whom the sacred writers call Satan and the Devil, together with his ministers, lies bound with everlasting chains in hell; so that he cannot thence go forth, to terrify mortals, and to plot against the righteous. Des Cartes placed the essence of spirit in thinking; but none of those acts, which are ascribed to evil spirits, can be effected by mere thought.5 Therefore, lest the reputation of Des Cartes should be impaired, the narrations and decisions of the divine books must be accommodated to his opinion. This error not only disquieted all the United Provinces, but likewise induced not a few Lutheran divines to gird on their armour." Its author, although con 5 ["Our historian relates here, somewhat obscurely, the reasoning which Becker founded upon the Cartesian definition of mind or spirit. The tenor and amount of his argument is as follows: The essence of mind is thought, and the essence of matter is extension. Now since there is no sort of conformity or connexion between a thought and extension, mind cannot act upon matter unless these two substances be united, as soul and body are in man:- - therefore no separate spirits, either good or evil, can act upon mankind. Such acting is miraculous, and miracles can be performed by God alone. It follows of consequence, that the Scripture accounts of the actions and operations of good and evil spirits must be understood in an allegorical sense.'-This is Becker's argument; and it does, in truth, little honour to his acuteness and sagacity. By proving too much, it proves nothing at all; for if the want of a connexion or conformity between thought and extension renders mind incapable of acting upon matter, it is hard to see how their union should remove this incapacity, since the want of conformity and connexion remains notwithstanding this union. Besides, according to this reasoning, the Supreme Being cannot act upon material beings. In vain does Becker maintain the affirmative, by having recourse to a miracle, for this would imply, that the whole course of nature was a series of miracles, that is to say, that there are no miracles at all." Macl.] 6 See Michael Lilienthal's Selecta Histor. Litterar. pt. i. Observ. ii. p. 17, &c. Miscellanea Lipsiens. tom. i. pp. 361. 364, where there is a description of a medal, struck in reference to Becker, and the other writers, whom we have often quoted. Nouveau Diction. Hist. et Crit. tom. i. p. 193. [Balthazar Becker, D.D., was born near Groningen, 1634; educated there and at Franeker; made rector of the Latin school in the latter place, a preacher, a doctor of divinity; and lastly, a pastor at Amsterdam, where he died in 1718. This learned man published three Catechisms; in the last of which, 1670, he taught, that Adam, if he had not sinned, would have been immortal, by virtue of the fruits of the tree of life; questioned, whether endless punishment (which he placed in horror and despair) was consistent with the goodness of God; and admitted episcopacy to be the most ancient and customary form of church government. These sentiments exposed him to some animadversion. In 1680 he published a book, in proof that comets are not ominous. In his sermons he had often intimated that too much was ascribed to the agency of the devil; and being frequently questioned on the subject, he concluded to give the world his full views on the whole subject. This he did in his Dutch work, entitled, Betoverde Wereld, &c. i. c. The World Bewitched, or a critical investigation of the commonly received opinion respecting spirits, their nature, power, and acts, and all those extraordinary feats, which men are said to perform, through their aid; in four books, Amsterd. 1691, In the preface, he says, "It is come to that, at the present day, that it is almost regarded as a part of religion, to ascribe great wonders to the devil; and those are taxed with infidelity and perverseness, who hesitate to believe, what thousands relate concerning his power. 4to. futed by vast numbers, and deprived of his ministerial office, yet, on his dying bed, in 1718, continued to affirm, until his last breath, that he believed all that he had written to be true. Nor did his new doctrine die with him; but it still has very many defenders, both open and concealed. § 36. It is well known that various sects, some of them Christian, others semi-Christian, and others manifestly delirious, not unfrequently start up and are cherished, in Holland as well as England. But it is not easy for any one, who does not reside in those parts of the world, to give a correct account of them ; because the books which contain the necessary information, seldom find their way into foreign countries. Yet the Dutch sects of Verschorists and Hattemists, having now for some time been better known among us, I shall here give some account of them. The former derived their name from James Verschoor, of Flushing; who, about the year 1680, is said to have so strangely mixed together the principles of Spinoza and Cocceius, as out of them to have produced a new system