CHAPTER ONE AN INTRODUCTION TO EARLY MODERN THEOLOGICAL DISPUTATIONS: THE CASE OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS Jacobus Arminius (1559--1609) was born in Oudewater, Holland, and received theological training in Utrecht, Marburg, Leiden, Basel, and Geneva. He served as a pastor for the Reformed church in Amsterdam from 1587 to 1603, where he came into controversy, among other things, over his interpretation of Romans 7. After a successful ministry in Amsterdam, he obtained his doctorate and began his career as a theology professor at the University of Leiden in 1603. During his tenure as a professor in Leiden, Arminius continued to become an increasingly controversial figure primarily because of his stance against certain Reformed doctrines, especially the doctrine of absolute predestination. Although his doctrine was harshly criticized by his Reformed contemporaries, including his faculty colleague, Franciscus Gomarus, Arminius died in 1609 in good standing with the Dutch Reformed churches and the University of Leiden. The next year, because of their 'Remonstrance' against certain aspects of Reformed soteriology, the friends and followers of Arminius became known as the 'Remonstrants,' advancing their cause in the Dutch Republic despite severe opposition from so-called 'Contra-Remonstrants.' It is beyond the scope of this book to relate the histories of Arminius and the Remonstrants and their enduring significance. Let it suffice to say that the enormous impact of Arminius on the history of the church and his meaning up to the present day, which have been documented elsewhere, should not be underestimated. The subject matter of this book takes us back to the brief, six-year teaching career of Arminius at Leiden University. Among the pedagogical tasks in which he was engaged during his tenure was the composing of and presiding over public disputations. These exercises were an important part of the curriculum in Leiden's Theological (Staten) College. The printed text of each disputation, which contains several propositions or 'theses,' preserves an outline form of the professor's thought on a given topic. For readers completely unfamiliar with this genre, the example of Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses may be helpful. This well-known document of Luther is nothing other than a university disputation on the topic of indulgences that contains 95 propositions for debate in an academic setting. As a professor in Wittenberg, conducting disputations on theological topics was a necessary part of Luther's job description. Likewise, Arminius composed a total of 61 public disputations as a professor in Leiden, works that are indispensable as a supplement to Arminius's otherwise occasional and polemical theology. Of these 61 disputations, 25 were quickly reprinted and absorbed into his collected works. The 36 disputations of Arminius that have remained missing in action for the last four centuries are for the first time brought to light in this volume. Thus, this book constitutes the first step in realizing a more complete set of Arminius's works, and, as a result, a fuller and more accurate understanding of their author's theology. With the exception of some of Martin Luther's disputations, especially the renowned 95 Theses, the university disputation has seldom been reckoned among the celebrated theological literature of the early modern period. The narrow appeal of academic theology in comparison to popular theology is common to every age. Yet the purpose of this book, as part of the larger goal of making available the complete works of Jacobus Arminius, is to show the important role of disputations in the examination and interpretation of Arminius's theology as a whole. Therefore, the unavoidable question that must be answered, especially in light of the long neglect of these documents, is how these documents might contribute to the understanding of this important theologian. This question can only be answered once the reader has gained a proper context for using these disputations. The purpose of this chapter in particular is to provide the framework necessary for reading and interpreting the documents contained in the second part of this volume. In addition to offering a context for these newly available original-language texts, it is also intended to be useful for those who may deal only with the 25 Public and 79 Private Disputations of Arminius available in English. Indeed, the intention is that anyone who works with theological disputations, especially from the early modern period, and even those who have never before been introduced to disputations, will find something useful in this chapter. Disputations designate a unique genre, very different from, and thus not to be treated as, modern theological prose. The language of Aristotelian causality, the precise definitions, the occasionally polemical style, and the oral performance, once characteristic of university pedagogy, all seem quite foreign to present-day readers. Therefore, with a view towards the use of disputations in the Leiden University of Arminius's day, it is important to address a variety of issues and problems raised by this genre: 1) the origin and background of the disputation; 2) the various types of disputations; 3) the content, method, and structure of disputations; 4) the