Prefatory Note
Prefatory Note The relation of man to his Creator has engaged the attention of earnest and thoughtful minds from the days of the patriarch of Uz to the most recent controversies of modern times. The entrance of sin into the world has vastly complicated this relationship so that, considered in its various bearings, it involves some of the most difficult problems with which the human intellect has ever attempted to grapple. The extent to which the intellect itself has been weakened and clouded by the corruption of our nature, renders us less able to penetrate into the deep mysteries of human duty and destiny. Does man now sin because he is essentially affected with the taint of the first sin, and is he involved in the responsibilities of the first sinner? Or does he sin wholly on his own account, and by his own free act, without the bias of his connection with Adam – except for whatever connection remains between example on the one hand and imitation on the other?
Supposing there is a scheme of saving grace; is grace simply a divine and external aid to the will of man, which already operates freely in the direction of what is good – thus establishing a meritorious claim upon God to bestow such aid? Or is grace a supernatural influence, creating in man the very liberty itself to will and to do what is good? In the latter view of divine grace, as bestowed in divine sovereignty, and therefore according to a divine purpose, can [that grace] be reconciled with human responsibility? These are the questions which produced vi
the sharp encounter of keen and conflicting wits between Pelagius and Augustine of old.
Towards the middle of the ninth century, these questions again assumed distinctive prominence in the history of theological speculation. Gottschalc, a monk of Orbais, distinguished himself by his advocacy of the doctrines of Augustine. It was the doctrine of predestination on which he chiefly insisted. And the controversy in his hands assumed this peculiar modification: it was not merely the application of gracious influence, but the reference of the atonement, that was exhibited under the limit and the regulation of divine sovereignty and purpose. Not that in this respect he was at variance with Augustine, but the point seems to have been specially and formally mooted in the discussions of this age. His view of predestination embraced an element which may be reckoned an advance on the Augustinian doctrine; for according to him, predestination was twofold: comprehending the punishment of the reprobate, as well as the salvation of the elect. But while he held that the predestination of men applied to the punishment for their sin, he was far from holding, as his opponents alleged, that men were predestined to the commission of sin. Council warred with council in the case of Gottschalc. Gottschalc himself expiated (by a death in prison) his audacious anticipation of the rights of private judgment and free inquiry in a dark age.
The next revival of the same controversy in substance, though under certain modifications, took place after the Reformation. It is remarkable that, at this period, discussion on these weighty questions sprang up almost simultaneously in three different parts of Europe, and in three schools of theology, among which a wide diversity existed.
The shackles of mediaeval ignorance were burst asunder by the awakening intelligence of Europe; and if we except the controversy between Protestantism and Popery (on which the Reformation hinged), no point could more naturally engage the mind in the infancy of its freedom, than the compatibility of the divine purpose with vii
human responsibility. The nature of redemption seemed to depend on the solution of this problem, and human speculation in all ages had revolved around it by the spell of the very mystery attached to it. When an interdict3 still lay on theological inquiry, Thomists and Scotists 4 had discussed it in its metaphysical form and under a cloud of scholastic subtleties, lest the jealousies of a dominant church be awakened. But now, when a measure of intellectual freedom had been acquired, and the dispute between free-will on the one hand and efficacious grace on the other involved a practical issue between Rome and Geneva, the question received a treatment almost exclusively theological.
First, perhaps, in the order of time, this discussion was revived in Poland, and in connection with the heresies of Socinus. The divinity of Christ, the nature of the atonement, 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 sufferings, to the claims of divine justice. And such an atonement is indispensable for our salvation, if man, because [he is] 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 Unitarian system; to this extent, there is common ground between the systems of Pelagius and Socinus. It is no wonder 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 historical evolution of these consequences. Spanheim, in his "Elenchus Controversiarum," p. 237, ascribes the origin of the Arminian controversy in Holland to certain emissaries (Ostorodius and Voidovius) who were dispatched 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 opinions of Socinus, "quae ille recoxit ex Pelagii disciplinâ," viii
on predestination, free-will, and the ground of justification before God.
About the same time, the Church of Rome was shaken to its center by the same controversy. The Jesuits always had Pelagian leanings, and their influence was triumphant in the Council of Trent. So far as its decrees stereotyped the Romish creed, they sealed the doom of the waning authority of Augustine. In 1588, Louis Molina made an attempt in his lectures on "The Concord of Grace and Free-will," to unite the conflicting theories. The Jesuits did not regard his attempt with favor. A lengthened controversy arose. Molinism, partly as a deviation from, and partly as a compromise of, the fundamental principles of the Augustinian system, was effectually assailed (1) by the piety of Jansen, (2) by the learning of Arnauld, and (3) by the genius of Pascal – till the bull Unigenitus secured a lasting triumph for Jesuitism.
