IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) //^^**5^ 1.0 1.1 ■so ^^~ ■■■ ut lii 12.2 2f 144 ■" 2.0 140 I L25 UU 11.6 1^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRKT WI»STn,N.Y. MStO (716)172-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions histcriques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notat techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture ondommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauris et/ou pelliculie D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ D Cartas gdographlques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or biack{/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D D D D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de Id distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsQue cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Instltut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a AtA possible de se procurer. Les details us cat exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normals de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. D D D □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes r~~U Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seuie Edition disponible Thi to Th po of fill Or be th< sic oti fin sic or Th sh Til wl Mi di1 en be rij rei mi D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6t6 filmdes A nouveau de fa^on i obtenir \a meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction ind(i^u6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X • 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: United Church of Canada Archives L'exemplaire filmA fut reprrduit grAce A la gAnArosIti de- United Church of Canada Archives The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iteeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed lieginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last ppge with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaiing "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmA. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont filmAs en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la promidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'inrpression ou d'illustration et on tarminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparattra sur la demidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre filmis d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit an un ?eul clich6, il est filmi d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iliustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 ; ■ 1 ■ 2 3 4 5 6 V 1 WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? WITH A iOrbf ^btclj of AnninixiiS. HY REV. D, D. WHEDON, D.D., LLU. WITH AN INTRODrCTION BY IIEV. E. H. DEWAKT, D.D. T K N T : WILLIAM BRIGGS, PUBLISHER. 1879. "f ,-- ' 11-, t'l ■ , " xyi:.-,,- "T" ■IfPBBWi ^^P m %^' 'i'' ' .. .^i f^ '(^ '■ /,' ^•^>. ■■;^ ■ V . ■ ■ , : . . -^.-i ,.sc;:^:^l^^-r- i^:-^-- .k. .^v^-- ■ • .'.-■if' " ■■' -J/i^f » \^::v^- -St--'-- ' ■-- '^. ..^^■'^,- ..;;:v.f- 'a.^ C ' f' f". 4^ y^^ •\~~ y U^ '■<,■'.' ^.' -r J 1 ' i - ^• -t •X. 1 %: • y I t ^ 1' ' .V- - V ; *• ■ WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? - ( WITH A ':j^, '^:^. 18 mf ^httch of ^rminiua. ;,,^&^^^vj. BY REV, D. D. WHEDON, D,D„ LLD. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY REV. E. H. DEWART, D.D. I -^^> ■>^- TORONTO: WILLIAM BRIGGS, PUBLISHER. 1879. f INTRODUCTION. I It is frequently claimed that the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism is a dead issue, handed down from a past age ; and that the questions in dispute belong to the realm of philosophy, rather than to practical theology. There is good ground to question the correctness of this allegation. If the matter in dispute be a question of philosophy, it is a philosophy that underlies and moulds our views in Christian theology. It is true, indeed, that, when it comes to practical directions respecting the work of life, even Calvinists must speak like Arminians. But it is nevertheless a fact, that there is an irreconcilable contra- diction between the fundamental principles of the two systems ol theology; so that both cannot be right. We are sometimes told that both views are taught in the Bible ; and that we must therefore accept both, though we cannot reconcile them. It is enough to say, in reply to this, that we cannot possibly believe two propositions which appear to us to be contradictory ', and that the Bible cannot really teach freedom and non-freedom — a limited and an unlimited Atonement. One of the two systems must be accepted and the other repudiated by all logical thinkers. The following cogent and instructive essay, by Dr. >v It INTRODUCTION. \ \ Whedon, is commended to the careful study of CuDadian readers ; because it places in a clear light the main features of Arminirtiiism, which we believe to be in harmony both with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the unper- verted intuitions of every sound mind. It is surprising what misconceptions of ArminiHuism are presented in the works of Calvinistic theologians. It is frequently spoken of as an unscriptural heresy ; which denies " tho doctrines of grace," and maintains that man can save himself and merit heaven by his own righteousness. It is, however, an unintentional compliment to Arminianistii, that it is su generally found necessary to misrepresent and caricature its teachings before it can be made to appear worthy of con- demnation. The freedom of the human will, as attest* J by consciousness and reason, and the testimony of the New Testament to the universality of the Atonement, unanswer- ably vindicate the essential principles of Arminiaiiism against all the cavils of its opponents. No sentimental liberality should induce us to surrender principles that are the basis of human responsibility. This essay appears in the July issue of the Methodist Quarterh Review, taken from "Johnson's Univei'sal Cyclo- pcedia ; " in which there is a paragraph, interpolated by some foreign hand, designed to soften and counteract the force of Dr. Whedon's arguments against Calvinism. In this paragraph, it is intimated that most of the difficulties of Calvinism arise from the limitation of our faculties, leading us to connect the idea of time with the Divine actions which have no relation to time. This suggestion INTRODUCTION. and perplex ua, by throwing doubt upon our right to accept the conclusions to which the exercise of our reason leads us. Whatever may bo true respect ng the mode of tlio Divine action, it is certain we can form no concopfion of any acts, human or divine, which are not related to time. The olijection urged in this case would equally arrest all our thinkings, disparage all our conclusions respecting God's character and i)uri)oses, and land us in Agnosticism. When it is alleged that any doctrine is contrary to the Divine character as revealed in the Bible, it is no proper reply to this objection to say, that because the human mind cannot comprehend the infinite perfections of Jehovah, we cannot tell what is, or is not, in harmony with his moral nature. For all our religious convictions