munion 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.2 lowers contended, that the church is not | church, or were both rebels and schismasubject to the civil authority and to par- tics; and therefore that such as held comliaments but to God only, and that it 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 who contended fiercely for these rights and 28. We now pass over to the Hollanders, this power of the church. He was followed the neighbours of the English. The minisby several others, and hence arose this per-ters of the Dutch churches thought themplexing 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 it 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 1 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 nonjuring 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 Suc cessor was not a Heretic; translated out of an ancient Greek manuscript (written at Constantinople, and now among the Baroccian MSS.), in the public library at Oxford. This was answered by Dodwell the next year, in his Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, &c. Hody replied in The Case of the Sees Vacant, &c. In 1695, Dodwell came forth again in his Defence of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops. Various others engaged in this controversy. See Maclaine's Note; Calamy's Additions to Baxter's Hist. of His Own Life and Times, chap. xvii. p. 465, &c. chap. xviii. p. 484. &c. 506, &c.-Mur. selves happy when the opponents of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees or the Arminians were vanquished and put down, but it was not their fortune to enjoy tranquillity very long. For after this victory they unfortunately fell 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 questions of morals, between Salmasius, Boxhorn, Voet, and several others; and the contests respecting the power of the magistrate in matters of religion, carried on by William Appollonius, James Trigland, Nicholas Vedel, and others, and which divided Frederick Spanheim and John Van der Wayen. For these and similar disputes rather show what were the sentiments of certain eminent divines respecting particular doctrines and points of morality, than lay open the internal state of the church. The knowledge of the latter must be derived from those controversies alone 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 Voëtians, which once made a prodigious noise though now they are more silent. The Cocceian theology and the Cartesian philosophy have no natural connexion, and therefore the controversies respecting them were not re 2 See Whiston's Memoirs of his own Life and Writings, vol. i. p. 30, &c.; Hickes, Memoirs of the Life of John Kettlewell, London, 1718, 8vo, who treats expressly and largely on these matters. Nouveau Dictionnaire Histor. et Critique, article Collier, tome 1. p. 112; Masson's Histoire Critique de la République des Lettres, tome xiii. p. 298, &c. and elsewhere. lated to each other. Yet it so happened when some of the theologians applied the that the followers of these two very distinct precepts of Des Cartes to the illustration of systems of doctrine formed very nearly one theological subjects. Hence in the year and the same party, those who took Coc-1656, the Dutch Classes as they are called, ceius for their guide in theology adhering or assemblies of the clergy in certain disto Des Cartes as their master in philosophy, tricts, resolved that resistance ought to be because those who assailed the Cartesians made, and that this imperious philosophy attacked also Cocceius and his followers ought not to be allowed to invade the terriand opposed both with equal animosity. tories of theology. By this decision the Hence the Cartesians and Cocceians were States of Holland were excited in the same under a kind of necessity to unite and com-year, sternly to forbid by a public law the bine their forces, in order the better to philosophers from expounding the books of defend their cause against such a host of Des Cartes to the youth, or explaining the adversaries. The Voëtians derived their Scriptures according to the dictates of phiname from Gisbert Voët, 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. Voet 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, Voët censured various of his opinions, but especially the following positions which he feared were subversive of all religion, namely, that one who intends to be wise must begin by calling everything in question, even the existence of God; that the essence of spirits, 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, Voët 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 Mästricht, but also by the greatest part of the clergy of inferior note.2 To this flame already raised too high, new fuel was added losophy. In a convention at Delft the next year, it was resolved that no person should be admitted to the sacred office without first solemnly promising not to propagate Cartesian principles, nor to deform revealed theology with adventitious ornaments. Similar resolutions were afterwards passed in various places, both in the United Provinces and out of them. But as mankind are always eager after what is forbidden, all these prohibitions could not prevent the Cartesian philosophy from finally obtaining firm footing in the schools and universities, and from being applied sometimes preposterously by great numbers to the illustration of divine truths. Hence the Dutch became divided into the two parties above named, and the rest of the century was spent amid their perpetual contentions. 31. John Cocceius (in German Koch), a native of Bremen, professor of theology in the University of Leyden, was unquestionably a great man, if he had only been able to regulate and to temper with reason and judgment his erudition, his ingenuity, his reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and his piety, which he possessed in an eminent degree. He now introduced into theology not a little that was novel and unheard of before his time. In the first place, as has been already remarked, he interpreted the of his adversaries. Even Cocceius was at first opposed to Des Cartes, though his friend Heiden persuaded him to treat the name of Des Cartes respectfully in his writings. Peter Van Mästricht, John Hornbeck, Andrew Essen, Melchior Leydecker, John Wayen, Gerhard Vries, James Revius, James Trigland, and Frederick Spanheim-manifestly great names- contended against Des Cartes. For him, there were among the philosophers, Henry Regius, James Golius, Claud Salmasius, 1 See Spanheim's Epistola de novissimis in Belgio Hadrian Heerebord, &c. and among the theologians, dissidiis, Opp. tom. ii. p. 973, &c. Abraham Heiden, Christopher Wittich, Francis Burmann, John Braun, John Clauberg, Peter Allinga, Balthazar Becker, Stephen Curcellæus, Hermann Alexander Roël, Ruard ab Andala, and others.-Schl. 2 Baillet, La Vie de M. Des Cartes, tome ii. chap. v. p. 33, &c.; Daniel, Voyage du Monde de M. Des Cartes, in his works, tome 1. p. 84, &c.; Brucker's Historia Crit. Philosophiæ, tom. iv. par. ii. p. 222, &c.; Irenæus 3 Spanheim, De novissimis in Belgio dissidiis, Opp. Philalethes (Rhenferd), Kort en opregt Verhaal van de tom. ii. 959, &c. Those who wish it may also consult eerste Oorsprong der Broedertwisten, Amsterd. 1708, 8vo. the common historians of this century, Arnold [KirThe first attack upon the philosophy of Des Cartes was chen-und Ketzerhistorie, vol. ii. book xvii. chap. x. sec. made by Voet, A.D. 1639, in his Disputatio de Atheismo. i.-vi.], Weissmann [Historia Eccles. Sec. xvii. p. 905], Maresius at first defended the cause of Des Cartes Jäger, Caroli, and also Walch's Einleitung in die Reagainst Voët, but afterwards he went over to the side I ligions streitigkeiten ausser unser Kirche, vol. iii. whole sacred volume in a manner very dif- in itself very burdensome, but it became ferent from that of Calvin and all his fol- much more painful in consequence of its lowers. For he maintained that the entire import. For it continually admonished history of the Old Testament presents a the Hebrews of their very imperfect, doubtpicture of the events which were to take ful, and anxious state, and was a kind of place under the New Testament, down to perpetual memento that they merited the the end of the world; nay more, that the wrath of God, and that they could not anthings which Christ and his apostles did ticipate a full expiation and remission of and suffered in this world were emblematic their sins till the Messiah should come. of future events. He moreover taught that Holy men indeed under the Old Testament the greatest part of the predictions of the enjoyed eternal salvation after death; but Jewish prophets foretell the fortunes of while they lived, they were far from having Christ and of the Christian church, not by that assurance of salvation which is so commeans of the persons and things mentioned forting to us under the New Testament [not typically], but by the direct import of For no sins were then actually forgiven, the words themselves. And lastly, many but only suffered to remain unpunished, of those passages in the Old Testament because Christ had not yet offered up himwhich seem to contain nothing but the self as a sacrifice to God, and therefore praises of Jehovah, or moral precepts and could not be regarded, before the divine doctrines, he with wonderful dexterity and tribunal, as one who has actually assumed ingenuity converted into sacred enigmas our debt, but only as our surety. I omit and predictions of future events. To give other opinions of Cocceius. Those who support and plausibility to these opinions, assailed the Cartesian doctrines attacked he first laid down this law of interpretation, also those opinions, in a fierce war which that the language of the Bible must signify was kept up for many years with various all that it can signify; which rule, if adopted success. The issue was the same as in the by a man of more genius than judgment, Cartesian contest. No device and no force may give birth to very strange interpreta- could prevent the disciples of Cocceius tions. In the next place, he distributed from occupying many professorial chairs, the entire history of the Christian church and from propagating the opinions of their into seven portions of time or periods, rely-master both orally and in writing, with ing principally on the seven trumpets and wonderful celerity among even the Gerscals of the Apocalypse. mans and the Swiss.1 32. Theology itself, in the opinion of Cocceius, ought to be freed from the trammels of philosophy, and to be expounded only in Scriptural phraseology. Hence, perceiving that the sacred writers denominate the method of salvation which God has prescribed, a covenant of God with men, he concluded that there could be no more suitable and pertinent analogy, according to which to adjust and arrange an entire system of theology. But while intent solely on accommodating and applying the principles of human covenants to divine subjects, he incautiously fell into some opinions which it is not easy to approve. For instance, he asserted that the covenant which God made with the Hebrew nation through the medium of Moses, did not differ in its nature from the new covenant procured by Jesus Christ. He supposed that God caused the ten commandments to be promulgated by Moses, not as a law which was to be obeyed, but as one form of the covenant of grace. But when the Hebrews had offended him by various sins and especially by the worship of the golden calf, God, being moved with just indignation, superadded to that moral law the yoke of the ceremonial law, to serve as a punishment. This yoke was 33. Nearly all the other controversies which disquieted the Dutch churches in this century, arose from an excessive attachment to the Cartesian philosophy as connected with theology. This will appear from those commotions, greater than all others, produced by Roël and Becker. Certain Cartesian divines, at the head of whom was Hermann Alexander Roël, a theologian of Franeker, a man of singular acuteness and perspicuity, were supposed in the year 1686 to attribute too much to reason in theology. Nearly the whole controversy was embraced in these two questions. I. Whether the divine origin and authority of the sacred books can be demonstrated by reason alone; or whether the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to a firm belief on this subject? II. Whether the Holy Scriptures propose anything to be believed by us which is contrary to correct and sound reason? The first was affirmed and the second denied, not only by the above named Roël, but also by John Van der Wayen, Gisbert Wessel, Duker, Ruard ab Andala, and others; the contrary was maintained by Ulrich Huber, a jurist of great reputation, Gerhard de Vries, and others. A great part of Belgium being now in a flame, the states of Friesland prudently interposed and enjoined silence and peace on both the contending parties. Those who shall accurately investigate this cause will I think perceive that a great part of it was a strife about words, and that the remainder of it might have been easily settled, if it had been stripped of its ambiguities. and especially those of the province of Holland, could not be restrained from condemning Roël and his disciples, both privately and in their public conventions, as corruptors of divine truth. Nor did this resentment die with the excellent man who was the object of it; but even to our times the Roëlians, though they most solemnly protest their innocence, are thought by many to be infected with concealed heresies. 