THE SYNOD OF DORT

The Dutch churches forsook the communion of the
corrupt church of Rome soon after the church of England had cast off the
papal yoke; and they were generously aided in their endeavours to
recover their civil and religious liberties by our good Queen Elizabeth
and her wise counsellors. The first Christian teachers among them were
Lutherans; but in process of time, the celebrity of Geneva as a place of
public instruction for ministers of religion induced the majority of the
candidates for the ministry to repair to that university; and, as might
naturally be expected, they imported into the Low Countries the peculiar
views of Calvin and Beza on the subject of predestination. It is justly
observed by Le Vassor, “Some learned Hollanders had boldly defended this
doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a professor
at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their
writings are still extant; although it is true that certain ministers,
who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their
productions into disrepute; but the states of Holland uniformly checked
this impetuous zeal. The professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect
liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melancthon; and
when Arminius was called to that university, his opinions were generally
known; for he had declared them in the church of Amsterdam, from the
consistory of which he received very honourable testimonials. Gomarus,
and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation
with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging immediately that the
difference of sentiments which existed between them did not at all
concern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did
not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken
umbrage at the reputation of his new colleague, or the enemies of
Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful
insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man whom, some
time before, he looked upon as orthodox.” The struggles of the party of
Arminius in Holland, after the death of that great man, to obtain a
toleration for their opinions, are matters of history. The political
circumstances of that country and of Europe in general were at that
period very peculiar, and exercised great influence in the convening and
conducting of that famous ecclesiastical assembly, the synod of Dort;
but in a sketch like this, they can only be briefly mentioned. Frederic,
the elector Palatine, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of our King
James the First; he was nephew to Maurice the prince of Orange: and he
sent his Heidelberg divines to the synod to assist his uncle in the
condemnation of the Remonstrant party, as the Arminians were generally
called, and to gratify his polemical father-in-law in the overthrow of
the heretical Vorstius. In return, he naturally expected both of his
relations to aid him in his grand enterprise of seizing on the crown of
Bohemia; in which, soon after the banishment of the Remonstrants, he
completely succeeded,--though he subsequently lost that crown and all
his hereditary possessions, and embroiled nearly the whole of Protestant
Europe in the famous thirty years’ war.

The Remonstrants, according to Nichols, in the ample notes to his
translation of the “Works of Arminius,” had long wished to have their
“Five Points” of doctrine brought for adjudication either before a
_provincial_ synod, to prepare matters for a _national_ one; or to have
them brought at once before a _general council_ of Protestant divines.
But the Calvinists would listen to neither of these equitable proposals.
If a _provincial synod_ were convened, especially in that province
(Holland) which most needed such a remedy, these men well knew, from
trial, how difficult it would be to combat and refute the strong and
popular arguments of the Remonstrants, when both parties were placed
nearly on an equality in the same assembly; and if a _general council_
of Protestants was summoned together, they were certain that the
principles of Arminius would, without demur, be recognized as integral
parts of Scripture verity, and consequently entitled not only to
toleration, (which was all that the Remonstrants had desired,) but to
the especial patronage of the civil authorities. The latter result was
anticipated, from the immense preponderance which the Lutheran divines,
from all the small states of Germany, and from other parts of the north
of Europe, would have had in such a council. Numerous state papers on
this subject were written by the public functionaries of the different
provinces in the year 1617; among which those of the composition of the
learned Grotius, who conducted the arguments in favour of a _general
council_, are very conspicuous for the superior ability which they
display. A _national synod_ was therefore the sole remedy which the
wisdom, or rather the worldly prudence, of the Calvinists could discover
for removing the maladies under which the churches of Holland were at
that time labouring. In showing cause for their preference, they were
placed in an awkward dilemma; for they perceived, that the strongest
reasons to be adduced for the adoption of this measure would extend too
far, and might, in the hands of their able antagonists, be made to apply
with greater cogency to the convening of a general council.

The designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient
liberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which
possessed by the act of union the complete management of its own
affairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and
illegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the
appointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected
individuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill
the higher offices of state in the various towns which had been
ill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and
scandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated
respecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians
to deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to
succeed in his ambitious enterprises. To the party, therefore, that had
forwarded his views he willingly gave all the weight of his influence,
and that of the States General, the majority of whom, in virtue of the
late unlawful changes effected in the provinces, were favourable, not
only to Calvinism, but to any measure which the prince might think fit
to propose. It was in allusion to the revolution, thus craftily
completed, that Bogerman, as president of the synod of Dort, told
Episcopius, in a sarcastic style, as Hales tells us, “You may remember
what you told the foreign divines in your letter to them, that there had
of late been a great metamorphosis in the state; you are no longer
judges and men in power, but persons under citation.” In such a state of
affairs, an ordinance of government was easily obtained for convening a
national synod, which was to consist of native divines appointed by the
different classes and presbyteries, of civil deputies chosen out of each
province by the states, and of foreign divines deputed by such churches
as had adopted both the platform and the doctrine of Geneva. The temper
and intolerant conduct of the various ecclesiastical meetings with whom
rested the inland appointments, had been but too apparent; and time had
not mollified their intolerant principles; for, under the new order of
things, and with the sanction of the fresh race of magistrates, they
were emboldened to effect a schism in many of the chief towns, and
forcibly to exclude the Arminian ministers from the churches which they
occupied. In other towns, in which these bold practices could not be
attempted with any probability of success, they employed the
ecclesiastical arms of the classes, provincial synods, and other packed
vestry-meetings, the members of which (consisting generally of
Calvinists) summoned before them all the chief Arminian pastors in the
various districts, accused them of holding heterodox opinions on the
subject of predestination, and suspended or expelled them from the
ministry. This work of expulsion and suspension was carried on by the
dominant party, even during the time in which the fate of Arminianism
was in a course of determination by the synod of Dort: so that, had that
far-famed and reverend assembly decided in favour of a toleration of the
Arminian doctrines, the minor church meetings had left few ministers of
that persecuted denomination to profit from such a decision. The
Calvinistic account of this summary and iniquitous process is thus
given, in the preface to the acts of the National Synod: “And since
there were several pastors in that province, [Guelderland,] some of whom
had been suspected of many other errors beside the Five Points of the
Remonstrants, others of them had illegally intruded into the office of
the ministry, while others were men of profligate habits; certain
persons of this description being cited before the [provincial] synod
[of Guelderland and Zutphen, held at Arnheim, in July, 1618,] were
suspended from the ministry for some of the before-mentioned reasons,
and by no means on account of the opinion contained in the Five Points
of the Remonstrants, which was reserved for the cognizance of the
national synod. The trial of the rest of these men being dismissed in
the name of the synod, was committed to a deputation from their body, to
whom the states added certain of their own delegates. When they had
fully investigated the cases of these men in their classes, they
suspended some of them from the ministry, and entirely removed others.”
In the very able memorial which the Remonstrants, on their arrival at
the synod, presented to the foreign members, it is justly observed,
respecting those who were accused of having taught, beside the Five
Points, those doctrines which were contrary to the fundamentals of
faith: “Such particular cases do not in any manner affect the common
cause of the Remonstrants, but concern those alone who may be found
guilty of them. Nor are we adverse to the issuing of ecclesiastical
censures against such persons, provided they be lawfully put upon their
trials, and fairly heard in defence of themselves against such charges.”
Because the members of these Calvinistic provincial synods could not be
long absent from their respective congregations, such galloping
commissions as these, endowed with ample powers, were appointed to
traverse every province in which Arminianism had been planted; and they
soon showed to the world the most compendious method of rooting out
reputed heresies. Their track through the land resembled that of the
angel of destruction; it was marked by anguish, mourning, and
desolation. After this detail, established by the synodical documents
themselves, few words will suffice to point out the purely Calvinistic
constitution of the synod of Dort. When very few Remonstrant ministers
remained in the land, except such as were ejected from the church or
under suspension, it was no difficult matter to procure an assemblage of
men that were of one heart respecting the main object that was then
sought to be accomplished.

