by a most wonderful and inexplicableinternal emanation, which, with respect to the Son, the ancient church calledgeneration, but with respect to the Holy Spirit, was denominated inspirationor breathing, a term required by the very [etymology of the] word spirit.But about this breathing, I do not interpose my judgment whether it is fromthe Father and the Son, as the Latin fathers express themselves, or fromthe Father through the Son, as the Greek fathers prefer to define it, becausethis matter, I confess, far surpasses my capacity. If, on any subject, weought to think and speak with sobriety, in my opinion, it must be onthis.

Since these are my sentiments on the divinity of the Sonof God, no reason could exist why, on this point, I should endure the shaftsof calumny. Yet this slander was first fabricated and spread through thewhole of Germany by one in whom such conduct was exceedingly indecorous;because he was my pupil, and ought to have refrained from that course, havingbeen taught by his own painful experience that he either possessed an unhappymemory, or was of doubtful credit; for he had previously been convicted ofa similar calumny, and had openly confessed his fault before me, and requestedmy forgiveness. But, as I learned from a certain manuscript which was transmittedto Leyden out of Germany, and which the same youth had delivered to theHeidelberg divines, he took the groundwork of his calumny from those thingswhich I had publicly taught concerning the economy of our salvation, asadministered by the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. In theexplanation of this economy, I had said "that we must have a diligent regardto this order, which the Scriptures in every

part most religiously observe; and that we must distinctlyconsider what things are attributed as peculiar to the Father in this matter,what to the Son, and what to the Holy Spirit."

After this, some other persons seized upon a different occasionfor the same calumny, from my having said that the Son of God was not correctlycalledAutoqeon"very God," in the same sense in which thatword signifies "God from himself."

This audacious inclination for calumniating was promotedby the circumstance of my having explained in a different manner, certainpassages of the Old and New Testament, which have been usually adduced toestablish the Consubstantiality or the coessentiality of the trinity. ButI can with ease in a moment shew, from the books of the Old and New Testamentthemselves, from the whole of antiquity, and from the sentiments of the ancientchurch, both Greek and Latin, as well as from the testimony of our own divines,that nothing can be deduced from those alleged misinterpreted passages, whichis with the least semblance of probability, adverse to the sound and orthodoxfaith. In his able defense of Calvin, against the treatise of Hunnius, entitled"Calvin Judaizing," the learned Paraeus has taught that this last occasionwas seized upon in vain; and he has liberated me from the necessity of thisservice.

To spend any time in confuting the first slander, whichwas circulated by the young student, would not repay my trouble. Those whoknow that the Father in the Son hath reconciled the world unto himself, andadministers the word of reconciliation through the Spirit, know, likewise,that, in the dispensation of salvation, an order must be considered amongthe persons of the Trinity, and their attributes must not be confounded,unless they be desirous of falling into the heresy of thePatripassionists.

Respecting the second occasion, which concerns the wordAutoqeon"very God," an answer somewhat more laboredmust be undertaken, because there are not a few persons who are of a contraryopinion, and yet our church does not consider such persons as holding wrongsentiments concerning the trinity. This is the manner in which they propoundtheir doctrine. "Because the essence of the Father and of the Son is one,and because it has its origin from no one, therefore, in this respect, theSon is correctly denominatedAutoqeonthat is, God from himself."

But I reply, "The essence of the Son is from no one, oris from himself," is not the same as "the Son is from himself, or from noone." For, to speak in a proper and formal manner, the Son is not an essence,but having his essence by a certain modeof being or existence.

They rejoin "The Son may be considered in two respects,"as he is the Son, and as he is God. As he is the Son, he is from the Father,and has his essence from the Father. But as he is God, he has his essencefrom himself or from no one." But the latter of these expressions is themost correct; for to have his essence from himself implies acontradiction.

I reply, I admit this distinction; but it is extended muchfurther than is allowable. For as he is God, he has the divine essence. Ashe is the Son, he has it from the Father. That is, by the word "God," issignified, generally, that which has the divine essence without any certainmode of subsistence.

But, by the word "the Son," is signified a certain modeof having the divine essence, which is through communication from the Father,that is, through generation.

