Arminian Today

In this final piece by Arminius on the Law of God, we will look at what Arminius wrote about the judicial law of God.

X. The Judicial Law is that which God prescribed by Moses to the Children of Israel, of whom He was in a peculiar manner the king. (Exod. 21, 22, 23, &c.) It contained precepts about the form of the political government to be exercised in civil society, for procuring the benefit both of natural and spiritual life, by the preservation and exaction of the outward worship and of the external discipline commanded in moral and ceremonial law, such as concerned magistrates, contracts, division of property, judgments, punishments, &c. (Deut. xvii, 15.) These laws may appropriately be referred to two kinds:

(1.) Some of them, with regard to their substance are of general obligation, though with regard to some circumstances they are peculiar to the Jewish commonwealth.

(2.) Others belong simply to a particular right or authority. (Deut. xv, 1, 2; vi, 19.)

XI. The uses of this judicial law also were three:

(1.) That the whole community of the Children of Israel might be regulated by a certain rule of public equity and justice; that it might be “as a city that is compact together,” (Psalm cxxii, 3,) [or as a body] “which is knit together” according to all and each of its parts,”by the joints and sinews” of the precepts prescribed in this law.

(2.) That the Israelites might, by this law, be distinguished from other nations who had their own laws. Thus was it the will of God, that this his people should have nothing in common with other nations, wherever this was possible according to the nature of things and of man himself. These two uses related to the existing condition of the Jewish commonwealth.

(3.) It had reference to future things, and was typical of them For all that state, and the whole kingdom and its administration, the chiefs of administration, the judges and kings, prefigured Christ and his kingdom, and its spiritual administration. Psalm 2; Ezek. xxxiv, 23, 24.) In this respect also the judicial law may be called “a schoolmaster [to bring the Jews] to Christ.”

XII. This law, so far as it had regard to Christ, was universally abrogated. No kingdom, no nation, no administration, serves now typically to figure Christ and his kingdom or administration. For his kingdom, which is the kingdom of heaven and not of this world, has already come, and he has come into his kingdom. (Matt. iii, 2;xvi, 28; John xviii, 36; Matt. xi, 11.) But with respect to its simple observance, this Judicial Law is neither forbidden nor prescribed to any people, nor is it of absolute necessity to be either observed or omitted. Those matters are accepted which are of universal obligation, and founded in natural equity. For it is necessary, that they be strictly observed, in every place and by all persons. And those things [in the judicial law] which relate to Christ as it respects the very substance and principal end, cannot be lawfully used by any nation.

We continue looking at what Arminius has to say about the Law of God.  Today we will examine what Arminius had to say about the ceremonial laws and how they relate to believers.  

VII. The Ceremonial Law is that which contains the precepts concerning the outward worship of God; which was delivered to the Jewish church, and was accommodated to the times in which the church of God was “as a child” under “the promise” and the Old Testament. (Gal. iv, 1-3.) It was instituted not only to typify, to prefigure and to bear witness by sealing; (Heb. viii, 5; x, 1;) but likewise for the discipline, or good order which was to be observed in ecclesiastical meetings and acts. (Col. ii, 14; Psalm xxvii, 4.) Subservient to the former purpose were circumcision, the Pascal Lamb, sacrifices, sabbaths, sprinklings, washings, purifications, consecrations and dedications of living creatures. (Col. ii, 11; 1 Cor. v, 7.) To the latter purpose, [that of church discipline,] were the distinct functions of the Priests, the Levites, the Singers, and the porters, or door-keepers, the courses or changes in their several duties, and the circumstances of the places and times in which these sacred acts were to be severally performed. (1 Chron. 24, 25, & 26.)

