XVI. candour and justice to inveigh indiscriminately CENT. against the authors of these misfortunes, and to re- SECT. III. present them as totally destitute of rational senti- PART II. ments and virtuous principles. And it is yet more unjust to throw the whole blame upon the triumphant party, while the suffering side are all fondly represented as men of unblemished virtue, and worthy of a better fate. It ought not certainly to be a matter of surprise, that persons long accustomed to a state of darkness, and suddenly transported from thence into the blaze of day, did not, at first, behold the objects that were presented to their view with that distinctness. and precision that are natural to those who have long enjoyed the light. And such, really, was the case of the first protestant doctors, who were delivered from the gloom of papal superstition and tyranny. Besides, there was something gross and indelicate in the reigning spirit of this age, which made the people not only tolerate, but even applaud many things relating both to the conduct of life and the management of controversy, which the more polished manners of modern times cannot relish, and which, indeed, are by no means worthy of imitation. As to the particular motives or intentions that ruled each individual in this troubled scene of controversy, whether they acted from the suggestions of malice and resentment, or from an upright and sincere attachment to what they looked upon to be the truth, or how far these two springs of action were jointly concerned in their conduct, all this must be left to the decision of Him alone, whose privilege it is to search the heart, and to discern its most hidden intentions, and its most secret motives. and writers XLVI. The Lutheran church furnished, during The princi this century, a long list of considerable doctors, pal doctors who illustrated, in their writings, the various of this co branches of theological science. After Luther tut XVI. CENT and Melancthon, who stand foremost in this list, SECT. III. on account of their superior genius and erudition, PART II. we may select the following writers, as the most eminent, and as persons whose names are worthy to be preserved in the annals of literature; viz. Weller, Chemnitz, Brentius, Flacius, Regius, Major, Amsdorf, Sarcerius, Mathesius, Wigandus, Lambertus, Andreæ, Chytræus, Salneccer, Bucer, Fagius, Cruciger, Strigelius, Spangenberg, Judex, Heshusius, Westphal, Epinus, Osiander, and others [o]. С НА Р. II. The History of the Reformed [p] Church. THE nature and constitution of the Re The consti- formed Church, which was formerly de tution of the R formed church. nominated by its adversaries after its founders Zuingle [o] For an ample account of these Lutheran doctors, see Melchior. Adami Vitæ Theologorum, and Louis Elis Dupin Bibliotheque des Auteurs separés de la Communion de l'Eglise Romaine au XVII Siecle. The lives of several of these divines have been also separately composed by different authors of the present times; as for example, that of Weller by Læmelius, that of Flacius by Ritter, those of Heshusius and Spangenberg by Leuckfeldt, that of Fagius by Feverlin, that of Chytræus by Schutz, that of Bucer by Verportenius, those of Westphal and pinus by Arn. Grevius, &c. [] It has already been observed that the denomination of Reformed was given to those protestant churches which did not embrace the doctrine and discipline of Luther. The title was first assumed by the French protestants, and afterwards became the common denomination of all the Calvinistical churches on the continent. I say, on the continent; since in England the term Reformed is generally used as standing in opposition to popery alone. Be that as it may, this part of Dr Mosheim's work would have been perhaps, with more propriety, entitled, The History of the Reformed Churches, than The History of the Reformed Church. This will appear still more evident from the following note. XVI. Zuingle and Calvin, is entirely different from CENT. that of all other ecclesiastical communities. Every szer. III. other Christian church hath some common centre PART II. of union, and its members are connected together by some common bond of doctrine and discpline. But this is far from being the case of the Reformed church [9], whose several branches are neither A a 3 united [9] This and the following observations are designed to give the Lutheran church an air of unity, which is not to be found in the Reformed. But there is a real fallacy in this specious representation of things. The Reformed church, when considered in the true extent of the term reformed, comprehends all those religious communities that separated themselves from the church of Rome; and, in this sense, includes the Lutheran church, as well as the others. And even when this epithet is used in opposition to the community founded by Luther, it represents, not a single church, as the Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent, but rather a collection of churches, which, though they be invisibly united by a belief and profession of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, yet frequent separate places of worship, and have each a visi ble centre of external union peculiar to themselves, which is formed by certain peculiarities in their respective rules of public worship