publication history of Arminius's disputations; 5) reasons for their neglect; and 6) the importance of the disputations. The decisive question of authorship will be treated in the next chapter. It should be clear that the final issue--the importance of the disputations, which is the principal question--can only be addressed in light of the context gained by examining the previous issues. I. General Background Arminius's public university teaching, typical of all professors in medieval and early modern universities, was delivered in two modes: 1) lectio, or praelectio, that is, the lecture which consisted of reading and commenting on a select canonical, authoritative text, and 2) disputatio, the development of a select topic by means of publicly presenting, explaining, and defending theses in the face of opposition. The lecture, inasmuch as it required little active participation on the part of the student, was incomplete without the second component of the educational process, the disputatio. Disputations originated in the medieval university as a means for handling disputed questions. The historical origin of the disputation has been debated. The once commonly-held explanation of the origin of the formal disputation emphasizes the ancient dialectical method that later was embodied famously in Peter Abelard's Sic et non, which then became a direct antecedent of the disputation. This older explanation has been roundly critiqued by Martin Grabmann. He and other scholars point to the more ancient and decisive influence of classical education, especially what is found in Aristotle's Topics and Analytics. Yet other historians have emphasized the antecedents of medieval disputations in Islamic education. Without dismissing any of these scenarios as possible factors in the complex origin and development of the formal disputation, it is perhaps best to see it as a natural progression from and supplement to the lectio. The authoritative text on which the lecture is based (for example, the Bible) raises many questions and interpretive problems, and authoritative interpreters (say, the church fathers) may differ on how they resolve a particular difficulty in the text, creating then another problem to be resolved. The medieval universities laid great stress on the disputation as a supplement to what was gained through the lecture. Disputations were useful for exploring more deeply complex issues which could not be adequately treated within the ambit of the formal lecture. The purpose of the disputation was to address and resolve some debated quaestio. The assumption was that truth could be found through evaluating arguments and solving problems. The demanding nature of the disputation was advantageous for training students. Its performance required a sharp wit, good memory, and rhetorical skill. Such intense training made for more thorough assimilation of the knowledge in students' minds. In addition, the excitement of a contest and anticipation of objections and responses added pressure to the participants. The potential thrill of victory and agony of defeat drew a crowd and tended to ensure good preparation on the part of the students. By the time of the post-Reformation period, the disputation, still crucial for theological pedagogy, became less disputed questions to be resolved (as reflected, for instance, in the format of Thomas Aquinas's Summa theologiae) than previously decided theses to be defended on a certain topic. The players remained very similar, though. The pre-selected participants were 1) the presider (praeses), a professor (doctor or occasionally magister) who presided over the disputation; 2) the respondent (respondens), a student who defended the theses by responding to objections; and 3) the opponents, usually other students, who were appointed to raise the objections. The disputation had great import in the curriculum of Leiden University. In 1587, Professor Everardus Bronchorst praised this pedagogical method in Leiden's law school: The use of disputations is great and incomparable. The same could be said for Leiden's theological college. II. Types A. Public Disputations for a Degree (Disputationes publicae pro gradu) Different types of disputations served different purposes in the universities. The first kind was the disputation pro gradu, which was an occasion for granting a degree. A perusal of pro gradu disputations at Leiden during this period in the fields of law, medicine, philosophy, and theology reveals that they were normally carried on without a presiding professor. Some title pages specify without a presider (sine praeside), but others simply do not mention any praeses. It is clear in these cases that the student respondent was the author. Some were for a master's degree (pro gradu magisterii artium ), and others for a doctorate (pro publico docturae testimonio ). The disputation that Arminius defended for his doctorate in 1603 (Disp. pub. IV) is an example of a pro gradu disputation, and it is noticeably much longer than other pro gradu disputations at Leiden. B. Public Practice Disputations (Disputationes publicae exercitii gratia) The other kind of public disputation was the so-called practice disputation (disputatio exercitii gratia), which, in the Staten (or Theological) College in Leiden, formed a core part of the curriculum. The public disputations