Let these double ternaries be taken into consideration,which are opposed to each other, in one series,

To have Deity To BE God

To have Deity from the Father To BE theSon

To have Deity from no one To BE theFather

and it will be evident, that among themselves they mutuallycorrespond with each other, thus: "to have Deity," and "to be God" "to haveDeity from the Father," and "to be the Son" "to have Deity from no one,"and "to be the Father" are the same, though under the word "Father," as anaffirmative, that is not signified which has its essence from no one; forthis is signified by the word "ingenitus", inwardly born, which is attributedto the Father, though not with strictness, but only to signify that the Fatherhas not his essence by the mode of generation. But the word"FATHER" by its own force and meaning is conclusiveon this point: For where order is established, it is necessary that a beginningbe made from some first person or thing, otherwise there will be confusionproceeding onwards ad infinitum. But, with respect to origin, he who is thefirst in this order has his origin from no one; he who is the second, hashis origin from the first; he who is the third has his origin from the firstand the second, or from the first through the second. Were not this the realstate of the matter; there would be a Collaterality, which would make asmany Gods as there were collateral persons laid down; since the Unity ofthe Deity in the trinity is defended against the Anti-trinitarians solelyby the relation of origin and of order according to origin.

But that it may evidently appear what were the sentimentsof antiquity about this matter, I will here adduce from the ancient fathers,both of the Greek and Latin church, some passages which are applicable tothis subject.

BASIL THE GREAT

According to the habit of causes to those things which arefrom them, we say that the Father has precedence before the Son. (Ever. lib.1.)

because the Son has his source from the Father. Accordingto this, the Father is the greater, as the cause and the source. Whereforeour Lord also has said, "My Father is greater than I," that is, because Heis the Father.

But what other signification can the word"FATHER" have, than the cause and the beginning of Himwho is begotten from Him? (Ibid.)

The Father is the root and the fountain of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit. (Discourse against the Sabellians and Arius.)

When I have said "one essence," I do not understand two[persons] distinguished from one, but the Son subsisting from the sourceof the Father, not the Father and Son from one superior essence. For we donot call them "brothers," but we confess them to be "the FATHERand the SON." But essence is identity, becausethe Son is from the Father, not made by command, but begotten from nature;not divided from the Father, but while he remains perfect, reflecting perfectlyback again the light. But that you may not be able to charge these our assertionsagainst us as a crime, and lest you should say, "He preaches two gods; heannounces a multitude of deities;" there are not two gods, neither are theretwo fathers.

He who produces two original sources, preaches two gods.(Ibid.)

The way of the knowledge of God is, by one Spirit, throughone Son, to one Father. And, on the contrary, natural goodness, naturalsanctification, and royal dignity are transmitted from the Father, throughthe only begotten Son, to the Spirit. Thus we confess the persons [in theGodhead] and at the same time the pious doctrine of the unity is not undermined.(On the Holy Spirit, cap. 18.)

GREGORY NAZIANZEN

THE essence is common and equal tothe Son with the Father, though the Son has it from the Father. (Fourth Discourseon Theology.)

How is it possible for the same thing to be greater thanitself and yet equal to itself? Is it not, therefore, plain, that the word"greater," which is attributed to the Father in reference to the Son, mustbe referred to CAUSE; but the word "equal," which isattributed to the Son, as to his equality with the Father, must be referredto Nature? (Ibid.)

It may indeed be truly said, but not therefore so honorably,that, "with regard to the humanity, the Father is greater than the Son:"For what is there wonderful in God being greater than man? (Ibid.)

AMBROSE

Though Christ has redeemed us, yet "all things are of God,"because from him is all the paternity. It is, therefore, of necessity thatthe person of the Father have the precedence. (On 2 Corinthians 5:18.)

Consult also his remarks On 1 Corinthians 15.

AUGUSTINE

IF that which begets is the originalsource of that which is begotten, the Father is the source of the Son, becausehe begets him. (On the Trinity, lib. 5, cap. 14.)

He did not say "whom the Father will send from me," as Hesaid, "whom I will send from the Father," that is, plainly showing the Fatherto be the source of the entire Deity. (Ibid. Lib. 4, Cap. 10.)

Therefore this was said concerning the Father: "He doeththe works;" because from Him also is the origin of the works, from whom thecooperating persons [in the Deity] have their existence: For both the Sonis born of Him, and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds from Him, from whomthe Son is born, and with whom the same Spirit is common with the Son. (Idem,tom. 10, fol. 11, col. 1.)

Indeed God the Father is not God from another God; but Godthe Son is God from God the Father. But the Son is as much from the Father,as the Father is from no one. (Against Maximinus, Lib. 3, cap. 23, col.2.)

