The following is an copy of a letter from Festus Hommius, one of two official secretaries at Dort to John Cameron. The context of the letter relates to a written dispute between John Cameron and Simon Episcopius, the Arminian. As part of their discussion, Episcopius accuses Cameron of having a Pelagian view of regeneration on account of Cameron’s idea of regeneration, Briefly stated, Cameron held that the Spirit works primarily through the mind by enlightenment and persuasion, to which the will follows in what the mind comes to delight in. In his own defense, Cameron appeals to the fact that he is in total agreement with the doctrines of the Synod of Dort, and, indeed, when Dort was in session, Cameron had sent his own “theses” to Festus Hommius. Hommius then wrote back to Cameron, and far from condemning his ideas, validated them as Orthodox.

For my purposes here, I will reproduce Wodrow’s opening comments and then the letter from Hommius:

Episcopius in his letter next charges Cameron’s opinion, as not only condemned by these Synods, but as being a mixture of Pelagianisme and Manicheanisme. That his opinion is Pelagian, he says, appears from this–that he menteans the objective revelation of the Divine will alone; that sole swasion, or a moral notion and agency, is sufficient to regeneration, without any immediate internal grace impressed upon the will, quhich he says is Pelagius’ very errror condemned by the 4th canon of the African Council. That he chimes in with the Manicheans, he would prove from this consequence, quhich he takes to be Mr. Cameron’s opinion, That both good and evil actions are necessarily done; quhich the fathers generally condemn as the Manichean error. The rest of Episcopius’ letter is spent, in essaying to fix these things on Cameron, and removing the objections that Cameron advances in his own defence:

Mr. Cameron makes large and pointed Answers to this heavy charge, in all the branches of it. I must referr the reader to the book itself, He denyes the charge, and supports his denyall by facts and arguments. As to his opposition to the canons of the Synod of Dort, he answers, he agrees perfectly with them ; and adds, during the Synod’s sitting, he sent his Theses to the learned Festus Hommius, who on the matter presided in that Synod; and, by his return in a letter to Cameron, dated March 17, 1620, he approves of his Theses. That learned man says to Mr. Cameron,

Your gift to me last winter, quhen the Synod was sitting, was most acceptable. It was deteaned sometime, and came to me a litle before the forraigne divines left us. I delivered your letters as directed. I cannot tell you the sentiments of our forraigne brethren upon your book, because they wer just upon the wing. Our divines who have read it, are highly satisfyed with the singular learning and acuteness God hath given you, for the edification of his church; and rejoice in your succeeding the learned Gomarus, and congratulate the Church of France on this, reckoning you most worthy of that office. Indeed, it seems to offend some, that you make man’s conversion to be by mere moral swasion, since that appears to differ very litle from the Remonstrants’ opinion; but when the explication you have added to that was pondered a litle more closely, they soon saw that you differ as much from the Remonstrants, as heaven from earth. As for myself, I have observed nothing in your book which departs from the sound doctrine, and even that lately declared by our Synod. And I admire your dexterous, solid, and clear handling of a very difficult subject. I embrace with both my arms the friendship you offer, and rejoice that God favours me with the favour of worthy men. I hope for the fruits of what you offer frequently, for the benefit of our churches.

He sends his kind respects to Mons. Du Plessis, Reformatarum Ecclesiarum columni et ornamento” Bouchereau and Capell

Mr. Cameron recons Hommius’ opinion may be almost reconed that of the Synod of Dort.

Robert Wodrow, Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (Glasow: Edward Khull, Printer to the University, 1845), 2:204-206. [Some reformatting; spelling original; italics original; marginal side-header not included; and underlining mine.]

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:43 pm and is filed under Historiography. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.