[Footnote 026:  “King James,” says Mr. James Nichols, in his Calvinism and Arminianism compared, p. 242, “sent a deputation of respectable British divines, for the double and undisguised purpose of condemning the Remonstrants, but especially Vorstius, (whom his Majesty had long before exposed to the world as an arch-heretic), and of assisting the Prince of Orange in his design of usurping the liberties of the United Provinces, and assuming the supreme authority.  The Elector Palatine sent his Heidelberg divines for the same family purpose; and the Duke of Bouillon employed all his influence with the chief pastors among the French reformed.”]

[Footnote 027:  The words of the former are remarkable:  “The errors of public actions, if they be not very gross, are with less inconvenience tolerated than amended.  For the danger of alteration, of disgracing and disabling authority, makes that the fortune of such proceeding admits of no redress; but being howsoever well or ill done, they must ever after be upheld.  The most partial spectator of our synodal acts cannot but confess, that, in the late discussion of the Remonstrants, with so much choler and heat, there was a great oversight committed, and that,—­whether we respect our common profession of Christianity, ’quae nil nisi justum suadet et lene,’ or the quality of this people, apt to mutiny by reason of long liberty, and not having learned to be imperiously commanded,—­in which argument the clergy should not have read their first lesson.  The synod, therefore, to whom it is not now in integro to go back and rectify what is amiss, without disparagement, must now go forward and leave events to God, and for the countenance of their actions do the best they may.”  Letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, 11 January 1619.]

[Footnote 028:  Nichol’s Calvinism and Arminianism compared, Vol.  II. p.592]

[Footnote 029:  Decline and Fall, Ch.  LIV. towards the end.]

[Footnote 030:  The writers who have given an account of the Synod of Dort are mentioned by Fabricius, Bib.  Graeca, Vol.  XI. p. 723.  Some useful observations upon the proceedings of the Synod may be found in “Mr. Nichols’s Calvinism and Arminianism compared.”  It is much to be wished that the promised continuation of this work should speedily make its appearance.

But no work upon this famous Synod deserves more attention than “Johannis Halesii, Historia Concilii Dordraceni, J. Laur.  Moshemius Theol.  Doct. et P.P.C. ex Anglico Sermone latine vertit, variis observationibus et Vita Halesii ausit.  Accessit ejusdem de auctoritate Concilii Dordraceni Paci Sacrae noxii, Consultatio.  Hamburgi, 8vo.”  M. Le Clere’s criticism on this work (Bibliotheque ancienne et moderne Vol. 23, art. 4.) contains much valuable information upon the Synod, and a summary of the life and writings of Mr. Hales.—­Des Maizeaux published a curious account of them in 1719.]