תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

with this sentence that they should be excluded from the communion of the church and be deprived of authority to teach. That there was fault on both sides in this matter no candid and good man will deny, but which party was most in the wrong this is not the place to decide.3

7. We cannot here discuss either the purity and virtues or the iniquities and faults of the fathers at Dort. In extolling the former the Calvinists, and in exagge rating the latter the Arminians, if I do not mistake, are over-zealous and active.1 That among the judges of the Arminians there were men who were not only learned but also honest and eligious, who acted in great sincerity, and who had no suspicion that they were doing anything wrong, is not to be doubted at all. On the other hand, these facts were too clear and obvious to escape the notice of any one:-I. That the destruction of the Arminian sect was determined upon before the council was called; and these fathers were called toge

Maurice,' delegates were assembled at Dort, | pestilential errors; and it was coincident a city in Holland, from the United Provinces and from Hesse, England, the Palatinate, Bremen, and Switzerland, who held in the years 1618 and 1619 what is called the Synod of Dort. Before it, appeared on citation, in defence of their cause, the leading men of the Arminian sect, at the head of whom and their chief orator was Simon Episcopius, a disciple of Arminius and professor of theology at Leyden, a man distinguished, as his enemies admit, for acute ness, learning, and fluency. But scarcely had Episcopius saluted the judges in a grave and eloquent address, when difficulties arose embarrassing the whole impending discussion. The Arminians wished to commence the defence of their cause by attacking the sentiments of their adversaries the Calvinists; this the judges disapproved, deciding that the accused must first explain and prove their own doctrines before they proceeded to confute those who differed from them. Perhaps the Arminians hoped that a full exposure of the odious consequences they could attach to the Calvinistic doctrine would enkindle a hatred of it in the minds of the people present, while the Calvinists feared lest the mighty genius and fine quence of Episcopius might injure their cause in the view of the multitude. As the Arminians could by no means be persuaded to comply with the wishes of the synod they were dismissed from the coun-1707, 4to. After formally comparing them, I did not cil, and they complained that they had been treated unjustly. But the judges, after examining their published writings, pronounced them, though absent and unheard, guilty of corrupting theology and holding

3 The writers on the synod of Dort are enumerated

by Fabricius, Biblioth. Græca, tom. xi. p. 723. The most copious of them all is Brandt, in his History of the Reelo-formation in the Netherlands, vol. ii. and iii. But as he was himself an Arminian, with his narration should and integrity of the synod of Dort are vindicated in be compared the work of Leydecker, in which the purity answer to Brandt, Eere van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht voorgestaan en bevestigd tegen de Beschul dingen van G. Brandt, vol. i. Amsterd. 1705, vol. ii. find any very enormous errors in Brandt; nor do these the causes and import of the facts. John Hales, an Englishman who belonged to neither party, has related simply what he saw; and his Letters written from the scene of this council I myself published some time ago with notes, Hamburg, 1724, 8vo. [He was chaplain to the English ambassador at the Hague, Sir Dudley Carleton, and was king James's secret envoy sent to watch the movements of the Synod. His letters addressed to Carleton were published under the title of the Golden Remains of the Ever-memorable John Hales of Eton College, 1659, 4to. Mosheim translated them into Latin, prefixed a long preface and added some notes.— Mur. [See also Hallam's Introduction to the Literature of Europe, vol. iii. p. 79 and 81-89; Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, Buch's translation, vol. ii. p. 206, &c.-R.

two writers disagree so much about the facts as about

1 Our author always forgets to mention the order Issued by the States-General for the convocation of this famous synod; and by his manner of expressing himself, and particularly by the phrase Mauritio auctore, would seem to insinuate that it was by the prince that this assembly was called together.-The legitimacy of the manner of convoking this synod was questioned by Oldenbarnevelt, who maintained that the StatesGeneral had no sort of authority in matters of religion, not even the power of assembling a synod, affirming that this was an act of sovereignty which belonged to each province separately and respectively. See Carleton's Letters in Hales' Golden Remains, &c.-Macl.

