Arminianism: The Road
to Rome!
by Augustus MontagueToplady
( 1740 - 1778 )
Whose Voice Do You Hear?
"My sheep,
saith Christ, hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. O,
most worthy Scriptures! which ought to compel us to have a faithful
remembrance, and to note the tenor thereof; which is, the sheep of
Christ shall never perish.
"Doth Christ
mean part of his elect, or all, think you? I do hold, and affirm,
and also faithfully believe, that he meant all his elect, and not
part, as some do full ungodly affirm. I confess and believe assuredly,
that there shall never any of them perish: for I have good authority
so to say; be- cause Christ is my author, and saith, if it were possible,
the very elect should be deceived. Ergo, it is not possible that they
can be so deceived, that they shall ever finally perish, or be damned:
wherefore, whosoever doth affirm that there may be any (i.e. any of
the elect) lost, doth affirm that Christ hath a torn body."1
The above
valuable letter of recantation is thus inscribed: "A Letter to the
Congregation of Free-willers, by One that had been of that Persuasion,
but come off, and now a Prisoner for Religion:" which superscription
will hereafter, in its due place, supply us with a remark of more
than slight importance.
John Wesley, A Friend
of Rome?
To occupy
the place of argument, it has been alleged that "Mr. Wesley is an
old man;" and the Church of Rome is still older than he. Is that any
reason why the enormities, either of the mother or the son, should
pass unchastised?
It has also
been suggested, that "Mr. Wesley is a very laborious man:" not more
laborious, I presume, than a certain active being, who is said to
go to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it:2 nor yet more
laborious, I should imagine, than certain ancient Sectarians, concerning
whom it was long ago said, "Woe unto you Scribes, hypocrites; for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte:"3 nor, by any means,
so usefully laborious, as a certain diligent member of the community,
respecting whose variety of occupations the public have lately received
the following intelligence: "The truth of the following instance of
industry may be depended on: a poor man with a large family, now cries
milk, every morning, in Lothbury, and the neighbourhood of the Royal
Exchange; at eleven, he wheels about a barrow of potatoes; at one,
he cleans shoes at the Change; after dinner, cries milk again; in
the evening, sells sprats; and at night, finishes the measure of his
labour as a watchman."4
The Quarrel
is With the Wolf
Mr. Sellon,
moreover, reminds me (p. 128.) that, "while the shepherds are quarrelling,
the wolf gets into the sheep fold;" not impossible: but it so happens,
that the present quarrel is not among "the shepherds," but with the
"wolf" himself; which "quarrel" is warranted by every maxim of pastoral
meekness and fidelity.
I am further
told, that, while I am "berating the Arminians, Rome and the devil
laugh in their sleeves." Admitting that Mr. Sellon might derive this
anecdote from the fountain head, the parties themselves, yet, as neither
they nor he are very conspicuous for veracity, I construe the intelligence
by the rule of reverse, though authenticated by the deposition of
their right trusty and well-beloved cousin and counsellor.
Once more:
I am charged with "excessive superciliousness, and majesty of pride:"
and why not charged with having seven heads and ten horns, and a tail
as long as a bell-rope? After all, what has my pride, or my humility,
to do with the argument in hand? Whether I am haughty, or meek, is
of no more consequence either to that, or to the public, than whether
I am tall or short: however, I am, at this very time, giving one proof,
that my "majesty of pride" can stoop; that even to ventilate the impertinences
of Mr. Sellon.
Arminianism at Home
in Rome
But, however
frivolous his cavils, the principles for which he contends are of
the most pernicious nature and tendency. I must repeat, what already
seems to have given him so much offence, that Arminianism "came from
Rome, and leads thither again." Julian, bishop of Eclana a contemporary
and disciple of Pelagius, was one of those who endeavoured, with much
art, to gild the doctrines of that heresiarch, in order to render
them more sightly and palatable. The Pelagian system, thus varnished
and paliated, soon began to acquire the softer name of Semipelagianism.
Let us take a view of it, as drawn to our hands by the celebrated
Mr. Bower, who himself, in the main, a professed Pelagian, and therefore
less likely to present us with an unfavourable portrait of the system
he generally approved. Among the principles of that sect, this learned
writer enumerates the following:
"The notion
of election and reprobation, independent on our merits or demerits,
is maintaining a fatal necessity, is the bane of all virtue, and serves
only to render good men remiss in working out their salvation, and
to drive sinners to despair.