35. Balthazar Becker, a minister of the Gospel at Amsterdam, from the Cartesian definition of a spirit, the truth of which he held to be unquestionable, took occasion to deny absolutely all that the Scriptures teach us respecting the works, snares, and power of the prince of darkness and his satellites, and also all the vulgar reports respecting ghosts, spectres, and witchcraft. There is extant a prolix and copious work of his, entitled The World Bewitched first published in 1691, in which he perverts and explains away, with no little ingenuity indeed but with no less audacity, whatever the sacred volume relates of persons pos 34. A little after this first controversy had been in some measure hushed, this same Roël in the year 1689 fell under no slight suspicion that he was plotting against sound theology, in consequence of some other singular opinions of his. He was viewed with suspicion not only by his colleagues, particularly by Campeius Vitringa, but also by very many of the Dutch divines.2 For he denied that the Scriptural representations of the generation of the Son of God are to be understood literally or assessed by evil spirits and of the power of denoting a kind of natural generation; and maintained that the death of holy men and the evils they suffer in this life, equally with the calamities and death of the wicked, are the penal effects of the first sin; and he advanced some things respecting the divine decrees, original sin, the divine influence in regard to the sinful acts of men, the satisfaction made by Christ, and other subjects, which either in reality or at least in form and phraseology, differed much from the received opinions.3 The magistrates of Friesland published decrees which prevented these disputes from spreading in that province; but the rest of the Dutch, 1 Le Clerc, Biblioth. Universelle et Histor. tome vi. p. 368. * Concerning this extraordinary man, see the Bioliotheca Bremensis Theologico-Philol. tom. ii. par. vi. p. 707; Burmann's Trajectum eruditum, p. 306, &c. [Unpartheyische Kirchenhistorie, Jena, 1735, 4to, vol. ii. p. 620, &c.-Mur. 3 These errors may be best learned from a paper of the Faculty of Theology at Leyden, in which they confirm the sentence pronounced on them by the Dutch synods, entitled, Judicium Ecclesiasticum, quo opiniones quædam Claris. H. A. Roellii synodice damnale sunt, laudatum a Professoribus Theologia in Academia Lugduno-Batara, Leyden, 1713, 4to, 20 sheets. [Roel maintained that the title Son of God referred only to the human nature of Christ, and to the supernatural formation or conception of it, as also to his mediatorial office, and consequently that it afforded no proof of his divinity. Yet in his later writings, he admitted that Christ was also called the Son of God on account of his eternal generation by the Father, yet without excluding the before-mentioned ground. In order to prove that the death of believers is a just punishment, he maintained that in justification only some of the punishments of sin are remitted, and that the complete removal of them does not take place till after the resurrection.-Schl. demons, and maintains that the miserable being 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. Therefore lest the reputa It must not be inferred from this statement of Some Mosheim, that professor Röel was excommunicated, of his opinions were condemned, but not the man. 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 are 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 tion of Des Cartes should be impaired, the | Its author, although confuted by vast numnarrations and decisions of the divine books bers and deprived of his ministerial office, must be accommodated to his opinion. This yet on his dying bed in 1718 continued to error not only disquieted all the United affirm until his last breath that he believed Provinces, but likewise induced not a few all he had written to be true. Nor did his Lutheran divines to gird on their armour.1 new doctrine die with him, for it still has very many defenders both open and concealed. 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 mira cles at all.-Macl 1 See Lilienthal's Selecta Histor. Literar. par. i. observ. ii. p. 17, &c.; Miscellanea Lipsiens. tom. i. p. 361, 364, where there is a description of a medal struck have often quoted. Nouveau Diction. Hist. et Crit. tome i. p. 193. [Balthazar Becker, D.D. was born near Gronigen in 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 omninous. In his sermons he bad 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.e. 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 4 Books, Amsterd. 1691, 4to. 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. 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 To explain away the texts which militate against in reference to Becker, and the other writers whom we hell. 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 countries 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 is said to have so strangely mixed together the principles of Spinoza and Cocceius, as Out of them to have produced about the year 1680 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 sect arose about the same time, and had for their leader Pontianus von Hattem, a minister of the gospel at Philipsland in Zealand, who was an admirer of Spinoza and was afterwards deprived of his office on account of his errors. These two sects were kindred to each other, and yet they must have differed in some way, since Van Hattem could never persuade the Verschorites 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 his system, evidently cost 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 pub. lished 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 pass 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.-Mur. |