produced the disunion, this church was called that of the NonJurors; 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 church3. The deprived bishops, with their friends and followers, contended, that the church is not 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

(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 nonjuring 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 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 con

secrations 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 nonjuring 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 NonJurors 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.]

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‘.

§ 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, or were both rebels and schismatics; and, there

4 [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 here

tic; translated out of an ancient Greck 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. Dr. Hody replied, in The case of the sees racant, &c. In 1695, Dodwell came forth again, in his Defense 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, ch. xvii. p. 465, &c. ch. xviii. p. 485, &c. 506, &c. Tr.]

fore, 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".

§ 28. We now pass over to the Hollanders, the neighbours of the English. The ministers of the Dutch churches thought themselves happy when the opposers 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 contest respecting the power of the magistrate in matters of religion, carried on by William Appollonius, James Trigland, Nicholas Vedel, and others, and which destroyed friendship between Frederic Spanheim and John van der Wayen. For these and similar disputes show what were the sentiments of certain eminent divines respecting particular doctrines and points of morality rather than lay open the internal state of the church. The knowledge of this 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

5 See William Whiston's Memoirs of his own Life and Writings, vol. i. p.30, &c. George Hick's Memoirs of the Life of John Kettlewell, Lond. 1718, 8vo. who treats expressly and largely on

these matters. Noureau Dictionaire Histor. et Critique, article Collier, tom. ii. p. 112. Phil. Masson's Histoire Critique de la Republ. des Lettres, tom. xiii. p. 298, &c. and elsewhere.

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 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 of his opinions; 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

See Fred. Spanheim's Epistola de tom. ii. p. 973, &c. Novissimis in Belgio Dissidiis; Opp.

part of the clergy of inferior note. To this flame already raised too high, new fuel was added, when some of the theologians applied the precepts of Des Cartes to the illustration of theological subjects. Hence, in the year 1656, the Dutch Classes, as they are called, or assemblies of the clergy in certain districts, resolved, that resistance ought to be made, and that this imperious philosophy ought not to be allowed to invade the territories of theology. By this decision the States of Holland were excited, in the same year, sternly to forbid, by a public law, the philosophers from expounding the books of Des Cartes to the youth, or explaining the Scriptures according to the dictates of philosophy. 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

7 Hadr. Baillet, la Vie de M. Des Cartes, tom. ii. cap. v. p. 33, &c. Gabr. Daniel, Voyage du Monde de M. Des Cartes; in his works, tom, i. p. 84, &c. [Jac. Brucker's Historia Crit. Philosophia, tom. iv. pt. ii. p. 222, &c. Irenæus Philalethes (Jac. Rhenferd,) Kort en opregt Verhaal van de eerste Oorsprong der Broedertwisten, Amsterd. 1708. 8vo. The first attack upon the philosophy of Des Cartes was made by Gisbert Voet, A. D. 1639, in his Disputatio de Atheismo. Samuel Maresius at first defended the cause of Des Cartes against Voet: but afterwards went over to the side of his adversaries. Even Cocceius was at first opposed to Des Cartes, though his friend Heidan_persuaded him to treat the name of Des Cartes respectfully in his writings. Peter van Mastricht, John Hornbeck, Andrew Essen, Melchior Leydecker, John Wayen, Gerhard Vries, James Revius, James Trig

9

land, and Frederick Spanheim-manifestly great names-contended against Des Cartes. For him, there were among the philosophers, Henry Regius, James Golius, Claudius Salmasius, Hadr. Heerebord, &c. and among the theologians, Abraham Heidan, Christopher Wittich, Francis Burmann, John Braun, John Clauberg, Peter Allinga, Balth. Bekher, Stephen Curcellæus, Herm. Alex. Roell, Ruard Andala, and others. Schl.]

8 Fred. Spanheim, de Norissimis in Belgio Dissidiis; Opp. tom. ii. p. 959, &c. Those who wish it, may also consult the common historians of this century, Arnold, (Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie, vol. ii. book xvii. ch. x. § 1—6.) Weissmann, (Historia Eccles. sæc. xvii. p. 905.) Jaeger, Caroli, and also Walch's Einleitung in die Religionsstreitikeiten ausser unsrer Kirche, vol. iii.