year to still enjoyed by the religious bodies averse from the public rites of the English church; but it was also the commencement of those numerous parties and sects which spring up from year in that fortunate island, often more suddenly than mushrooms, and which distract the people with their new inventions and opinions. 8 § 26. In the reign of this William III., A. D. 1689, arose a very noted schism in the English episcopal church, which, quite down to the present times, no means have been able to remove. William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, and seven other bishops, all men distinguished for their learning and purity of morals, declared that they could not in conscience take the oath of fidelity to the new king William III.; because James II., though expelled from the kingdom, was, in their view, the legitimate king of England. As no arguments could induce them to recede from this opinion, they were deprived of their offices, in 1690, by a decree of the English parliament; and other bishops were appointed in their places. The bishops who were deposed and turned out of their episcopal dwellings, founded a new church in the bosom of the English church, differing from the rest of the church in opinions, in the form of worship, and in other respects. $ Gilbert Burnet's History of his own Times, vol. ii. p. 23. "["The other Non-juring bishops were Dr. Lloyd, bishop of Norwich; Dr Turner, of Ely; Dr. Kenn, of Bath and Wells; Dr. Frampton, of Gloucester; Dr. Thomas, of Worcester; Dr. Lake, of Chichester; Dr. White, bishop of Peterborough." Macl.] ["These were Tillotson, Moore, Patrick, Kidder, Fowler, and Cumberland, names that will ever be pronounced with veneration by such as are capable of esteeming solid well-employed learning and genuine piety, and that will always shine among the brightest ornaments of the church of England." Macl.] [The language of Dr. Mosheim here, would seem to imply, that the Nonjuring bishops produced a formal secession from the established church, and erected a permanent sect, which differed in doctrines and in its forms of worship from the church of England. But it was only a temporary disagreement, whether William III. or James II. was the legal sovereign; and of course whe From the cause that produced ther those bishops and priests, who were deprived for not taking the oath of allegiance to the former, or those who were appointed to fill their places, were the legitimate bishops and parish ministers. Both parties professed the same faith, adhered to the same discipline, and used the same liturgy, except that the non-jurors are said to have framed and used a prayer for king James and for their party. It was rather a political than a religious schism; and one which necessarily terminated on the death of the pretender, and of the deprived bishops and clergy. Some principles, indeed, which were then contended for, continued to be maintained, after they became little more than points of theoretical speculation; and the believing or disbelieving these principles, soon constituted the only difference between the two parties. Tr.] "It is stated that at some period within the two or three first years after the Revolution, probably in the year 1691 or 1692, the exiled king ordered a list of the non-juring clergy to be sent over to the disunion, this church was called that of the Non-Jurors; and on account of the opinion which it maintained, and continues to maintain, respecting the authority of the church, it received the name of High Church; that is, one entertaining very exalted ideas of the prerogatives and authority of the church: to which is opposed the Low Church, or that which has more moderate views of the power of the church. The deprived bishops, with their friends and followers, contended that the church is not him : a list was accordingly made out, as perfect as could be procured in the existing state of things, considering the unwillingness, which, for obvious reasons, many must have felt to have their names appear in such a list. Out of the number whose names were thus sent over, it is related, that, at the request of the non-juring bishops, king James nominated two for the continuance of the episcopal succession, the one to derive his spiritual functions and authority from Archbishop Sancroft, the other from Bishop Lloyd of Norwich, the eldest suffragan bishop. The two appointed were Dr. George Hickes and Mr. Thomas Wagstaffe: the former was consecrated by the title of saffragan of Thetford, the latter by that of suffragan of Ipswich. The archbishop died before their consecration, and his archiepiscopal functions were performed on the occasion by the bishop of Norwich," (whom he had appointed his vicar in all ecclesiastical matters, by an instrument dated Feb. 9, 1691,) "assisted by the other non-juring bishops." D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft. Lond. 1840, p. 296. "The succession of bishops and presbyters among the