VIII. The use of this ceremonial law was,

(1.) That it might retain that ancient people under the hope and expectation of the good things which had been promised. (Heb. x, 1- 3.) This use it fulfilled by various types, figures and shadows of persons, things, actions, and events; (7, 9, & 10;) by which not only were sins testified as in “a hand-writing which was against them,” (Col. ii, 14,) that the necessity of the promise which had been given might be understood; but likewise the expiation and promised good things were shewn at a distance, that they might believe the promise would assuredly be fulfilled. (Heb. ix, 8-10; Col. ii, 17; Heb. x, 1.) And in this respect, since the body and express form of those types and shadows relate to Christ, the ceremonial law is deservedly called “a school-master [to bring the Jews] unto Christ.” (Gal. iii, 24.)

(2.) That it might distinguish from other nations the Children of Israel, as a people sanctified to God on a peculiar account, and that it might separate them as “a middle wall of partition;” (Ephes. ii, 14, 15;) yet so as that even strangers might be admitted to a participation in it by circumcision. (Exod. xii, 44; Acts ii, 10.)

(3.) That while occupied in this course of operas religious services, they might not invent and fabricate other modes of worship, nor assume such as were in use among other nations; and thus they were preserved pure from idolatry and superstition, to which they had the greatest propensity, and for which occasions were offered on every side by those nations who were contiguous, as well as by those who dwelt amongst them. (Deut. 12; xxxi, 16, 27-29.)

IX. The ceremonial law was abrogated by the cross, the death and the resurrection of Christ, by his ascension into heaven and the mission of the Holy Ghost, by the sun’s dispersion of the shadows, and by the entrance of “the body which is of Christ” into their place, (Col. ii, 11, 12, 14, 17,) which is the full completion of all the types. (Heb. viii, 1-6.) But the gradations to be observed in its abrogation must come under our consideration: In the first moment it was abrogated with regard to the necessity and utility of its observance, every obligatory right being at once and together taken from it: in that instant it ceased to live, and became dead. (Gal. iv, 9, 10; 1 Cor. vii, 19; ix, 19, 20; 2 Cor. iii, 13- 16.) Afterwards it was actually to be abolished. This was ejected partly, by the teaching of the Apostles among believers, who by degrees understood “Christ to be the end of the law,” and of that which was then abolished; they abstained therefore voluntarily from the use of that law. Its abolition was also ejected in part, by the power of God, in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, in which was the seat of religion, and the place appointed for performing those religious observances, against the contumacy of the unbelieving Jews. From this period the legal ceremonies began to be mortiferous, though in the intermediate space [which had elapsed between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem,] these rites, even in the judgment of the apostles themselves, might be tolerated, but only among the Jews, and with a proviso, that they should not be imposed on the Gentiles: (Acts xvi, 3; xv, 28; xxi, 21-26; Gal. ii, 3, 11, 12;) which toleration must itself be considered as being tantamount to a new institution.

We continue looking at what Arminius has to say about the Law of God and how it relates to the believer.

IV. The uses of the moral law are various, according to the different conditions of man.

(1.) The primary use, and that which was of itself intended by God according to his love for righteousness and for his creatures, was, that man by it might be quickened or made alive, that is, that he might perform it, and by its performance might be justified, and might “of debt” receive the reward which was promised through it. (Rom. ii, 13; x, 5; iv, 4.) And this use was accommodated to the primitive state of man, when sin had not yet entered into the world.

(2.) The first use in order of the moral law, under a state of sin, is AGAINST man as a sinner, not only that it may accuse him of transgression and guilt, and may subject him to the wrath of God and condemnation; (Rom. iii, 19, 20;) but that it may likewise convince him of his utter inability to resist sin and to subject himself to the law. (Rom. 7.) Since God has been pleased mercifully and graciously to treat with sinful man, the next use of the law TOWARDS the sinner is, that it may compel him who is thus convicted and subjected to condemnation, to desire and seek the grace of God, and that it may force him to flee to Christ either as the promised or as the imparted deliverer. (Gal. ii, 16, 17.) Besides, in this state of sin, the moral law is serviceable, not only to God, that, by the dread of punishment and the promise of temporal rewards, he may restrain men under its guidance at least from the outward work of sin and from flagrant crimes; (1 Tim. i, 9, 10;) but it is also serviceable to Sin, when dwelling and reigning in a carnal man who is under the law, that it may inflame the desire of sin, may increase sin, and may “work within him all manner of concupiscence.” (Rom. vi, 12-14; vii, 5, 8, 11, 13.) In the former case, God employs the law through his goodness and his love for civil and social intercourse among mankind. In the latter case, it is employed through the malice of sin which reigns and has the dominion.

