Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

indeed, if other Christians would abide by these precepts, the great diversities of opinion among them would, clearly, be no obstacle to their mutual love and concord.

6

§ 12. It hence appears, that the Arminian community was composed of persons of various descriptions; and that it had, properly, no fixed and stable form of religion, or, to use a common phrase, no system of religion. They would not, indeed, wish to be thought destitute of a bond of union, and therefore they show us a sort of Confession of faith, drawn up with sufficient neatness, by Simon Episcopius, for the most part in the very words of the sacred writers, and which they represent as their formula and rule of faith. But as none of their teachers are so tied to this formula, by oath or promise, as not to be at liberty to depart from it; and on the contrary, as every one, from the constitution of the sect, is allowed to construe it according to his own pleasure, and it is capable of different expositions, it must be manifest, that we cannot determine at all, from this Confession, what they approve and what they reject. And hence their public teachers advance very different sentiments respecting the most weighty doctrines of the Christian religion. Nor do they in scarcely any thing take one fixed and uniform course, except in regard to the doctrines of predestination and grace. For they all continue to assert, most carefully, though in a very different manner from their fathers, the doctrine which excluded their predecessors from the pale of the Reformed church; namely, that the love of God embraces the whole human race, and that no one perishes through any eternal and insuperable decree of God, but all merely by their own fault. Whoever attacks this doctrine attacks the whole school or sect but one who may assail any other doctrines contained in the writings of Arminians, must know that he has no controversy with the Arminian church, the theology of which, with few exceptions, is unsettled and fluctuating, but only with some

de la foi et des mœurs, et qui ne sont ni idolâtres ni persécuteurs."

This Confession is extant in Latin, Dutch, and German. The Latin may be seen in the Works of Episcopius, tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 69; where also, p. 97, may be seen an Apology for this Confession, by the same Episcopius, written against the divines of the university of Leyden.

This any one may see, with his own eyes, by only comparing together the writings of Episcopius, Curcellæus, Limborch, Le Clerc, and Cattenburg. [Those Arminians who agree with the Reformed in all doctrinal points, except the Five Articles contained in their remonstrance, are, for distinction's sake, called Quinquarticulans. Schl.]

of its doctors, who do not all interpret and explain in the same manner, even that one doctrine of the universal love of God to mankind, which especially separates the Arminians from the Reformed.

§ 13. The Arminian community, at the present time, is very small, if compared with the Reformed: and, if common report be true, it is decreasing continually. They have at present [1753] thirty-four congregations in Holland, some smaller, and some larger; over which are forty-four ministers: out of Holland they have one at Frederickstadt. But the principles adopted by their founders have spread with wonderful rapidity over many nations, and gained the approbation of vast numbers. For, to say nothing of the English, who adopted the Arminian doctrines concerning grace and predestination as early as the times of William Laud, and who, on the restoration of Charles II., assented in great measure to the other Arminian tenets; who is so ignorant of the state of the world as not to know, that in many of the courts of Protestant princes, and almost every where among those who pretend to be wise, this sentiment, which is the basis of Arminianism, is prevalent; namely, that very few things are necessary to be believed in order to salvation; and that every one is to be allowed to think as he pleases, concerning God and religion, provided he lives a pious and upright life? The Hollanders themselves, though they acknowledge that the sect which their fathers condemned is gradually declining in numbers and strength, yet publicly lament that its opinions are spreading further and further, and that even those to whose care the decrees of the council of Dort were entrusted, are corrupted by them. How much inclined towards them are many of the Swiss, especially the Genevans, and also many of the French, is very well known. The form of church government and the

[Dr. Maclaine has here a long and elaborate note on the tendency of the Leibnitian and Wolfian philosophy to support Calvinism. The reasoning is ingenious and good. But the effects actually produced by this philosophy seem to be greatly overrated, when he says, "that the progress of Arminianism has been greatly retarded, nay, that its cause daily declines in Germany and several parts of Switzerland,

in consequence of the ascendant which the Leibnitian and Wolfian philosophy hath gained in these countries, and particularly among the clergy and men of learning." When Dr. Maclaine wrote thus, about the year 1763, the Germans were going fast into what is called German neology, and the Swiss approximating towards Socianism; and the philosophy he speaks of, was rapidly waning. Tr.]

mode of worship among the Arminians are very nearly the same as among the Reformed of the Presbyterian churches. Yet the leaders of the sect, as they neglect no means tending to preserve and strengthen their communion with the English church, so they show themselves very friendly to episcopal government; and they do not hesitate to affirm that they regard it as a holy form, very ancient and preferable to the other forms of government.9

CHAPTER V.

