nce to them, both the censures
of the church, and the penalties by which the States punished violators
of public authority, should be inflicted upon them." The States ordered
the Remonstrants to remain, in the meantime, in the town.
The Remonstrants persisting in their refusal to acknowledge the
authority of the Synod, an assembly of it met on _the 57th
Session_, and formally expelled the Remonstrants from the Synod.
Episcopius exclaimed, "May God decide between the Synod and us!" "I
appeal," said Niellius, "from the injustice of the Synod, to the throne
of Jesus Christ." All remained firm in their protestation.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
Mr. Hales and Mr. Balcanqual, in their letters to the English
ambassador, blame the proceedings of the Synod.[027] The only question
between the Synod and the Remonstrants was, whether the latter would
submit to acknowledge the authority of the former. This, the
Remonstrants uniformly refused to do. In almost every Synod there was a
repetition of the same demand, and of the same answer. By every English
reader, the demand of the Synod will be thought exorbitant.
[Sidenote: CHAP VI. 1618.]
The Synod relaxed afterwards so far, as to permit the Remonstrants to
deliver their sentiments in writing: they did it at great length. But
they still persisted in objecting to the authority of the Synod, and to
be examined by it. The Synod therefore proceeded against them in their
absence; and ultimately, on the 24th of April 1610, pronounced them
guilty of pestilential errors, and corruptors of the true religion. The
five articles were formally condemned; Episcopius and the other
ministers were deposed.
[Sidenote: The Synod of Dort.]
"There are conclusions," says Grotius,[028] in a letter written by him
in the same year, "in the canons of the Synod of Dort, of which, if good
Melancthon were again to make his appearance, he would express his
disapprobation, and with which Bullinger would be no less grieved; there
are others, which alienate all the Lutherans from the Calvinists;
although amity and concord are desirable between them and us at this
juncture. There are some points in them, which forbid the Greek churches
from uniting with us, though they are very favourable to us; but there
are others of the Dort canons, which admit of no controversy.--It is
possible that they may recall to mind my labours for unity. Even those
writings, which I published since my calamity, have not be
|