In the original order for holding the synod, and in the list appended to
it, as they were both passed by the States General, no mention was made
of inviting any other churches, except those of England, France, the
Palatinate, Hesse, and Switzerland, and it was a matter postponed for
farther deliberation, whether any invitation should be transmitted to
the churches of Bremen, Brandenburgh, Geneva, and Nassau. The clergy of
the principality of Anhalt were not invited to the synod, because their
opinions were understood to be similar to those of the Remonstrants, the
ancient confession adopted by their churches being decided on the
subject of conditional predestination. The divines of Bremen were viewed
as men inclined too much to moderate counsels, and on that account
improper representatives in an assembly that intended to carry every
proposition with the unanimity of force. The divines of Brandenburgh
were the last of those invited. Indeed no invitation was transmitted to
them, till the state and temper of their churches had been ascertained
with tolerable accuracy; and when it was generally thought that the
deputies from that electorate were tractable and would follow in the
train of the Contra-Remonstrants, it was determined to summon them to
the synod. It was for some time a matter of doubt with the leading men
of Holland, whether they ought to invite the divines of Geneva and
Nassau, two of the greatest nurseries of Calvinism, to be present at the
synod. The cause of this demur was, to avoid the appearance of
partiality, which they justly thought all the world would have imputed
to them had they convened an assembly consisting only of Calvinistic
doctors. To keep up this semblance of moderation, the synodical summons
was not transmitted to those divines when they were sent to the churches
of other states and countries. But when Prince Maurice’s schemes of
secular aggrandizement and political power had succeeded beyond his
utmost wishes, they no longer studied to “avoid the appearance of evil,”
but boldly summoned all those divines about whose presence at the synod
they had formerly hesitated. This was a most notable and certain method
of procuring a strict Calvinian uniformity in the members. On this
topic, Hales, in his letters from Dort, to the English ambassador at the
Hague, says, “For a general confession of faith, at least so far as
those churches stretch who have delegates here in the synod, I think his
project very possible, there being no point of faith in which they
differ.” Great interest was made at the court of France, to procure the
attendance of deputies from the reformed churches of that country; but
the king of France prohibited the Protestant clergy within his dominions
from becoming members of the synod, or assisting at its deliberations.

The letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the
national synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members
were summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of
November in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of
the united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was
formally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the
foreign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will
find scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided
opposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was
not consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge
of the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This
caused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that “no persons were
summoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of
Calvin’s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to
go to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the
reverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be
admitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the
bearing of his opinions.”