V.

(3.) The third use of the moral law is towards a man, as now born again by the Spirit of God and of Christ, and is agreeable to the state of grace, that it may be a perpetual rule for directing his life in a godly and spiritual manner: (Tit. iii, 8; James ii, 8.) Not that man may be justified; because for this purpose it is rendered “weak through the flesh” and useless, even if man had committed only a single sin: (Rom. viii, 3.) But that he may render thanks to God for his gracious redemption and sanctification, (Psalm cxvi, 12, 13,) that he may preserve a good conscience, (1 Tim. i, 19,) that he may make his calling and election sure, (2 Pet. i, 10,) that he may by his example win over other persons to Christ, (1 Pet. iii, 1,) that he may confound the devil, (Job 1 & 2,) that he may condemn the ungodly world, (Heb. xi, 7,) and that through the path of good works he may march towards the heavenly inheritance and glory, (Rom. ii, 7,) and that he may not only himself glorify God, (1 Cor. vi, 20,) but may also furnish occasion and matter to others for glorifying his Father who is in Heaven. (Matt. v, 16.)

VI. From these uses it is easy to collect how far the moral law obtains among believers and those who are placed under the grace of Christ, and how far it is abrogated.

(1.) It is abrogated with regard to its power and use in justifying: “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by that law.” (Gal. iii, 21.) The reason why “it cannot give life,” is, “because it is weak through the flesh:” (Rom. viii, 3) God, therefore, willing to deal graciously with men, gave the promise and Christ himself, that the inheritance through the promise and by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But the law which came after the promise, could neither “make the latter of none effect,” (for it was sanctioned by authority,) nor could it be joined or super- added to the promise, that out of this union righteousness and life might be given. (Gal. iii, 16-18, 22.)

(2.) It is abrogated with regard to the curse and condemnation: For “Christ, being made a curse for us, hath redeemed us from the curse of the law;” (Gal. iii, 10-13;) and thus the law is taken away from sin, lest its “strength” should be to condemn. (1 Cor. xv, 55, 56.)

(3.) The law is abrogated and taken away from sin, so far as “sin, having taken occasion by the law, works all manner of concupiscence” in the carnal man, over whom sin exercises dominion. (Rom. vii, 4-8.)

(4.) It is abrogated, with regard to the guidance by which it urged man to do good and to refrain from evil, through a fear of punishment and a hope of temporal reward. (1 Tim. i, 9, 10; Gal. iv, 18.) For believers and regenerate persons “are become dead to the law by the body of Christ,” that they may be the property of another, even of Christ; by whose Spirit they are led and excited in newness of life, according to love and the royal law of liberty. (1 John v, 3, 4; James ii, 8.) Whence it appears, that the law is not abrogated with respect to the obedience which must be rendered to God; for though obedience be required under the grace of Christ and of the Gospel, it is required according to clemency, and not according to strict [legal] rigor. (1 John iii, 1, 2.)

I have been studying the Law of God and how it relates to the disciple over the past few posts and now I want to turn to what Arminius had to say about the Law of God.  Arminius, like other orthodox disciples of Jesus, upholds the Law of God as holy and good.  In these posts we will see how Arminius viewed the law and how it relates to the believer. 

I. Law in general is defined, either from its End, “an ordinance of right reason for the common and particular good of all and of each of those who are subordinate to it, enacted by Him who has the care of the whole community, and, in it, that of each individual.” Or from its Form and its Efficacy, “an ordinance commanding what must be done, and what omitted; it is enacted by Him, who possesses the right of requiring obedience; and it binds to obedience a creature who abounds in the use of reason and the exercise of liberty, by the sacred promise of a reward and by the denunciation of a punishment.” It is likewise distinguished into Human and Divine. A Divine law has God for its author, a Human law has man for its author; not that any law enacted by man is choice and good, which may not be referred to God, the author of every good; but because men deduce from the Divine law such precepts as are accommodated to the state of which they have the charge and oversight, according to its particular condition and circumstances. At present we will treat upon the Divine law.