and hopes are based upon our conceptions of God's character. And those who thus object to making human conceptions of God a standard by which to test any system, when these concep- tions condemn their theories, in all other cases appeal to such human conceptions of the mercy, wisdom, and faith- fuliiess of God, as the ground of confidence and the motive to enforce the obligations of duty. E. HARTLEY DEW ART. Toronto, August 8th, 1S79. WHAT IS AEMINIANISM? ♦/• Arminianism, as the customary antitliesis to CalviiiisTii, is, within the limits of the evangelical doetrineH, tlio theology that tends to freedom in opposition to the theology of inicos- sity, or absolutism. This co^ trast rises into thought among all nations that attain to leHection and philoHO])hy. So in Greek and Roman thinking, Stoicism and all materialistic atheisni held that mind, will, is subject to just as fixed laws in its volitions as physical events are in tlioir succosHions. When, however, men like Plato and Cicero rose to a more transcendent sense of moral responsibility, especially of eternal responsibility, they came to say, like Cicero, '' TJiose who maintain an eternal series of causes despoil the mind of man of free-will, and bind it in the necessity of fate." Theistic fatalism, or Predestination, consists in the jjre- determination of the Divine Will, which, determining alike the volitions of the will and the succession of physical events, reduces both to a like unfreedom ; i)ut those who hold Predestination very uniformly hold also to volitional necessity, or the subjection of will in its action to the control of strongest motive force. And as the Divine Will is held subject to the same law, so Necessity, as master o*-' God, man, and the universe, becomes a universal and abi j- a WHAT IS ARMINIANISM 1 r- \ "1 lute Fate, This doctrine, in& tailed by gaint Augustine, and still more absolutely by John Calvin, in Christian theology, is from them called Augustinianism, or, more usually, Cal- vinism. In opposition to this theology, Arminianism maintains that in order to crue responsibility, guilt, ])enalty, especially eternal 'penalty, there must be in the agent 2^ free-will ; and in a true responsible free-will the freedom must consist in the power, even in the same circumstances and under the same motives, of dioosing either icay. No man can justly be eternally damned, according to Arminianism, for a choice or action which he cannot help. If lixed by Divine decree or volitional necessity to the particular act, he cannot be held responsible or justly punished. In all such statements, however, it is pre-supposed, in order to a just responsibility, that the agent has not responsibly abdicated or destroyed his own power. No agent can plead in bar of responsibility any incapacity which he has freely and wilfully brought upon himself. It is also to be admitted that there may be suffering which is not penalty — fiuite sufferings for which there are compensations, and for which every one would take his chance for the sake of life. But eternal suffering, for which there is no compensation, inflicted as a judicial penalty on the basis oi justice, can be justly inflicted only for avoidable sin. If Divine decree or volitional necessity , determine the act, it is irresponsible, and judicial penalty is unjust. Arminianism also holds that none but the person who freely commits the sin can be guilty of that sin. One person cannot be guilty of another person's sin. A tempter may be guilty of tempting another to sin, but then one is guilty of the sin, and the other of solely the sin of tempta- tion. There can thus be no vicarious guilt ; and as punish- ment, taken strictly, can be only infliction for guilt upon WHAT IS ARMINIANISMI «* the guilty, there can literally and strictly be no vicarious punishment. If innocent Damon die for Pythias guilty of murder, Damon is not guilty because he takes Pythias' place in dying, and his death is not to him a punishment, but a suffering, which is a substitute for another man's punishment. The doer of sin is solely the sinner, the guilty, or the punished. These preliminary statements will elucidate the issues between Calvinism and Arminianism on the following points : — 1. Foreordination. — Calvinism affirms that God does, unchangeably and eternally, foreordain whatever comes to pass. That is, God, from all eternity., predetermines not only all physical events, but all the volitions of responsible agents. To this Arminianism objects that the predetermi- nation of the agent's volitions destroys the freedom of his will ; that it makes God the responsible predeterminer and wilier of sin : and that it makes every sinner to say that his sin accords with the Divine Will, and, therefore, so far as himself is concerned, is right. It makes God first decree the sin, and then punish the sinner for the sin decreed. The Arminian theory is this : God does, from all eternity, predetermine the laws of nature and the succession of physical and necessary events ; but as to free moral agents, God, knowing all possible futurities, does choose that plan of his own conduct which, in view of what each agent will ultimately in freedom do, will bring out the best results. His system is a system of his own actions. And God's predeterminations of his own acts are so far contingent as they are based on his prerecognition of what the agent will freely do ; yet as his omniscience knows the future with perfect accuracy, so he will never be deceived nor frustrated in his plans and providences. Some Arminians deny God's foreknowledge, on the ground of the intrinsic impossibility of a future contingency being 10 WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? ' .1' •n [>*ii foreknown. As the performance of a contradictory act is impossible, intrinsically, even to Omnipotence, so, say they, the knowfibility of a future contingency, being an essential contiadiction, is impossible even to Omniscience. A con- tiadiction is a nothing ; and it is very unnecessary to say in behalf of God's omniscience that he can do all things and all nothings too. So it is equally absurd to say in behalf of his omniscience that he knows all things and all nothings too. The exclusion of contradictions does not limit God's omnipotence or omniscience, but defines it. Arminians do not condemn this reasoning, but generally hold that their theory is maintainable against Calvinism on the assuniptivon of foreknowledge. They deny, as against the Calvinist, that foreknowledge has any influence upon the future of the act, as predetermination has. Predeter- mination Jixes the act — foreknowledge is fixed by the act. In foreordination God determines the act as he pleases ; in foreknowledge the agent fixes the prescience as he pleases. In the former case God is alone responsible for the creature's act ; in the latter case God holds the creature responsible, and a just divine government becomes possible. Yet most Arminians, probably, would say, with the eminent philoso- pher, Dr. Henry More, If the divine foreknowledge of the volitions of a free agent contradicts the freedom, then the fr( edom, and not the foreknowledge, is to be believed. 