It will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of
ecclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having
any deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic
plan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were
the only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at
all, was, because that province was almost equally divided between
Remonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of
each denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons
as well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that
they would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the
seat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously
declared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as
the Acts express it, “that this synod might not be exposed to calumnies,
as if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the
judges” on five conditions, the chief of which were, “that while the
affairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not
disturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and
not acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which
concerned their cause.” Two of them, after a day’s deliberation, united
themselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a
layman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable
assembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther
deliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members
convened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be
summoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed
and sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each
province as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired,
if all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay
commissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the
secretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting
their numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the
secretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day
the preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for
amendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the
determination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many,
should be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the
Remonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation,
commanding them to appear before the synod, “within fourteen days after
the receipt of it without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that
in it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the
before-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to
be necessary.” In the mean time the Remonstrants, without knowing the
resolution of the synod, had deputed three of their body from Leyden, to
obtain leave for their appearance at the synod, in a competent number
and under safe conduct to defend their cause. On making their request
known to the lay commissioners, they were informed of the resolution
which had passed the synod only the preceding day. To which they
replied, that it was unreasonable to cite those to justify themselves
who were both ready and willing to come of their own accord; and that if
they persisted in proceeding with their plan of citation, they would by
that act furnish just cause, not only to them, but to all good men, to
entertain strange notions and suspicions of the synodical proceedings.
Not being permitted to choose those men from their own body whom they
deemed the best qualified to state and defend their cause, they
accounted it an additional hardship, that their enemies should assume
that unlawful authority to themselves. But neither at that time nor
afterward, when they wished to add two of the most accomplished of the
brethren to their number, were their representations of the least avail.
On the sixth of December these valiant defenders of the truth arrived,
and requested, by a deputation, to be allowed a few days to unpack their
books, arrange their papers, &c. But they were commanded immediately to
appear in a body before the synod, and to prefer their own request. They
were introduced by their brethren of Utrecht, and ordered to sit down at
a long table placed in the middle of the hall. Episcopius then, with the
permission of the president, addressed an apostolic greeting to the
synod; and, having repeated the request previously made, he said, that
“the cited Remonstrants appeared there to defend their good and
righteous cause before that venerable assembly, by reasons and arguments
drawn from the word of God,--or else to be confuted and better informed
from the same word. In reference to the favour which they had asked,
they left it to the discretion of the commissioners of the States
General, being ready on their parts, immediately and without delay, to
engage in a conference, if that should be required.” Then were they
desired to withdraw into a chamber prepared for them adjoining the hall
of the synod. After some time spent in deliberation, they were recalled,
and informed by the president, that they would be expected at the synod
next morning at nine o’clock. He added, according to Hales, “that they
came not to conference, neither did the synod profess themselves an
adverse party against them. Conferences had been heretofore held to no
purpose. They ought to have heeded the words of the letters by which
they were cited. They were called not to conference, but to propose
their opinions with their reasons, and leave it with the synod to judge
of them.” Episcopius replied, that it was not necessary so nicely to
criticise the word conference, and that they had come there with no
other view than to treat about the doctrines which were controverted,
according to the summons which they had received. The next day, December
7th, the Remonstrants were called in, when after Episcopius had desired
and obtained leave to speak, he uttered an oration, the delivery of
which occupied nearly two hours, and which, on account of the noble
sentiments contained in it, deserves to be recorded in letters of gold.
The gracefulness, force, and energy with which it was spoken, made such
an impression on the auditory as drew tears from several of them, and
even from some of the states’ deputies. This effect gave mighty umbrage
to the choleric Bogerman, who, as president, according to Mr. Hales’s
account, “signified unto Episcopius, that, because there were in his
speech many things considerable, he was therefore to deliver the copy of
it. Episcopius replied, that he had none handsomely written: if the
synod would have patience, he would cause a fair transcript to be drawn
for them. But this excuse would not serve; fair or foul, deliver it up
he must, and so he did.” In the session, December 10, after the
president had ceased to speak, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed
with their explanation and defence of the five points. They requested
leave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to
this; but the lay president ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard
Dwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the
synod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the
acts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause
it defended. The first part declared, that the Remonstrants did not own
the members of the synod for lawful judges, because the great majority
of them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed
enemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as
those whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy
schism which was made in the churches of Holland. The second part
contained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a
well constituted synod should consist. The observance of the
stipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the
synod, averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the
Protestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the
Papists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. The
production of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic
persuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against
the principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,--gave
dreadful offence to that powerful body in the synod, and especially when
they were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. No one
can form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading
of this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the lay president, and the
commissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the
succeeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Bogerman
laboured hard to show, that, by denying the competency and impartial
constitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in
reality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had
appointed and convened the synod; and that, by charging the majority of
the members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect
accused the prince of Orange and the States General, because those great
personages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the
latter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland
divines, he said, “The proper time has not yet arrived for discussing
it. But when it shall have been proved to the synod, what kind of
doctrine is sanctioned by the church, those who have departed from it,
and who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true
colours.” Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in
behalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority
of the states, and held the synod in due estimation, yet it was as
lawful for them to challenge this synod, as for several of the Christian
fathers who challenged some of the ancient councils, and their ancestors
that of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to
challenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law
allowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had
previously separated from the Remonstrants should sit in the synod to
try them, after they had by such separation pre-judged their doctrine
and entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation.
Episcopius then said, “Mr. President, if you were in our places and we
in yours, would you submit to our judgment?” Bogerman replied, “If it
had so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has
ordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with
patience.” Episcopius rejoined, “It is one thing to acknowledge a person
for a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which
he may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be
persuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you
are our sworn adversaries, and have churches totally separated from
ours.”

