1.
To say, "This man is an Arminian," has the same effect on many
hearers, as to say, "This is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright
at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly
stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.
2.
The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose. Those
on whom it is fixed know not what to do: Not understanding what it means, they
cannot tell what defence to make, or how to clear themselves from the charge.
And it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know
no more of it, than that it is "something very bad," if not "all
that is bad!"
3.
To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be of use to many:
To those who so freely pin this name upon others, that they may not say what
they do not understand; to those that hear them, that they may be no longer
abused by men saying they know not what; and to those upon whom the name is
fixed, that they may know how to answer for themselves.
4.
It may be necessary to observe, First, that many confound Arminians with
Arians. But this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to
the other. An Arian is one who denies the Godhead of Christ; we scarce need
say, the supreme, eternal Godhead; because there can be no God but the supreme,
eternal God, unless we will make two Gods, a great God and a little one. Now,
none have ever more firmly believed, or more strongly asserted, the Godhead of Christ,
than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; yea, and do at this day.
Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally different from Arianism.
5.
The rise of the word was this: JAMES HARMENS, in Latin, Jacobes Arminius, was first one of the
Ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was
educated at Geneva; but in the year 1591 began to doubt of the principles which
he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were
wrong, when he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly taught what he
believed the truth, till, in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years
after his death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head,
furiously assaulted all that held what were called his opinions; and having
procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so
numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent,)
some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out
of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in
Church or State.
6.
The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they
deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they
deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be
irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.
With
regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are
entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted
either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and
express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be
set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is
not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.
7.
But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians,
with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe
absolute, the latter only conditional, predestination. The Calvinists hold,
(1.) God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to save such and such
persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these, and none else. The
Arminians hold, God has decreed, from all eternity, touching all that have the
written word, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not,
shall be condemned:" And in order to this, "Christ died for all, all
that were dead in trespasses and sins;" that is, for every child of Adam,
since "in Adam all died."
8.
The Calvinists hold, Secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely
irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it, than to resist the
stroke of lightning. The Arminians hold, that although there may be some
moments wherein the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet, in general, any man
may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will of
God he should have been eternally saved.
9.
The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly
fall from grace. The Arminians hold, that a true believer may "make
shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" that he may fall, not only
foully, but finally, so as to perish for ever.
10.
Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance,
are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if
God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it
follows, both that they cannot resist his saving grace, (else they might miss
of salvation,) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they
cannot resist. So that, in effect, the three questions come into one, "Is
predestination absolute or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it is
conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.
11.
Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the
cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not
understand. And how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one
page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the
term means; and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a
level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as
Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned,
sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned,
sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute
predestination; the latter, conditional.
12.
One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in
public or in private, to use the word Calvinist
as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling
names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than
it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his
hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not
equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in
private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of
reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from
doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more
earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps
encouraged therein by his own example!
From the Thomas Jackson edition of The Works of John Wesley, 1872.