"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.
For further study: Christopher Ness, An Antidote Against Arminianism; J.
Warne, Arminianism: The Back Door to Popery; John Knox, On Predestination in
Works vol. 5; John Owen, A Display of Arminianism; Pink, The Sovereignty of God;
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will; C. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith;
Gary North, 75 Bible Questions Your Instructors Pray You Won't Ask; W. MacLean,
Arminianism Another Gospel; and Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons. This
newsletter is an ex- cerpt from The Complete Works of Augustus Toplady (Sprinkle
Publ., [1794] 1987, pp. 54-55).
Subtitles in the body of this newsletter and all emphases have been added by
the editor, Reg Barrow.