On the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, being called in, were
urged by the synod to present their objections in writing against the
Confession and Catechism. Before they proceeded to do that, they craved
permission to read another document: after some demur, leave was
granted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: “The celebrated
Paræus, in his _Irenicum_, prudently observes, that he would advise no
man to approach any council in which the same persons had to appear in
the character of both adversaries and judges.” The rest of the paper was
occupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in
the four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their
want of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They
declared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to
the synod, as the States General had intended, and such men as had never
been concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they
would have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a synod.
This document concluded with a protest. After the delivery of this
protest, the synod invented various methods to vex the cited
Remonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause. Among those
methods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and
not in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers.
They had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they
thought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the synod,
without the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the
individuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who
had represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference
in 1611, only three were summoned to the present synod; and though those
who appeared on this occasion were generally men of good natural talents
and sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under
discussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a
ready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be
suddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent
degree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had
time for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons
with those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be
viewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without
exception refused. Having presented to the synod their opinions relative
to the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession,
the Remonstrants wished to enter on the “proposing, explanation, and
defence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary,”
according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited;
but the synod in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those
expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to
themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to
enter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was
accounted an act of great injustice by the Remonstrants, who also
alleged, that “they did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of
election, but that it was reprobation in which the chief difficulty
lay.” They were very desirous, therefore, of having reprobation
discussed in the first instance: but the Calvinists of those days wished
to keep unconditional reprobation enshrined in the dark _penetralia_ of
their temples, only to be produced, as opportunity might serve, for
their own private purposes, either to terrify the careless among their
hearers, or to quicken the occasionally sluggish current of
congregational benevolence. It was not to be expected, therefore, that
the Calvinists of the synod would allow the Remonstrants to give
reprobation that prominence in their discussions to which it was justly
entitled. In one of the debates which these two questions produced,
Bogerman again took advantage of the disingenuous trickery which we have
just exposed, and asked Pynakker, one of the cited ministers, “Do you
imagine the synod will suffer the Remonstrants to examine the doctrine
of reprobation?” Pynakker replied, “Yes, I do: because, as this is the
chief source of the troubles of the church, it ought to be _first_
discussed.” Perceiving either that his meaning was not correctly
understood, or that he had expressed it in an imperfect manner, Pynakker
immediately explained himself by adding, that by _first_ he meant
_chiefly_, (both of which significations the Latin word conveys,) and by
acknowledging that election ought to have the precedence of discussion.
When relating this occurrence, Poppius remarks, “This, being received in
a wrong sense, was imputed to all of us, as though we were unanimously
of opinion, that the discussion of the doctrine of reprobation ought to
precede that of election. Upon this question the foreign divines and
others were desired by the president to deliver their sentiments.
However, the expression imputed to us was employed by none of us, much
less by all. But this was their manner: if one of us, in the name of
all, said any thing that proved advantageous to the rest, the president
seemed much displeased at our unanimity: then we were told that we were
cited singly and personally, and that we did not compose a society or
corporation. But when any of us happened to employ a word that was
capable of being wrested to our common injury and misconstrued, then
what was said by one was certain to be imputed to all!” After gaining a
favourable opportunity like this, Bogerman always hastily dismissed the
cited persons; and on this occasion he dwelt largely, in their absence,
on Pynakker’s expression, and persuaded the foreign divines that the
proposal of the Remonstrants, to treat of reprobation before election,
was a _sine quâ non_, and that without it was granted to them they would
not proceed. This alarmed all the Calvinistic brotherhood, who rose _vi
et armis_, delivered _seriatim_ their objections to such a bold
proceeding, and thought, with the professor of Heidelberg, “that it was
unreasonable for the Remonstrants to disturb the consciences of the
elect on account of God’s judgments against the reprobated, and to plead
the cause of the latter, as though they had been hired to undertake the
defence of those who had by the just judgment of God been rejected; and
that for these reasons the synod neither could nor ought to grant the
Remonstrant brethren any farther liberty, unless the members designed to
expose the orthodox doctrine of predestination to be openly ridiculed.”
Finding this great aversion in the synod to the precedence of
reprobation, the Remonstrants proposed, since they were forbidden to
explain or defend their sentiments _vivâ voce_, “to explain their
doctrines in writing, beginning with the article of election, and
proceeding to that of reprobation; to defend their doctrines, and to
refute the contrary opinions of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those
whom they consider orthodox: but that, in case this explanation or
defence seems to be defective, they would answer in writing the
questions which the president might think proper to propose to them, or
in oral communications by those of their body whom they might judge best
qualified for that purpose. And that the liberty which they desired
might not appear unlimited, they bound themselves to proceed in such a
manner as should not savour in the least of an insolent licentiousness:
and that their discussions might not be extended too far, the lay
commissioners were empowered to curtail them at pleasure.” But these
very equitable terms, which were much worse than those which the
unsophisticated and grammatical sense of the citatory letters held out
to them, were rejected by the synod, at the instigation and by the
management of the president, who, after having had recourse to his old
trick of propounding questions to each of the cited persons, and after
procuring against them three or four synodical censures, had them at
length, (Jan. 14th,) dismissed from the synod, with every mark of
contumely and scorn which he could invent. Bogerman had previously
busied himself in extracting the opinions of the Remonstrants from such
writings of theirs as had been published long before, and in forming
them into articles, to be separately discussed by the synod. This
passing of judgment on the Remonstrants from the testimony of their own
writings, was an employment which Deodatus and his colleague from Geneva
had at one of the earliest sessions mentioned as very desirable, and in
which they appeared eager to engage. Any one who attentively reads the
Acts of the synod, and compares them with the private accounts both of
Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants will find, that this had also been
the intention of the president from the very commencement, and that all
his shifting schemes and boisterous conduct was intended to irritate the
Remonstrants, who possessed more patience than he had contemplated, and
who were therefore to be removed from the synod by a greater exercise of
art and with greater difficulty. But one of the greatest injuries of
which the Remonstrants had to complain, was, that the book from which
their supposed opinions were chiefly collected, was the production of a
declared enemy, who wrote a highly coloured account of a conference
respecting the Five Points, in which he pretended that the Calvinists
had obtained a complete victory. A Remonstrant author had also written
an able statement of the same conference, and had claimed a triumph for
his party. The latter would therefore have certainly been the most
proper authority from which to extract the real opinions of his body.