HISTORY OF THE QUAKERS.

§ 1. Origin of the Quakers. George Fox.-§ 2. First movements of the sect under Cromwell.-§ 3. Progress in the times of Charles II. and James II.— § 4. Propagation out of England. -§ 5. Their controversies.-§ 6. Their religion generally. § 7. First principle. · § 8. Its consequences.-§ 9. Concerning Christ.-§ 10. Discipline and worship. — § 11. Moral doctrines.—§ 12. Form of Government.

§ 1. THOSE Who in English are called Quakers, are in Latin called Trementes or Tremuli. This name was given them, in the year 1650, by Gervas Bennet, a justice of the peace in Derbyshire; but whether because their whole body trembled before they began to speak on religious subjects, or because Fox and his associates said that a man ought to tremble at hearing the Word of God, does not sufficiently appear. In the mean time they suffer themselves to be called by this name, provided it be correctly understood. They prefer, however, to be named, from their primary doctrine, Children or Confessors of the light. In familiar discourse they call each other Friends.2

9 Hence,- -to omit many other things which place this beyond doubt, they have taken so much pains to show, that Hugo Grotius, their hero and almost their oracle, commended the English church in the highest degree, and that he preferred it before all others. See the collection of proofs for this, by John le Clerc, subjoined to his edition of Grotius, book, de Veritate Religionis Christianæ, p. 376. ed. Hague, 1724, 8vo.

'See George [William] Sewel's History of the Quakers, p. 23, [vol. i. p. 43. ed. Lond. 1811. Daniel Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 32, &c. ed. Boston, 1817, p. 60, 61; where see Toulmin's note. Tr.]

2 Sewel, loc. cit. p. 624. [vol. ii. p. 589, ed. Lond. 1811; also Dan. Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 60, 61. ed. Boston, 1817. Tr.]

The origin of the sect falls on those times in English history when civil war raged universally, and when every one who had conceived in his mind a new form, either of civil government or of religion, came forth with it from his obscure retreat into public view. Its parent was George Fox, a shoemaker, a man naturally very gloomy, shunning society, and peculiarly fitted to form visionary conceptions. As early as the year 1647, when he was twenty-three years old, he travelled over some of the counties of England, giving out that he was full of the Spirit, and exhorting the people to attend to the voice of the divine word, which lies concealed in the hearts of all. After Charles I. was beheaded, when both civil and ecclesiastical laws seemed to be extinguished together, he attempted greater things. For having acquired numerous disciples and friends among persons of a similar temperament with himself, and of both sexes, in connexion with them he set all England in commotion, nay, in 1650, he broke up assemblies for the public worship of God, where he was able, as being useless and not truly Christian.3 For this reason he and his associates were

3

[Fox and his adherents looked upon all worship of God, that did not proceed immediately from the impulse of the Spirit within, as abominable in the sight of God. Hence he had no reverence for the religious worship of most of the sects of Christians around him. Yet it does not appear that he felt it to be his duty to attempt, forcibly, to interrupt or suppress such wcrship. But feeling bound always to obey the impulse of the Spirit, and supposing himself to have this impulse while in or near the places of worship, he sometimes was led to speak in them, to the annoyance of the congregation, and was treated as a disturber of public worship. Three instances are mentioned, all occurring in the year 1649. The first was at Nottingham, and is thus related by Sewel, vol. i. p. 36, ed. 1811. He "went away to the steeple-house where the priest took for his text these words of the apostle Peter, We have a most (more) sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. And he told the people that this was the Scripture, by which they were to try all doctrines, religions, and opinions. G. Fox, hearing this, felt such mighty

power and godly zeal working in him, that he was made to cry out, O! no, it is not the Scripture, but it is the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the Scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments, are to be tried. That was it, which led into all truth, and gave the knowledge thereof. For the Jews had the Scriptures, and yet resisted the Holy Ghost, and rejected Christ, the bright morning-star, and persecuted him and his apostles, though they took upon them to try their doctrine by the Scriptures; but they erred in judgment, and did not try them aright, because they did it without the Holy Ghost. Thus speaking, the officers came and took him away, and put him in a nasty stinking prison."-The next instance was at Mansfield, and is thus related by the same author, vol. i. p. 38. "Whilst G. Fox was in this place, he was moved to go to the steeple-house, and declare there the truth to the priest and the people; which doing, the people fell upon him, and struck him down, almost smothering him, for he was cruelly beaten and bruised with their hands, bibles, and sticks. Then they hauled him out, though hardly able to stand, and put him into the stocks, where he