and ecclesiastical government. An attentive examination of the discipline, polity, and worship of the churches of England, Scotland, Holland, and Switzerland, will set this matter in the clearest light. The first of these churches being governed by bishops, and not admitting of the validity of presbyterian ordination, differs from the other three more than any of these differ from each other. There are, however, peculiarities of government and worship that distinguish the church of Holland from that of Scotland. The institution of deacons, the use of forms for the celebration of the sacraments, an ordinary form of prayer, the observation of the festivals of Christmas, Easter, Ascension-day, and Whitsuntide, are established in the Dutch church; and it is well known that the church of Scotland differs from it extremely in these respects.--But, after all, to what does the pretended uniformity among the Lutherans amount? are not some of the Lutheran churches governed by bishops, while others are ruled by elders? It shall moreover be shewn, in its proper place, that even in point of doctrine, the Lutheran churches are not so very remarkable for their uniformity. See the general sketch of the state of the church in the eighteenth cen ary, in the sixth volume, paragraph XXI. and note (y). CENT. united by the same system of doctrine, nor by the SECT. III. Same mode of worship, nor yet by the same form PART 1 of government. It is farther to be observed, that XVI. The causes duced this state of things. this church does not require from its ministers, either uniformity in their private sentiments, or in their public doctrine, but permits them to explain, in different ways, several doctrines of no small moment, provided that the great and fundamental principles of Christianity, and the practical precepts of that divine religion, be maintained in their original purity. This great community, therefore, may be properly considered as an ecclesiastical body composed of several churches, that vary, more or less, from each other in their form and constitution; but which are preserved, however, from anarchy and schisms, by a general spirit of equity and toleration, that runs through the whole system, and renders variety of opinion consistent with fraternal union. II. This indeed was not the original state and that pro- constitution of the Reformed church, but was the result of a certain combination of events and circumstances, that threw it, by a sort of necessity, into this ambiguous form. The doctors of Switzerland, from whom it derived its origin, and Calvin, who was one of its principal founders, employed all their credit, and exerted their most vigorous efforts, in order to reduce all the churches, which embraced their sentiments, under one rule of faith, and the same form of ecclesiastical government. And although they considered the Lutherans as their brethren, yet they shewed no marks of indulgence to those who openly favoured the opinions of Luther, concerning the Eucharist, the Person of Christ, Predestination, and other matters that were connected with these doctrines; nor would they permit the other protestant churches, that embraced their commupion, to deviate from their example in this re spect. XVI ECT spect. A new scene, however, which was exhi- CENT. bited in Britain, contributed much to enlarges III. this narrow and contracted system of church, PART II. communion. For when the violent contest concerning the form of ecclesiastical government, and the nature and number of those rites and ceremonies that were proper to be admitted into the public worship, arose between the abettors of Episcopacy and the Puritans [r], it was judged necessary to extend the borders, of the Reformed church, and rank in the class of its true members, even those who departed, in some respects, from the ecclesiastical polity and doctrines established at Geneva. This spirit of toleration and indulgence grew still more forbearing and comprehensive after the famous synod of Dort. For though the sentiments and doctrines of the Arminians were rejected and condemned in that numerous assembly, yet they gained ground privately, and insinuated themselves into the minds of many. The church of England, under the reign of Charles I. publicly renounced the opinions of Calvin relating to the Divine Decrees, and made several attempts to model its doctrine and institutions after the laws, tenets, and customs, that were observed by the primitive Christians [s]. On the other hand, several Lutheran congregations in Germany entertained a strong propensity to the doctrines A a 4 [r] The Puritans, who inclined to the presbyterian form of church government, of which Knox was one of the earliest abettors in Britain, derived this denomination from their pretending to a purer method of worship than that which had been established by Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth. [] This assertion is equivocal. Many members of the church of England, with archbishop Laud at their head, did, indeed, propagate the doctrines of Arminius, both in their pulpits, and in their writings. But it is not accurate to say that the Church of England renounced publicly, in that reign, the opinions of Calvin. See this matter farther discussed in the note [m], Cent. XVII. sect. II. p. II. ch. II. paragraph xx. |