Perhaps also another reason why both parties were so stiff on this point was, that the members of the synod were not themselves of one mind in regard to the doctrine of predestination; for some of them were Supralapsarians and others Infralapsarians, and in general the doctrine of reprobation presented so many difficult points that the members of the synod deemed it advisable to prescribe to the Remonstrants the mode of confutation and defence, and thus to retain in their own hands the direction of the whole discussion; while the Remonstrants hoped perhaps that the diversity of opinion among the members of the synod would prove advantageous to them, if they could have liberty to expatiate widely on the doctrine of reprobation and divide somewhat the votes of their judges. This is the not improbable conjecture of Van Wagenaer, in his Geschichte der vereinigten Niederlande, vol. iv. p. 451.Schl.

4 All that the Arminians deemed faulty in this council they collected in a concise and neatly-written book, frequently printed: Nulliteyten, Mishandelinghen, ende onbyllicke Proceduren des nationalen Synodi ghehouden binnen Dordrecht anno 1618, 1619, in't korte ende rouwe afgheworpen, 1619, 4to.

5 Maclaine says: "This assertion is of too weighty a nature to be advanced without sufficient proof. Our author quotes no authority for it."-Schlegel replies: The proofs lie in the whole progress of the events. And a man must be ignorant of the human heart and wholly unacquainted with the history of ecclesiastical councils, not to draw the natural conclusion from what preceded the council, that the condemnation of the Arminians was already determined on before the council was convened at Dort. The election of Bogermann. who possessed the soul of an inquisitor, to the presidency of the synod would lead us to no other conclusion. The assessors of the president and the scribes of the council were known to be zealous Contra-Remonstrants. And so early as the year 1617, in the nonth of July, the

ther, not to inquire whether this sect might be tolerated or not, but to promulgate a sentence long before passed with some becoming formality, with the appearance of justice, and with the consent of the foreign theologians. II. That the enemies and accusers of the Arminians were their judges, and that the president of the council, John Bogermann, exceeded almost all others in hatred of this sect. III. That neither the Dutch nor the foreign divines had liberty to decide according to their own pleasure, but were obliged to decide according to the instructions which they brought with them from their princes and magistrates. IV That in the council itself the voice of the illustrious and very honourable men who appeared as the legates of Maurice and the States-General, had more influence than

Contra-Remonstrants declared at the Hague, "that they regarded the Remonstrants and those who embraced the sentiments of the Remonstrants to be false teachers (pro falsis doctoribus), and that they only waited for a national synod, of which there then appeared to be a bright prospect, so that in it there might be made a legitimate secession from the Remonstrants, which should be put into execution after an ecclesiastical trial." See Limborch's Relatio Historica de Origine et Progressu Controversiar. in Fœderato Belgio, p. 18. The provincial synods which were held before the synod of Dort so arranged everything as to give the ContraRemonstrants the upper hand. In particular, they deposed Remonstrant ministers, as e.g. Uytenbogaerd, Grevinchovius, and others. And in electing ministers wholly passed by; and only from the district of Utrecht were two Remonstrant delegates sent to Dort, and even these were excluded as soon as the cause of the Remonstrants came on. See Limborch, ubi supra, and Wagenaer's History of the United Netherlands (in German), vol. iv. p. 446, &c. Thus far Schlegel.-Un

to attend the national synod, the Remonstrants were

doubtedly, nearly or quite every minister in Holland had an opinion formed with regard to the correctness of the doctrines charged upon the Remonstrants, and the propriety of permitting their propagation. It could not be otherwise, as these opinions had been preached and published abundantly for ten years, and had been the great theme of discussion among theologians. In such circumstances, to be ignorant of the alleged Arminian doctrines or to have no opinion concerning them, would have been altogether unbecoming in a clergyman. It was therefore a thing of course and no reproach upon their characters, that the divines at Dort should come together with opinions already made up on the theological questions they were to discuss.-Mur.