non-jurors was continued during the greater part of the last century. Dr. Hickes appears to have been the leading person amongst them; and during his lifetime all those who joined in the setting up of a rival communion remained compact. Afterward they became much divided. The number of non-juring bishops seems to have varied at different times. In 1716, there were five, Jeremy Collier, Nathaniel Spinkes, Hawes, and two others. Among the names of persons afterwards consecrated were those of Dr. Deacon, Dr. Thomas Brett, Mr. Thomas Brett, Mr. Smith of Durham, Dr. Rawlinson and Dr. Gordon. The latter died in London, November, 1779, and is supposed to have been the last non-juring 3 bishop. He left behind him two or three presbyters. The non-juring bishops were always particularly strict in their consecrations, which were performed by at least three bishops, the acts of consecration being always signed, sealed, and properly attested, and carefully preserved. Dr. Deacon separated himself from the other non-jurors, and himself alone consecrated one or more bishops; but these consecrations never were allowed by the main body. The succeeding bishops of the non-jurors were not consecrated with any particular titles, as were the first bishops by those of suffragans of Thetford and Ipswich. There were many very eminent and learned men amongst the non-jurors at different times; amongst others, Collier, Leslie, Dr. Brett, Dodwell, and Nelson. It is supposed that at the end of the last century, there was not a single non-juring congregation or minister remaining." Ibid. note. Ed.] 3 The name of High Church, that is, of those who have high notions of the church and of its power, properly belongs to the Non-Jurors. But it is usual among the English to give it a more extensive application; and to apply it to all those who extol immoderately the authority of the church, and declare it exempt from all human power, notwithstanding they do not refuse to swear allegiance to the king. And there are many such, even in that church which generally goes under the name of the Low Church. [The Non-Jurors were also called Jacobites, from their adherence to James II. and his son the pretender, in opposition to the reigning sovereign and the house of Hanover. The Scottish bishops, after the year 1688, all adhered to the house of Stuart, and were called Non-Jurors, because they refused the oath of allegiance to the reigning sovereign. Tr.] subject to the civil authority, and to parliaments, but to God only, and has the power of self-government; and consequently, that the decree of parliament against them was unjust and a nullity: and that an ecclesiastical council only has power, by its decrees, to deprive a bishop of his office. The celebrated Henry Dodwell was the first that contended fiercely for these rights and this power of the church. He was followed by several others: and hence arose this perplexing and difficult controversy respecting the church, which has not yet closed, and which is renewed with zeal from time to time.1 § 27. The Non-Jurors or High Church, who claimed for themselves the appellation of the Orthodox, and called the Low Church the Schismatical, differed from the rest of the episcopal church in several particulars and regulations, but especially in the following sentiments. I. That it is never lawful for the people, under any provocation or pretext whatever, to resist their kings and sovereigns. The English call this the doctrine of passive obedience; the opposite of which is the doctrine of active obedience, held by those who deem it lawful, in certain cases, for the people to oppose their rulers and kings. II. That the hereditary succession of kings is of divine appointment; and, therefore, can be set aside or annulled in no case whatever. III. That the church is subject to the jurisdiction, not of the civil magistrate, but of God only, particularly in matters of a religious nature. IV. That, consequently, Sancroft and the other bishops who were deposed under king William III. remained the true bishops as long as they lived; and that those substituted in their places were the unjust possessors of other men's property. V. That these unjust possessors of other men's offices were both bad citizens and bad members of the church, [Henry Dodwell, senior, was appointed Camden professor of History at Oxford in 1688; and being deprived of the office in 1690, because he refused the oath of allegiance, he published a vindication of the non-juring principles. Several other tracts were published by him and others on the same side; none of which were suffered to go unanswered. In 1691, Dr. Humphrey Hody published his Unreasonableness of Separation, or a Treatise out of ecclesiastical history, showing, that although a bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the church ever made a separation, if the successor was not a In heretic; translated out of an ancient or were both rebels and schismatics; and, therefore, that