of religion, which was quite absurd and impious. His followers are also called Hebrews; because they all, both men and women, bestow great attention on the Hebrew language. The latter It is now thought essential to piety, not only to fear God, but also to fear the devil. Whoever does not do so, is accounted an atheist; because he cannot persuade himself, that there are two Gods, the one good, and the other evil." He also gives a challenge to the devil: "If he is a god, let him defend himself: let him lay hold of me: for I throw down his altars. In the name of the God of hosts, I fight with this Goliath: we will see, who can deliver him." In the first Book, he states the opinions of the pagans, concerning gods, spirits, and demons and shows, that both Jews and Christians have derived their prejudices on this subject from them. In the second, he shows, what reason and Scripture teach concerning spirits: and in the third, confutes the believers in witchcraft and confederacies with the devil. In the fourth Book, he answers the arguments alleged from experience, to prove the great power of the devil. He founds his doctrine on two grand principles; that, from their very nature, spirits cannot act upon material beings; and, that the Scriptures represent the : devil and his satellites, as shut up in the prison of hell. To explain away the texts which militate against his system, evidently costs him much labour and perplexity. His interpretations, for the most part, are similar to those still relied on by the believers in his doctrine. -Becker was not the first writer who published such opinions. Before him were Arnold Geulinx, of Leyden, who died in 1669; and Daillon, a French Reformed preacher, who fled to London, and there published his views, in 1687. But these advanced their opinions problematically; while Becker advanced his in a positive tone. He also discussed the whole subject; and he mingled wit and sarcasm with his arguments. This difference caused his book to awaken very great attention; while theirs passed unheeded. Becker was deposed and silenced, by the synods of Edam and Alkmaar, in 1692. But the senate of Amsterdam continued to him his salary, till his death, in 1718. See Schroeckh, Kirchengesch. seit der Reformation, vol. viii. p. 713, &c. Tr.] sect, about the same time, had for its leader Pontianus van Hattem, a minister of the Gospel at Philipsland in Zealand, who was also an admirer of Spinoza, and was afterwards deprived of his office, on account of his errors. These two sects were akin to each other; and yet they must have differed in some way; since Van Hattem could never persuade the Verschorists to enter into alliance with him. Neither of them wished to be looked upon as abandoning the Reformed religion and Hattem wrote an exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism. If I understand correctly the not very lucid accounts. given us of their doctrines, the founders of both sects, in the first place, inferred, from the Reformed doctrine of the absolute decrees of God, this principle, that whatever takes place, necessarily and unavoidably takes place. Assuming this as true, they denied that men are by nature wicked or corrupt; and that human actions are some of them good, and others bad. Hence they inferred, that men need not trouble themselves about a change of heart, nor be solicitous to obey the divine law; that religion does not consist in acting, but in suffering; and that Jesus Christ inculcated this only, that we patiently and cheerfully endure whatever, by the good pleasure of God, occurs or befalls us, striving only to keep our minds tranquil. Hattem, in particular, taught that Jesus Christ did not by his death appease the divine justice, nor expiate the sins of men; but that He signified to us, that there was nothing in us which could offend God, and in this way He made us just. These things appear to be perverse, and inimical to all virtue and yet neither of these men-unless I am wholly deceivedwas so beside himself, as to recommend iniquity; or to suppose, that a person may safely follow his lusts. At least, the sentiment ascribed to them, that God punishes men BY their sins, not FOR them, seems to carry this import: That unless a person bridles his lusts, he must suffer punishment, both in this life and in that to come; yet not by a divine infliction, or by the sovereign will and pleasure of God, but by some law of nature.7 Both sects still exist; but have discarded the names derived from their founders. § 37. The churches of Switzerland, from the year 1669, 7 See Theodore Hasaeus, Dissert. in the Museum Bremens. Theol. Philol. vol. ii. p. 144, &c. Wilh. Goeree, Kerkelyke and Wereldlycke Historie, Leyd. 1729, 4to. Bibliothèque Belgique, tom. ii. p. 203, &c. : were in great fear, lest the religion handed down to them by their fathers, and confirmed at the synod of Dort, should be contaminated with the doctrines, already mentioned, of the French divines, Amyraut, de la Place, and Capell. For there were at that time, among the