1 Bogermann was minister of Leeuwarden, an avowed enemy of the Arminians, who had already written against them, and who was so full of the persecuting spirit of Beza that he had translated into Dutch Beza's book, De Hæreticis a Magistratu Puniendis. And his whole behaviour at the synod showed that he was better qualified to be the papal legate at a council of Trent than the moderator of a Protestant synod.- Schl. [Bogermann was doubtless too zealous, and in several instances too severe and passionate in his speeches. But his intolerant spirit was the spirit of the age. Christian forbearance and tenderness towards the erring were then nowhere well understood and duly practised -Mur.

* Here our author has fallen into a palpable mistake. The Dutch divines had no commission but from their respective consistories or subordinate ecclesiastical assemblies; nor are they ever the depositaries of the orders of their magistrates, who have lay deputies to represent them both in provincial and national synods. As to the English and other foreign doctors who appeared in the synod of Dort, the case perhaps may have been somewhat different.-Macl.

that of the theologians who sat as the judges. V. That the promise made to the Arminians when summoned before the council, that they should have liberty to state, explain, and defend their opinions as far as they were able and deemed it necessary, was violated by the council.3

8. The Arminians, being adjudged enemies of their country and of religion, were subjected to severe animadversion. First, they were all deprived both of their sacred and their civil offices, and then their preachers were ordered to refrain from preaching altogether. Those who would not submit to this order were ignominiously sent into exile, and subjected to other punishments and indignities. Hence many retired to Antwerp and others to France, and a large body of them emigrated to Holstein by the invitation of Frederick duke of Holstein, and built the handsome town of Frederickstadt in the duchy of Sleswick. In that town the Arminians still live in tranquillity, and enjoy the free exercise of their religion. The leaders of this colony were men of distinction in Holland, especially Adrian van der Wahl, the first governor of the town of Frederickstadt. Among the clergymen who accompanied this colony the most distinguished were, the famous Conrad Vorstius, who drew a great deal of odium upon the Arminians by his sentiments which were not far removed from those of the Socinians; Nicholas Grevinchovius, a man of acuteness, who had been a preacher at Rotterdam; Simon Gou

3 See Le Vassor's Histoire du Regne de Louis XIII. tome ii. livr. xii. p. 365, 366, and my notes on Hales' Historia Concilii Dordraceni, p. 394-400. [The words of the promise were: "Liberum illis fore ut proponant, explicent, et defendant, quantum possent et necessarium judicarent, opiniones SUAS." This promise, the Arminians contended, gave them liberty to state so many of their own doctrines and in such an order as they pleased; and also to state their views of the sentiments or doctrines of their opposers, and to refute them as fully and in such a manner as they pleased. Whether this was a fair and reasonable construction of the words of the promise, and such a construction as the synod were bound to admit, the reader will judge. Yet it was the refusal of this and the requiring the Remonstrants to state and defend only their own sentiments, and to proceed in regard to them methodically, that the Remonstrants complained of as a violation of the promises made them. See the Remonstrants' views of a proper council, presented to the synod December 10th, the decree of the synod of the 29th December, and the synod's explanation of it. December 29th, and also the communication of the Remonstrants to the synod on the 21st of January; all which documents are given by the Remonstrants themselves, in their Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena, par. i. p. 4, &c. 140, &c. 159, &c.-Mur.

4 The history of this colony may be learned from the noted Epistolæ præstantium et eruditorum Virorum Ecclesiastica et Theologica, published by Limborch and Hartsocker, the latest ed. Amsterd. 1704, fol. Compare Müller's Introductio in Histor. Chersonesus Cimbrica, par. ii. p. 108, &c. and Pontoppidan's Annales Ecclesia Danica diplomatici, tom. iii. p. 714, &c.

lart, John Grevius, Marcus Walther, John Narsius, and others.

