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 actice 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, eh. 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 inorals, 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. Nouveau 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

6 See Fred. Spanheim's Epistola de tom. ii. p. 973, &c. Norissimis 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 can 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

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.

rest of the century was spent amidst their perpetual contentions.

§ 31. John Cocceius, (in German Koch,) a native of Bremen, professor of theology in the university of Leyden, and unquestionably a great man, if he had only been able to regulate and 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; introduced into theology not a little that was novel and unheard of before his times. In the first place, as has been already remarked, he interpreted the whole sacred volume in a manner very different from that of Calvin and all his followers. For he maintained that the entire history of the Old Testament presents a picture of the events that were to take place under the New Testament down to the end of the world; nay more, that the things which Christ and his apostles did and suffered in this world were emblematic of future events. He moreover taught that the greatest part of the prophecies of the Jewish prophets foretell the fortunes of Christ and of the christian church, not by means of the persons and things mentioned, but by the very sense of the words themselves. And lastly, many of those passages in the Old Testament, which seem to contain nothing but the praises of Jehovah, or moral precepts and doctrines, he, with wonderful dexterity and ingenuity, converted into sacred enigmas, and predictions of future events. To give support and plausibility to these opinions, he first laid down this law of interpretation, that the language of the Bible must signify, or that it can signify which rule, if adopted by a man of more genius than judgment, may give birth to very strange interpretations. In the next place, he distributed the entire history of the christian church into seven portions of time, or periods, relying principally on the seven trumpets and seals of the Apocalypse.

§ 32. Theology itself, Cocceius judged, 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 theo