It authoritatively condemned the doctrines 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 which 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 by the name of Junius, Arminius was called to the vacant chair in the University of Leyden. Gomar, a professor in the same university, and also the Presbytery of Amsterdam, opposed his appointment on the ground of his erroneous principles. On giving a pledge that he would teach nothing at variance with the Belgic
Confession and Catechism, he was allowed to enter his office as professor in 1603. Gomar and Arminius 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 adjudicate on the prevailing controversy. The latter, ix
having the ear of the state, contrived to prevent it. Stormy scenes ensued, amid which Arminius died. 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 Remonstrants 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 November 13, 1618.
The Five Points of Calvinism – a refutation of the Remonstrance Articles 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 efficaciously 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 Church of Geneva cordially acquiesced in them.
Four English deputies, Drs. Carleton, Hall, Davenant, and Ward, together with Dr. Balcanquhal from Scotland, by the command of James VI, repaired to Holland, and took their place in the Synod of Dort.5 This was in accordance with a request of the Dutch Church to be favored with the aid and countenance of some delegates from the British Churches. The proceedings of the Synod of Dort had the sanction of these British divines. No doubt can be entertained that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were not Arminian; but upon the elevation of Laud to the see of Canterbury, Arminianism grew strong within its pale. A royal prohibition was issued against all discussion of the controverted points in the pulpit. All ecclesiastical x
preferments at the disposal 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, Arminianism became backed with the powerful arguments of praise and preferment, and quickly prevailed to beat poor naked truth into a corner." It would, however, be neither fair nor correct if the statement of these facts left an impression that Arminianism made progress solely through the help of royal and prelatic favor. 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.
At this juncture, Owen felt it his duty to oppose the innovations on the received doctrine of the church, by the publication of a work in which the views of the Arminians are exhibited on all the leading topics of the controversy, with the exception of three points, relating to universal grace, justification, and the perseverance of the saints. He substantiates his statements regarding the Arminian tenets by copious quotations from the works of the Dutch Remonstrants. And he contrasts them, at the close of each chapter, with passages from Scripture. Exception may be taken to this course, as the sentence of any author, detached from the context, may convey a meaning which is essentially modified by it. Some of these quotations are so far accommodated by Owen as to present a full statement of a particular opinion, instead of appearing in the parenthetic and incidental form in which they present themselves in the original works –merely as parts of a sentence. We did not feel it needful to interfere with them in this shape; for, so far as we can judge, our author evinces perfect integrity in all the quotations to which he has recourse. And the slight alterations xi
occasionally made on them never superinduce a dishonest or mistaken gloss on the views of the authors from whom the passages are selected.
It may be questioned whether Owen sufficiently discriminates the doctrine of Arminius from the full development which his system received at the hands of his followers after his death. Moreover, sometimes opinions possessing the distinctive features of Pelagianism are confounded with Arminianism, strictly so-called. Our author, perhaps, may be vindicated on the ground that it was his object to exhibit Arminianism as current and common in his day. His quotations seem to prove that his Display of it was not far from the truth. Though, from the refinement of modern discrimination on some of the points, many an Arminian would hardly subscribe to some of the statements as a correct representation of his creed. And a Calvinistic author is under an obvious temptation to run up Arminian views into what he may esteem their legitimate consequences in the extravagance of the Pelagian theory. The style is simple; some polish appears in the composition; and occasionally a degree of ornament and pleasantry is employed (as when he enters on the question of Free-will, chap. 12.). This is rare with Owen, who perhaps prided himself on the studious rejection of literary elegance. It could be wished that he had risen superior to the vice of the age in such discussions, by manifesting less acerbity of temper6 and diction in the refutation of the views which he combats in this work. It was Owen's first publication (1642), and it immediately brought him into notice. The living of Fordham in Essex was conferred upon him by the Committee of Religion, to whom the work is dedicated. – ED. [Wm. Goold]
2 Martii, anno Domini 1642.
IT is this day ordered, by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for the Regulating of Printing and Publishing of Books, that this book, entitled "A Display of Arminianism," be printed.
JOHN WHITE.
xii