10. The Remonstrants, as we have seen, differed at first from the Reformed in noth9. Maurice, under whose government the ing except the five propositions concerning Arminians suffered so greatly, died in 1625. grace and predestination, and it was on this By the clemency of his brother and suc-ground that they were condemned at the cessor, Frederick Henry, the Arminian synod of Dort. They moreover so exexiles were recalled, and restored to their plained those five propositions that they former reputation and tranquillity. Accord-seemed to teach precisely what the Luingly those who had retired to France and to the Spanish Netherlands returned, and they established congregations distinct from the Reformed in various places, and particularly at Rotterdam and Amsterdam. In order to have a seminary for their own sect and religion, they founded a distinguished school at Amsterdam, in which two professors train up young men for the ministry, the one teaching theology, and the other history, philosophy, and the learned languages. Simon Episcopius was the first professor of Arminian theology; and since him, these offices have been filled, down to the present time, by men highly famed for learning and genius, namely, Stephen Curcellæus, Arnold Poellenburg, Philip Limborch, John le Clerc, Adrian van Cattenburg, and John James Wetstein.

1 Concerning Vorstius, Möller treats very fully in his Cimbria Literata, tom. ii. p. 931, &c. He also treats expressly of the other persons here mentioned, Ibid. tom. ii. p. 242, 247, 249, 255, 576.

therans do. But from the time of the synod of Dort, and still more after the exiles were allowed to return to their country, they professed an entirely new species of religion, different from the views of all other sects of Christians. For most of them not only gave such an explanation of these propositions, as seemed to differ very little from the views of those who deny that a man needs any divine aid whatever in order to his conversion and living a holy life; but they also lowered very much most of the doctrines of Christianity, by subjecting them to the modifications of reason and human ingenuity. James Arminius, the parent of the sect, undoubtedly invented this form of theology and taught it to his followers; but it was Simon Episcopius,

after being deposed at Basil, and died in 1754, aged 61. His critical edition of the New Testament, (1751-2, in 2 vols. fol.), is well known.-Schl.

liothèque Universelle et Historique, (1683-1693, in 26 dense volumes, 12mo), Bibliothèque Choisie (1703–1713, in 28 volumes, 12mo), Bibliothèque Ancienne et Moderne, (1714-1727, in 29 vols. 12mo), his Commentaries on the Old Testament, Ars Critica, Harmony of the Gospels, Of these and the other Arminian writers, Adrian Van Histoire des Provinces unies de Pays Bas (from 1560— Cattenburg treats expressly in his Bibliotheca Scrip- to 1728, in 3 vols. fol. his Historia Ecclesiastica duorum torum Remonstrantium, Amsterd. 1728, 4to. [Episco- Primorum a Christo Sæculorum, 1716, 4to), and his pius was born at Amsterdam, a pupil of Arminius, and editions of classical and other authors, have procured after the deposition of Vorstius, his successor at Ley-him a great name among the learned.-Cattenburg den, an eloquent and acute man, who being full of was professor of theclogy in the Arminian Gymnasium He wrote Bibliothe theological scepticism began to question many of the at Amsterdam, till the year 1730. received opinions, e.g. the doctrine of original sin. He ca Scriptorum Remonstrantium, Spicilegium Theologia died in 1643, as professor in the Arminian Gymnasium Christiane Limborchiana, and some works explanaat Amsterdam. His life written by Limborch and history of the Bible. Wetstein succeeded Le Clerc writings were published by Curcellæus and Poellenburg, Amsterd. 1650, 1665, 2 vols. fol.-Curcellæus (Courcelles) was born at Geneva, of French parentage, and early showed a propensity towards Arminianism, which It is a common opinion that the early Arminians he defended against the decrees of Dort. He died in who flourished before the Synod of Dort, were much 1659, an Arminian professor at Amsterdam. His theo- purer and more sound than the latter ones who lived logical works were published collectively by Limborch, and taught after that council; and that Arminius himself Amsterd. 1675, fol. His fine edition of the Greek New only rejected Calvin's doctrine of absolute decrees and Testament with various readings is well known.-Poel- its necessary consequences, while in everything else he lenburg was born at Iorn in the Netherlands, where agreed with the Reformed; but that his disciples, and he became a preacher. Thence he was removed to especially Episcopius, boldly passed the limits which Amsterdam as a preacher, was made successor to Cur- their master had wisely established, and went over to cellæus in his professorship there, and died in 1666.- the camp of the Pelagians and Socinians. But it apLimborch was brother's grandson to Episcopius, first a pears to me very clear, that Arminius himself revolved preacher at Gouda and then at Amsterdam, and lastly in his own mind and taught to his disciples that form professor there, where he also died in 1712. He was a of religion which his followers afterwards professed; modest theologian, who united great learning with and that the latter, especially Episcopius, only perextraordinary clearness of style in his writings. This fected what their master taught them, and casting off is manifest by his Theologia Christiana. Also his fear explained it more clearly. I have as a witness, Amica collatio cum erudito Judæo de veritate Religionis besides others of less authority, Arminius himself, who Christiana, his Historia Inquisitionis, and his collec- in his Will drawn up a little before his death explicitly tion of the Epistles of Remonstrants, are important declares that his aim was to bring all sects of Christians, works, as likewise his very temperately written Relatio with the exception of the papists, into one community Historica de Origine et Progressu Controversiarum and brotherhood. We will cite his words from Bertius' in fœderato Belgio de Pradestinatione, &c.-Le Clerc Oratio funebris in Arminium, p. 15: "Ea proposui was born and educated at Geneva, and professor of atque docui quæ ad propagationem, amplificaHebrew, philosophy, and the fine arts, and afterwards tionemque veritatis, religionis Christianæ, veri Dei of church history in the Arminian Gymnasium at Am- cultus, communis pietatis, et sanctæ inter homines consterdam, and died in 1736, aged 79. His Epistola versationis, denique ad convenientem Christiano nomini Theologica, under the name of Liberius de S. Amore; tranquillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent Sentimens de quelques Théologiens d' Hollande sur l'His- conferre, excludens ex iis Papatum, cum quo nulla toire Critique du V. T. par R. Simon; his Journals, unitas fidei, nullum pietatis aut Christianæ pacis vin(periodical works, containing analyses and Reviews of culum servari potest." Now what, I ask, is this but Dooks, with original essays interspersed), namely, Bib-that very Arminianism of more recent times, which