associated ministers of Geneva, certain men, distinguished both for their eloquence and their erudition, who not only approved those doctrines, but also endeavoured, against the will of their colleagues, to induce others to embrace them.8 To restrain the efforts of these men, the principal divines of Switzerland, in the year 1675, had a book drawn up by John Henry Heidegger, a very celebrated divine of Zurich, in opposition to the new doctrines of the French; and with no great difficulty, they persuaded the magistrates to annex it, by public authority, to the common Helvetic formulas of religion. It is usually called the Formula Consensus. But this measure, which was intended to secure peace, became rather the fruitful source of contentions and disturbance. For many declared, that they could not conscientiously assent to this Formula: and hence pernicious commotions arose in some places. In consequence of these, the canton of Bern and the republic of Geneva, at the urgent solicitation of Frederic William of Brandenburg, in the year 1686, abrogated the Formula Consensus.9 In the other cantons, it with difficulty retained its authority somewhat longer: but in our age, having given birth to the most violent quarrels, particularly in the University of Lausanne, it began to sink in them also, and to lose nearly all its influence.1 See Greg. Leti's Istoria Genevrina, pt. iv. lib. v. pp. 448. 488. 497, &c. 9 ["It must not be imagined, from this expression of our historian, that this Form, entitled the Consensus, was abrogated at Basil by a positive edict. The case stood thus: Mr. Peter Werenfels, who was at the head of the Consistory of that city, paid such regard to the letter of the Elector, as to avoid requiring a subscription to this Form from the candidates for the ministry; and his conduct, in this respect, was imitated by his successors. The remonstrances of the Elector do not seem to have had the same effect upon those that governed the church of Geneva; for the Consensus, or Form of agreement, maintained its credit and authority there until the year 1706, when, without being abrogated by any positive act, it fell into disuse. In several other parts of Switzerland, it was still imposed as a rule of faith, as appears by the letters addressed by George I. king of England, as also by the king of Prussia, in the year 1723, to the Swiss Cantons, in order to procure the abrogation of this Form, or Consensus, which was considered as an obstacle to the union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches. See the Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire des Troubles arrivés en Suisse à l'occasion du Consensus; published in 8vo. at Amsterdam, in the year 1726." Macl.] 1 See Christ. Matth. Pfaff's Schediasma de Formula Consensus Helvetica: *CHAPTER III. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. § 1. Appointment of the arch-priest.-§ 2. Primacy of Abp. Bancroft.-§ 3. English concurrence in the synod of Dort.-§ 4. The Lambeth Articles formally admitted by the Church of Ireland.—§ 5. Progress of Puritanism under Charles I. -§ 6. Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland.-§ 7. Proceedings of the long Parliament. § 8. Cromwell.-§ 9. Ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland.-§ 10. The Savoy Conference.-§ 11. Restoration of Protestant episcopacy in Ireland.—§ 12. Selftaxation relinquished by the English clergy.—§ 13. Penal religious Acts under Charles II.-§ 14. James II.-§ 15. The Toleration Act.-§ 16. Ineffectual attempt at a comprehension.—§ 17. Overthrow of established Protestant episcopacy in Scotland.-§ 18. The Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. § 1. AT the close of the sixteenth century Romanism acquired a new hold upon England, by the institution of a qualified species of episcopacy. The last survivor of that prelacy which Elizabeth deprived, was Watson, whose inconformity forfeited the see of Lincoln. He died in 1584. The Romish party then looked up to Allen, afterwards cardinal, as its leader, and it formed a body sufficiently united, until his death, in 1594. Serious disagreements then arose. The Jesuits had gained a paramount ascendency over the wealthy Romish families, which the secular priests, many of whom were far advanced in years, and had been but little tainted by politics, viewed with envy and disgust. It was thought likely, that greater unanimity would be found attainable, if a bishop, or more bishops than one, were appointed, who might serve as a common centre of authority. Tübing. 1723, 4to. Mémoires pour servir opinion of Joshua Placæus (de la Place), respecting the imputation of Adam's sin: III. Piscator's doctrine, concerning the active obedience of Christ and IV. Lewis Capell's critical doctrine, concerning the points of the Hebrew text. This Formula, so long as subscription to it was rigorously enforced, deprived the Swiss churches of many a worthy divine, who would rather quit his country, than violate his conscience. Sulzer of Berlin was a remarkable example. Schl.] |