II. The Divine law may be considered, either as it is impressed on the minds of men by the engrafted word; (Rom. ii, 14, 15;) as it is communicated by words audibly pronounced, (Gal. ii, 17,) or as it is comprised in writing. (Exod. xxxiv, 1.) These modes of legislation do not differ in their entire objects: but they may admit of discrimination in this way, the first seems to serve as a kind of foundation to the rest; but the two others extend themselves further, even to those things which are commanded and forbidden. We will now treat upon the law of God which is comprised in writing; and which is also called “the law of Moses;” because God used him as a mediator to deliver it to the children of Israel. (Mal. iv, 4; Gal. iii, 19.) But it is three-fold according to the variety of the object, that is, of the works to be performed. The first is called the Ethical, or Moral Law: (Exod. 20.) The second, the Sacred or Ceremonial. The third the Political, Judicial or Forensic Law.

III. The Moral Law is distributed through the whole of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and is summarily contained in the Decalogue. It is an ordinance that commands those things which God accounts grateful of themselves, and which it is his will to be performed by all men at all times and in all places; and that forbids the contrary things. (1 Sam. xv, 22; Amos v, 21-24; Micah vi, 6-8.) It is therefore the perpetual and immutable rule of living, the express image of the internal Divine conception; according to which, God, the great lawgiver, judges it right and equitable that a rational creature should always and in every place order and direct the whole of his life. It is briefly contained in the love God and of our neighbour; (Matt. xxii, 36-39;) whether partly consisting of those services which relate to the love, honour, fear, and worship of God; (Mal. i, 6;) or partly consisting of those duties which we owe to our neighbours, superiors, inferiors, and equals: (Rom. 12,13, & 14;) in the wide circle of which are also comprehended those things which every man is bound to perform to himself. (Tit. ii, 11, 12.)

One of the main reasons that Arminius begin to debate the theologians of his day was over Romans 7.  Calvinists both then and now have held that the man described in Romans 7 is a saved man.  His struggles represent the struggle that believers still go through today with our sinful nature that does not die at our salvation.  The believer will always struggle with the flesh until we die.  Arminius disagreed.  He believed that Paul was describing himself before his conversion to Christ.  While preaching through Romans, Arminius went against the standard teaching of his day and begin to preach that the person of Romans 7 was not regenerated.  This led to his debates with Calvinist theologians that in turn led to his rejection of other Calvinistic doctrines in the process.  I do note that Arminius begin his ministry as a Calvinist having been taught in Geneva under Calvin’s son-in-law, Beza, and that he remained in the reformed church until his dying day.  I also would point out that Arminius disagreed with Calvinists because of Scripture and not out of an argumentative spirit (2 Timothy 2:24-25).  How I wish that were still true of disciples today.  

THE ANCIENT FATHERS

CLEMENT 0F ALEXANDRIA.

The apostle gives two appellations to the man — his person and his mind. (Strom. lib. 3, fol. 194.)

TERTULLIAN

“BUT,” says the apostle, “though our outward man be destroyed,” that is, the flesh, by the force of persecutions, “yet the inward man is renewed day by day,” that is, the mind, by the hope of the promises. (Against the Gnostics, cap. 15.)

Having, therefore, obtained the two men mentioned by the apostle — the inward man, that is, the mind, and the outward man, that is, the flesh — the heretics have in fact adjudged salvation to the mind, that is, to the inward man, but destruction to the flesh, that is, to the outward man; because it is recorded 2 Corinthians iv, 16, “for though our outward man perish,” &c. (On the resurrection of the Body, cap. 40.)

