Arminius's letters were preserved in a collection titled Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae. This has since become an invaluable resource for scholars, including Muller, Bangs, and Stanglin.
One letter that particularly stands out to me is Letter 88. In it, Arminius expresses his disagreement with Trelcatius over his Trinitarian views. Of course, learning Latin is a goal of mine that I hope to begin soon enough. But for now, here are two AI translations. Enjoy.
Gemini AI:
LXXXVIII. Joanni Uytenbogardo, Jacobus Arminius
Greeting: Health through Christ, to act well.
Reverend Sir, most desired of men; I received your most welcome letter of the 28th, written this day of August, which I thought should be answered immediately with pen in hand, so that you may see how much pleasure it is for me to converse and chat with you, even by letter, since it is not permitted to do so in person with spoken words.
That you received my letter, dated from Amsterdam, not in Utrecht, but in Arnhem, is the fault of the bearer; for I sent them quite timely, if indeed you were still in Utrecht at the hour you mentioned. But that is a small matter, since you understand what reason prevented me from being able to enjoy your conversation even for a short hour.
We had already heard about the enemy's machinations against the city of Rheinberg, not without sorrow, which we conceived not so much from the success of the enemy's attempts as from the fact that we understand that many disorderly things are being done in our army, which everyone seems reluctant to correct, each resigning that duty to another. But we hope for better things. We will not fail to support you with our prayers, which is all we can do; may our vows be so pleasing to God that we can promise ourselves a hearing!
But if I do this, I will abuse my office. But the thought of the end of the war, which is waged by the enemy, nourishes my hope: namely, for the sake of restoring idolatry and introducing tyranny: that merciless, zealous Lord will not allow those zealots to prevail. This is undoubtedly the reason for that journey you undertook, to provide for the Church of God and the republic; therefore, have good hope, and strengthen your spirit; He who has kept you until now, and has worked through you, promises us the greatest things until the Synod; He will preserve you further for the future kingdom. The ample opportunity offered does not seem to be neglected; however, I will take care that they can find nothing to criticize in me.
As I had already firmly persuaded myself with confidence of mind, nevertheless, in explaining the place in Malachi, I thought a comparison should be made between the Prophet and Paul, which I did, as the very nature of the profession demands, and as all who profess Theology in the Schools have done before me; if I had omitted it, I would not have properly fulfilled my office. Nor have I said anything against the Confession or Catechism; if silence is kept in the letters by which the powers to be held by the Synod are granted to us by our magistrates concerning the revision of the Catechism and Confession, I have done according to my right, which they themselves do daily: but it is a matter of greater importance than what they want to establish by it, to establish that dogma which is the foundation of Christianity, of solace, and of our certainty concerning our salvation, even they themselves confessing it; and which I will obtain even from the unwilling: and therefore this very thing must be instilled into the minds of the students, so that they may understand what predestination worthy of such a great name is; and let them cease to fight for that, or about that, which they ask for, let them be warned: by which very thing, not only divinely, but also by the Synod itself, we will be ordered to bring forth in the National Synod, if we desire anything in the Confession or Catechism.
For what is added, concerning the indication to the Classes, and through them to the particular Synod, of those things which will have been noted, is extraneous; since it is permitted, even right, after the particular Synod to inquire, indeed, according to the place of Scripture, it is not permitted to interpret otherwise than the Church has explained, even then when it had been communicated to all in the Synod. Nor do we agree on the arguments which are commonly used to prove the dogma: this cannot be done: of which thing Calvin gave a most clear example, when he interpreted many places otherwise than the Fathers did, even than the universal Catholic Church. What is said about God from himself is so.
I, in a public-private disputation, when an opponent said that Christ did not have clients communicated to him by the Father, showed that this was false, and contrary to all orthodox antiquity, and from which Sabellianism would follow, namely, that the Son is the Father, inasmuch as he has essence from no one, which is proper to the Father. Moreover, when he said that it was indeed common, but not communicated, I also refuted that, and added that tritheism would follow from it; when the Father, Son, and Spirit are established as having the divine essence collaterally. Therefore, I said nothing here with a certain purpose, only what the necessity of the response compelled me to say, I brought forth. But whatever I say, not approved by one alone, is a monster.
Trelcatius published in a public writing most monstrous things, and contrary to the Scriptures and all antiquity and many of our Doctors, and he is not said to nourish any monster. But Trelcatius tried to assert his opinion in his lectures on the Trinity, and to destroy the contrary, and with fierce animosity; for he called his adversary both malicious and sinning by ignorance; which I do not care much about: but it is only to be lamented that prejudices are of such value, that I, defending the most received opinion, am esteemed to nourish a monster: he who publicly professes monstrous opinions is not only tolerated, but also commended. Moreover, this seems to me to be like a monster.
I understand that D. Gomarus refuted Trelcatius' opinion in his private college; which I also must do, for this was proposed to me about a month ago: With what arguments is it proven that Christ does not have *******, but has essence communicated by the Father. Arguments were brought to me by which Trelcatius proved his opinion: those must be refuted; for they are eagerly expected by mine, who are present in the private college. Borreus thinks it absolutely necessary, both for the sake of truth and for the sake of preserving authority. However, let them act modestly; although here I could rightfully use vehemence against a younger and vehemently confident colleague. I will say nothing that I do not confirm with Scriptures, testimonies of the Fathers, and our Doctors: therefore, I want nothing corrected here in the opinion of our Churches. If however they will want to hear in the Synod, I will be able to profess some things which may make the Samolitenians more strongly convinced, or at least for the more conveniently solving their arguments and objections; for so I think. I was ordered by a certain student to signify to Trelcatius that this question had been proposed to me, and that I had to respond to his arguments, which I said I had seen, but did not consider probable, but easily refutable. I will understand if that student has performed that duty, and what Trelcatius has responded; perhaps I will decide to avoid a response, with the reasons explained.