such as held communion with them were chargeable with rebellion and schism. VI. That schism, or splitting the church in pieces, is the most heinous sin; the punishment due to which no one can escape but by returning with sincerity to the true church from which he has revolted.5 § 28. We now pass over to the Hollanders, who live opposite the English. The ministers of the Dutch churches thought themselves happy when the enemies of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees, or the Arminians, were vanquished and put out: but it was not their fortune to enjoy tranquillity very long. For after this victory they fell, as ill luck would have it, into such contests among themselves, that, during nearly the whole century, Holland was the scene of very fierce animosity and strife. It is neither easy, nor important, to enumerate all these contentions. We shall therefore omit the disputes between individual doctors respecting certain points both of doctrine and discipline; such as the disputes between those men of high reputation, Gisbert Voet and Samuel Maresius [des Marets]; the disputes about false hair, interest for money, stage plays, and other minute moral questions, between Salmasius, Boxhorn, Voet, and several others; and the contest respecting the power of the magistrate in matters of religion, carried on by William Apollonius, James Trigland, Nicholas Vedel, and others, and which destroyed friendship between Frederic Spanheim and John van der Wayen. For these and similar disputes rather show what were the sentiments of certain eminent divines upon particular doctrines and points of morality, than lay open the internal state of the church. This can only be known from those controversies which disquieted either the whole church, or at least a large portion of it. § 29. The principal controversies of this sort were those respecting the Cartesian philosophy and the new opinions of Cocceius for these have not yet terminated, and they have produced two very powerful parties, the Cocceians and the Voetians; which once made a prodigious noise, though now See William Whiston's Memoirs of his own Life and Writings, vol. i. p. 30, &c. George Hickes, Memoirs of the Life of John Kettlewell, Lond. 1718, 8vo, who treats expressly and largely on these matters. Nouveaux Dictionnaire Histor. et Critique, article Collier, tom. ii. p. 112. Phil. Masson's Histoire Critique de la Républ. des Lettres, tom. xiii. p. 298, &c. and elsewhere. they are more silent. The Cocceian theology and the Cartesian philosophy have no natural connexion; and therefore the controversies respecting them were not related to each other. Yet it so happened that the followers of these two very distinct systems of doctrine formed very nearly one and the same party, those who took Cocceius for their guide in theology, adhering to Des Cartes as their master in philosophy: because those who assailed the Cartesians attacked also Cocceius and his followers, and opposed both with equal animosity. Hence the Cartesians and Cocceians were under a kind of necessity to unite and combine their forces in order the better to defend their cause against such a host of adversaries. The Voëtians derived their name from Gisbert Voet, a very famous divine of Utrecht, who set up the standard, as it were, in this war, and induced great numbers to attack both Des Cartes and Cocceius. § 30. The Cartesian philosophy, which at its first appearance was viewed by many, even in Holland, as preferable to the Peripatetic, was first assailed by Gisbert Voet in 1639, at Utrecht, where he taught theology with very great reputation, and who not obscurely condemned this philosophy as blasphemous. He was a man of immense reading and multifarious knowledge, but indifferently qualified to judge correctly on metaphysical and abstract subjects. While Des Cartes resided at Utrecht, Voet censured various opinions of his; but especially the following positions, he feared, were subversive of all religion; namely, that one who intends to be wise, must begin by calling every thing in question, and even the existence of God: that the essence of spirit, and even of God himself, consists in thought that space, in reality, has no existence, but is a mere fiction of the imagination; and, therefore, that matter is without bounds. Des Cartes first replied himself to the charges brought against him; and afterwards, his disciples afforded him aid. On the other hand, Voet was joined, not only by those Dutch theologians, who were then in the highest reputation for erudition and soundness in the faith, such as Andrew Rivet, Maresius, and van Mastricht, but also by the greatest part of the clergy of inferior note. To this flame, already raised too high, new fuel was added, when some of the theologians See Fred. Spanheim's Epistola de Novissimis in Belgio Dissidiis; Opp. tom. ii. p. 973, &c. Hadr. Baillet, la Vie de M. Des Cartes, tom. ii. cap. v. p. 33, &c. Gabr. Daniel, Voyage du Monde de M. Des |