But though dismissed from their farther attendance on the synod, the
Remonstrants were not permitted to depart from Dort; the states’
commissioners having charged them not to quit the town, without their
special permission. The president, in his speech dimissory, had said,
that they would receive an intimation when the synod had any farther
occasion for them. When a Remonstrant deputy, by leave of the acting
burgomaster of Dort, who was one of the commissioners, had hastily gone
to Utrecht, to visit one of his children that was expected soon to die,
he was on his return called to an account for his conduct, and the
former order repeated. In the course of their detention at Dort during
eight months, they were as strictly watched as if they had been
condemned malefactors. One of them whose sister lay on her death-bed and
earnestly desired to see him, could not obtain permission to visit her
while she lived; and after her decease he was not allowed to attend her
funeral. Another, whose wife was near the time of her accouchment,
wished, like a good family man, to be at home for a few days at that
critical period; but his request was refused. When the uncle of another
of them was at the point of death, he longed for the presence of his
nephew, to receive his dying commands, and to benefit him by his
counsels and prayers; but the wishes of the good old man could not be
gratified. After his death, the nephew was not allowed to look after the
pressing concerns of his orphan cousins, although his uncle had
appointed him their legal guardian. None of these favours, though
reasonable and asked with much humility, could be obtained from the high
bigots, in whose hands, at that time, was vested the personal liberty of
the persecuted and cited Remonstrants. Toward the close of February, the
magistrates of different towns deposed from the ministry three of the
cited Remonstrant ministers who were present at the synod, and sent
regular notices to their families, speedily to quit the parsonage houses
which they severally occupied. These three good men, being heartily
tired of the strict durance in which they had been held since their
arrival at Dort, represented to the states’ commissioners, that, as they
were not now in the ministry, they could no longer be considered
amenable to the jurisdiction of the synod: this was the very argument of
the commissioners, when, at the commencement of the synod, the
Remonstrants had wished to have associated with them the two recently
deposed ministers, Grevinchovius and Goulart. Though, for very obvious
reasons, at that early stage of the business, they would permit no
Remonstrants to appear among the cited, “except such as were actually in
the exercise of the ministry;” yet they would not listen to the same
argument when it militated against their favourite purposes: and the
three ministers were commanded to remain at Dort with their brethren.
One of the three, however, whose wife then far advanced in pregnancy,
had been ordered to leave her house within eight days, ventured to
return to Horn, and to assist her to remove from their former dwelling.
But, on his arrival, he found her already removed to another house; and
his return to Dort was speedily required by the higher powers. To
expedite his departure, two or three of the Calvinist magistrates
employed their official authority in a manner the most reprehensible:
they placed him, like a criminal, in the town wagon openly before his
own door, though he had provided a carriage for himself on the outside
of the town, to which he wished to have retired privately and without
noise. A tumult ensued between the populace who were attached to their
good pastor, and the soldiers whom the magistrates had placed before his
house two hours before his departure. On his return to Dort, he was
severely examined before the commissioners respecting the unhappy
commotion; but being convinced that he had not been at all to blame in
that affair, they passed it over in silence. At different times the
Remonstrants wished to depute a few of their small body to the Hague, to
make a proper representation of the manner in which they were treated by
the synod; but this indulgence was invariably refused. Their only
resource then was, to write to their high mightinesses an account of
their proceedings, and to implore their interference and protection. But
such an attempt, in that posture of their affairs, was unavailing; for
their doom was already sealed. Soon after their appearance at Dort, the
magistrates of that city issued a proclamation, commanding the
inhabitants, all of whom were celebrated for their attachment to Calvin,
to refrain from insulting any of the foreign or native professors,
divines, or other persons that were called to appear at the synod, on
pain of summary punishment to the offenders. This document was not
required for the protection of the Calvinists; but the persecuted
Remonstrants were such objects of hatred to the populace, as scarcely to
be allowed to pass along the streets without being maltreated. This bad
spirit was excited and encouraged by the violent sermons which were
fulminated against them, from the different pulpits in the city.
Whenever these good men were required to be in attendance, (and they
were liable to be summoned from their lodgings at a few minutes’
notice,) they were not permitted to enter the large hall in which the
synodical sessions were held, but were ordered to wait the pleasure of
that venerable body in an ante-chamber, the door of which was generally
locked, and the passage leading to it guarded by two or three of the
police, who hindered them from holding any communication with their
friends, and kept them in as strict durance as if they had been
convicted of some capital offence. At the formal conclusion of the
principal business of the synod, May the 6th, when the farther
attendance of the foreign divines was declared to be no longer
necessary, the Remonstrants were summoned from their lodgings, and
waited upon the lay commissioners, at six o’clock in the evening, when
the resolution and censure of the synod were read to them in Latin by
Heinsius, the secretary; in which they were accused of “having corrupted
the true religion, dissolved the unity of the church, given grievous
cause of scandal, and shown themselves contumacious and disobedient: for
these several reasons, the synod prohibited them from the farther
exercise of their ministry, deprived them of their offices in the church
and university, and declared them incapable of performing any
ecclesiastical function, till, by sincere repentance, they should have
given the church full satisfaction, and, being thus reconciled to her,
should be re-admitted into her communion.” They were then required to
wait at Dort till farther orders from their high mightinesses; and when
they requested to have a copy of the synodical censure and sentence
against them, they were as usual refused. On the 24th of May, the cited
Remonstrants were summoned to appear before three new commissioners whom
the States General had deputed from their body, when each of them was
called into the room and separately interrogated; after which, he who
had been last called in was ordered into another room, and prevented
from holding any communication with those who had not been ushered into
the presence of the commissioners. The proposal and questions addressed
to each of them were in substance the following: “Since you have been
deprived by the synod, the States General have directed us to ask you
the following questions: Whether you are, notwithstanding this decision,
resolved to act as ministers? Or whether you will be content in future
to lead quiet and peaceable lives in obedience to the government, as
private burghers, without any place or office, abstaining from all
ecclesiastical ministrations in any meeting of the people of your sect,
from all manner of teaching and preaching, exhorting, reading,
administering the sacraments, visiting the sick, writing letters, or
transmitting papers?--It is the intention of their high mightinesses to
allow to those who shall conform to these requisitions such a competency
as may enable them to live comfortably either in or out of these united
provinces, as their own choice may determine.” In addition to these
things, Episcopius was required to promise, “not to write either letters
or books to confirm the people in the sentiments of the Remonstrants, or
to seduce them from the doctrine of the synod.” All of them professed
their willingness to obey their governors in all such matters as might
be performed with a safe conscience, to live peaceably themselves, and
to exhort all others to the same practice. They also expressed their
readiness to refrain from the exercise of their ecclesiastical functions
in the public churches; but none of them, except Leo, could reconcile it
to their consciences to abstain from feeding in smaller assemblies the
flock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. The
majority of them added, “Not only those who abuse or squander away their
talent will be punished, but those also who bury it in the earth, either
through fear of trouble or hope of advantage. It is therefore our duty
to place our lights on candlesticks, and not to hide or smother them
under a bushel or an easy bed; and we hope your lordships will neither
hinder us, nor be displeased with us for so doing.” In a subsequent
interview with the commissioners, the Remonstrants proved, that their
reasons for continuing the exercise of their ministry had formerly
received the sanction of the States General themselves: for at the
treaty of Cologne, in 1579, their high mightinesses had insisted, “that
subjects who professed any religion different from that which was
established, could not satisfy their consciences by foregoing its
exercise.” But, after several unavailing conferences together, the
commissioners left them in a state of suspense and confinement, about
twenty days longer. During that time, several reports were brought to
them from various quarters, “that some great calamity was impending;”
and they were seriously advised to avoid it by a timely flight. They
were likewise informed of Barneveldt’s execution, and of the perpetual
imprisonment to which Grotius and Hogerbeets had been sentenced; and
that several of their brethren in the ministry, who had lately attended
a meeting at Rotterdam about their affairs in general, had been taken
into custody, and brought to the Hague, for that offence. They thought,
however, that all these reports were only intended to create an
artificial alarm, and to induce them to attempt an escape,--thus
delivering their enemies from the hatred to which they would be exposed
by their farther rigorous proceedings. But their firmness on that
occasion corresponded with all their previous conduct, and they refused
to dishonour their good cause by flight, or any other act of cowardice.
On the 3d of July, after having been summoned from Dort to the Hague,
they appeared before the States General, and when they had been called
in singly before their lordships, some time was spent to induce each of
them to sign the act of cessation from the ministry. But to these
renewed solicitations they separately returned the same modest answer as
that which they had delivered at Dort. After allowing them two days for
farther deliberation, their lordships on the fifth of the same month,
having heard a repetition of their refusal, passed a resolution to
banish them “out of the united provinces and the jurisdiction thereof,
without ever being allowed to return till the said states be fully
satisfied that they are ready to subscribe the said act of cessation,
and till they have obtained special leave from their high mightinesses
for that purpose, on pain, in case of non-compliance, of being treated
as disturbers of the public peace, for an example to others.” Episcopius
delivered a short speech, in which, among other matters, he reminded
their high mightinesses, “that they had been invited to a free synod,
and had received frequent verbal promises of a safe conduct.” To this
speech they did not deign a reply, but ordered the Remonstrants to be
conducted into another room, and to have the door locked and bolted,
while the provost and his officers attended on the outside for purposes
of intimidation. After being kept some time in this kind of imprisonment
they were at length permitted to depute to their high mightinesses two
of their body, who requested that they might have leave to adjust their
domestic affairs, to collect what was owing to them, and to pay their
debts, that their wives and children might not be rendered miserable and
turned naked into the streets. They offered to give unexceptionable
security for their return at such a period and to such places as their
lordships might require. While they were preferring this request, the
Heer Muis often interrupted them, and at last sarcastically told them
“not to be so greatly concerned about their families; for if they had
received an extraordinary call from God to serve his church, he would
undoubtedly support them after an extraordinary manner.” But the only
favour which the Remonstrants could obtain, was, the deferring of their
departure till four o’clock the next morning, provided each of them
would promise to retire to his lodgings without speaking to any body,
and to be ready at the appointed early hour next day. Each of them had
fifty guilders allowed for his travelling expenses, and a copy of the
sentence of the States General. But it was between nine and ten o’clock
the next day, before the magistrates removed them in nine wagons toward
Walwick in Brabant, the place of banishment which they had desired,
where they arrived after a journey of three days. The canons of Dort, as
the grand test of Calvinism, were then carried triumphantly by the
synodists throughout the land; and every clergyman, professor, and
schoolmaster, that refused to sign them, was deprived of his benefice
and compelled to lay aside his functions. Several of them, in addition
to their deprivation, were also banished out of the country, to various
parts on the continent. So ended these proceedings of the Synod of Dort
as to these suffering men; proceedings which would have disgraced the
worst age of popery!

