By Jacobus Arminius
I will not now touch the theory of Augustine, because that would be a futile task, if the theory of Aquinas, of prior consideration, can be sustained to my satisfaction. These, then, are the matters which I would present to your consideration.
ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH PROPOSITION
I have always thought, and yet think, that the theory of Augustine was substantially consistent with the two theories which have been considered. You will see that this is the fact, if you make allowance for certain modes of expression used by him, and for a single diverse circumstance.
I have thus, my brother, in this subject, used the diligence and promptitude which was possible, in view of the duties which have, not rarely, interrupted me. Receive my effort with kindness, if it may not answer your expectation. May the God of truth and peace seal on your mind that saving peace, more and more, and graciously guide both of us and all His servants in the way of truth to His own glory, and to the edification of His church in Christ Jesus our saviour. Amen.
REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH PROPOSITION
The theory of Augustine is very different from both the preceding theories, as may be seen from this whole discussion, on account of the circumstance, added by him to the object of the decree, concerning which we treat. For, if the circumstance of sin was, of necessity, to be considered by the Deity, in the act of decree, and was definitely considered in that very act, then it must be true that those discussions and explanations of the same decree, err greatly from the truth, which state that there was no necessity of the consideration of sin, and no actual consideration of it by God, when He ordained the decree. The remark may be added, with propriety, that, by the mere addition to the object of the decree and right explanation of the circumstance of sin, all the absurdities and blasphemies, which are usually alleged against the decree of predestination and reprobation may be repelled and clearly refuted, not being logical consequences of that decree.
I have thus presented my objections to your answers to my propositions, not so much with the thought of refuting them, as with a desire to elicit from you more extended answers and explanations, by which I might perhaps be satisfied and my mind might be freed from its difficulties on this subject. I, therefore, beseech God, that, if I have written any thing contrary to the truth, He may pardon me concerning it, and may reveal the truth unto me; if I have advanced any thing agreeable to the truth, that He will confirm me in it, and that he will grant to me yourself, assenting to my views, and aiding me, that, by means of you, the truth may daily gain greater authority, and may be more and more propagated to the glory of the divine name, to the advantage and increase of the church, in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