the first master in the Arminian school after its founder, and a very ingenious man, who digested and polished it and reduced it to a regular system.'

right to persecute and put to death those who oppose the Romish prelate. And indeed if other Christians would abide by these precepts, the great diversities of opinion among them would clearly be no obstacle to their mutual love and concord.

11. The whole system of the Remonstrants is directed to this one simple object, to unite the hearts of Christians who are 12. It hence appears that the Arminian divided by a variety of sentiments and opi- community was composed of persons of nions, and to gather them into one frater- various descriptions, and that it had pronity or family, notwithstanding they may perly no fixed and stable form of religion, differ in many points of doctrine and or, to use a common phrase, no system of worship. To accomplish this object, they religion. They would not indeed wish to maintain that Christ does not require of be thought destitute of a bond of union; his followers to believe much but to do and therefore they show us a sort of conmuch, or to cultivate love and virtue; and fession of faith, drawn up with sufficient of course they give a very broad definition neatness by Simon Episcopius, for the most of a true Christian. For according to them part in the very words of the sacred writers, every person belongs to the kingdom of and which they represent as their formula Christ, who I. receives the holy Scrip- and rule of faith.3 But as none of their tures and particularly the New Testament teachers are so tied to this formula by oath as the rule of his religion, whatever may be or promise as not to be at liberty to depart the interpretation he gives to those books; from it; and on the contrary, as every one II. is opposed to the worship of many gods from the constitution of the sect is allowed and to whatever is connected with such an to construe it according to his own pleasure abomination; III. leads an upright life, and it is capable of different expositions conformable to the divine law; and IV.-it must be manifest that we cannot denever troubles or disturbs those who differ from him on religious subjects or who interpret the books of the New Testament in a different manner from what he does. By these principles a wide door is opened to all who honour Christ, though differing widely in sentiments, to enter into the Arminian communion. Yet the papists are excluded from it, because they think it