HILARY

There is no God who is eternal and without beginning, andwho is God to that God from whom are all things. But the Father is God tothe Son; for from Him He was born God. (Lib. 4, fol. 60.)

The confession of the true faith is, God is so born of God,as light is from light, which, without detriment to itself, offers its ownnature from itself, that it may bestow that which it has, and that it mayhave what it bestows, etc. (Lib. 6, fol 87.)

It is apparent from these passages, according to the sentimentsof the ancient church, that the Son, even as he is God, is from the Father,because he has received his Deity, according to which he is called "God,"by being born of the Father; though the name of God does not indicate thismode of being or existence. From these quotations, it is also evident that,because the Father is the source of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he iscalled the source of the whole Deity; not indeed because God has any beginningor source, but because the Deity is communicated by the Father to the Sonand the Holy Spirit. So far, therefore, is this from being a correct expression:"The Son of God as he is God, is from no one; and, with respect to his essence,is from himself or from no one." For he who has received his essence by beingborn of the Father, is from the Father with respect to his essence.

I consider, therefore, that those who desire to think andto speak with orthodox antiquity, ought to abstain from these methods ofexpression; because, by adopting them, they seem to become the patrons ofthe

opposing heresies of the Tritheists, and the Sabellians.Peruse the preface to the Dialogues of St. Athanasius On the Trinity, byTheodore Beza; who excuses Calvin by saying, that he did not so solicitouslyobserve the difference between the two phrases "He is the Son per se, throughhimself," and "He is the Son a se, from himself."

If any one be desirous of knowing from me anything furtheron this point, I will not refuse to hold a placid conference with him eitherin writing or by conversation. I now proceed to the other topics, in thediscussion of which I will consult brevity.

2. THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD

My sentiments respecting the providence of God are these:It is present with, and presides over, all things; and all things, accordingto their essences, quantities, qualities, relations, actions, passions, places,times, stations and habits, are subject to its governance, conservation,and direction. I accept neither particular, sublunary, vile, nor contingentthings, not even the free wills of men or of angels, either good or evil:And, what is still more, I do not take away from the government of the divineprovidence even sins themselves, whether we take into our consideration theircommencement, their progress, or their termination.

1. With respect to the Beginningof Sin, I attribute the following acts to the providence of God:

First. Permission, and that not idle, but which has unitedin it four positive acts:

(1.) The preservation of thecreature according to essence, life and capability.

(2.) Care lest a greater or anequal power be placed in opposition.

(3.) The offering of an objectagainst which sin will be committed.

(4.) The destined concessionof its concurrence, which, on account of the dependence of a second on thefirst cause, is a necessary concurrence.

Secondly. The administration of arguments and occasions,soliciting to the perpetration of sin.

Thirdly. The determination of place, time, manner, and ofsimilar circumstances.

Fourthly. The immediate concurrence itself of God with theact of sin.

2. With respect to the Progressof sin, I attribute also the following four acts to the divinegovernment:

The First is the direction of sin that is already begun,to a certain object, at which the offending creature either has not aimed,or has not absolutely aimed.

The Second act is the direction of sin to the end whichGod himself wills, whether the creature intend or do not intend that end,nay, though he intend another and quite opposite end.

The Third act is the prescribing and determination of thetime during which he wills or permits sin to endure.

The Fourth act is the defining of its magnitude, by whichlimits are placed on sin, that it may not increase and assume greaterstrength.

The whole of these acts, both concerning the commencementand the progress of sin, I consider distinctly in reference to the act itself,and to the anomy or transgression of the law, a course which, according tomy judgment, is necessary and useful.

3. Lastly, with respect to theEND and COMPLETION of sin, I attributeto divine providence either punishment through severity, or remission throughgrace; which are occupied about sin, in reference to its being sin and toits being a transgression, of the law.

But I most solicitously avoid two causes of offense thatGod be not proposed as the author of sin, and that its liberty be not takenaway from the human will. These are two points which, if any one knows howto avoid, he will think upon no act which I will not in that case most gladlyallow to be ascribed to the providence of God, provided a just regard behad to the divine pre-eminence.

But I have given a most ample explanation of these mysentiments, in the theses which were twice publicly disputed on the samesubject in the university. On this account, therefore, I declare that I ammuch surprised, and not without good reason, at my being aspersed with thiscalumny that l hold corrupt opinions respecting the providence of God. Ifit be allowable to indulge in conjecture, I think this slander had its originin the fact of my denying that, with respect to the decree of God, Adamnecessarily sinned an assertion which I yet constantly deny, and think itone that ought not to be tolerated, unless the word "necessarily" be receivedin the acceptation of "infallibly," as it is by some persons; though thischange does not agree with the etymology of the two words; for, necessityis an affection of being, but infallibility is an affection of the mind.Yet I easily endure the use of the first of these words, provided those twoinconveniences to which I have recently alluded be faithfully avoided.

3. DIVINE PREDESTINATION

With respect to the article of predestination, my sentimentsupon it are the following: It is an eternal and gracious decree of God inChrist, by which he determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endowthem with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers, and impenitent persons;as I have explained in the theses on the same subject, which were publiclydisputed, and in which, no one found any thing to be reprehended as falseor unsound. Only it was the opinion of some persons that those theses didnot contain all the things which belong to this decree; nay, that thepredestination about which there is the greatest controversy at this time,is not the subject of investigation in those theses. This indeed I confess;for I considered it the best course to discuss that decree of predestinationwhich is the foundation of Christianity, of our salvation, and of the assuranceof salvation, and upon which the apostle treats in the eighth and ninth chaptersof the epistle to the Romans, and in the first chapter of that to theEphesians-But such a decree as I have there described is not that by whichGod resolves to save some particular persons, and, that he may do this, resolvesto endow them with faith, but to condemn others and not to

endow them with faith. Yet many people declare, that thisis the kind of predestination on which the apostle treats in the passagesjust cited. But I deny what they assert.

I grant that there is a certain eternal decree of God, accordingto which he administers the means necessary to faith and salvation, and thishe does in such a manner as he knows to be suited to righteousness, thatis, to his mercy and his severity. But about this decree, I think nothingmore is necessary to be known, than that faith is the mere gift of the graciousmercy of God; and that unbelief is partly to be attributed to the fault andwickedness of men, and partly to the just vengeance of God, which deserts,blinds and hardens sinners.

But concerning that predestination by which God has decreedto save and to endow with faith some particular persons, but to damn othersand not endow them with faith, so various are the sentiment, entertainedeven by the divines of our profession, that this very diversity of opinioneasily declares the difficulty with which it is possible to determine anything respecting it. For while some of them propose, as the object ofpredestination generally considered, that is, of election and reprobation,man as a sinner and fallen in Adam, others lay it down, man considered ascreated and placed "in puris naturalibus." Some of them consider this objectto be, man to be created, or, as some of them express it, man as salvableand damnable, as capable of being created and of falling. Others of themlay down the object of election and reprobation, which they denominateNonelection and Preterition, man considered in common and absolutely; butthey lay down the object of reprobation, on which they bestow the appellationof Predamnation and Affirmative Reprobation, man a sinner and guilty in Adam.Lastly, some of them suppose that the object must be considered entirelyin common, man as yet to be created, as created, and as fallen.

I am aware that when this diversity of opinion is offeredas an objection, it is usual to reply that, in the substance of the matterthere is complete agreement, although some difference exists in thecircumstances. But it would be in my power to prove, that the preceding opinionsdiffer greatly in many of the things which conduce to the very matter andsubstance of this kind of predestination; but that of consent or agreementthere is

nothing except in the minds of those who hold such sentiments,and who are prepared to bear with those who dissent from them as far as thesepoints extend.

Such a mode of consent as this, [of which they are themselvesthe patrons,] is of the highest necessity in the Christian church as, withoutit, peace can by no means be preserved. I wish that I also was able to experiencefrom them any such benevolent feelings towards me and my sentiments. In thatspecies of predestination upon which I have treated, I define nothing thatis not equally approved by all. On this point, alone, I differ I dare notwith a safe conscience maintain in the affirmative any of the preceding opinions.I am also prepared to give a reason for this conscientious scruple when itshall be demanded by necessity, and can be done in a suitable manner.

4. GRACE AND FREE WILL

Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach accordingto the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or toperfect any true and spiritual good, without grace. That I may not be said,like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word "grace," I meanby it that which is the grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration.I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary forthe illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and theinclination of the will to that which is good. It is this grace which operateson the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts intothe mind, inspires good desires into the actions, and bends the will to carryinto execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before,accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, andco-operates lest we will in vain. It averts temptations, assists and grantssuccor in the midst of temptations, sustains man against the flesh, the worldand Satan, and in this great contest grants to man the enjoyment of the victory.It raises up again those who are conquered and have fallen, establishes andsupplies them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. This gracecommences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it.

I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscureand dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will isstubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins. And Iadd to this that teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as muchas possible to divine grace, provided he so pleads the cause of grace, asnot to inflict an injury on the justice of God, and not to take away thefree will to that which is evil.

I do not perceive what can be further required from me.Let it only be pointed out, and I will consent to give it, or I will shewthat I ought not to give such an assent. Therefore, neither do I perceivewith what justice I can be calumniated on this point, since I have explainedthese my sentiments, with sufficient plainness, in the theses on free willwhich were publicly disputed in the university.

5. JUSTIFICATION

The last article is on justification, about which theseare my sentiments: Faith, and faith only, (though there is no faith alonewithout works,) is imputed for righteousness. By this alone are we justifiedbefore God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declaredrighteous by God, who delivers his judgment from the throne of grace.

I do not enter into the question be the active and the passiverighteousness of Christ, or that of his death and of his life. On this subject,I walk at liberty: I say "Christ has been made of God to me righteousness""he has been made sin for me, that through faith, I may be the righteousnessof God in him."

Nor yet do I refuse to confer with my brethren on this question,provided such conference be conducted without bitterness, and without anopinion of necessity, [that the partial view of any one should be generallyreceived,] from which scarcely any other result can ensue than the existenceof distraction, and of increased effervescence in the minds of men, especiallyif this discussion should occur between those who are hot controversialists,and too vehement in their zeal.

But some persons charge me with this as a crime that I saythe act itself of faith, that is, believing itself, is imputed for righteousness,and that in a proper sense, and not by a metonymy. I acknowledge this charge,as I have the apostle St. Paul, in Romans 4, and in other passages, as myprecursor in the use of this phrase. But the conclusion which they draw fromthis affirmation, namely, "that Christ and his righteousness are excludedfrom our justification, and that our justification is thus attributed tothe worthiness of our faith," I by no means concede it to be possible forthem to deduce from my sentiments.

For the word "to impute ," signifies that faith is notrighteousness itself, but is graciously accounted for righteousness; by whichcircumstance all worthiness is taken away from faith, except that which isthrough the gracious condescending estimation of God. But this graciouscondescension and estimation is not without Christ, but in reference to Christ,in Christ, and on account of Christ, whom God hath appointed as the propitiationthrough faith in his blood.

I affirm, therefore, that faith is imputed to us forrighteousness, on account of Christ and his righteousness. In this enunciation,faith is the object of imputation; but Christ and his obedience are theimpetratory [procuring] or meritorious cause of justification. Christ andhis obedience are the object of our faith, but not the object of justificationor divine imputation, as if God imputes Christ and his righteousness to usfor righteousness. This cannot possibly be, since the obedience of Christis righteousness itself, taken according to the most severe rigor of thelaw. But I do not deny that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us; thatis, that it is accounted or reckoned for us and for our benefit, becausethis very thing that God reckons the righteousness of Christ to have beenperformed for us and for our benefit is the cause why God imputes to us forrighteousness our faith, which has Christ and his righteousness for its objectand foundation, and why he justifies us by faith, from faith, or throughfaith. If any one will point out an error in this my opinion, I will gladlyown it, because it is possible for me to err, but I am not willing to bea heretic.

The preceding, then, as far as I remember, are the Articleswhich your excellency mentioned to me, with my explanations of them producedfrom sincerity of mind; and as thus sincere, I wish them to be accountedby all

who see them. This one favor I wish I could obtain frommy brethren, who are associated with me in the Lord by the profession ofthe same religion, that they would at least believe me to have some feelingof conscience towards God. And this favor ought to be easily granted by them,through the charity of Christ, if they be desirous to study his dispositionand nature.