2. Divine Sovereignty. — Calvinism afiirras that if man is fiee God is not a sovereign. Just so far as man is free to will either way, God's power is limited. Arminians reply that if man is not free, God is not a sovereign, but sinks to a mere mechanist. If man's will is as fixed as the physical machinery of the universe, then all is machinery and not a government, and God is a machinist and not a ruler. The higher man's freedom of will is exalted above mechanism, so much higher is God elevated as a sovereign* WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? U ^ Here, according to Arminians, Calvinism degrades and destroys God's sovereignty, and Arminianism exalts it ; that the freedom of man no more limits God's power than do the laws of nature by him established ; that in both cases, equally, there is simply a self-limitation by God of the exercise of his power ; that Arminianism holds to the absoluteness of God's omnipotence just as truly as Cal- vinism, and to the grandeur of his sovereignty even more exaltedly. 3. Imjmtation of Adam's sin. — Calvinism affirms that Adam's posterity is truly guilty of Adam's sin, so as to be eternally and justly punishable therefor without a remedy. As guilty of this sin, God might have the whole race born into existence under a curse, without the power or means ot deliverance, and consigned to eternal punishment. Upon this Arminians look as a dogma violative of the funda- mental principles of eternal justice. They deny that guilt and literal punishment can, in the nature of things be thus transferred. Their theory is, that upon Adam's sin a Saviour was forthwith interposed for the race as a previous condition to the allowance of the propagation of the race by Adam, and a provision for inherited disadvantages. Had not a Redeemer been provided, mankind, after Adam, would not have been born. The race inherits the nature of fallen Adam, not by being held guilty of his sin, but by the law of natural descent, just as all posterity inherit the species- qualities, physical, mental, and moral, of the progenitor. Before his fall, the presence of the Holy Spirit with Adam in fullness supernaturally empowered him to perfect holi- ness — the tree of life imparted to him a supernatural immortality. Separated from both these, he sunk into a mere nature, subject to appetite and Satan. The race in Adam, without redemption, is totally incapable of salvation ; yet under Christ it is placed upor a new redemptive proba- 12 WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? •■^i •1 '■ 1 ■^ tion, is empowered by the quickening Spirit given to all, and, through Clnist, may, by the exercise of free agency, attain eternal life. 4. Reprobation. — Of the whole mass of mankind thus involved in guilt and punishment for sin they never actually committed, Calvinism affirms that God has left a large share "passed by" — that is, without adequate means of recovery, and with no intention to recover them — and this from the " good pleasure of his will," and for a display of his " glorious justice." The other portion of mankind God does, from " mere good pleasure," without any superior preferability in them, " elect " or choose, and confers upon them regeneration and eternal life, " all to the praise of his glorious grace." The Arminians pronounce such a pro- ceeding arbitrary, and fail to see in it either "justice " or "glorious grace/' The reprobation seems to them to be injustice, and the "grace," with such an accompaniment, unworthy the acceptance of honorable free agents. Election and reprobation, as Arminianism holds them, are condi- tioned upon the conduct and voluntary character of the subjects. All submitting to God and righteousness, by repentance of sin and true self-consecrating faith, do meet the conditions of that election ; all who persist in sin present the qualities upon which reprobation depends. And as tliis preference for the obedient and holy, and rejection of the aisobedient and unholy, lies in the very nature of God, so this election and reprobation are from before the foundations of the world. 5. Philosophical or Volitional Necessity. — Calvinism main- tains the doctrine that all volitions are determined and fixed by the force of strongest motive, just as the strokes of a clock-hammer are fixed and determined by the strongest force. The will can no more choose otherwise in a given case than the clock-hammer can strike otherwise. There is f WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? 13 ^' no " power of contrary choice." Calvinism often speaks, indeed, of " free agents," " free-will," " self-determining power," and " will's choosing by its own power ; " but bring it to analysis, and it will always, say the Arminians, be found that the freedom is the same as that of the clock- hammer — the freedom to strike as it does, and no otherwise. Arminianism affirms that if the agent has no power to will otherwise than motive-force determines, any more than a clock-hammer can strike otherwise, then there is no justice in requiring a different volition any more than a different clock-stroke. It would be requiring an impossibility. And to i)unish an agent for not performing an impossibility is injustice, and to punish him eternally, an infinite injustice. Arminianism charges, therefore, that Calvinism destroys all just punishment, and so all free volition and all divine government. 6. Infant Damnation. — Holding that the race is truly guilty, and judicially condemnable to endless torment for Adam's sin, Calvinism necessarily maintains, according to Arminians, that it is just for God to condemn all infants to eternal punishment, even those who have never performed any moral act of their own. This was held by Augustine, and wherever Calvinism has spread, this has been a part of the doctrine, more or less explicitly taught. Earlier Cal- vinists maintained ajjainst the Arminians that there is actual reprobation — that is, a real sending to hell — as well as particular election of infants. Arminianism, denying that the race is judicially guilty, or justly damnable for Adam's sin, affirms the salvation of all infants. The in- dividual man as born does, indeed, irresponsibly possess within his constitution that nature which will, amid the temptations of life, commence to sin when it obtaiiis its full-grown strength. He is not, like the unborn Christ, " that holy thing." There is, therefore, a repugnance which u WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? I PH <^i 1 i 11 1 i " - J , ■■! ♦ ■'1 5 1 ■y i 1 God and all holy beings have towards him by contrariety of nature, and an irresponsible unfitness for heaven and holy aosociation. If born immortal, with such a nature uiichangeabl»^, he must be forever unholy, and forever naturally unhai)py under the divine repugnance. Under such conditions Divine Justice would not permit the race, after the fall, to be born. But at once the future Incarnate Redeemer interposes, restores tne divine complacency, and places the race upon a new probation. Man is thereby born in a ** state of initial salvation," as Fletcher of Madeley called it, and the means of final salvation are amply placed within the reach of his free choice. 