several times thrown into prison, and chastised by the magistrates.1

sat some hours; and they brought horsewhips, threatening to whip him. After some time they had him before the magistrates, at a knight's house, who, seeing how ill he had been used, set him at liberty, after much threatening. But the rude multitude stoned him out of the town."-The third instance occurred at Market Bosworth, and is thus concisely stated by Sewel, vol. i. p. 39, &c. "Coming into the public place of worship, he (Fox) found Nathaniel Stephens preaching, who, as hath been said already, was priest of the town where G. Fox was born; here G. Fox taking occasion to speak, Stephens told the people he was mad, and that they should not hear him, though he had said before to one colonel Purfoy concerning him, that there was never such a plant bred in England. The people now being stirred up by this priest, fell upon G. Fox and his friends, and stoned them out of the town." See a Refutation of erroneous statements, &c. by authority of the Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England, dated New Bedford, 12th month 9, 1811, subjoined to Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. ed. New York, 1824, vol. iv. p. 295, &c. Neal's Hist. of Purit. ed. Toulmin, Boston, 1817, vol. iv. p. 58, 59. Tr.]

On

Besides the common historians of this century, see especially, Gerh. Crosius (Crose), a Dutch clergyman's, Historia Quakeriana tribus libris comprehensa, ed. 2. Amsterd. 1703, 8vo. this, however, Kohlhans [under the name of Philalethes], a doctor of physic, a Lutheran who became a Quaker, published Dilucidationes, (explanations), Amsterd. 1696, 8vo. And undoubtedly, Crose's book, though neatly written, contains numerous errors. Yet the French History of the Quakers, Histoire abrégée de la Naissance et du Progrès du Kouakerisme, avec celle de ses Dogmes, Cologne, 1692, 12mo, is much worse. For the author does not so much state what he found to be facts, as heap together things true and false, without discrimination, in order to produce a ludicrous account. See Gerh. Crose's Hist. Quakeriana, lib. ii. p. 322 and 376, and John le Clerc's Bibliothèque Universelle et Hist. tom. xxii. p. 53, &c. But

altogether the most full and authentic, being derived from numerous credible documents and in part from the writings of Fox himself, is the Quaker, George [William] Sewel's History of the Christian People called Quakers, [first written in Dutch, and translated by the author into English, Lond. 1722, fol. and 1811, 2 vols. 8vo,] translated from the English into German, and printed 1742, fol. This work exhibits great research, as well as fidelity: yet on points dishonourable or 'disadvantageous to the Quakers, he dissembles, conceals, and beclouds not a little. Still, the statements of Sewel are sufficient to enable a discerning and impartial man to form a just estimate of this sect. Voltaire also has treated of the religion, the morals, and the history of these people, though rather to amuse than to enlighten the reader, in four letters, written with his usual elegance: Mélanges de Littérature et de Philosophie; Euvres, tom. iv. cap. iii.—vi. p. 160, &c. [With which compare A Letter from one of the people_called Quakers (Josiah Martin) to Francis de Voltaire, Lond. 1742.] In general, what he says is true and to be relied on, being derived from Andrew Pitt, a Quaker of London: but the witty man, to render his account more entertaining, has adorned it with poetic colouring, and added some things of his own. From these works, chiefly, was compiled, though not with due accuracy, the Dissertation on the Religion of the Quakers, in that splendid work, Cérémonies et Coutumes Religieuses de tous les Peuples du Monde, tom. iv. p. 124, &c. Among us, Fred. Ern. Meis published a small German work concerning this sect, especially the English portion of it, Entwurf des Kirchen-Ordnung und Gebräuche der Quacker in Engelland, 1715, 8vo. [Later works are, John Gough's History of the people called Quakers, Lond. 1789, 3 vols. 8vo. Thomas Clarkson's Portraiture of Quakerism, 3 vols. 8vo, Lond. and New York, 1806. A Summary of the history, doctrines, and discipline of Friends, written at the desire of the Meeting for Suffering in London, 1800, and subjoined to Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. ed. New York, 1824, vol. iv. p. 307-327; also Joshua Toulmin, D.D.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »