Personal History of Arminius. — The name of Arminius in his native language was Jacobus Hermans, identical with Herman, the name of the hero of Germany, who destroyed the Roman legions under Varus. And as this name was transformed into Arminius by Tacitus and other Roman writers, so, in accordance with the custom of the age when Latin was the language of current literature, this name was Latinized, and has come down in modern English as James Arminius. He was born in 1560 at Oudewater, (''Old water,") a small town in the Southern Netherlands. He lost his father in early childhood, and, his mother being left in straitened circumstances, the promising intellect of the boy so attracted the attention of patrons that he was taken to school at Marburg. When fifteen years of age his native town, Oudewater, was taken by the Spaniards, and his mother, brother, and sister were all massacred, leaving him the sole survivor of his family. He was sent by his patrons to the new university at Leyden, where he remained six years. Such was his proficiency that the city of Amsterdam adopted him as her vesterling or foster-child, to be educated at the public expense, being bound by a written obligation to be at the command of the city through life. He studied at Geneva under Beza, as well as at Basle under Gryneas. At the latter place he was offered a doctorate, but declined the offer on account of his youth. By Beza he was commended to Amsterdam in high terms. He then went to Italy to become accomplished in philosophy under Zerabella, and, having visited Rome and the other principal cities, returned to Amsterdam, where he was installed minister at the age of twenty-eight.

Arminius's ministry in Amsterdam, of fourteen years' duration, forms the second period of his life. His learning and eloquence, were rapidly rendering him one of the leading theologians and preachers of his age. He was of middling size, had dark, piercing eyes, and voice light but clear, and possessing a winning mellowness. His manners were magnetic, and he had the power of fastening firm friends He was condescending to the lowly, and a sympathizing guide to the religious inquirer. At the same time he was an independent seeker and follower of truth.

In 1585 the extreme predestinarianism prevalent in the Netherlands had been for ten years so effectively attacked by Richard Coornhert, an eminent patriotic and acute layman of Amsterdam, that Arminius was invited by the city to refute him. In a debate at Delft between Coornhert and two high Calvinistic clergymen, the latter were so hard pressed that they yielded, and took the lower or sublapsarian ground, and published a pamphlet against the higher view. The extreme Calvinists called upon Martin Lydius, professor of theology in Friesland, to refute them, but he handed over the task to Arminius, who had thus a double request on his hands. He bravely undertook the task, but was soon convinced of the untenableness of either the higher or lower predestination. At the expense of an ignominious failure in even attacking Coornhert, he resolved to pursue the light of honest conviction. Avoiding the entire subject in public, he prosecuted his investigations with earnest study. Yet, in lecturing on Romans vii, having given the non-Calvinistic interpretation, he found himself generally assailed by the high Calvinists as a Pelagian and Socinian. He was arraigned before the ecclesiastical courts, where he successfully defended himself on the ground that, though adverse to the prevalent opinions, his interpretation contradicted nothing in the standards; namely, the Belgic Confession and the Catechism. Being questioned as to predestination, he declined to answer, as no fact was alleged against him.

In prosecuting his inquiries he determined to consult privately the best theologians of the day. He commenced a confidential correspondence with Professor Francis Junius, of the University of Leyden, the most eminent of the Dutch theologians. He was delighted to find how far Junius coincided with him, but when lie addressed to Junius the arguments for still more advanced views, the professor kept the letter by him unanswered fur six years, when he died. The friends of Arminius believed that this silence arose from the fact that Junius found more than he could answer or was willing to admit. Unfortunately, his correspondence was inadvertently exposed by Junius to discovery, and was used to the disadvantage of, Arminius. Arminius, also, having received a treatise in favour of predestination by Professor Perkins, of Cambridge, prepared an epistle to him, but was prevented by Perkins's death from sending it. His letters both to Junius and Perkins are embodied in his published works, and, whatever may be thought of the validity of the argument, no one will deny that in candor, courtesy, and Christian dignity they are hardly to be surpassed.

On the death of Junius the curators of the University of Leyden looked to Arminius as his successor. The reluctant consent of Amsterdam being at length gained, Arminius assented. But the predestinariaus, led by Gomarus, senior professor of theology at Leyden, opposed his election. After a long series of strifes, Arminius offered to meet Gomarus and satisfy his objections. the meeting took place, and Gomarus, admitting that he had judged Arminius by hearsay, after Arminius had fully declared his entire opposition to Pelagianism and Socinianism, fully renounced his objections. So far as predestination was concerned, each professor was to deliver his own sentiments with moderation, and all collision with the other was to be avoided; and Arminius was thereupon elected.

The six years of his Leyden professorship closing with his death are the most important yet troublous period of his career. The terms of peace were broken within the first year by Gomarus, who delivered a violent public harangue on predestination in terms of insult to Arminius, who was personally present; to which the latter prepared refutation clothed in terms of personal respect toward his opponent. Gomarns afterward confessed that he could easily live at peace with Arminius but for the clergy and Churches, who were intensely hostile to his liberal doctrines. Their Belgic Confession, Calvinistic as it was, was sacred in their hearts as being the banner under which they had fought the battle of civil and religious liberty against Spain and popery; and they now, alas! were making it the instrument of religious intolerance. Arminius was held as invalidating that Confession, and so was every-where traduced by the clergy as a bapist, a Pelagian, and a Coornherter. Yet, really, the doctrines he taught were essentially the doctrines of St. Chrysostom, Melanchthon, Jeremy Taylor, and John Wesley. In regard to the Confession, he ever treated it with reverence, and only claimed the right of that same liberality of interpretation which Lutherans exercised with the Augsburg Confession — a liberality similar to that which the English clergy now exercise in regard to the seventeenth of their Thirty-Nine Articles. A voluntary Church may, like any other voluntary association, be, if it pleases, stringent in its interpretations, but a State Church, which strains all to a tight interpretation of a specific creed under pain of State disabilities, runs into religious despotism. This was, therefore, a genuine contest for religious liberty. Arminius was proscribed by the clergy, harassed by irresponsible deputations, and his students were subjected to persecutions and exclusions from the ministry. The more intelligent laity, including the magistracy, and especially the chief magistrate. Olden Barnevelt, were favourable to Arminius, who at length appealed to the national legislature (called the States-General) for protection. That body appointed a committee or council, who, having heard both Gomarus and Arminius in full, reported that the latter taught nothing but what could be tolerated. Before the States-General themselves Arminius delivered a full oration, expounding his entire views, which is published in the American edition of his works. The clergy demanded the appointment of a national synod, consisting purely of ecclesiastics, but the States-General, well knowing what would be the fate of Arminius in their hands, refused. Under the constant pressure of these years of persecution the gentle spirit of Arminius at length sunk. He was taken from the bloody times that followed the Synod of Dort. His nervous system was prostrated, and, attended by his faithful pupil, the afterward celebrated Episcopius, he died in the faith he had maintained, October 19, 1609, a martyr to his views of truth.