which was taught by Arminius, professor of divinity in the university of
Leyden. If therefore we would learn precisely what Arminianism is, we
must have recourse to those writings in which that divine himself has
stated and expounded his peculiar tenets. This, however, will by no
means give us an accurate idea of that which, since his time, has been
usually denominated Arminianism. On examination, it will be found, that
in many important particulars, those who have called themselves
Arminians, or have been accounted such by others, differ as widely from
the nominal head and founder of their sect, as he himself did from
Calvin, and other doctors of Geneva. There are, indeed, certain points,
with regard to which he has been strictly and uniformly followed by
almost all his pretended adherents; but there are others of equal or of
greater importance, dogmatically insisted on by them, to which he
unquestionably never gave his sanction, and even appears to have been
decidedly hostile. Such a distinction, obvious as it must be to every
attentive reader, has yet been generally so far overlooked, that the
memory of Arminius is frequently loaded with imputations the most
unreasonable and unjust. He is accused, by the ignorant and the
prejudiced, of introducing corruptions into the Christian church, which
he probably never thought of, and which certainly have no place in his
works. And all the odium which his followers have from time to time
incurred by their varied and increasing heterodoxy, has been absurdly
reflected upon him, as if he could be responsible for every error that
may be sent abroad under the sanction of his name. Whatever be the
number or the species of these errors, and in whatever way they may be
associated with his principles, it is fair to the character of Arminius,
and useful to the interests of religious truth, to revert to his own
writings as the only source from which we ought to derive information
concerning the Arminian scheme; and by doing so, it may be discovered,
that genuine unadulterated Arminianism is not that great and dangerous
heresy which among a certain class of Christians it is too often
represented to be.
Arminianism, in its proper sense, is to be considered as a separation
from Calvinism, with regard to the doctrines of unconditional election,
particular redemption, and other points necessarily resulting from
these. The Calvinists held that God had elected a certain portion of the
human race to eternal life, passing by the rest, or rather dooming them
to everlasting destruction; that God’s election proceeded upon no
prescience of the moral principles and character of those whom he had
thus predestinated, but originated solely in the motions of his free and
sovereign mercy; that Christ died for the elect only, and therefore that
the merits of his death can avail for the salvation of none but them;
and that they are constrained by the irresistible power of divine grace
to accept of him as their Saviour. To this doctrine, that of Arminius
and his legitimate followers stands opposed. They do not deny an
election; but they deny that it is absolute and unconditional. They
argue, that an election of this kind is inconsistent with the character
of God, that it destroys the liberty of the human will, that it
contradicts the language of Scripture, and that it tends to encourage a
careless and licentious practice in those by whom it is believed. They
maintain that God has elected those only who, according, not to his
decree, but to his foreknowledge, and in the exercise of their natural
powers of self-determination, acting under the influence of his grace,
would possess that faith and holiness to which salvation is annexed in
the Gospel scheme. And those who are _not_ elected are allowed to
perish, not because they were not elected, but merely and solely in
consequence of their infidelity and disobedience; on account, indeed, of
which infidelity and disobedience being foreseen by God, their election
did not take place. They hold, that Christ died for _all_ men in the
literal and unrestricted sense of that phrase; that his atonement is
able, both from its own merit, and from the intention of him who
appointed it, to expiate the guilt of every individual; that every
individual is invited to partake of the benefits which it has procured;
that the grace of God is offered to make the will comply with this
invitation, but that this grace may be resisted and rendered ineffectual
by the sinner’s perversity. Whether true believers necessarily
persevered, or whether they might fall from their faith, and forfeit
their state of grace, was a question which Arminius left in a great
measure unresolved, but which was soon determined by his followers in
this additional proposition, that saints may fall from the state of
grace, in which they are placed by the operation of the Holy Spirit.
This, indeed, seems to follow as a corollary, from what Arminius
maintained respecting the natural freedom and corruption of the will,
and the resistibility of divine grace.