"The decrees
of election and reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of,
our good or evil works, as foreseen by God from all eternity."5
Is not this
too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans
of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said,
"True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it
does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:"
a moment's cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us
again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately
adds, "on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole
system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians,
against the Jansenists and St. Augustine."6 The Jesuits were moulded
into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century:
toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the
Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern
from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur
Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very
time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed
to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians
in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship,
I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some
of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for
others, to the disciples of Loyola.
Papists and Predestination
Certain it
is, that Arminius himself was sensible, how greatly the doctrine of
predestination widens the distance between Protestantism and Popery.
"There is no point of doctrines (says he) which the Papists, the Anabaptists,
and the (new) Lutherans more fiercely oppose, nor by means of which
they heap more discredit on the reformed churches, and bring the reformed
system itself into more odium; for they (i.e. the Papists, & etc.)
assert, that no fouler blasphemy against God can be thought or expressed,
than is contained in the doctrine of predestination."7 For which reason,
he advises the reformed world to discard predestination from their
creed, in order that they may live on more brotherly terms with the
Papists, the Anabaptists, and such like.
The Arminian
writers make no scruple to seize and retail each other's arguments,
as common property. Hence, Samuel Hoord copies from Van Harmin the
self same observation which I have now cited. "Predestination (says
Samuel) is an opinion odious to the Papists, opening their foul mouths,
against our Church and religion:"8 consequently, our adopting the
opposite doctrines of universal grace and freewill, would, by bringing
us so many degrees nearer to the Papists, conduce to shut their mouths,
and make them regard us, so far at least, as their own orthodox and
dearly beloved brethren: whence it follows, that, as Arminianism came
from Rome, so "it leads thither again."
The Jesuits and Predestination
If the joint
verdict of Arminius himself, and of his English proselyte Hoord, will
not turn the scale, let us add the testimony of a professed Jesuit,
by way of making up full weight. When archbishop Laud's papers were
exam- ined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that
prelate's own hand: "March, 1628. A Jesuit's Letter, sent to the Rector
at Bruxels, about the ensuing Parliament." The design of this letter
was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels,
an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England;
an extract from it I shall here subjoin: "Father Rector, let not the
damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending
the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many
strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme,
which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it
flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention
of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's
(of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which
stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out:
we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at
this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments
and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes.
But, to return unto the maine fabricke:--OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME.
The Arminians and projectors, as it appeares in the premises, affect
mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments."9
The Sovereign Drug Arminianism
The "Sovereign
drug, Arminianism," which said the Jesuit, "we (i.e. we Papists) have
planted" in England, did indeed bid fair "to purge our Protestant
Church effectually. How merrily Popery and Arminianism, at that time,
danced hand in hand, may be learned from Tindal: "The churches were
adorned with paintings, images, altar-pieces, & etc. and, instead
of communion tables, alters were set up, and bowings to them and the
sacramental elements enjoined. The predestinarian doctrines were forbid,
not only to be preached, but to be printed; and the Arminian sense
of the Articles was encouraged and propagated."10 The Jesuit, therefore,
did not exult without cause. The "sovereign drug," so lately "planted,"
did indeed take deep root downward, and bring forth fruit upward,
under the cherishing auspices of Charles and Laud. Heylyn, too, acknowledges,
that the state of things was truly described by another Jesuit of
that age, who wrote: "Protestantism waxeth weary of itself. The doctrine
(by the Arminians, who then sat at the helm) is altered in many things,
for which their progenitors forsook the Church of Rome: as limbus
patrum; prayer for the dead, and possibility of keeping God's com-
mandments; and the accounting of Calvinism to be heresy at least,
if not treason."11
Arminianism From the Pit
The maintaining
of these positions, by the Court divines, was an "alteration" indeed;
which the abandoned Heylyn ascribes to "the ingenuity and moderation
found in some professors of our religion." If we sum up the evidence
that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism
came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence
it was digged.
Augustus
Toplady