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.
SYRACUSE, a famous city of Sicily, seated on the east side of the
island, Acts xxviii, 12.