7. Pagan Damnation. — On its own principle, that power to perform is not necessary in order to obligation to perform, Calvinism easily maintains that pagans, who never heard of Christ, are rightly damned for want of faith in Christ. They may be damned for original sin, and for their own sin, and for unbelief in Christ, without any Saviour. Arminianism, on the contrary, maintains that there doubt- less arc many in pagan lands saved even by the unknown Redeemer, They, not having the law, are a law unto themselves. Nay, they may have the spirit q/Jaith, so that were Christ truly presented he would be truly accepted. They may have faith in that of which Christ is the embodi- ment, like the ancient worthies enumerated in Heb. xi. There may not be as great differences in the chances for salvation in different lands as Calvinism assumes. Where little is given, much is not required. Arminianism holds that no one of the human race is damned who has not had full chance for salvation. Missions are none the less im- portant in order to hasten the day when all shall be con- verted. If tha.t millennial age shall come, and be of long duration, Arminianism hopes that the great majority of the entire race of all ages may be finally saved. WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? 15 id r}r 8. Doctnnes of Grace. — Calvinism maintains that the death of Christ is an expiation for man's sin : first, for tho guilt of men for Adam's sin, so that it is possible for God to forgive and save ; and second, for actual sin — tha^ thereby the influence of the Spirit restores the lapsed moral powers, regenerates and saves the man. But these saving benefits are reserved for the elect onh/. Arminianism, claiming a far richer doctrine of grace, extends it to the very founda- tions of the existence of Adam's posterity. Grace underlies our very nature and life. We are born and live because Christ became incarnate and died for us. All the institutes of salvation — the chance of probation, the Spirit, the Word, the pardon, the regeneration, the resurrection, and the life eternal — are through him. And Arminianism, against Calvinism, proclaims that these are for all. Christ died for all alike ; for no one man more than for any othor man, and sufficient grace and opportunity for salvation is given to every man. Calvinism maintains the irresistibility of grace ; or, moro strongly still, that grace is ahsohite, like the act of creation, which is called irresistible with a sort of impropriety, from the fact that resistance in that connection is truly unthink- able. Against this Arminians reply that will, aided by prevenient grace, is free even in accepting pardoning grace ; that though this acceptance is no more meritorious than a beggar's acceptance of an otiered fortune, yet it is accepted freely and with full power of rejection, and is none the less grace for that. 9. Ji-stifying and Saving Faith. — Faith, according to Calvinism, is an acceptance of Christ wrought absolutely, as an act of creation in the man, whereby it is as impossible for him not savingly to believe as it is for a world to be not created, or an infant to be not born. And as this faith is resistlessly fastened in the man, so it is resistlessly kept 16 WHAT IS ARMINIANISU ? there, and the man necessarily perseveres to the end. Faith, according to Arniinianism, is, as a i^ower, indeed the gift of God, but as an act it is the free, avoidable, yet really per- formed act of the intellect, heart, and will, by which the man stnrendertj himself to Christ and all holiness for time and eternity. In consequence of this act, and not for its meritorious value or its any way compensating for or earning salvation, it is accepted for righteousness, and the man himself is accepted, pardoned, f ad saved. And as this faith is free and resectable in its beginning, so through life it continues. The Christian is as obliged, through the grace of God assisting, to freely retain it as first freely to exercise it. It is of the very essence of his probationary freedom that he is as able to renounce his faith and apos tatize as to reject it at first, 10. Extent of the Atonement and Offers of Salvation. — Earlier Calvinism maintained that Christ died for the elect alone ; later Calvinism affirms that he died for one and all, and so ofiers salvation to all on condition of faith. But Arminianisra asks. With what consistency can the atone- ment be said to be for all when, by the eternal decree of God, it is foreordained that a large part of mankind shall be excluded from its benefits 1 How also can it be for all when none can accept it but by efficacious grace, and that grace is arbitrarily withheld from a large part ? How can it be for all, when God has so ftvStened the will of a large part ol mankind, by counter motive-force, that they are unable to accept it I The same arguments show the impos- sibility of a rightful offer of salvation to all, either by God or by the Calvinistic pulpit. How can salvation be ration- ally ofi'ered to those whom God, by an eternal decree, has excluded from salvation ? What right to exhort the very men to repent whom God determines, by volitional neces- sity, not to repent ? What right to exhort men to do \ WHAT IS ARMINIANISM I 17 V K otherwise than God has willed, decreed, and foreordained they shall do] If God has decreed a thing, is not that thing right] What an awful sinner is the preacher who stands up to oppose and defeat God's decrees ? If a man is to be damned for fulfilling God's decrees, ought not that imaginary God to be, a fortim'l, damned for making such decrees ? If a man does as God decrees, ouglit he not to be by God approved and saved \ And since all men do as God decrees, wills, and determines they shall do, ought not all men to be saved, so that the true theory shall be Univer- salism ? How can grace be offered to the man whom God has decreed never to have grace ] or faith bo preaclied to those from whom God withholds the power of performing conditions? Hence, the Arminian affirms that in all public offers of a free or conditional salvation to all, the Calvin- istic pulpit contradicts its own creed. 