extends so wide the boundaries of the Christian church that all sects may live harmoniously within them, whatever opinions they may hold, except only the professors of the Romish religion? [The opinion that Arminius himself was very nearly orthodox, and not an Arminian in the common acceptation of the term, has been recently advocated by professor Stuart of Andover, in an article expressly on the Creed of Arminius, in the Biblical Repository, No. II. Andover, 1831. See p. 293 and 301. To such a conclusion the learned professor is led, principally by an artful and imposing statement made by Arminius to the magistrates of Holland in the year 1608, one year before his death, on which Mr. Stuart puts the most favourable construction the words will bear. But from a careful comparison of this declaration of Arminius with the original Five Articles of the Arminian Creed (which were drawn up almost in the very words of Arminius, so early as the year 1610, and exhibited by the Remonstrants in the conference at the Hague in 1611, and were afterwards, together with a full explanation and vindication of each article, laid before the synod of Dort in 1619, changing however the doubting of the fifth article into a positive denial of the saints' perseverance), it will, I think, appear manifest that Arminius himself actually differed from the orthodox of that day on all the five points; and that he agreed substantially with the Remonstrants on all those doctrines for which they were condemned in the synod of Dort. And that such was the fact, appears to have been assumed without hesitation by the principal writers of that and the following age, both Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.-Mur.

termine at all, from this confession, what they approve and what they reject. And hence their public teachers advance very different sentiments respecting the most weighty doctrines of the Christian religion. Nor do they all follow one well-defined and uniform course in almost anything, except in regard to the doctrines of predestination and grace. For they all continue to assert

In place of all others, Episcopius may here be consulted in his tract, entitled, Verus Theologus Remonstrans, sive veræ Remonstrantium Theologia de Errantibus dilucida declaratio, which is extant in his Opera, tom. i. p. 508, &c. and like the rest of his productions is neatly and perspicuously written. Le Clerc sums up the doctrines of his sect in the Dedication of his Latin translation of Hammond's New Testament, which is addressed to the learned among the Remonstrants, in this manner, p. 3. "Profiteri soletis eos duntaxat a vobis excludi, qui (I.) idololatria sunt contaminati, (II.) qui minime habent Scripturam pro fidei norma, (III.) qui impuris moribus sancta Christi præcepta conculcant, (IV.) aut qui denique alios religionis caussa vexant." Many tell us that the Arminians regard as brethren all who merely assent to what is called the Apostles' Creed. But a very competent witness, Le Clerc, shows that this is a mistake, Bibliothèque Ancienne et Moderne, tome xxv. p. 119. trompent. Ils (les Arminiens) offrent la communion à tous ceux qui reçoivent l'Ecriture Sainte comme la seule règle de la foi et des mœurs, et qui ne sont ni Idolâtres, ni persécuteurs."

Ils se

3 This confession is extant in Latin, Dutch, and German. The Latin may be seen in the Works of Episcopius, tom. ii. par. ii. p. 69, where also, p. 97, may be seen an Apology for this Confession, by the same Episcopius, written against the Divines of the university of Leyden.

4 Any one may see this with his own eyes, by only comparing together the writings of Episcopius, Curcellæus, Limborch, Le Clerc, and Cattenburg. [Those A life of this celebrated man, which is well worth Arminians who agree with the Reformed in all doctrireading, was composed by Limborch, and first pub-nal points, except the Five Articles contained in theh lished in Dutch, and then more full and complete in remonstrance, are for distinction's sake called Quin Latin, Amsterd. 1701, 8vo. quarticulans.- Schl.

most carefully, though in a very different manner from their fathers, the doctrine which excluded their ancestors from the pale of the Reformed church; namely, that the love of God embraces the whole human race, and that no one perishes through any eternal and insuperable decree of God, but all merely by their own fault. Whoever attacks this doctrine attacks the whole school or sect; but one who may assail any other doctrines contained in the writings of Arminians, must know that he has no controversy with the Arminian church, whose theology with few exceptions is unsettled and fluctuating, but only with some of its doctors, who do not all interpret and explain in the same manner even that one doctrine of the universal love of God to mankind, which especially separates the Arminians from the Reformed.

and the mode of worship among the Arminians, are very nearly the same as among the Reformed of the Presbyterian churches. Yet the leaders of the sect, as they neglect no means tending to preserve and strengthen their communion with the English church, so they show themselves very friendly to episcopal government; and they do not hesitate to affirm that they regard it as a holy form, very ancient, and preferable to the otner forms of government.3

CHAPTER IV.