While in a state of banishment, these excellent ministers of Christ
Jesus provided for the spiritual wants of their destitute flocks; and,
at the imminent hazard of life and liberty, discharged in person, as
often as they found opportunity, the duties of the pastoral office.
After the death of Prince Maurice, in 1631, they were permitted to
return to their native country, and to resume the peaceable exercise of
their ministry. But the immense literary labours in which they were
compelled to engage during this troublous period have, by the admirably
over-ruling acts of Divine Providence, been rendered most valuable
blessings to the whole of Christendom. Such doctrines and principles
were then brought under discussion, as served to enlighten every country
in Europe on the grand subject of civil and religious liberty, the true
nature of which has from that time been better understood, and its
beneficial effects more generally appreciated and enjoyed.

We subjoin their opinions on the “Five Points” in dispute between them
and the Contra-Remonstrants, translated from the Latin papers which they
presented to the synod. It is, however, necessary for the reader to be
apprized, that, in framing these doctrinal articles, which served them
as texts or theses for some most valuable dissertations on various
cognate subjects, they intended rather to expose the unguarded
assertions and extravagant dogmas of their theological adversaries, than
to exhibit a simple statement of their own sentiments.

I. _On predestination._ 1. God has not decreed to elect any one to
eternal life or to reprobate any man from it, in an order prior to that
by which he has decreed to create that man, without any insight into any
antecedent obedience or disobedience, but according to his own good
pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice, or of his
power or absolute dominion. 2. As the decree of God concerning both the
salvation and the destruction of every man is not the decree of an end
absolutely [_intenti_] fixed, it follows that neither are such means
subordinated to that decree as through them both the elect and the
reprobate may efficaciously and inevitably be brought to the destined
end. 3. Wherefore, neither did God with this design in one man Adam
create all men in an upright condition, nor did he ordain the fall or
even its permission, nor did he withdraw from Adam necessary and
sufficient grace, nor does he now cause the Gospel to be preached and
men to be outwardly called, nor does he confer on them the gifts of the
Holy Spirit,--[he has done none of these things with the design] that
they should be means by which he might bring some of mankind to life
everlasting, and leave others of them destitute of eternal life. Christ
the Mediator is not only the executor of election, but also the
foundation of the very decree of election itself. The reason [_causa_]
why some men are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith,
and are glorified, is not because they are absolutely elected to life
eternal: nor is the reason why others are deserted and left in the fall,
have not Christ bestowed upon them, or, farther, why they are
inefficaciously called, are hardened and damned, because these men are
absolutely reprobated from eternal life. 4. God has not decreed, without
the intervening of actual sins, to leave by far the greater part of
mankind in the fall, and excluded from all hope of salvation. 5. God has
ordained that Christ shall be the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world; and, in virtue of this decree, he has determined to justify and
save those who believe in him, and to administer to men the means which
are necessary and sufficient for faith, in such a manner as he knows to
be befitting his wisdom and justice. But he has not in any wise
determined, in virtue of an absolute decree, to give Christ as a
Mediator for the elect only, and to endow them alone with faith through
an effectual call, to justify them, to preserve them in the faith, and
to glorify them. 6. Neither is any man by some absolute antecedent
decree rejected from life eternal, nor from means sufficient to attain
it: so that the merits of Christ, calling, and all the gifts of the
Spirit, are capable of profiting all men for their salvation, and are in
reality profitable to all men, unless by an abuse of these blessings
they pervert them to their own destruction. But no man whatever is
destined to unbelief, impiety, or the commission of sin, as the means
and causes of his damnation. 7. The election of particular persons is
[_peremptoria_] absolute, from consideration of their faith in Jesus
Christ and their perseverance, but not without consideration of their
faith and of their perseverance in true faith as a prerequisite
condition in electing them. 8. Reprobation from eternal life is made
according to the consideration of preceding unbelief and perseverance in
unbelief, but not without consideration of preceding unbelief or
perseverance in unbelief. 9. All the children of believers are
sanctified in Christ; so that not one of them perishes who departs out
of this life prior to the use of reason. But some children of believers
who depart out of this life in their infancy, and before they have in
their own persons committed any sin, are on no account to be reckoned in
the number of the reprobate: so that neither is the sacred laver of
baptism, nor are the prayers of the church, by any means capable of
profiting them to salvation. 10. No children of believers who have been
baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
and who live in the state of their infancy, are by an absolute decree
numbered among the reprobate.