1 1. Analogy of Temporal Siqjeriorities. — Calvinism argues that in this world God distributes advantages, such as wealth, rank, beauty, vigour, and intellect, not according to desert, but purely as a sovereign. Hence, in the same way, he may bestow on one faith and eternal life, and on others unbelief and eternal death. Arminianism replies that this very analogy between the temporal and the eternal bestowment proves the precise reverse. In this probationary world advantages are professedly distributed without regard to judicial rectitude. Men are not rewarded according to their works or voluntary character. The wicked are set on high, and Satan is this world's god. And the very difference between the dispensation of the world and that of the kingdom of God is, that in the latter blessedness is placed at every man's choice, and the result is judicially according to voluntary faith and works. The Bible nowhere places beauty or intellect at our own choice, but it does declare IS WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? faitli, repentance, and eternal life to bo in our own power, and holds us re'"ionsible for not exerting thci power. Basis of Mo I'ltij. — Calvinism claims that the very severity of its sysleni, its deep view of human guilt and necessary damnability by birth and nature, its entire sub- jection to divino absolutism, iri'e.spective of human ideas of justice, tends to produce a profound piety. Arniinianisni rci)lies that this is missing the true ideal of piety. It seems to be basing Christian morality on fundamental immorality. For God to will and predetermine the sin, and then damn the sinner— for him to impute guilt to the innocent, and so eternally damn tlie innocent as guilty — are procedures that ajipear fundamentally unrighteous, so far as the deepest intuitions of our nature can decide. Thus, first to make God in the fncfs intrinsically and absolutely bad, and then require ur::* to ascribe holiness and goodness to his character and oond\ict, perverts the moral sense. It is to make him what we are in duty bound to hate, and then require us to love and adore him. Such adoration, secured by the abdication not only of the reason, but of the moral sense, and the prostration of the soul to i)ure, naked abso- lutism, naturally results in the sombre piety of fear; just as children are frighlened into a factitious goodness by images of terror. While the pity of Jesus is serene, firm, wiiming, and gently yet powerfully subduing, the piety of absolutism tends to be stern and Judaic-like. While thus apparently defective at the roots, it does, nevertheless, often present an objective character of rectitude, a practical hardi- hood and aggressive energy in the cause of 'moralitv and regulated freedom. Arminianism, in order to a true and rational piety, sees the ideal of rectitude in the divine character and conduct, not by mere 'ascriptions contradicted hy facts, but both in the facts and the ascriptions. A har- mony of facts and intuitive reason is produced, love to the WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? 10 Divine Bciii" becomes a rational fientimcnt, and a i>icty cheerful, hopeful, merciful, and gladly obedient becomes realized. Civil and Religions Libert)/. — As the freedom of tho individual, and his own intransferablo responsibility for his own voluntary character and conduct, are fundamental prin- ciples with Arminianism, it is, in its own nature, adverse to civil or religious despotism. It has been said that when Romanism })orsecute8, it accords with its fundamental priii- ciple, the denial of right of private judgment, while when Protestantism persecutes, it contradicts itself. So when Calvinism persecutes, it obeys an intrinsic absolutism, whilo if Arminianism persecutes, it contradicts its own freedom and individualism. Yet jJositioii has often in history pro- duced in all these parties palpable violations of, and dis- cordance with, their j^rinci pie. Romanists often become by position asserters of ultra-democracy, and Protestants of absolute despotism. And so Calvinism has, historically, been bij jwsition the advocate for revolution, and Arminian- ism the asserter of authority. In fact, as Arminianism has been, as above shown, the ruling doctrine of the Church, and Calvinism an insurgent specialty, so the historical position of the first has been favourable to the assertion of authority, and the normal position of the latter has been revolt. This may be called one of the accidents of histori/. P,o t\if dearned Selden, in his " Table-Talk," remarked on the curious contradiction in the English civil war, that the advocates of absolutism in religion were the advocates of political liberty, and vice versa. Yet it may, perhaps, be truly said that when the religious absolutist gains the power he is apt to be an absolute, though a conscientious, de-pot. He makes a better rebel than ruler. Professor Fisher, a Calvinist, gives a severely true picture of the conscientious despotism of Calvinism at Geneva. A similar despotism. 20 WHAT IS AJIMINIANISM ? on a lurgor Hcalo, in Fingland, under (yroniwoll, nMulcnjd the nation willing by reaction to rush into tli«! (U'pravities of tlio K(!storation. Driven to America, ev<»n wliihs under the rul(! of an Arniiiiian nioiuircliy, a Hiuiilar despuLisni, on a muall Hcale, ov<;rs|)read New JOnj^land. Nor was Calvinism, as Prol'essor Fislier tiuly alllrms, the advocate of liberty of conscience. Not only did Calvin liimsidf banish Bolsec, ruin Castellio, and favour the execu- tion of Servctus, but he maintained, doctiinally, the diUij of thi Di'KjifitnUc. to j)tf,aish lutres;/. IJezn, iiis learned suc- cessor, wrote a treatise in favour of punishing heretics, liogerman, the preaident at the Synod of D )rt, was the translator of lieza's essay. It is but too ovid'^nt that the Protestant Calvinists differed with tlie Romanists, not about tlie punishment of heretics, but about who the heretics to be jmnished were. In this respect the Calvinism of the new Church and the Arminianism of the ohl were nearly upon a par. The new Church, however, belni'^'oil to the ]:)rogressive order of things ; but wliothcr, tinally, the Cal- vinism or the Arminianism of the n^vf (Jhurch first actually proclaimed toleration is a matter of (lueslion. Comparative Morality. — Mr. Frovule endeavours, l)y com- parison, to show that Calvinism is superior to Arminianism in morals, by selecting his own examples. But the Arminian may, perhaps, in reply make also Jiis selections. Scottish Calvinism has an unquestioned severity of morals, but are Scotch character and history, as a whole, even ethically superior to the English 1 Is the morality of Pres- byterianism, in its entire aspect, superior to that of Mora- vianism, Quakerism, or Wesleyan Methodism ? Are our American Calvinistic Baptists more Christian in morals than the Free-will Baptists? Is there any umpire qualified to decide that the devout Presbyterian is superior to the devout Episcopalian 1 Did Jonathan ^ Edwards present a WHAT IS AR.MIMANI8M ? 21 type of piety superior to that of Fletchor of Mudoloy 1 or John Calvin to that of JaiiieH Arininius ? Can Calvinism show a grander typo of an evangelist than was .lohn Wesley in England or Francis Ashury in America I Has she i)r()- duced, in fill lujr history a system of (jvangrlism as earnest, as self-sacrilicing, as aggressive, as the itinerant ministry of English and American Methodism I Tiiking the entiie l)ody of Calvinisni since the Jleformation, does it excel in [lui-ity, martyrdom, doctrine, and missionary enterprise the (Arminian) (*hurch of the ilrst centnries I If it comes to counting persons, has any section of the Church nobler names than Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenjeus, Origen, Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome, (*hry.sostom, John of Damascus, Ilincmar of Rheims, Frasnius, Luther, Me- lancthon, Sir Thomas More, Calixtus, Savonarola, Arminius, Grotius, Episco[)ius, Limborch, Curcelheus, John Milton, John Goodwin, Jeremy Taylor, Cudworth, Bishop Butler, Bishop Bull, Bengel, Wetstein, Wesley, Fletcher, and Kichard Watson l Comparative Republicanism. — Nor