From without, wars that overcome the body; inwardly, fear that afflicts the mind. So, “though our outward man perish,” perishing will not be understood as losing our resurrection, but as sustaining vexation; and this, not without the inward man. Thus it will be the part of both of them to be glorified together, as well as to be fellow-sufferers.

(lbid.)

For though the apostle calls the flesh “an earthen vessel,” which he commands to be honourably treated; yet it is also called, by the same apostle, “the outward man,” that is, the clay which was first impressed and engraved under the title of man, not of a cup, of a sword, or of any small vessel; for it was called “a vessel” on account of its capacity, which holds and contains the mind. But this flesh is called “man,” from community of nature, which renders it not an instrument in operations, but a minister or assistant, (Ibid. cap. 16.)

AMBROSE.

“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” he says that his mind delights in those things which are delivered by the law; and thus it is the inward man. (On Rom. vii, 22.) “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” The flesh perishes or wastes away by afflictions, stripes, famine, thirst, cold and nakedness; but the mind is renewed by the hope of a future reward, because it is purified by incessant tribulations. For the mind is profited in afflictions, and does not perish; so that when additional temptations occur, it makes daily advances in worthiness; because this “perishing” is profitable also to the body for its immortality through the excellence of the mind. (On 2 Corinthians iv, 16.)

“I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” Our inward man is that which was made after the image and likeness of God; the outward man is that which was formed and shaped from clay. As therefore there are two men, there is likewise a two-fold course of conduct — one is that of the inward man, the other that of the outward man. And, indeed, most of the acts of the inward man extend to the outward man. As the chasteness of the inward man also passes to the chastity of the body. For he who is ignorant of the adultery of the heart, is likewise unacquainted with the adultery of the body, &c. It is, therefore, the circumcision of the inward man; for he who is circumcised has stripped off the enticements of his whole flesh, as his foreskin, that he may be in the Spirit, and not in the flesh; and that in the Spirit he may mortify the deeds of his body, &c., &c. When our inward man is in the flesh, he is in the foreskin. (Letter 77th, to Constantius.)

BASIL THE GREAT

“Let us make man according to our image.” He means the inward man, when he says, “Let us make man,” &c., &c. Listen to the apostle, who says, “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” How do I know the two men? One of them is apparent; the other is hidden in him who appears, it is the invisible, the inward man. We have then a man within us; and we are twofold; and what is said is very true, that we are inward. (Homily 10th, on the six days of Creation.)

“Thy hands have made me, and fashioned me.” God made the inward man, and fashioned the outward man. For “the fashioning” belongs to clay; but “the making” appertains to that which is after his own image. Wherefore the thing which was fashioned is the flesh, but that which was made is the mind. (Ibid. Homily 11.)

Since there are, indeed, two men, as the apostle declares, the one outward and the other inward, we must also, in like manner, receive the age in both, according to him whom we behold, and according to him whom we understand in secret. (Discourse on the beginning of the Proverbs of Solomon.)

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

“But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” If any one, therefore, says that our inward man dwells in the outward man, he repeats an important truth; yet he will not on this account seem to divide the unity of man. (On the incarnation, of the only begotten Son, cap. 12.)

MACARIUS

The true death consists in the heart, and is hidden, when our inward man is dead. If therefore any one has passed over from death to the hidden life, he in reality lives forever, and dies no more, &c., &c. Sin acts secretly upon the inward man and the mind, and commences a conflict with the thoughts. (Homily 15.)

The members of the soul are many: such as the mind, the conscience, the will, the thoughts which accuse or else defend. But all these have been collected together into one reason; yet they are the members of the soul. But the soul is single, that is, the inward man. (Homily 7.)

“The inward man” and “the soul” are taken for the same thing, in his 27th Homily.

CHRYSOSTOM

“But though our outward man perish,” &c. How does it perish? While it is beaten with stripes, is driven away, and endures innumerable evils. “Yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” How is it renewed? By faith, hope and alacrity, that it may have the courage to oppose itself to evils. For, the more the evils which the body endures, the greater is the hope which the inward man entertains, and the more bright and resplendent does it become, as gold which is examined or tested by much fire. (On 2 Corinthians iv, 16.)

