give a full and accurate account of these different sects and controversies. Of several of the sects, not even the names reach us; and of many of them, we have only a species of knowledge, which is quite imperfect and indistinct. Of the controversies, to a great extent, we are unable to ascertain the true foundation and the points at issue, because we are destitute of the sources from which information can be drawn. At this present time, one George Whitefield is collecting a party, and contemplates the formation of a Christian community, more perfect than all others; nor is he altogether unsuccessful. It would seem, if the man be self-consistent, and do not follow the blind impulse of fancy rather than any determinate rule, that he places religion altogether in holy emotions, and an indescribable kind of sensation; and that he requires his followers to dismiss all reliance on reason and study as means of [religious] knowledge, and to resign up their minds to be guided and instructed by a divine illumination. § 25. The Dutch, quite down to our times, have been occupied with the Cocceian and Cartesian controversies, though now less intensely than heretofore. And there is a prospect that these contests will wholly cease, since the Newtonian mode of philosophizing has expelled the Cartesian from the Dutch universities. Of the Roëllian disputes, we have already given an account. Frederick van Leenhof, in the year 1703, fell under suspicion of being a Spinozist; and was attacked by many on account of a book he published, entitled Heaven upon Earth, in which he taught that a Christian should always be joyful, and never mourn or be sorrowful. The same crime was charged by many upon William Deurhof, who published several tracts in the vernacular tongue, in which he speculated concerning the Divine nature, as if he considered it an energy pervading the whole material universe, and operative in all parts of it. The most recent contests are those of James Saurin and Paul. Maty. The former, a minister of the gospel at the Hague, and distinguished for his genius and eloquence, if he erred at all, erred very slightly. For, if we except a few inaccurate and unwary expressions, he deviated from the common doctrine only in this one point, that he thought it sometimes lawful to deceive men by our speech, for the sake of accomplishing some great good." 5 Cœlum in Terris. ["See Saurin's Discours Historiques, Most of the Reformed churches, it is to be noted, have adopted the principle of Augustine, that every deception and every falsehood is sinful. The other, namely Maty, committed a much greater fault; for in order to explain the profound mystery of three persons in one God, and to render it easy to be understood, he assumed that the Son and the Holy Spirit are two finite beings, created by God, who at a certain time became united to God." § 26. In Switzerland, especially in the canton of Bern, the Formula Consensus, of which we have spoken heretofore, has produced very fierce disputes. In the year 1718 the magistrates of Bern required all public teachers, and particularly those of the university and church of Lausanne, (in whom there was supposed to be some stain of error) to assent to this Formula, and to receive it as the standard of their faith; for it had been a good while neglected, and subscription to it had not in all cases been required. But several, both of the professors and of the candidates for the sacred office, declared that they could not conscientiously subscribe; and accordingly some of them were subjected to punishment. This caused grievous contentions and complaints, to quiet which, the king of Great Britain and the States General of Holland offered their kind offices. The result was, that the Formula lost much of its credit and authority. In the German [Reformed] churches nothing very noticeable has occurred. The Palatine church, once so very flourishing, has suffered, through the machinations of the papists, a great diminution of its prosperity. § 27. The Socinians, dispersed over various countries of Europe, have hitherto nowhere obtained liberty to form themselves into a regular community, and publicly to set up worship according to the views of their sect. At the head of their learned men in our times stood Samuel Crell, who died at an advanced age at Amsterdam. He chose however to be called an Artemonite, rather than a Socinian: and he actually differed on many points from the common doctrines of the Socinians. The Arians obtained a great advocate in William Whiston, a Théologiques, Critiques, et Moraux, sur les événemens les plus mémorables du Vieux et du Nouveau Testament, tom. i. of the folio edition." Macl.] 7 Deo personis, quam vir clariss. Paulus Maty excogitavit : in his Dissertt. ad Historiam Eccles. pertinentes, tom. ii. pp. 390-582. Tr.] [Except in Transylvania. Schl.] 8 [See Dr. Mosheim's Historia Critica nova explicationis Dogmatis de tribus in professor [of mathematics] in the university of Cambridge, who made up his mind rather to resign his chair than to renounce his opinions, which he defended in numerous publications. Similar to him, according to the common estimation, was Samuel Clarke, a man richly endowed with powers of genius and education, who in the year 1724 was condemned for adulterating the sound doctrine in regard to three persons in the Godhead. But no ingenuous and reasonable man will rank Dr. Clarke among the Arians, if this name is to be taken in its native and proper acceptation; for he merely defended, with greater clearness and diligence, what is called the Arminian subordination, which has been and is still embraced by so many of the first men, and by very learned prelates, in England; and taught, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are in nature equal, but in rank unequal. A great number of persons among the English have endeavoured, in various ways, to invalidate and assail the most sacred doctrine of the divine Trinity. And this induced an opulent lady, whose name was Moyer, to leave by her will a rich legacy', as a premium for eight public discourses, to be delivered annually by some learned man, in opposition to this species of impiety. The institution has been in operation since the year 1720, and promises to future ages a rich collection of the best productions in defence of this part of revealed religion. 9 9 ["Dr. Mosheim has here mistaken the true hypothesis of Dr. Clarke, or, at least, expressed it imperfectly; for what he says here is rather applicable to the opinion of Dr. Waterland. Dr. Clarke maintained an equality of perfections be *CHAPTER II. § 1. Events disadvantageous to Romanism.-§ 2. Expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal.—§ 3. Their order suppressed in France. -§ 4. Regularly suppressed by the Pope.-§ 5. Still patronized by Prussia and Russia. -§ 6. Reforms of the emperor Joseph II.-§ 7. Reforms in Tuscany.-§ 8. Decline of Romanism in France. § 9. Overthrow of all religion there.-§ 10. Reaction in its favour. -§ 11. Ruin of the Pope's temporal power. -§ 12. English intolerance to Protestants ended under George I.—§ 13. The convocation reduced to inactivity.— § 14. Prevalence of infidelity and licentiousness. -§ 15. Wesley and the Arminian Methodists.§ 16. Whitefield and the Calvinistic Methodists.—§ 17. Differences between the two leaders.-§ 18. The countess of Huntingdon.-§ 19. Rise of an anti-Trinitarian sect in England.-§ 20. Application to parliament for relief from subscription.-§ 21. This granted to dissenting ministers.—§ 22. Attempt at a comprehension.—§ 23. Ineffectual applications for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts.—§ 24. English Romanists relieved from some of the severest penal enactments.-§ 25. Toleration granted to them.-§ 26. Relief granted to Irish Romanists.-§ 27. And to the Scottish. — § 28. Relief granted to Scottish Protestant Episcopalians. - § 29. The American Church. § 30. The Dissidents and the partition of Poland. § 1. As the eighteenth century advanced, Romanism appeared nodding to its fall. It was first seriously threatened by the prevalence of Jansenistic views, which struck at papal authority, and introduced various habits of thinking analogous to those of Protestants. Even the empress queen Maria Theresa, though zealously attached to Romish opinions, gave them a severe blow in the Austrian dominions, about the year 1753, by bestowing her confidence upon Van Swieten and De Haen, two physicians, who were members of the Jansenistic church at Utrecht. University professorships were quickly filled by men of similar principles; and schemes of ecclesiastical reform were far from slow in courting notice from the Austrian public. The monastic bodies were marked out for diminution, their exemptions from episcopal authority were said to demand abolition, the established intercourse with Rome was blamed as excessive, and it was proposed to place the church really under the control of the state.1 Under all such attacks, the papal 1 Continuation of the Summary of Mosheim, by the Rev. C. T. Collins, ii. 193. see had long found effectual means of resistance in the Jesuits, but Loyola's order was very much fallen in public estimation. Jansenism had rendered it unpopular in the more pious Romish circles; politicians complained of its encroaching spirit; and an infidel school, now rising to irresistible importance in France, fastened upon Jesuitism with peculiar severity, because it was a main prop of the existing religious establishment. This hateful school may date its origin from the reign of Lewis XIV., when Bayle, with some other men of talent, assumed a freedom and levity in treating serious subjects, that undermined the strength of many prepossessions hitherto thought wholly above assault. The habit of implicit credence being thus broken, Frenchmen turned a scrutinizing eye upon the Romish church, and confounding its palpable weaknesses with Christianity itself, the country became overspread with an obstinate, scoffing contempt for revelation altogether. Its most active defenders, the Jesuits, naturally fell under a great load of obloquy. They were, however, befriended by many influential ecclesiastics, not only on account of their services against infidelity, but also for their active and uncompromising hostility to Jansenism. For the purpose of discouraging Huguenot opinions, a practice had prevailed, and with approbation, to deny the last sacraments, when the party seeking them could not produce a certificate of confession signed by an orthodox priest. A clergyman extended this principle to Jansenism, for which he was fined by the parliament of Paris. That court also, in the year 1752, issued a prohibition against all acts tending to schism, and all refusal of sacraments, under colour of obedience to the bull Unigenitus. The archbishop of Paris, De Beaumont, a virtuous but narrow-minded man, maintained the propriety of giving to that bull all the force against Jansenism for which it was intended; and the king, Lewis XV., found himself imperiously called upon to interfere. By the advice of Lamoignon, the chancellor, he submitted the points in dispute to deputies from both the contending parties: but this expedient only caused further irritation. The parliament would not recede from the principle of prosecuting priests who withheld the sacraments, and met a royal order for the discontinuance of all such processes by a warm remonstrance. Lewis now dispersed and exiled the refractory members; but he found public opinion so decidedly in their favour, that he soon recalled them. The archbishop of Paris was next banished |