II. _On the universality of the merit of Christ._ 1. The price of
redemption which Christ offered to his Father is in and of itself not
only sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but it has
also, through the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father,
been paid for all men and every man; and therefore no one is by an
absolute and antecedent decree of God positively excluded from all
participation in the fruits of the death of Christ. 2. Christ, by the
merit of his death, has [_hactenus_] thus far reconciled God the Father
to the whole of mankind,--that he can and will, without injury to his
justice and truth, enter into and establish a new covenant of grace with
sinners and men obnoxious to damnation. 3. Though Christ has merited for
all men and for every man reconciliation with God and forgiveness of
sins, yet, according to [_pactum_] the tenor or terms of the new and
gracious covenant, no man is in reality made a partaker of the benefits
procured by the death of Christ in any other way than through faith;
neither are the trespasses and offences of sinful men forgiven prior to
their actually and truly believing in Christ. 4. Those only for whom
Christ has died are obliged to believe that Christ has died for them.
But those whom they call reprobates, and for whom Christ has not died,
can neither be obliged so to believe, nor can they be justly condemned
for the contrary unbelief; but if such persons were reprobates, they
would be obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.

III. & IV. _On the operation of grace in the conversion of man._ 1. Man
has not saving faith from and of himself, nor has he it from the powers
of his own free will; because in a state of sin he is able from and of
himself to think, will, or do nothing that is good, nothing that is
indeed saving good; of which description, in the first place, is saving
faith. But it is necessary that, by God in Christ through his Holy
Spirit, he should be regenerated and renewed in his understanding,
affections, will, and in all his powers, that he may be capable of
rightly understanding, meditating, willing, and performing such things
as are savingly good. 2. We propound the grace of God to be the
beginning, the progress, and the completion of every good thing; so that
even the man who is born again is not able without this preceding and
prevenient, this exciting and following, this accompanying and
coöperating grace, to think, to will, or to perform any good, or to
resist any temptations to evil: so that good works, and the good actions
which any one is able to find out by thinking, are to be ascribed to the
grace of God in Christ. 3. Yet we do not believe that all the zeal,
care, study, and pains, which are employed to obtain salvation, before
faith and the Spirit of renovation, are vain and useless; much less do
we believe that they are more hurtful to man than useful and profitable.
But, on the contrary, we consider that to hear the word of God, to mourn
on account of the commission of sin, and earnestly to seek and desire
saving grace and the Spirit of renovation, (none of which is any man
capable of doing without divine grace,) are not only not hurtful and
useless, but that they are rather most useful and exceedingly necessary
for obtaining faith and the Spirit of renovation. 4. The will of man in
a lapsed or fallen state, and before the call of God, has not the
capability and liberty of willing any good that is of a saving nature;
and therefore we deny that the liberty of willing as well what is a
saving good as what is an evil is present to the human will in every
state or condition. 5. Efficacious grace, by which any man is converted,
is not irresistible: and though God so affects the will of man by his
word and the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer upon him a
capability of believing, or supernatural power, and actually [_faciat_]
causes man to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject
this grace and not believe, and therefore, also, to perish through his
own culpability. 6. Although, according to the most free and
unrestrained will of God, there is very great disparity or inequality of
divine grace, yet the Holy Spirit either bestows, or is ready to bestow,
upon all and upon every one to whom the word of faith is preached, as
much grace as is sufficient to promote [_suis gradibus_] in its
gradations the conversion of men; and therefore grace sufficient for
faith and conversion is conceded not only to those whom God is said to
be willing to save according to his decree of absolute election, but
likewise to those who are in reality not converted. 7. Man is able, by
the grace of the Holy Spirit, to do more good than he actually does, and
to omit more evil than he actually omits. Neither do we believe that God
[_simpliciter_] absolutely wills that man should do no more good than
that which he does, and to omit no more evil than that which he omits;
nor do we believe it to have been determinately decreed from all
eternity that each of such acts should be so done or omitted. 8.
Whomsoever God calls he calls them seriously, that is, with a sincere
and not with a dissembled intention and will of saving them. Neither do
we subscribe to the opinion of those persons who assert that God
outwardly calls certain men whom he does not will to call inwardly, that
is, whom he is unwilling to be truly converted, even prior to their
rejection of the grace of calling. 9. There is not in God a secret will
of that kind which is so opposed to his will revealed in his word, that
according to this same secret will he does not will the conversion and
salvation of the greatest part of those whom, by the word of his Gospel,
and by his revealed will, he seriously calls and invites to faith and
salvation. 10. Neither [_hîc_] on this point do we admit of a holy
dissimulation, as it is the manner of some men to speak, or of a twofold
person in the Deity. 11. It is not true, that, through the force and
efficacy of the secret will of God or of the divine decree, not only are
all good things necessarily done, but likewise all evil things; so that
whosoever commit sin, they are not able, in respect to the divine
decree, to do otherwise than commit sin; and that God wills, decrees,
and [_procurat_] is the manager of men’s sins, and of their insane,
foolish, and cruel actions, also of the sacrilegious blasphemy of his
own name; that he moves the tongues of men to blaspheme, &c. 12. We also
consider it to be a false and horrible dogma, that God by _secret_ means
impels men to the commission of those sins which he _openly_ prohibits;
that those who sin do not act in opposition to the true will of God and
that which is properly so called; that what is unjust, that is, what is
contrary to God’s command, is agreeable to his will; nay, farther, that
it is a real and capital fault to do the will of God.

