At the same time, it must be acknowledged, that of this state of things, by which his memory is injured and thoughtless people are deceived, he himself laid the foundation. The same temper of mind which led him to renounce the peculiarities of Calvinism, induced him also to adopt more enlarged and liberal views of church communion than those which had hitherto prevailed. While he maintained that the mercy of God is not con fined to a chosen few, he conceived it to be quite in consistent with the genius of Christianity, that men of that religion should keep at a distance from each other, and constitute separate churches, merely because they differed in their opinions as to some of its doctrinal ar ticles. He thought that Christians of all denominations should form one great community, united and upheld by the bonds of charity and brotherly love ; with the ex ception, however, of Roman Catholics, who, on account of their idolatrous worship and persecuting spirit, must be unfit members of such a society. That this was not only agreeable to the wishes of Arminius, but one chief object of his labours, is evident from a passage in his last will, which he made a little before his death : Ea proposui et docui qua' ad propagationem amplificationem que veritatis religion is Christians, yeti Dei enema, Km ?fluids pietatis, et inter homines conversionis, de nique ad convenientem Christiano nomini tranquillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent confrre, excludens rx its papatum, cum quo nulla unitas fidei, nullum pie tatis ant Christiano pads vinculum servari potest.
Mosheim has stated this circumstance in a note to his history of the Arminian Church ; but his statement, or rather the conclusion which he deduces from it, is evi dently unfair and incorrect. He alleges, that Arminius had actually laid the plan of that theological system, which was afterwards embraced by his followers ; that he had inculcated the main and leading principles of it on the minds of his disciples ; and that Episcopius and others, who rejected Calvinism in more points than in that which related to the divine decrees, only propagat ed, with greater courage and perspicuity, the doctrines which Arminianism, as taught by its founder, already contained. These allegations, it is clear, have no sort of connection with the passage from which they are drawn as inferences ; and they are wholly inconsistent with the assertions, and reasonings, and declarations of Arminius, when he is discussing the merits of the ques tion that was agitated between him and the Geneva school. Arminius, in addition to the scheme ol doc trine which he taught, was anxious to establish this maxim, and to reduce it to practice, that, with the ex ception above mentioned, no difference of opinions should prevent Christians from remaining in one church or religious body. He did not mean to insinuate, that
a difference of opinion was of no consequence at all ; that they who thought one way, were just as right as they who thought a contrary way ; or that men have no occasion to be solicitous about the religious tenets which they hold. He did not mean to give up his own system as equally true, or equally false with that of Calvin ; and as little could he be supposed to sanction those sen timents of his followers, which were in direct opposi tion to the sentiments which he himself had maintained. But he endeavoured, in the first place, to assert liberty of conscience, and of worship ; and then upon that fun damental principle, to persuade all Christians, however divided in opinion, to lay aside the distinctions of sect and party, and in one united body to consult that tran quillity and peace which is so agreeable to the Chris tian name. This we conceive to have been the object of Arntinius ; an object so indicative of an enlightened mind, so congenial to that charity which hopeth all things, and thinketh no evil, and so conducive to the interests of religion and the peace of the world, as to reflect the highest honour on him by whom it. was first pursued, and to constitute the true glory of Armini anism.
From the remarks which we have made, an accurate idea may be formed of that system which is properly entitled Arminianism ; and consequently of the justice with which those are called Arminians, who commonly assume that appellation. The confusion which prevails on this subject, has arisen, in a great measure, from not attending to the distinction between holding purely Arminian doctrine, and belonging to the Arminian church. Even a Calvinist, who necessarily rejects the former, may yet be a member of the latter, (though we doubt if there be any instances of this on record ;) be cause, according to the views and wishes of Arminius, that church is, exclusively of Papists, the church uni versal, acyolly and freely receiving into its bosom Chris tians of eTery sect. (See Dedication prefixed to Lc Clerc's Latin Translation of Hammond on the New Tes tament.) And the fact is, that while many have been members of the Arminian church, whose doctrine was far from being purely Arminian, there have been, and still are, many whose Arminianism goes no farther than doctrine, and who, though they be genuine disciples of Arminius in that respect, are yet as narrow and exclu sive in their notions of religious communion, as the most higotted votaries of the church of Rome. The number of true Arminians has never, we believe, been very great ; but it appears, that almost all who been called Arminians, have agreed in being Anticalvmists, so far as the dogmas respecting unconditional election, particular redemption, and the irresistibility of divine grace, are involved.