did, nor docs, Pre- destination, as compared with Arminianism, possess any peculiar allinity with re[)ublicanism against monarchy. By its very nature Calvinism establishes an infinite and eternal distinction between different parts of mankind, made by divine prerogative, by which one is born in a divine aris- tocracy, and the other in an eternal helpless and hopeless pariahism ; while Arminianism, holding every man equal before God, proclaims an equal yet resistible grace for all, a universal atonement and Saviour alike to all, an equal power of acceptance in all, a free, unpredestined chance for every man to be the artificer of his own eternal, as well as temporal, fortunes. Caste, partialism, are the character- istics of the former ; equality, universality, republicanism, of the latter. It is as plain as consciousness can make any 22 WHAT IS ARMIITIANISM ? fact that it is the latter that is the natural ally, not of monarchies, aristocracies, or hierarchies, but of regulated freedom. Hence, neither Luther nor Calvin was any more a republican than Eck or Erasmus. Augustine and Gotts- chalk were good papists, and Augustinianism was as entirely at home under the tiara of Gregory the Great as under the cap of Bogerman — in the court of Charlemagne, as in the camp of the Covenanter. Irrespective of their Calvinism, the lifcfoimers everywhere acted according to conditions. Where kings and nobles favoured them, they favoured kings and nobles ; where (as was generally the case) they were rejected by rank and power, and had nothing to make royalty and aristocracy out of, they fashioned a theocratic Commune, out of which modern political exj)crience has picked Kome aids and methods for voluntary government. Modern experience has eliminated the theocracy, the intol- erance, and the predestinarianism, and added the elements to make llpi)ublicanism. For all this it duly thanks the Reformers, but does not thank their Calvinism. History of Arminianism. — The theology of freedom, essentiall}'^ Arminianism, in opposition to predestination, necessitated volitions, and imputation of guilt to the inno- cent is universally acknowledged to have been the doctrine of the entire Christian Church through its most glc lous perit)d, the martyr age of the first three centuries. Tiie Calvinistic historian of theology, Hagenbach, says, (vol. i. p. 155 :) " All the Greek Fathers, as well as the apologists Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the Latin Minucius Felix, exalt the autonomy or self-deterniination of the human soul. They know nothing of any imputation of sin, except as a voluntary or moral self-determination is pre-supposed. Even Irenaeus and Tertullian strongly insist upon this self-determination in the use of freedom of the will." Again, (157 :) " Even the opponents of human WHAT IS ARMINIANISMI 23 liberty, as Calvin, are compelled to acknowledge this re- markable unanimity of the Fathers, and in order to account for it they are obliged to suppose a general illusion about this doctrine ! " Arminians contend that we know as well when predes- tination was introduced into the Church— namely, by Augustine— as we do when transubstantiation and image worship were introduced ; that it was in the fourth century, when Pelagius, upon one extreme, made free-will dispense with divine grace, Augustine, on the other extreme, made divine grace irresistibly nullify free-will, and thus both lost their balance ; that both invented dogmas never before recognized in the Church ; that, tried by the previous mind of tiie Church, both were equally heretical ; that the heresy of one, pushed to the extreme, becomes rationalism and pure fleism— the heresy of the other, pushed to extreme, becomes presumptuous antinomianism. They assert that the Eastern Church maintained her primitive position, neither Pelagian on one side nor Augustinian on the other, essentially in the position of modern Arminianism ; that hence Arminianism is not a covipromisc, but the primitive historical position, the permanent centre, rejecting innovations and extremes on either side ; that the Western Church, in spite of the great name of Augustine, never became Augustinian. Tt is, indeed, customarily said by anti-Arminian writers tliat this was because the " age of systematic theology " had not then arrived. Arminians reply that a theology not only unrecognized during that best period of the Cl)urch, but, still more, a theology unanimously condemned as heretical by that period, has little right now to lay claim to pre- eminent Christian orthodoxy. The Eastern Church- namely, the Churches of Asia, with whom the language ot our Lord and his apostles was essentially vernacular ; the Greek Church, to whom the language of the New Testament 24 WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? was vernacular ; and tlie Russian Church, embracing many millions — all inherited and retain, firmly and unanimously, the theoloirv of freedom, essential Arminianism. The learned Calvinistic scholar, Dr. Shedd, in his " History of Doctrines, (vol. ii., p. 198) says : " The Augustinian anthropology was rejected in the East, and, though at first triumphant in the West, was gradually displaced by the semi-Pelagian theory, or the theory of iniierited evil [instead of inherited guilt] and synergistic [or co-operative] regeneration. This theory was finally stated for the papal Church in exact form by the Council of Trent. The Augustinian anthropology, tliough advocated in the Middle Ages by a few individuals like Gottscluilk, Bede, Anselm, slumbered until the Keformation, when it was revived by Luther and Calvin, and opposed by the papists." It will thus be seen, on a review of th(^ universal Church in all ages, how small, though respectable a minority, Augustinianism, before the Reformation, ever was. With minor exceptions. Arminianism was the doc- trine of the universal Church. The accuracy of Dr. Shedd's statement of the general non-existence of Augustinianism during the Middle Ages is not invalidated by the fact of the great authority of Augustine's name, arising from the powerful genius and voluminous writings of the man. It was no proof that a man was truly Augustinian because he belonged to the " Augustinian order," or quoted Augustine's authority. Such Schoolmen as Bernard, Anselm, and Peter Lombard modified Augustine's doctrine materially \ Bonaventura and Duns Scotus were essentially Arminians, and Hincmar, of Rheims, and Savonarola literally so. Gottschalk, the high predestinarian, was condemned for heresy, and Thomas Bradwardine, 'he *' second G-ottschalU," made complaints, doubtless overstrained, that in his day " almost the whole world had become Pelagian." TMM WHAT IS ARMINIANI9M? 26 At the Reformation, however, we encounter the phe- nomenon that all the eminent leaders at first not only adopted, but even exaggerated, the absolutism of Augustine. This might seem strange, for it was apparently natural that the absolute papacy should identify itself with the absolute, imd that asserters of freedom would have stood on the free- will theology. The twin doctrines of the supremacy of Scripture, and of justification by faith, were amply