But the matter is great, and the glory of the Father, indeed also of the Son himself, is concerned, that that opinion be refuted: I fear that Satan is working to take away the Father from us, with the Son substituted in his place; which being done, we will have neither Son nor Father. He progresses gradually, as is seen in the Ubiquitarians, who, in order to prove the presence of Christ's body in the Supper and oral manducation, had to take refuge in the ubiquity of Christ's body: on which occasion how many other falsehoods have been introduced is most well known. But because the President seemed to call into doubt D. Gomarus' agreement in this part; behold for you from Trelcatius' book and theses disputed under Doctor Gomarus words utterly contrary. Trelcatius' words are. Essence which is one in number and individual, is improperly said to be communicated from person to person. In thesis 7 they have the words thus, God is the essence of God; therefore the Father gives to his Son his essence, namely the same and whole which he himself retains, to have in himself. Therefore the generation of the Son is through the communication of the whole Essence of the Father from the Father. Trelcatius' words are. For the persons are ******* of the divine Essence, from which they are distinguished, not only by reason, but by real distinction, but by degree and mode of the thing. In thesis 11 under Gomarus it is thus. 3. That properties or ******* are not the persons themselves, but of the persons either properties or modes of existence, which is often confused by many. These things were said on account of Trelcatius, and some of our Doctors. For among the Papists there is scarcely one who confuses. Item thesis 19. But the person is distinguished from the essence, not really, as they are among themselves, but only by reason.
Hence you see that I have told you the truth, and that the President has imprudently called into doubt what he himself does not know. Expect from me Trelcatius' arguments in the next writing. I will be consoled for your wife, rightly grieving for your absence, although she herself, with her prudence and piety, will not lack such arguments.
May the God of consolation be with her, who knows with what mind and end she is away from her. Farewell, most dear of men, with good God, to whom I commend you and our army most earnestly.
September, 1606 Arminius
Chat GPT:
He [Trelcatius] has indeed published the most monstrous views, which are contrary to the Scriptures, to the whole tradition of the Church Fathers, and to the teachings of many Doctors of the Church, and it is said that he does not sustain such monstrous views. However, in his lectures, Trelcatius attempted to assert his opinion regarding the Trinity, trying to contradict the traditional doctrine. He even accused his opponents of malice or ignorance, but I do not find this of great concern. However, it is unfortunate that such views have gained so much influence that I, while defending the accepted doctrine, am compelled to call them monstrous. Anyone who publicly asserts such monstrous opinions should not only be rejected but even condemned. Indeed, it seems to me that this opinion of his is truly monstrous in nature.
I understand that Dr. Gomarus, in his private theological circle, refuted Trelcatius’s opinion, which I too must address, as I had raised this issue beforehand: By what arguments can it be shown that Christ does not possess the divine essence, but instead has it communicated to Him by the Father? I have been presented with the arguments by which Trelcatius supports his position, and these will need to be refuted, as my colleagues in my private theological circle are eagerly awaiting this. Borrius, however, considers it absolutely necessary to address this matter, both for the sake of truth and in order to maintain the authority of the Church. But they must proceed cautiously, though I am justified in using my authority to assert myself strongly in challenging the younger colleague, who is overly confident.
I will say nothing that is not in agreement with the Scriptures, the testimonies of the Fathers, and our own Doctors. Therefore, I do not wish to correct any doctrinal positions of the Ecumenical Churches in this regard. However, if they are willing to listen at the Synod, I could present some points that might more effectively refute the Samolletians, or at least offer a clearer way to address their arguments and objections. I believe this is the proper approach.
But I fear that Satan may be at work in trying to remove the Father and substitute the Son in His place, so that we would no longer have either the Father or the Son. This issue is gradually developing, as one can see in the writings of the Ubiquitarians, who, in order to prove the real presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist, had to resort to the idea of the ubiquity of Christ’s body. This led to many other theological errors, which are well-known.
Now, regarding the question of the Father’s visibility, Dr. Gomarus’s agreement on this point is in question. Therefore, I present to you the words of Trelcatius from his book, as discussed with Dr. Gomarus. Trelcatius’s words are as follows: The essence, which is numerically one and indivisible, is improperly said to be communicated to the person. In his thesis, it is stated that the essence of God is such that the Father gives His essence to the Son, that is, the same essence He retains. Therefore, the generation of the Son is through the communication of the whole divine essence by the Father. Trelcatius says, “The persons differ in the mode of the divine essence, not only in reason but also in degree and manner of being.”Thus, according to Trelcatius, the divine essence is not divided but communicated. However, it is proper to affirm that persons themselves are not the essence, but only modes of the persons. This is often a point of confusion.
I know that Dr. Gomarus disagrees with Trelcatius on some of these issues. I have hoped to present some of his arguments in my next response. As for your wife, I will offer her the consolation of my words, as she suffers in her own way, though she is not lacking in wisdom and piety in facing such arguments. May God, the source of all consolation, be with her, who knows well the heart and end of her struggles.
Farewell, most esteemed man, with the good God, to whom I commend you and our entire congregation with utmost earnestness.
September, 1606.
Arminius
Comments