yet, on his dying bed, in 1718, continued to affirm, until his last breath, that he believed all he had written to be true. Nor did his new doctrine die with him; but it still has very many defenders, both open and concealed. § 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, about the year 1680, is said to have so strangely mixed together the principles of Spinoza and Cocceius, as out of them to have produced 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, about the same time, had for their leader Pontianus van Hattem, a minister of the Gospel at Philipsland in Zealand, who was also 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 Verschorists 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 Reformed doctrine of the absolute decrees of God, this principle, that whatever takes place, necessarily and unavoidably takes place. Assuming this as true, they denied that men are by nature wicked or corrupt; and that human actions are some of them good, and others bad. Hence they inferred, that men need not trouble themselves about a change of heart, nor be solicitous to obey the divine law; that religion does not consist in acting, but in : suffering; and that Jesus Christ inculcated this only, that we patiently and cheerfully endure whatever, by the good pleasure of God, occurs or befalls us, striving only to keep our minds tranquil. Hattem, in particular, taught that Jesus Christ did not by his death appease divine justice, nor expiate the sins of men; but that he signified to us, there was nothing in us that could offend God, and in this way he made us just. These things appear to be perverse, and inimical to all virtue and yet neither of these men-unless I am wholly deceived-was so beside himself, as to recommend iniquity; or to suppose, that a person may safely follow his lusts. At least, the sentiment ascribed to them, that God punishes men BY their sins, not For them, seems to carry this import: That unless a person bridles his lusts, he must suffer punishment, both in this life and in that to come; yet not by a divine infliction, or by the sovereign will and pleasure of God, but by some law of nature'. Both sects still exist; but have discarded the names derived from their founders. § 37. The churches of Switzerland, from the year 1669, were in great fear, lest the religion handed down to them by their fathers and confirmed at the synod of Dort, should be contaminated with the doctrines, already mentioned, of the French divines, Amyraut, de la Place, and Capell. For there were at that time, among the associated ministers of Geneva, certain men, distinguished both for their eloquence and their erudition, who not only approved those doctrines, but endeavoured, against the will of their colleagues, to induce others to embrace them. To restrain the efforts of these men, the principal divines of Switzerland, in the year 1675, had a book drawn up by John Henry Heidegger, a very celebrated divine of Zurich, in opposition to the new doctrines of the Frenchmen; and with no great difficulty, they persuaded the magistrates to annex it, by public authority, to the common Helvetic formulas of religion. It is usually called the Formula Consensus. But this measure, which was intended to secure peace, became 7 See Theodore Hasaeus, Dissert. in the Museum Bremens. Theol. Philol. vol. ii. p. 144, &c. Wilh. Goeree, Kerkelyke and Wereldlycke Historie, Leyd. 1729. 4to. Bibliothèque Belgique, tom. ii. p. 203, &c. 8 See Greg. Leti's Istoria Generrina, pt. iv. lib. v. pp. 448. 488. 497, &c. rather the fruitful source of contentions and disturbance. For many declared, that they could not conscientiously assent to this Formula: and hence pernicious commotions arose in some places. In consequence of these, the canton of Bern and the republic of Geneva, at the urgent solicitation of Frederic William of Brandenburg, in the year 1686, abrogated the Formula Consensus. In the other cantons, it with difficulty retained its authority somewhat longer: but in our age, having given birth to the most violent quarrels, particularly in the University of Lausanne, it began to sink here also, and to lose nearly all its influence 1. 9 ["It must not be imagined, from this expression of our historian, that this Form, entitled the Consensus, was abrogated at Basil by a positive edict. The case stood thus: Mr. Peter Werenfels, who was at the head of the Consistory of that city, paid such regard to the letter of the Elector, as to avoid requiring a subscription to this Form from the candidates for the ministry; and his conduct, in this respect, was imitated by his successors. The remonstrances of the Elector do not seem to have had the same effect upon those that governed the church of Geneva; for the Consensus, or Form of agreement, maintained its credit and authority there until the year 1706, when, without being abrogated by any positive act, it fell into disuse. In several other parts of Switzerland, it was still imposed as a rule of faith, as appears by the letters addressed by George I. king of England, as also by the king of Prussia, in the year 1723, to the Swiss Cantons, in order to procure the abrogation of this Form, or Consensus, which was considered as an obstacle to the union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches. See the Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire des troubles arrivées en Suisse à l'occasion du Consensus; published in 8vo. at Amsterdam, in the year 1726." Macl.] 1 See Christ. Matth. Pfaff's Schediasma de Formula Consensus Helvetica: Tubing. 