IT. No Church council has given rise to more bitter controversy than the Synod of Dort. Arminian writ- era have denounced it in the strongest language as unworthy the name of a Christian synod, while, on the other hand, Calvinistic writers have extolled its fairness and impartiality. All depends upon the point of view, and upon the notion of the true purpose of the synod which is adopted. If this celebrated as-
for the diteu$mom of the five points of thsokn^a^ tkm, then all that the Arminians have ssidsf it v« ba well deserved. If^ on the ether hsad, it be • oeived as a body of divines holding Cslviaiaie vi% believing those views to be tme, sad csOri ktk purpose of condemning and prohtbitiBg the near opinioos in the Belgic dmrches, the esantsf&Rs- od was consistent thnwghoot. Andtkiivefaam to be the tme view. It was not s free ssNaytir the ditcnssion of contxoverted points in tWshp.a a national ecclesiastical court for the trisl «f ale^ heretics. The Judgment of Moses Stosrt viD|fMw be generally aoqnieaced in : '* That the Sysodftf lie should have been hi^y cdefanted b^ thm odiS» poraries who sympathised with it ta Mm$ m i doctrine, was natural. Hence we find thit,iitktt hand, it has been eulogized mm the pwst fetka dtt- olesiastical ooancils tluit have ever beea kU: te.k one might also expect, on the other hod, h op- nents have been more loud, if postibk, in ths a» plaints than its friendsin their praiics. Ahufim fii injury and persecution of course nswiMii ms in the minds of the Remonstrants, sad of iDvlin» pathised with them ; and this fading m* pttLf ^^ gravated by the appeal made to the dril pvre carry into execution the decrees of the tjioi^kfr ishment, by imprisonment, and by fine^ Botk ^ parties nndonbtedly went too far in thdr foiie ai their blame. The JS!i?N>s»f»o of the synodis^w&e is an able paper ; yet I cannot see thst, coapn^v^ other declarations of the like nators, it csUi fa v very extravagant eulogy. Certaialj the Wea- ster Confession is superior, as a whole. )bsflf 0a talent, much learning, warm piety, snd wdtne^ intentions belonged, no doubt, to the Gonsdlof D«: and perhaps an unosual number of saefa act; tci one of them has ever been so distingiiisfaed iia6t» logian and a writer as many other men who csb easily named among the Reformed cfasidM. 1^ the measures of force which the ^Hiit of dii;^ e> of the day urged them to take were ni^jeisB^ ^ hurtful tendency, and against the troe ^iai flf {n- dence and Protestantbm, I suppose no one is seta and In our country will venture to csD is (pes* But, at the same time, their opponents win mm pfr cerned in the blame of these measures tkatiKTnr wflling to allow. They were violent, bvtci «» tic, contemptuous. They felt a deep teste tf ^■^ and they gave vent to it in no very nesfiin^ ^» They had reason to complain that the priBOftotf'^ ligious liberty were ridisted in respect to tka; >* their opponents might well compLsiB shotkatt principle of Clui^an moderation, sad les^tfaB- ner, and respect fbr differing 8entinieoti,halisa- f^uently been violated on the psit of tbi la* strants. Nor can there be any room to doiU^^ the latter had been the dominant psitf tb(7 *^' have taken as effBctnal measures to canytkarp"^ as the Gomarists did, although, perfas{«, oK s t^ same way" {American BUlical Mepotitorf, i, ^\
Uteraiure.— The oflkial Acta— Acta ^w*.feJi» /sff A>rdr«cA/iAa5ste(1620,4to); sooatisniLiitoI^ also into French, Le8Aeie$dela Sytode deD^\\P\ den, 1624, 4to); Judkium S^moU NaUmalUa^ Eeck$. Bdg, hahit. DardrechH (Dort, 1619. 4li: »* into English by Bill, 1619); RMnoostisst oM of minutes— i4cte ei 8a4»ta Sfuodidk D''^ Mimutrorum Jiemaiutrantkm (Hardernd, 1^ ^ Hales, of Eton, XeHen, in his GiMmBmamil^ 1678, 4to); trsnslatad into Latin, wHhBoltftf^>j tions, by Mosheim, B%$tona ConeSm /Mre0«(Hn 1724) ; Balcanqnal's XsMew; the acceaat is ^ i^tMtoat oc £Hid»<. FcrorMK (AnuL 1660^ P- ^ ^ and many letters in that ooUection; Haki'a*^^ canqual's />ttert, in German, by D. HirtsjA (Zw 1672, 12mo); G.Brandt (Remonstnat), F**"^ 4
DORTUS
878
DOTHAN
^rtnatie <AinflteTd. and Sotterd. 166a-1704, 4 toU. ; ibL into English by Chamberlayne, Lond. 172(V-28, ols. fbl. ; also abridged, 1726, 2 vols. 8vo) ; Ley- ker (Calvinist), Eere van de NatwnaU Synods vtm ^dregt (2 partfs Amst. 1706-1707, 4to), a reply to G. indt ; to which reply his son, Job. Brandt, replied "eranttooordmg van de kistoTH tfon G, Brandt (Amst. 5>; Letters of the Ilesakm JkUffotet (LiiMm DeUg. ssiaconun), ed. by Heppe, in ZeUschrift fur kitto- Jke Theologie, xxiii, 226 sq. ; Neal, Hiskry of the riUmt^ pt. ii, ch. ii; Collier, EccUtiatHoai History Greett Britain (Lond. 1841, vii, 404 sq. ;) ; Nichols, (rtniM» €tnd Armmamim (Lond. 1824, 2 vols. 8vo), ixliii, and ii, 576 sq. ; Mosheim, JEccltsiadical Hit- y, cent, x^vii, sec. ii, pL ii, ch. iil ; Gieseler, Ch, Hitt. Smith, iv, § 43; Schrdckh, KirckengeschidUe a»t Reformation^ v, 246 sq. ; Scott, ArUcks of the Synod Dort, transl. with notes (Phila. Presb. Board : se- rely reviewed in Nichols, Calvinism cmd Arminian- », vol. i ; favorably reviewed in Christian Observer, iii, 794, and in Spirit of the PUgrims, iv, 266). The vums of jDoctrine, in Latin, are given in the SyUoge mfessionun^ (Oxon. 1804, p. 364 sq.) ; in Niemeyer, ilectio Cot^essiontm (1840, p. 690) ; in Angusti, Cor- is Librarum Stftnboiicorwn (Elberfeld, 1827, p. 198- 0) ; in English, in Scott's Synod ofDorty cited above ; 3o in the Appendix to the Constitution if the Reformed utch Church (Phila. 1840, 18mo) ; and in HaU, Har- (my of the Protestant Confessions (Lond. 1842, p. 689 [.). See also Gass, Geschichte der protestcmtischen ogmatik, i, bk. ii and iii; Canningham, Reformers vd Tlieology of the Reformation^ Essay vii ; Cunning- im, Histancal Theology, ch. xxv, § 1, 2 ; and the ar- cles Akbhinianism ; Episgopius; Gbotius; Yobs-