V. _On the perseverance of true believers in faith._ 1. The perseverance
of believers in faith is not the effect of that absolute decree of God
by which he is said to have elected or chosen particular persons
circumscribed with no condition of their obedience. 2. God furnishes
true believers with supernatural powers or strength of grace, as much as
according to his infinite wisdom he judges to suffice for their
perseverance, and for their overcoming the temptations of the devil, the
flesh, and the world; and on the part of God stands nothing to hinder
them from persevering. 3. It is possible for true believers to fall away
from true faith, and to fall into sins of such a description as cannot
consist with a true and justifying faith; nor is it only possible for
them thus to fall, but such lapses not unfrequently occur. 4. True
believers are capable by their own fault of falling into flagrant crimes
and atrocious wickedness, to persevere and die in them, and therefore
finally to fall away and to perish. 5. Yet though true believers
sometimes fall into grievous sins, and such as destroy the conscience,
we do not believe that they immediately fall away from all hope of
repentance; but we acknowledge this to be an event not impossible to
occur,--that God, according to the multitude of his mercies may again
call them by his grace to repentance; nay, we are of opinion that such a
recalling has often occurred, although such fallen believers cannot be
“most fully persuaded” about this matter that it will certainly and
undoubtedly take place. 6. Therefore do we with our whole heart and soul
reject the following dogmas, which are daily affirmed in various
publications extensively circulated among the people: namely, (1.) “True
believers cannot possibly sin with deliberate counsel and design, but
only through ignorance and infirmity.” (2.) “It is impossible for true
believers, through any sins of theirs, to fall away from the grace of
God.” (3.) “A thousand sins, nay, all the sins of the whole world, are
not capable of rendering election vain and void.” If to this be added,
“Men of every description are bound to believe that they are elected to
salvation, and therefore are incapable of falling from that election,”
we leave men to think what a wide window such a dogma opens to carnal
security. (4.) “No sins, however great and grievous they may be, are
imputed to believers; nay, farther, all sins, both present and future,
are remitted to them.” (5.) “Though true believers fall into destructive
heresies, into dreadful and most atrocious sins, such as adultery and
murder, on account of which the church, according to the institution of
Christ, is compelled to testify that it cannot tolerate them in its
outward communion, and that unless such persons be converted, they will
have no part in the kingdom of Christ; yet it is impossible for them
totally and finally to fall away from faith.” 7. As a true believer is
capable at the present time of being assured concerning the integrity of
his faith and conscience, so he is able and ought to be at this time
assured of his own salvation and of the saving good will of God toward
him. On this point we highly disapprove of the opinion of the papists.
8. A true believer, respecting the time to come, can and ought, indeed,
to be assured that he is able, by means of watching, prayer, and other
holy exercises, to persevere in the true faith; and that divine grace
will never fail to assist him in persevering. But we cannot see how it
is possible for him to be assured that he will never afterward be
deficient in his duty, but that he will persevere, in this school of
Christian warfare, in the performance of acts of faith, piety, and
charity, as becomes believers; neither do we consider it to be a matter
of necessity that a believer should be assured of such perseverance.

Under the article PELAGIANS has been shown the line of distinction which
the Remonstrants drew between their doctrines and those of Pelagius; and
the following are the just distinctions, which they presented to the
synod of Dort, between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism: “But we must
declare, likewise, what our judgment is respecting Semi-Pelagianism. The
Massilians, after the time of Pelagius, partly corrected his error and
partly retained it; on which account they received from Prosper the
appellation of the _relics_ or _remains of Pelagius_, and are commonly
styled Semi-Pelagians. They allowed the existence of prevenient grace,
but only that which precedes or goes before good works; not that also
which precedes the commencement of faith and of a good will, by which
they believed that man preceded God,--yet this not always, but only
sometimes: On the contrary we say, that God precedes or goes before the
beginning of faith and of a good will; and that it is of grace both that
our will be excited to begin well, and likewise, that, being thus
prepared, it be led through to the grace of regeneration. The
Semi-Pelagians asserted, that man, through the previous dispositions
which had been implanted in his nature, obtained grace as a reward; and,
however they might sometimes decline the use of the term _merit_, they
by no means excluded merit itself: But we deny, that, through the
endeavours of nature, man merits grace. The opinion of the
Semi-Pelagians was, that, for the preservation of the grace of the Holy
Spirit, we want nothing more than that which either by nature we may
have, or that which we may once obtain in conjunction with grace: But we
acknowledge, that, in order to our perseverance in good, special grace
is likewise required.

“Wherefore we are unjustly accused of Semi-Pelagianism by the
Contra-Remonstrants, since we condemn in the Semi-Pelagians those things
which the church universal formerly condemned in them. Yet these are
great signs of inconstancy and consequently of a false judgment,--that
while some among them fasten Pelagianism upon us and others
Semi-Pelagianism, there are others who declare that we are nearly and
almost Semi-Pelagians, all of them having chosen and employed these
epithets only for purposes of odium. Our conclusion therefore is, that
we derogate nothing from divine grace, but acknowledge its supernatural
and unmerited acts, and their absolute necessity for the work of
conversion. But, on the other hand, we frankly confess, that the
indifferency or liberty of the will is not taken away by grace, but that
it is perfected for the better; and that the will is not necessitated,
or so determined toward good as not to be able to do the opposite.

“This was also the judgment of all antiquity and of the church
universal; and the orthodox accounted this way to be the safest, which
lay between two precipices, the one that of the Manichees, the other
that of the Pelagians. St. Jerom says, ‘We thus preserve free will, that
we do not deny to it the help which it requires in every thing which it
performs,’ _Dialog. adversus Pelagium_. And St. Augustine, who was at
other times a most fierce defender of absolute election, judiciously
observes, in his forty-sixth letter to Valentinus, ‘If there be no grace
of God, how does he save the world? And if there be no free will, how
does he judge the world?’ And, as St. Bernard says, in the commencement
of his book _On Grace and Free Will_, ‘Take away free will, and there
will be nothing to be saved; take away grace, and there will then be
nothing from which salvation can come.’ We have had regard to both of
them; lest, if we denied the existence of freedom in the will, we should
encourage the sloth and listlessness of men; or if the existence of
grace, we should give up the reins to pride and haughtiness.--From these
quotations [and others which they give] it is evident that the opinion
of the fathers was, that free will and grace so completely conspire
together, that free will is perfected by grace, and not destroyed; the
destruction of the will in this case being a calumny invented by the
Pelagians, which was generally refuted by the patrons of grace.”

For other particulars relating to general redemption consult the
articles ARMINIANISM, BAXTERIANISM, CALVINISM:CALVINISM, #CHURCH OF
ENGLAND, and LUTHERANS.