It may now be proper to mention some tenets with regard to which
Arminianism has been much misrepresented. If a man hold that good works
are necessary to justification; if he maintain that faith includes good
works in its own nature; if he reject the doctrine of original sin; if
he deny that divine grace is requisite for the whole work of
sanctification; if he speak of human virtue as meritorious in the sight
of God; it is very generally concluded, that he is an Arminian. But the
truth is, that a man of such sentiments is properly a disciple of the
Pelagian and Socinian schools. To such sentiments pure Arminianism is as
diametrically opposite as Calvinism itself. The genuine Arminians admit
the corruption of human nature in its full extent. They admit, that we
are justified by faith only. They admit, that our justification
originates solely in the grace of God. They admit, that the procuring
and meritorious cause of our justification is the righteousness of
Christ. _Propter quam_, says Arminius, _Deus credentibus peccatum
condonat, eosque pro justis reputat non aliter atque si legem perfectè
implevissent_. [For the sake of which God pardons believers, and
accounts them as righteous precisely as if they had perfectly obeyed the
law.] They admit in this way, that justification implies not merely
forgiveness of sin, but acceptance to everlasting happiness. _Junctam
habet adoptionem in filios, et collationem juris in hereditatem vitæ
eternæ._ [It has connected with it adoption to sonship, and the grant of
a right to the inheritance of eternal life.] They admit, in fine, that
the work of sanctification, from its very commencement to its perfection
in glory, is carried on by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is
the gift of God by Jesus Christ. So sound, indeed, are the Arminians
with respect to the doctrine of justification, a doctrine so important
and essential in the opinion of Luther, that he scrupled not to call it,
_articulus ecclesiæ stantis vel cadentis_; [the article with which the
church stands or falls;] that those who look into the writings of
Arminius may be disposed to suspect him of having even exceeded Calvin
in orthodoxy. It is certain, at least, that he declares his willingness
to subscribe to every thing that Calvin has written on that leading
subject of Christianity, in the third book of his Institutes; and with
this declaration the tenor of his writings invariably corresponds.
The system of Arminius, then, appears to have been the same with that
which was generally maintained in the reformed churches at that time;
except in so far as the doctrine of the divine decrees was concerned.
But the most eminent of those who became Arminians, or ranked among his
professed followers, by embracing and avowing his peculiar tenets with
respect to election and redemption, soon began to depart widely from the
other tenets of his theological creed. They adopted views of the
corruption of man, of justification, of the righteousness of Christ, of
the nature of faith, of the province of good works, of the necessity and
operations of grace, that are quite contrary to those which he had
entertained and published. Many of them, in process of time, differed
more or less from one another, on some or all of these points. And so
diversified are the forms which Arminianism, as it is called, has
assumed in the course of its progress, that to describe precisely what
it has been since the synod of Dort, or what it is at the present day,
would be a most difficult, if not an impossible, task. Even the
confession of faith, which was drawn out for the Arminians by
Episcopius, and is to be found in the second volume of his works, cannot
be referred to as a standard. It was composed merely to counteract the
reproach of their being a society without any common principles. It is
expressed chiefly in the words and phrases of Scripture, to which, of
course, every one would annex his own meaning. Beside, no person, not
even a pastor, was obliged, by any form, to adhere strictly to it; but
every one was left entirely at liberty to interpret its language in the
manner that was most agreeable to his own private sentiments.
Accordingly, so various and inconsistent are their opinions, that could
Arminius peruse the unnumbered volumes which have been written as
expositions and illustrations of Arminian doctrine, he would be at a
loss to discover his own simple system, amidst that heterogeneous mass
of error with which it has been rudely mixed; and would be astonished to
find, that the controversy which he had conscientiously introduced, had
wandered far from the point to which he had confined it, and that with
his name dogmas were associated, the unscriptural and dangerous nature
of which he had pointed out and condemned.
