PREFATORY NOTE. 3
First, perhaps, in the order of time, this discussion was revived in Poland, and in con- nection with the heresies of Socinus. The divinity of Christ, the nature of the atone- ment, and the corruption of human nature, are all doctrines essentially connected. It is because Christ is divine that an adequate satisfaction has been rendered, in his suffer- ings, to the claims of divine justice ; and such an atonement is indispensable for our salvation, if man, because dead in sin, has no power to achieve salvation by any merit of his own. A denial of the total corruption of our nature seems essential to the Uni- tarian system ; so far there is common ground between the systems of Pelagius and Socinus. It is not wonderful that this measure of identity should develop consequences affecting the doctrine of the divine purposes and of predestination, though it is beyond our limits to trace either the necessary or the histoi'ical evolution of these consequences. Spanheim, in his " Elenchus Conti'oversiarum," p. 237, ascribes the origin of the Armi- nian controversy in Holland to certain emissaries, Ostorodius and Voidovius, despatched by the Polish Socinians into the Low Countries, for the purpose of propagating the tenets of their sect. Their tenets respecting the Trinity and the atonement took no root in these countries ; but Spanheim affirms that it was otherwise in regard to certain opi- nions of Socinus, " quae ille recoxit ex Pelagii disciplina," on predestination, free-will, and the ground of justification before God.
About the same time, the Church of Rome was shaken to its centre by the same con- troversy. The Jesuits had always Pelagian leanings, and in the Council of Trent their influence was triumphant, and, so far as its decrees stereotype the Romish creed, sealed the doom of the waning authority of Augustine. Louis Molina, in 1588, made an at- tempt, in his lectures on " The Concord of Grace and Free-will," to unite the conflicting theories. The Jesuits regarded his attempt with no favour. A lengthened controversy arose, in which Molinism, as partly a deviation from, and partly a compromise of, the fundamental principles of the Augustinian system, was effectually assailed by the piety of Janseu, the learning of Arnauld, and the genius of Pascal, till the bull Unigenitus secured a lasting triumph for Jesuitism, by the authoritative condemnation of the doc- trines of Augustine, as declared in the collection of extracts from his writings which Jansen had published under the title " Augustinus."
But it was in Holland that the controversy on this point arose which had the chief influence on British theology, and reduced the questions at issue to the shape under which they are discussed by Owen in his " Display of Arminianism." On the death of an eminent theologian of the name of Junius, Arminius was called to the vacant chair in the University of Leydeu. Gomar, a professor in the same university, and the Pres- bytery of Amsterdam, opposed his appointment, on the ground of his erroneous prin- ciples. On giving a pledge that he would teach nothing at variance with the Belgic Confession and Catechism, he was allowed to enter on his office as professor in 1 603. Gomar and he again fell into a dispute on the subject of predestination, — the origin of prolonged troubles and controversies in the Church of Holland. Gomar and his party were supported by the majority of the clergy in the church. Arminius depended upon the political support of the state. The former sought a national synod to adjudi- cate on the prevailing controversy. The latter, having the ear of the state, contrived to prevent it. Stormy scenes ensued, amid which Arminius died, and Episcopius became the leader of the Remonstrants, as his followers were called, from a remonstrance which they submitted in 1610 to the States of Holland and West Friesland. The Remon- strants levied soldiers to sustain their cause, and the provinces resounded with military preparations. At last, profiting by the confusion, Maurice, the head of the house of Orange, by a series of daring and reckless movements, seized upon the government of the States. In deference to Gomar and his party, he convened a general synod on the 13th November 1618. The doctrines of Arminius were condemned, and five articles were drawn up and published as the judgment of the synod on the points in dispute. The first asserts election by grace, in opposition to election on the ground of foreseen excellence ; in the second God is declared to have willed that Christ should efjim- ciously redeem all those, and those only, who from eternity were chosen to salvation ; the third and fourth relate to the moral impotence of man, and the work of the Spirit in conversion ; and the fifth affirms the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The Church of France embodied these articles among her own standards. The Chm-ch of Geneva as cordially acquiesced in them.
Four English deputies, Drs Carleton, Hall, Davenant, and Ward, together with Dr Ealcanquhal from Scotland, by the command of James VI., repah-ed to Holland, and
4 rr.EFATORY NOTE.
took their place in the Synod of Dort, in accordance with a request of the Dutch Church to be favoured witli the aid and countenance of some delegates from the British Chuj'ches. The proceedings of the Synod of Dort had the sanction of these British divines. No doubt can be entcitained that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were not Anninian; but on the elevation of Laud to the see of Canterbuiy, Arminian- ism grew strong within its pale. A royal prohibition was issued against all discus- sion of the controverted points in the pulpit. All ecclesiastical preferments at the dis- posal of the Crown were bestowed on those who leaned to Arminian views. " The fates of our church," says Owen, in the note to the reader prefixed to the following treatise, " having of late devolved the government thereof into the hands of men tainted with this poison, Arminiauism became backed with the powerful arguments of praise and prefei-ment, and quickly prevailed to beat poor naked truth into a corner." It would, however, be neither fair nor correct if the statement of tiicse facts left an impression that Armiuianism made progress solely through the help of royal and prelatic favour. It was embraced and supported by some authors to whom no sinister motives can be imputed; and the cause has never found an abler advocate than John Goodwin, whose name, for his publications against the royal interest, was associated with that of Milton, in the legal proceedings instituted against them both at the Restoration.