that are contained in Part Two of this volume are all examples of practice disputations (disputationes exercitii gratia). In contrast to the university's pro gradu disputations that were presented without a praeses, these public practice disputations of the Staten College were executed under a presider (sub praeside). Typically, a professor in the Staten College would compose and preside over approximately ten of these public practice disputations each year. Since there were three members of the theological faculty, this meant that public disputations took place at least once every two weeks. Public practice disputations, which lasted up to two hours, were open to anyone who wanted to hear. The registrar (pedel) made sure that the Bible, Hippocrates, or Justinian's Corpus iuris civilis was present for a theological, medical, or law disputation, respectively. The attendance at a public disputation could vary according to the popularity of the professor, the importance of the theses, and the size of the respondent's circle of friends and family. There were two main types of public practice disputations. First, there were the public practice disputations handled in a series as part of a collegium. In the theological college, this series of disputations was known as a repetitio (round or cycle), whose disputations covered the course of theological topics. With the shortest of the cycles, it took the professors more than fifteen months to complete all the specified topics. When Arminius joined the faculty in 1603, eleven years after the founding of the Staten College, the collegium was in the middle of the third repetitio. Each repetitio was apparently designed to give students a wide exposure to the topics deemed most important for their theological education. Another goal of the repetitio was to articulate the theology of the Leiden faculty. The faculty evidently consulted with one another and proposed the topics and their order before each repetitio began. Since G. Brandt noted that Gomarus's 1604 disputation on predestination was out of his turn, and contrary to the method that had been before agreed upon, it is implied that the faculty sat down to select and order the topics for disputation before the repetitio began. Concerning the third repetitio, in which Arminius's 1604 disputation on predestination appeared, the younger Brandt explicitly says that the professors of theology had entered into a mutual arrangement as to the order and succession in which the disputations were to be held, and the lot had fallen to Arminius to dispute on the subject of predestination. Thus, it is certain that the faculty agreed on the cycle of disputation topics to be covered in a given repetitio. The decision would be based not only on the standard theological loci and the interest of the professors, but also on the topics they viewed as being foundational for the theological education of their students. The topics of the preceding repetitio served as the basis for the next, and, beginning with the third repetitio, there is little change from one set of topics to the next. The third repetitio, ending in 1604, consisted of 45 disputations; the fourth repetitio, ending in 1607, consisted of 47 disputations, and the topics throughout are nearly identical. The disputations at the heart of the theological curriculum were those included in the repetitio, and their place in the cycle is indicated in the disputation title by the number it occupies in which cycle. For example, the full title of Disp. pub. XXXVIII in this present edition is Disputationum theologicarum quarto repetitarum vigesima-tertia de fide, which distinguishes it originally as the 23rd disputation in the fourth repetitio. 'Faith' is the designated topic of this 23rd disputation in the fourth repetitio, which included a total of 47 disputations (covered in order from December 1604 to January 1607). As with each cycle, the duties of presiding in the fourth repetitio went in order of faculty seniority. Thus, Gomarus presided over the first disputation, Arminius the second, and Trelcatius, Jr., the third. Then the fourth disputation came back to Gomarus, and so on down to the 47th and final disputation under Arminius. The disputation topics were not ordered in such a way as to correspond to any particular professor. Thus, the disputation on predestination in the third repetitio ended up falling to Arminius (who had only recently been plugged into a cycle that began before his appointment), and predestination in the fourth repetitio went to Trelcatius. Gomarus had to wait until the fifth repetitio to discuss predestination in the order of loci (topics). Perhaps it was the unpredictability of which professor would preside over which topic that prompted Gomarus to conduct his quaelibet disputation on predestination 'outside of the order' (extra ordinem) in 1604. As to the selection of student participants, it cannot be known for sure how the disputations were assigned to which students. Otterspeer notes that in a collegium such as this, the order of student respondents and opponents was determined by lot. Beyond this statement, there is not much information regarding how this sign Excerpted from The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text, and Notes by Jacobus Arminius All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.