The same temper of mind which led him to renounce the peculiarities of
Calvinism, induced him also to adopt more enlarged and liberal views of
church communion than those which had hitherto prevailed. While he
maintained that the mercy of God is not confined to a chosen few, he
conceived it to be quite inconsistent with the genius of Christianity,
that men of that religion should keep at a distance from each other, and
constitute separate churches, merely because they differed in their
opinions as to some of its doctrinal articles. He thought that
Christians of all denominations should form one great community, united
and upheld by the bonds of charity and brotherly love; with the
exception, however, of Roman Catholics, who, on account of their
idolatrous worship and persecuting spirit, must be unfit members of such
a society. That this was not only agreeable to the wishes of Arminius,
but one chief object of his labours, is evident from a passage in his
last will, which he made a little before his death:--_Ea proposui et
docui quæ ad propagationem amplificationemque veritatis religionis
Christianæ, veri Dei cultus, communis pietatis, et sanctæ inter homines
convers[at]ionis, denique ad convenientem Christiano nomini
tranquillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent conferre, excludens ex
iis papatum, cum quo nulla unitas fidei, nullum pietatis aut Christianæ
pacis vinculum servari potest_. [I have advanced and taught those things
which might contribute to the propagation and spread of the truth of
Christianity, the worship of the true God, general piety, and a holy
fellowship among men;--in fine, to a tranquillity and peace according to
God’s word and becoming the Christian name, excluding the Papacy, with
which no unity of faith, no bond of piety, or of Christian peace can be
maintained.]
Mosheim has stated this circumstance in a note to his history of the
Arminian church; but his statement, or rather the conclusion which he
deduces from it, is evidently unfair and incorrect. He alleges, that
Arminius had actually laid the plan of that theological system which was
afterward embraced by his followers; that he had inculcated the main and
leading principles of it on the minds of his disciples; and that
Episcopius and others, who rejected Calvinism in more points than in
that which related to the divine decrees, only propagated, with greater
courage and perspicuity, the doctrines which Arminianism, as taught by
its founder, already contained. These allegations, it is clear, have no
sort of connection with the passage from which they are drawn as
inferences; and they are wholly inconsistent with the assertions, and
reasonings, and declarations of Arminius, when he is discussing the
merits of the question that was agitated between him and the Geneva
school. Arminius, in addition to the scheme of doctrine which he taught,
was anxious to establish this maxim, and to reduce it to practice, that,
with the exception above mentioned, no difference of opinions should
prevent Christians from remaining in one church or religious body. He
did not mean to insinuate, that a difference of opinion was of no
consequence at all; that they who thought one way were just as right as
they who thought a contrary way; or that men have no occasion to be
solicitous about the religious tenets which they hold. He did not mean
to give up his own system as equally true, or equally false, with that
of Calvin; and as little could he be supposed to sanction those
sentiments of his followers which were in direct opposition to the
sentiments which he himself had maintained. But he endeavoured, in the
first place, to assert liberty of conscience, and of worship; and then,
upon that fundamental principle, to persuade all Christians, however
divided in opinion, to lay aside the distinctions of sect and party, and
in one united body to consult that tranquillity and peace which is so
agreeable to the Christian name. This we conceive to have been the
object of Arminius; an object so indicative of an enlightened mind, so
congenial to that charity which hopeth all things, and thinketh no evil,
and so conducive to the interests of religion and the peace of the
world, as to reflect the highest honour on him by whom it was first
pursued, and to constitute the true glory of Arminianism.