Let us now see what is said by one who stands higher than many:

AUGUSTINE

But who, except the greatest mad man, will say that in the body we are, or shall afterwards be, like God, That likeness, therefore, exists in the inward man, “which is renewed in the knowledge of God, after the image of him that created him.” (Tom. 2, Epist. 6.)

By this grace, righteousness is written in the inward man, when renewed, which transgression had destroyed. (On the Spirit and the Letter, cap. 27.) As he called him the inward man when coming into this world, because the outward man is corporeal as this world is. (On the Demerits and Remission of Sin, lib.1, cap. 25; Tom. 7.)

As the eyes of the body derive no aid from the light, that they may depart from it with eyelids closed and turned in another direction, but in order to see, they are assisted by the light, (nor can this be done at all, unless the light lends its aid,) so God, who is the light of the inward man, assists the drowsiness of our mind, that we may perform something that is good, not according to our righteousness, but according to his own. (Ibid. lib. 2, cap. 5.)

If, in the mind itself, which is “the inward man,” perfect newness were formed in baptism, the apostle would not declare, “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (Ibid. cap. 7.) As that tree of life was placed in the corporeal Paradise, so this wisdom is in the spiritual Paradise, the former of them affording vital vigour to the senses of the outward man, the latter to those of the inward man, without any change of time for the worse. (Ibid. cap. 21.)

Behold, then, of how many things are we ignorant — not only such as are past, but also of those which are present, concerning our nature, and not only in reference to the body, but likewise I, reference to the inward man; yet we are not compared to the beasts. (Tom. 7. 0n the Soul and its Origin, lib. 4, cap. 8.)

Because the thing is either the foot itself, the body, or the man, who hobbles along with a lame foot; yet the man cannot avoid a lame foot, unless he have it healed. This can also be done in the inward man, but it must be by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. (On Perfection against Caelestius, fol. I, letter f.)

Thus also the mind is the thing of the inward man, robbery is an act, avarice is a vice, that is, a quality, according to which the mind is evil, even when it does nothing by which it can render any service to avarice or robbery.

(Ibid.)

Beside the inward and the outward man, I do not indeed perceive that the apostle makes another inward of the inward man, that is, the innermost of the whole man. (On the Mind and its Origins, lib. 4, cap. 4.)

He confesses in the same passage, that the mind is the inward man to the body, but he denies that the spirit is the inward man to the mind.

Some persons have also made this supposition, that now the inward man was made, but the body of the man afterwards, when the Scripture says, “And God formed man of the dust of the ground.” (Tom. 3. On Genesis according to the letter, l. 3, c. 22.)

The apostle Paul wishes “the inward man” to be understood by the spirit of the mind, “the outward man” in the body and this mortal life. Yet it is sometimes read in his epistles, that he has not called both of these together “two men,” but one entire man whom God made, that is, both that which is the inward man, and that which is the outward. But he does not make him after his own image, except with regard to that which is inward, not only what is incorporeal, but also what is rational, and which is not within beasts. (Tom. 6. Against Faustus the Manichee, lib. 24, cap. 1.)

Behold God is likewise proclaimed, by the same apostle, as former of the outward man. “But now hath God set the members every one in the body as it hath pleased him.”

(Ibid.)

The apostle says that “the old man” is nothing more than the old [course of] life, which is in sin, and in which men live according to the first Adam, concerning whom he declares, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Therefore, the whole of that man, both in his outward and inward part; has become old on account of sin, and is sentenced to the punishment of mortality, &c.

(Ibid.)

And therefore, by such a cross, the body of sin is emptied, that we may “not now yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin;” because this inward man also, if he be really renewed day by day, is certainly old before he is renewed. For that is an inward act of which the apostle speaks thus: “Put off the old man, and put on the new man.” (Tom. 3. On the Trinity, lib. 4, cap. 3.)

But now the death of the flesh of our Lord belongs to the example of the death of our outward man, &c. And the resurrection of the body of the Lord is found to appertain to the example of the resurrection of our outward man.”