sufficient, without predestination, for their purpose to abolish the whole system of popish corruption. The former dethroned alike the authority of tradition and the popedom; the latter swept away alike the mediations of Mary, saints, and priests. But the tirst heroic impulse of reform tends to magnify the issues to their utmost dimensions. The old free-will theology belonged universally to thc; old historic Church, and was identified by the first Reformers with its corruptions. Luther at tirst, in his reply to Erasmus " On the Bondage of the Will," uttered fatalisms that probably had hardly ever been heard in the Christian Church, and perhaps it would be hard to find a Calvinist at the present day who would adopt the trenchant predestinarian utter- ances of Calvin. Under the indoctrinations of these leaders, especially of Calvin at Geneva, the absolute doctrines were diffused and formed into the creeds of Germany, the Neth- erlands, France, England, and Switzerland. But in Ger- many the " second sober thought " of Melancthon, who at first coincided with Luther, receded from predestination, and Melancthon himself intimates that Luther receded with him ; so that the Lutherans are now essentially Arminian. In the Netherlands the same " second thought," led by Arminius himself, was suppressed by State power. In France, Protestantism, which was Calvinistic, was over- whelmed in blood. In England the Calvinism was gener- ally of a gentle type, and the same " second thought," was Ii6 WHAT IS ARMINIANISM 1 awakened by the Arminian writings of Grotius and Epis- copius diffused through Europe. And as the English Church gradually inclined to the ancient high episcopacy of the old Church, so it adopted the ancient Arminianism. '"^alvinism, persecuted and oppressed, overthrew monarchy and Church, and for a brief period ruled with hardly less intolerance, until, overthrown in turn, Calvinism took refuge in America, and laid foundations here. Even here past sufferings did not teach tolerance, and that doctrine had to be learned from checks and lessons administered by sur- rounding sources. Calvinism has, nevertheless, here acted a noble part in our Christian civilization. It, perhaps, about equally divides the evangelic Church with Arminianism. Arminianism, proper and Protestant, came into existence under the severe persecution by Dutch Calvinism, in which the great and good Arminius himself was a virtual martyr. The Synod of Dort, the standard council of the Calvinistic fnith, made itself subservient to the unprincipled and sanguinary usurper, Maurice ; and even during its sessions the judicial murder of the great Arminian and republican statesman. Olden Barnevelt, was triumphantly announced at Dort, to overawe the Arminians at the synod, who were bravely maintaining their cause under the leadership of the eloquent Episcopius. Then followed the banishment of Episcopius, the imprisonment of Grotius, the ejection of hundreds of Arminian ministers from their pulpits, and the firing of soldiers upon the religious assemblies of Arminian worshippei s. The great Arminian writers of Holland, Epis- copius, Grotius, and Limborch, are claimed by Arminian writers to be the first public proclaimers of the doctrine of Hberty of conscience in Europe, as those two Arminian Puritans, John Milton and John Goodwin, were its earliest proclaimers in England. Wesleyan Methodisri is now by all admitted to be a great \ WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? 27 modern Arminian development. Beginning most humbly as a half-unconscious av/akening, amid the general reli<^iou8 chill of Protestantism, it has not only quickened the reli- gious life of the age, but gathered, it is said, twelve millions of worshippers into its congregations throughout the world. Its theology is very definite, and very nearly the exact theology of James Arminius himself, and of the first tliree centuries. Cradled in both the Arminianism and Hiirh Churchism of the English establishment, Wesley's maturer years earnestly approved the Arminianism, but severed it from the High Churchism. The connection between Armin- ianism and High Churchism is hereby clearly revealed to be historical and incidental, rather than intrinsic or logical. Yet, even after adopting the doctrine that every Church has the right to shape its own government, as a lover of the primitive, post-apostolic Church, as well as from notions of Christian expediency, Wesley preferred and provided for American Methodism, an episcopal form of government. Arminian Methodism has. in little more than a century of her existence, apparently demonstrated that the Augustinian " systematic theology" is unnecessary, and what it deems the primitive theology amply sufiicient for the production of a profound de})tli of piety, a free ecclesiastical system, an energetic missionary enterprise, and a rapid evangelical success. She exhibits in her various phases every form of government, from the most decisive system of episcopacy to the simplest Congregationalism, all voluntarily adopted, and changeable at will. The problems she has thus wrought suggest the thought that the free, simple theology of the earliest age m. y be the universal theology of the latest. Personal History of Arminius. — The name of Arminius in his native language was Jacobus Hermans, identical with Herman, the name of the hero of Germany, who destroyed the Roman lej^ions under Varus. And as this name was 28 WHAT IS ARMINIANISM ? trausformed into Aiminius by Tacitus and other Roman writers, so, in accordance with the custom of the age when Latin was the language of current literature, this name was Latinized, and has come down in modern English as James Arminius. He was born in 1560 at Oude water, (''Old water,") a small town in the Southern Netherlands. He lost his father in early childhood, and, his mother being left in straitened circumstances, the promising intellect of the boy so attracted the attention of patrons that he was taken to school at JNIarburg. When fifteen years of age his native town, Oudewater, was taken by the Spaniards, and his mother, brother, and sister were all massacred, leaving him the sole survivor of his family. He was sent by his patrons to the new university at Leyden, where he remained six years. Such was his proficiency that the city of Amsterdam adopted him as her vesterling or foster-child, to be educated at the public expense, being bound by a written obligation to be at the command of the city through life. He studied at Geneva under Beza, as well as at Basle under Gryneas. At the latter place he was offered a doctorate, but declined the offer on account of his youth. By Beza he was commended to Amsterdam in high terms. He then went to Italy to become accomplished in philosoijhy under Zerabella, and, having visited Bome and the other princiixil cities, returned to Amsterdam, where he was installed minister at the age of twenty-eight. Arminius's ministry in Amsterdam, of fourteen years' duration, forms the second period of his life. His learning and eloquence, were rapidly rendering him one of the leading theologians and preachers of his age. He was of middling size, had