The controversy to which Arminianism had given rise, was carried on
after the death of its founder, with the greatest eagerness, and
produced the most bitter and deplorable dissensions. The Arminians
requested nothing more than a bare toleration. This moderate demand, at
all times reasonable and just, was particularly so in Holland, which had
thrown off the yoke of civil and spiritual despotism, and where the
received confession of faith had not determined the questions under
debate. It was strongly urged by Grotius, Hoogerbeets, Olden Barnevelt,
and other persons of respectability and influence. And Maurice, prince
of Orange, and his mother the princess dowager, giving countenance to
the claim, there was some prospect of the Calvinists being persuaded to
enter into pacific measures, and to treat their dissenting brethren with
forbearance. Accordingly, in the year 1611, a conference between the
contending parties was held at the Hague, on which occasion, it is
commonly asserted, the toleration required was offered to the Arminians,
provided they would renounce the errors of Socinianism,--though the
papers which passed between the parties at that conference, as
authenticated by each of them, contain no proviso of that description.
Another conference was held at Delft, in 1613. And in 1614, the States
of Holland promulgated an edict, exhorting the disputants to the
exercise of mutual charity. But these and other expedients employed for
the same purpose, had not the desired effect. The Calvinists expressed
great indignation at the magistrates, for endeavouring, by their
authority, to promote a union with such adversaries. The conduct of the
States was ably and eloquently defended by Grotius, in two treatises,
entitled, “_De Jure Summarum Potestatum circa sacra_,” and “_Ordinum
Hollandiæ, ac West-Frisiæ Pietas a multorum calumniis vindicata_.”
The hopes of success which the Arminians entertained from the indulgent
manner in which they were treated by the civil authorities, were soon
blasted by a misunderstanding which had secretly subsisted for some time
between the stadtholder and the principal magistrates, and at last broke
forth into an open rupture. Maurice, being suspected of aiming at
sovereign power, was firmly opposed by the leading persons in the
government, who had been the friends and patrons of the Arminians, and
to whom, therefore, these adhered at this difficult crisis. On the other
hand, the Gomarists, or Calvinists, attached themselves to Maurice, and
inflamed the resentment which he had already, for various reasons,
conceived against the Arminians. The prince was resolved, at once to
ruin the ministers who had ventured to oppose his schemes of usurpation,
and to crush the Arminians, by whom those statesmen had been warmly
supported. For this purpose he got the leading men cast into prison.
Barnevelt, whose long and faithful services deserved a better fate, died
on the scaffold: and Grotius and Hoogerbeets, under pretexts more
plausible than solid, were unjustly condemned to perpetual imprisonment,
from which, however, the former afterward escaped, and fled into France.
The alleged crime of the Arminians being of an ecclesiastical nature, it
was thought proper to bring their cause before a national assembly of
divines by which their religious opinions might be regularly and finally
condemned.
Under the auspices of Maurice, therefore, and by the authority of the
states general, a synod was convoked at Dort, in the year 1618. Before
this meeting, which consisted of deputies from the United Provinces,
from England, Scotland, Switzerland, and other places, the Arminians
appeared, with Episcopius at their head, to answer to the accusations
brought against them, of departing from the established religion. For a
full account of the proceedings of this synod, the reader may consult
the second and third volumes of Brandt’s History of the Reformation, and
the Remains of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, who was present at the meeting,
and gives a simple narrative of what he saw and heard. The conduct of
the synod has been applauded by some, and condemned by others. On the
one hand, it has been placed above every other synod since the Apostolic
age, for its temper, moderation, and sanctity; on the other, it has been
charged with injustice and cruelty, and burlesqued in such lines as
these:--
_Dordrechti synodus nodus; chorus integer, æger; Conventus, ventus;
sessio, stramen, Amen._
[The point of this doggrel, which consists chiefly in the gingle of the
Latin words, is lost in a translation. The following is a literal
version:--
The synod of Dort, a knot; the whole assembly, sick;
The convention, wind; the session, straw, Amen.]
Neal remarks, that it behaved as well as most assemblies of a similar
kind have done, “who have pretended to establish articles for other
men’s faith, with penal sanctions.” This says very little for the synod
of Dort; though, perhaps, it is even more than can be said with truth.
Martinius of Bremen seems to have spoken much more correctly, when he
told his friends, “I believe now what Gregory Nazianzen says, that he
had never seen any council attended with good effects, but that it
always increased the evil rather than removed it. I declare as well as
that father, that I will never set my foot in any synod again. O Dort!