(Ibid.)

Come now, let us see where is that which bears some resemblance to the confines of the man, both the outward and the inward; for, whatever we have in the mind in common with the beasts, is correctly said still to belong to the outward man; For not only will the body be accounted as “the outward man,” but likewise certain things united to its life, by which the joints of the body and all the senses flourish and grow, and with which it is furnished for entering upon outward things. When the images of these perceptions, infixed in the memory, are revisited by recollection, the matter is still a transaction which belongs to the outward man. And in all these things we are at no great distance from the cattle, except that in the shape of our bodies we are not bending downwards, but erect. (On the Trinity, lib. 12, cap. 1.)

While ascending, therefore, inwardly by certain degrees of consideration through the parts of the mind, another thing begins from this to occur to us, which is not common to us with the beasts; thence reason has its commencement, that the inward man may not be known. (Ibid. cap. 8.)

Both believers and unbelievers are well acquainted with the nature of man, whose outward part, that is, the body, they have learned the lights of the body; but they have learned the inward part, that is, the mind, within themselves. (Ibid. lib. 13, cap. 1.)

Besides, the Scriptures thus attest it to us in this that, when these two things also are joined together and the man lives, and when likewise they bestow on each of them the appellation of man, calling the mind “the inward man,” but the body “the outward man,” as though they were two men, while both of them together are only one man. (Tom. 5. On the City of God, lib. 13, cap. 24. See also lib. 11, cap. 27 & 3.)

As this outward and visible world nourishes and contains the outward man, so that invisible world contains the inward man. (Tom. 8. On the First Psalm.)

He who believes in Him, eats and is invisibly fattened, because he is also invisibly born again. The infant is within, the new man is within; where young and tender vines are planted, there are they filled and satiated. (On John, Tract 26.)

THEOPHYLACT

Moreover, “the outward man,” that is, the body, “perishes.” How is this? While it is beaten with stripes, while it is driven about. “But the inward man,” that is, the spirit and the mind, “is renewed.” By what means? When it hopes well, and freely acts, as though suffering and rejoicing on account of God. (On 2 Corinthians iv, 16.)

VIGILIUS

Let us spiritually advert to the spiritual expressions of the apostle, by which he testifies, that he has seen and handled the word of God, not with his bodily eyes and hands, but with the members of the inner man. (Against Eutychus, lib. 4.)

PROCOPIUS OF GAZA

The substance of man, if you consider his inward man, is this image of God; if you take his outward man into consideration, his substance will be the earth, or the dust of the ground. Yet one and the same is the man in the composition which is completed from both of them. (0n Genesis, cap. 1.)

BERNARD

As the outward man is recognized by his countenance, so is the inward man pointed out by his will. (Sermon 3, On Ascension Day.)

LEO THE GREAT

When the outward man is slightly afflicted, let the inward man be refreshed; and withdrawing corporeal fullness from the flesh, let the mind be strengthened by spiritual delights. (Sermon 4, On Quadragesima Sunday.)

GREGORY NAZIANZEN

But in this, our nature, every care is towards the inward man of the heart, and every desire is directed to it. (Apology for his flight.)

GREGORY NYSSEN

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. God speaks thus respecting the inward man. “But,” you will say, “you are giving a dissertation upon reason. Shew us man after the image of God. Is reason the man?” Listen to the apostle: Though your outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. By what means? I own that man is two-fold, one who is seen, another who is hidden, and whom he that is seen does not perceive. We have, therefore, an inward man, and in some degree are two-fold. For I am that man who is inward; but I am not those things which are outward; but they are mine. Neither am I the hand, but I am the reason which is in the mind; but the hand is a part of the outward man. (On Genesis, i, 26.)

Thus, when the inward man, whom God denominates the heart, has wiped off the rusty filth which, on account of his depraved thirst, had grown up with his form; he will once more recover the likeness [of God] with his original and principal form, when he will become good. (On the Beatitudes.)