1723. 4to. Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire des troubles arrivées en Suisse à l'occasion du Consensus; Amsterd. 1726. 8vo. [In this Formula Consensus, (which, like the Lutheran Formula Concordia, might better be called Formula Dissensus,) four controversies, which had previously disquieted the Reformed churches, were decided. It condemned, I. the doctrine of Moses Amyraut, respecting general grace; and established the most strenuous opinion of special grace. It condemned, II. the opinion of Joshua Placæus (de la Place), respecting the imputation of Adam's sin-III. Piscator's doctrine, concerning the active obedience of Christ: and, IV. Lewis Capell's critical doctrine, concerning the points of the Hebrew text. This Formula, so long as subscription to it was rigorously enforced, deprived the Swiss churches of many a worthy divine, who would rather quit his country, than violate his conscience. Sulzer of Berlin was a remarkable example. Schl.] * CHAPTER III. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. § 1. Appointment of an arch-priest.—§ 2. Primacy of Abp. Bancroft.-§ 3. English concurrence in the synod of Dort.-§ 4. The Lambeth Articles formally admitted by the Church of Ireland.-§ 5. Progress of Puritanism under Charles I. § 6. Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland.-§ 7. Proceedings of the long Parliament.-§ 8. Cromwell.-§ 9. Ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland. § 10. The Savoy Conference.-§ 11. Restoration of Protestant episcopacy in Ireland.-§ 12. Self-taxation relinquished by the English clergy.— § 13. Penal religious Acts under Charles II.-§ 14. James II.-§ 15. The Toleration Act.-§ 16. Ineffectual attempt at a comprehension.-§ 17. Overthrow of established Protestant episcopacy in Scotland.-§ 18. The Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. § 1. Ar the close of the sixteenth century Romanism acquired a new hold upon England, by the institution of a qualified species of episcopacy. The last survivor of that prelacy which Elizabeth deprived, was Watson, whose inconformity forfeited the see of Lincoln. He died in 1584. The Romish party then looked up to Allen, afterwards cardinal, as its leader, and it formed a body sufficiently united, until his death, in 1594. Serious disagreements then arose. The Jesuits had gained a paramount ascendency over the wealthy Romish families, which the secular priests, many of whom were far advanced in years and had been little tainted by politics, viewed with envy and disgust. It was thought likely, that greater unanimity would be found attainable, if a bishop, or more than one, were appointed, who might serve as a common centre of authority. But such a functionary would have opportunities for consolidating an influence over the Romish aristocracy, which Persons dreaded, as a probable obstacle to his views upon the succession. That restless and intriguing Jesuit, accordingly, who was chiefly consulted at Rome upon English affairs, recommended eventually the appointment of an ecclesiastical superior, with a character something inferior to the prelatic'. George Blackwell was, in consequence, nominated Arch-priest, with the pope's approbation, but not formally by his appointment2. Apparently, the new arch-priest was quite independent of the Jesuits, but really, secret instructions bound him to a dependence upon Garnet, the provincial of their order. Thus Persons gained by management a reasonable prospect of that influence over the English Romanists, which had been the object of his life, and which he hoped to render highly effective when the queen's demise should embolden competition for the throne. The secular priests of England, however, were highly dissatisfied with Blackwell's appointment, viewing it, in its true light, as a Jesuitic engine to depress them. But they submitted on the pontiff's formal approval of Blackwell's appointment, in 1599, and English Romanism was placed under the superintendence of three arch-priests in succession. Thus was formed, as another century opened, a compact, organised body, which has weathered every storm, and now assumes a tone to which England has been quite unused since the days of James II 3 § 2. The church of England gained some advantages under James I., by the authorised compilation of a body of canons, a restraint upon the conveyance of ecclesiastical estates to the crown, otherwise than as a lessee on the ordinary terms, an increased strictness in exacting subscription from the clergy, and the completion of that version of Scripture, which has been authorised ever since. The canons were enacted by the convocation of the province of Canterbury, in the spring of 1604, Bancroft, then bishop of London, being president, as Abp. Whitgift had lately died. Their number is 141, and they were chiefly collected from the various articles, injunctions, and synodical acts which appeared under Edward VI. and Elizabeth. They were adopted by the province of York, and authorised by the crown, but never sanctioned by parliament. 1 "Father Robert Persons, an English Jesuit, was the chief person in credit at Rome, after the cardinal's" (Allen's)" decease, and commonly advised with in all matters relating to the English nation." (Dodd's Ch. Hist. Lond. 1840. iii. 45.) Persons had originally approved of the episcopate. 2 In 1598. 3 See Mr. Tierney's notes to the new edition of Dodd. |