Dort! would to God that I had never seen thee!” The Arminians, it is
contended, asked more indulgence than they had reason to expect; however
it is certain that the treatment which they received from the synod, was
arbitrary, faithless, and oppressive. They were at length found guilty
of heresy, and of hostility to their country and its religion. And the
measures adopted against them, in consequence of this sentence, were of
the most severe and rigorous kind. They were excommunicated; they were
driven from all their offices, civil and ecclesiastical; their ministers
were prohibited from preaching; and their congregations were suppressed.
Refusing to submit to the two last of these hard decrees, they were
subjected to fines, imprisonments, and various other punishments. To
avoid this tyrannical treatment, many of them retired to Antwerp, others
to France, and a considerable number into Holstein, where they were
kindly received by Frederick the duke, and where, in the form of a
colony, they built for themselves a handsome town, naming it
Frederickstadt, in compliment to their friend and protector. The history
of this colony may be found in a work entitled _Epistolæ Præstantium et
Eruditorum Virorum Ecclesiasticæ et Theologicæ_, and published by
Limborch and Hartsoeker.
The tenets of the Arminians may be comprised in the following five
articles relating to predestination, universal redemption, the
corruption of men, conversion, and perseverance, viz. 1. That God, from
all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw
would persevere unto the end in their faith in Christ Jesus; and to
inflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their
unbelief, and resist unto the end his divine succours; so that election
was conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result of foreseen
infidelity and persevering wickedness. 2. That Jesus Christ, by his
sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in
general, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but
those who believe in him can be partakers of the divine benefits. 3.
That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural
faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will;
since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either
of thinking or doing any good thing; and that, therefore, it is
necessary, in order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed
by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through
Jesus Christ. 4. That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost
begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and
consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that,
nevertheless, this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to
act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered
ineffectual by the perverse wills of impenitent sinners. 5. That God
gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his grace, the means
of preserving themselves in this state; and though the first Arminians
made some doubt with respect to the closing part of this article, their
followers uniformly maintain, that the regenerate may lose true
justifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in their sins.
The Arminians are also called _Remonstrants_, from an humble petition
entitled their _Remonstrance_, which, in the year 1610, they addressed
to the States of Holland. Their principal writers are, _Arminius_,
_Episcopius_, _Uitenbogart_, _Grotius_, _Curcellæus_, _Limborch_, _Le
Clerc_, _Wetstein_, _Goodwin_, _Whitby_, _Wesley_, _Fletcher_,
_Tomline_, _&c._ The works of Arminius, with a copious account of his
life and times, have been recently translated into English, by Mr. James
Nichols; and have not only served to dissipate many misconceptions
respecting the sentiments of this celebrated divine, which had prevailed
in England, where the Pelagianism of some eminent divines, generally
called ARMINIAN, had been unjustly charged upon him; but have added a
most valuable collection of treatises to our theological literature.
ARMS. The Hebrews do not appear to have had any peculiar military habit.
As the flowing dress which they ordinarily wore would have impeded their
movements, they girt it closely around them when preparing for battle,
and loosened it on their return, 2 Sam. xx, 8; 1 Kings xx, 11. They used
the same arms as the neighbouring nations, both defensive and offensive;
and these were made either of iron or of brass, principally of the
latter metal. Of the defensive arms of the Hebrews, the following were
the most remarkable; namely,
1. The helmet, כובע, for covering and defending the head. This was a
part of the military provision made by Uzziah for his vast army, 2
Chron. xxvi, 14; and long before the time of that king, the helmets of
Saul and of the Philistine champion were of the same metal, 1 Sam. xvii,
38. This military cap was also worn by the Persians, Ethiopians, and
Libyans, Ezek. xxxviii, 5, and by the troops which Antiochus sent
against Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac. vi, 35.