dark, piercing eyes, and voice light but clear, and possessing a winning mellowness. His manners were magnetic, and he had the power of fastening firm friends He was condescending to the lowly, and a WHAT IS ARMINIANISM'/ 29 sympathizing guide to the religious inquirer. At the same time he was an independent seeker and follower of truth. In 1585 the extreme predestinarianism prevalent in the Netherlands had been for ten years so effectively attacked by liichard Coornhert, an eminent patriotic and acute layman of Amsterdam, that Arrainius was invited by the city to refute him. In a debate at Delft between Coornhert and two high Calvinistic clergymen, the latter were so hard pressed that they yielded, and took the lower or sublapaarian ground, and published a pamphlet against the higher view. The extreme Calvinists called upon Martin Lydius, professor of theology in Friesland, to refute them, but he handed over the task to Arminius, who had thus a douljle request on his hands. He bravely undertook the task, but was soon convinced of the unten- ableness of either the higher or lower predestination. At the expense of an ignominious failure in even attacking Coornhert, he resolved to pursue the light of honest con- viction. Avoiding the entire subject in public, he pro- S(>cuted his investigations with earnest study. Yet, in lecturing on Komans vii, having given the non-Calvinistic interpretation, he found himself generally assailed by the high Calvinists as a Pelagian and Socinian. He was arraigned before the ecclesiastical courts, where he success- fully defended himself on the ground that, though adverse to the prevalent opinions, his interpretation contradicted nothing in the standards \ namely, the Belgic Confession and the Catechism. Being questioned as to predestination, he declined to answer, as no fact was alleged against him. In prosecuting his inquiries he determined to consult privately the best theologians of the day. He commenced a confidential correspondence with Professor Francis Junius, of the University of Leyden, the most eminent of the Dutch theologians. He was delighted to find how far Junius 30 WHAT IS AKMINIANI8M ? coincided with him, but when lie addressed to Junius the arguments for still iiio)-e advanced views, the professor kept the letter by him unanswered fur six years, when he died. The friends of ArnniiiuH believefl that this silence arose from the fact that Junius found more than he could answer or was willing to admit. LI u fortunately, his correspondence was inadvertently expo.^ed by Junius to discovery, and was used to the disadvanttige of, Arniinius. Arminius, also, having received a treatise in favour of predestination by Professor Perkins, of Oambiid^e, i)repared an epistle to him, but WHS prevented by Perkins's death from sending it. His letters both to Junius and Perkins are euil)odied in his published works, and, whatever may be thought of the validity of the argument, no one will deny that in candor, courtesy, and Christian dignity they are hardly to be surpassed. On the death of Junius the curators of the University of Leyden looked to Arminius as his successor. The reluctant consent of Amsterdam being at length gained, Arminius assented. But the predestinariaus, led by Gomarus, senior professor of theology at Tieyden, 0|)posed his election. After a long series of strifes, Arminius ofiered to meet Gomarus and satisfy his objections. Tlie meeting took place, and Gomarus, admitting that he li ad judged Aiminius by hearsay, after Arminiu.s had fully declared his entire opposition to Pelagianisiu and Socinianism, fully renounced his objections. So far as predestination was concerned, each professor was to deliver his own sentiments with moderation, and all collision with the other was to be avoided ; and Arminius was thereupon elected. The six years of his Leyden professorship closing with his death are the most important yet troublous [)eriod of his career. The terms of peace were bi'oken within the first year by Gomarus, who delivered a violent public harangue WHAT IS AUMINIANIUM / 31 on predebtination in terms of ijiHult to Arminins, who was personally present; to which the hitter pre])iirerla refutation clothed in terms of personal respect toward his opponent. Gomarns afterward confessed that lie could easily live at j)eace w'th Arminius hut for the cleigy and Churches, who were intensely hostile tt) his libeial doctrines. Their Belgic Confession, Calvinistic as it was, was sacred in their hearts as being the banner under whicii they had fought the battle of civil and religious liberty against Spain and popery ; and they now, alas ! were making it the instrument of religious intolerance. Arminius was held as invalidating that Con- fession, and so was every-where traduced by the clergy as a bapist, a Pelagian, and a Coornherter. Yet, really, the doctrines he taught were essentially the doctrines of St. Chrysostom, Melanchthoii, Jeremy Taylor, and John Wesley. In regard to the Confession, he ever treated it with reverence, and only claimed the right of that same liberality of interpretation which Lutherans exercised with the Augsburg Confession — a liberality similar to that which the English clergy now exercise in regard to the seventeenth of their Tiiirty-Nine Articles. A voluntary Chuich may, like any other voluntary association, be, if it pleases, stringent in its interpretations, but a State Church, which strains all to a tight interpretation of a specific creed under pain of State disabilities, runs into religious despotism. This was, therefore, a genuine contest for religious liberty. Arminius was proscribed by the clergy, harassed by irresponsible deputations, and his students were subjected to persecutions and exclusions from the ministry. The more intelligent laity, including the magistracy, and especially the chief magistrate. Olden Barnevelt, were favourable to Arminius, who at length appealed to the national legislature (called the States-General) for protection. That body appointed a committee or council, who, having heard both Gomarus and TO WHAT IS ARMINIANISM? ArminiuH in full, io)iorted that the latter taught nothing but what could be tolerated. Before the States-General themselves Arminius delivercMl a full oration, expounding his entire views, which is published in the American edition ot* his works. The clergy demanded the appointment of a national synod, consisting purely of ecclesiastics, but the States-C ^neral, well knowing what would bo the fate of Arminius in their hands, refused. Under the constant pressure of these years of persecution the gentle spirit of Arminius at length sunk. He was taken from the bloody times that followed the Synod cf Dort. HiH nervous system was prostrated, and, attended by his faithful pupJ, the afterward celebrated Episcopius, he died in the faith he had maintained, October 19, 1609, a martyr to his views of truth. Guardian Office Print, Toronto. "'-'^i->,i-' 'r-1^ ':'«v-'1 '^.'. ' •^^.^■■^.:-v *:-,■• J. rV^' •^^■^i If--- "■.■•■> ^fi?t' ^" M"^ -; V ■■-.Voir,.- •:,.:, ., ;; . \, -,[_■.-:- : i$»^l .-^'Z^ ,.\C^'^,' -. ■" -c,- V - :•. ■ , .; ^ ■ „ ,^ ;,u-: -'V--^,-^;t- "" '!='''. K L'^'-^^P-^