This is the final installment of allowing Arminius to share his thoughts with us on the Roman Catholic Church and her pope.  While his words are not as gracious as we might find in today’s Church when dealing with the Catholics, certainly we would agree with Arminius that the Catholic Church needs the gospel of Christ to tear down her traditions that have robed God of His glory and the people of their salvation in Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16-17; Titus 1:16).  

XII. It is demonstrable by the most evident arguments that the name of Antichrist and of The Adversary of God belongs to him. For the apostle ascribes the second of these epithets to him when he calls him “the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. ii, 3-8.) It was he who should arise out of the ruins of the Roman empire, and should occupy its vacant digaity. These expressions, we assert, must be understood, and can be understood, solely respecting the Roman pontiff. But the name of “The Antichrist” belongs to him pre-eminently, whether the particle anti signifies opposition, or the substitution of one thing for another; not indeed such a substitution as is lawfully and legitimately made by Him who has the power of placing things in subordination, but it signifies one by which any man is substituted, either by himself or by another person through force and fraud. For he is both a rival to Christ, and his adversary, when he boasts of himself as the spouse, the head, and the foundation of the church, endowed with plenitude of power; and yet he professes himself to be the vicegerent of Christ, and to perform his functions on earth, for the sake of his own private advantage, but to the manifest injury of the church of Christ. He has, however, considered it necessary to employ the name of Christ as a pretext, that under this sacred name he may obtain that reverence for himself among Christians, which he would be unable to procure if he were openly to profess himself to be either the Christ, or the adversary of Christ.

XIII. Although the Roman pontiff calls himself “the servant of the servants of God,” yet we further assert that he is by way of eminence, That Wicked And Perverse Servant, who, when he saw that his Lord delayed his coming, “began to smite his fellow-servants.” (Matt. 24, 48.) For the Roman pontiff has usurped domination and tyranny, not only over his fellow- servants, the bishops of the church of God, but likewise over emperors and kings themselves, whose authority and dignity he had himself previously acknowledged. To acquire this domination for himself, and still further to augment and establish it, he has employed all kinds of satanic instruments — sophistical hypocrisy, lies, equivocations, perfidy, perjury, violence, poison, and armed forces — so that he may most justly be said to have succeeded that formidable beast which “was like unto a leopard, a bear and a lion,” and by which the Roman empire was prefigured — and to have “had power to give life unto the image of the beast, and to cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast, should be killed.”

XIV. Lastly, though from all these remarks it will readily appear that the Roman pontiff is unworthy of the name of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, and of universal bishop; (1 Cor. iii, 5; xii, 28; Ephes. iv, 11;) yet, by this single argument, which is deduced from their peculiar attributes and duties, the very same satisfactory conclusions may be rendered evident to all who search the scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, and especially the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus. (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1.) Nor will this evasion avail any thing, “that whatever a man does through another who is his vicar or substitute, he seems to do it himself;” for it is Christ alone who makes use of the vicarious aid of these persons as ministers; and the duties which they perform, are such as ought to be discharged by those who are distinguished by those titles. (Gal. i, 7-9.) Therefore, that rightly appertains to the Roman pontiff which God threatens through the prophet Zechariah, that he will raise up a foolish shepherd, and an idol shepherd, who shall devote no attention to the sheep, but who “shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.” (Zech. xi, 15-17.) God grant that the church, being delivered from the frauds and tyranny of Antichrist, may obtain shepherds that may feed her in truth, charity and prudence, to the salvation of the sheep themselves, and to the glory of the chief Shepherd. Amen.

COROLLARIES

I. It is a part of religious wisdom to separate the Court of Rome from the church, in which the pontiff sits. II. The Roman pontiff, even when conducting himself with the greatest propriety, must not be acknowledged by any human or positive right as the head of the church, or the universal bishop; and such acknowledgment of him has hitherto contributed, and does in its very nature contribute, not so much to preserve unity in the church, and to restrain the license of thinking, speaking and teaching differently on the chief articles of religion, as to take away necessary liberty, and that which is agreeable to the word of God, and to introduce a real tyranny.