Of what service to me can a dissension be which is undertakenmerely through a reckless humor of mind, or a schism created in the churchof Christ, of which, by the grace of God and Christ, I profess myself tobe a member? If my brethren suppose that I am incited to such an enterprisethrough ambition or avarice, I sincerely declare in the Lord, that they knowme not. But I can confess that I am so free from the latter of these vices,as never to have been tickled, on any occasion, with even the most enticingof its snares though it might be in my power to excuse or palliate it undersome pretext or other. With regard to ambition, I possess it not, exceptto that honorable kind which impels me to this service to inquire with allearnestness in the Holy Scriptures for divine truth, and mildly and withoutcontradiction to declare it when found, without prescribing it to any one,or laboring to extort consent, much less through a desire to "have dominionover the faith of others," but rather for the purpose of my winning somesouls for Christ, that I may be a sweet savor to him, and may obtain an approvedreputation in the church of the saints. This good name I hope I shall obtainby the grace of Christ, after a long period of patient endurance; thoughI be now a reproach to my brethren, and "made as the filth of the world andthe offscouring of all things" to those who with me worship and invoke oneGod the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, in one spirit and with the samefaith, and who have the same hope with me of obtaining the heavenly inheritancethrough the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I hope the Lord will grant unto me, that they and I maymeekly meet together in his great name, and institute a Christian conferenceabout those things which appertain to religion. O may the light of that sacredand happy day speedily shine upon me. In that assembly, I engage, throughthe grace of God, to manifest such moderation of mind, and such love fortruth and peace, as ought deservedly to be required and expected from a servantof Christ Jesus.

In the mean time [till this assembly can be convened], letmy brethren themselves remain quiescent and suffer me to be quiet, that Imay be at peace, and neither annoy them, nor create any uneasiness. If theyentertain other thoughts concerning me, let them institute an [ecclesiastical]action against me; I will not shun or evade the authority of a competentjudge, neither will I forfeit my recognizances by failing to appear.

If it be supposed that the minds of those who hear me arepreoccupied in my favor, at a distance, by some politic subtlety which Idisplay, and that the matter is so managed through cunning, as makes my brethrenneither to consider it advisable to arraign me before the judges, nor toaccount it sufficiently safe to commit to my care the youthful students;and therefore, that the black stain which I have deserved ought to be affixedto my reputation, that my pupils and hearers may be frightened away; therefore,lest the result of this should be that the deferring of such a conferencebe productive of certain danger, behold I now offer myself, that I may, incompany with them, address, solicit, and entreat those high personages whoare invested with the power of issuing a summons for a convention of thiskind, or of granting it, not to suffer us any longer to continue in thisanguish and disquietude of mind, but either themselves to apply a speedyremedy, or allow it to be applied by others, but still by their order andunder their direction. I will not refuse to place myself before any assemblywhatsoever, whether it be composed of all the ministers in our UnitedNetherlands, or of some to be convoked from each of the seven provinces,or even of all the ministers of Holland and West Friesland, to which provinceour university at Leyden belongs, or of some ministers to be selected outof these, provided the whole affair be transacted under the cognizance ofour lawful magistrates. Nor do I avoid or dread the presence of learned men,who may be invited from other countries, provided they be present at theconference on equitable conditions, and subject to the same laws as thoseunder which I must be placed.

To express the whole matter at once let a convention besummoned, consisting of many members or of few, provided some bright hopeof success be afforded [to them], a hope, I repeat it, which I shall be able,by sound arguments, to prove destitute of good foundation. Behold me, thisday, nay, this very hour, prepared and ready to enter into it. For I am

weary of being daily aspersed with the filthy scum of freshcalumnies, and grieved at being burdened with the necessity of clearing myselffrom them. In this part of my conduct, I am assuredly dissimilar from heretics,who have either avoided ecclesiastical assemblies, or have managed mattersso as to be able to confide in the number of their retainers, and to expecta certain victory.

But I have finished. For I have occupied your attention,most honorable sir, a sufficient length of time; and I have made a seriousencroachment on those valuable moments which you would have devoted to mattersof greater importance. Your excellency will have the condescension to forgivethe liberty which I have taken to address this letter to you, as it has beenextorted from me by a degree of necessity and not to disdain to afford meyour patronage and protection, just so far as divine truth and the peaceand concord of the Christian church will allow you to vouchsafe.

I pray and beseech Almighty God long to preserve your excellencyin safety, to endue you yet more with the spirit of wisdom and prudence,by which you may be enabled to discharge the duties of the embassy whichhas been imposed upon you, and thus meet the wishes of the most illustriousprince, the Elector Palatine. And, after you have happily discharged thoseduties, may he benignantly and graciously grant to you a prosperous returnto your own country and kindred.

Thus prays your excellencys most devoted servant,

JAMESARMINIUS,

Professor of Theology in the University of Leyden.