HISTORY OF THE QUAKERS.

1. THOSE Who in English are called Quakers are in Latin called Trementes or Tremuli. This name was given them in the year 1650, by Gervas Bennet, a justice of the peace in Derbyshire; but whether because their whole body trembled before they began to speak on religious subjects, or because Fox and his associates said that

13. The Arminian community at the present time is very small if compared with the Reformed; and, if common report be true, it is decreasing continually. They a man ought to tremble at hearing the word have at present [1753] thirty-four congre- of God, does not sufficiently appear. In gations in Holland, some smaller and some the mean time they suffer themselves to be larger, over which are forty-four ministers; called by this name, provided it be correctly out of Holland they have one at Frederick- understood. They prefer however to be stadt. But the principles adopted by their named from their primary doctrine, Chilfounders have spread with wonderful rapi- dren or Professors of the Light. In familiar dity over many nations, and gained the discourse, they call each other Friends.* approbation of vast numbers. For to say The origin of the sect belongs to those times nothing of the English, who adopted the in English history when civil war raged Arminian doctrines concerning grace and universally, and when every one who had predestination as early as the times of Wil- conceived in his mind a new form either of liam Laud, and who on the restoration of civil government or of religion, came forth Charles II. assented in great measure to the with it from his obscure retreat into public other Arminian tenets, who is so ignorant view. Its parent was George Fox, a shoeof the state of the world as not to know maker, a man naturally very gloomy, that in many of the courts of Protestant shunning society, and peculiarly fitted to princes, and almost everywhere among those form visionary conceptions. As early as who pretend to be wise, this sentiment tendency of the Leibnitian and Wolfian philosophy to which is the basis of Arminianism is preva- support Calvinism. The reasoning is ingenious and lent; namely, that very few things are good. But the effects actually produced by this philonecessary to be believed in order to salva-sophy seem to be greatly overrated, when he says, "that the progress of Arminianism has been greatly retarded, tion, and that every one is to be allowed to nay, that its cause daily declines in Germany and seve ral parts of Switzerland, in consequence of the ascenthink as he pleases concerning God and dant which the Leibnitian and Wolfian philosophy hath religion, provided he lives a pious and up- gained in these countries, and particularly among the right life? The Hollanders, though they thus about the year 1763, the Germans were going fast clergy and men of learning." When Maclaine wrote acknowledge that the sect which their into what is called German neology, and the Swiss apfathers condemned is gradually declining in proximating towards Socinianism, and the philosophy he speaks of was rapidly waning-Mur. numbers and strength, yet publicly lament 2 Hence, to omit many other things which place this that the opinions of the sect are spreading beyond doubt, they have taken so much pains to show that farther and farther, and that even those to Hugo Grotius, their hero and almost their oracle, commended the English church in the highest degree, and whose care the decrees of the synod of that he preferred it before all others. See the collection Dort were intrusted are corrupted by them. of proofs for this by Le Clerc, subjoined to his edition of Grotius's book, De Veritate Religionis Christianæ, p. How much inclined towards them many of 376, &c. ed. Hague, 1724, 8vo. the Swiss, especially the Genevans are, and also many of the French, is very well known. The form of church government

3 See Sewell's History of the Quakers, p. 23 [vol. i.

P. 43, ed. London, 1811]: Neal's History of the Puri-
tans, vol. iv. p. 32, &c. [where see Toulmin's note.-
Mur.
Sewel, ubi supra, p. 624 [vol. ii. p. 589, ed. Lond.
1811; also Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 60, 61.

1 Maclaine has here a long and elaborate note on the Mur.

« הקודםהמשך »