§ 161. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.
The Reformed scholars of France vied with those of St. Maur
and the Oratory, and the Reformed theologians of the Netherlands,
England, and Switzerland were not a whit behind. But an attempt made
at a general synod at Dort to unite all the Reformed national churches
under one confession failed. Opposition to Calvin’s extreme theory of
predestination introduced a Pelagianizing current into the Reformed
church, which was by no means confined to professed Arminians. In the
Anglican church this tendency appeared in the forms of latitudinarianism
and deism (§ 164, 3); while in France it took a more moderate course,
and approximated rather to the Lutheran doctrine. It was a reaction of
latent Zwinglianism against the dominant Calvinism. The Voetian school
successfully opposed the introduction of the Cartesian philosophy, and
secured supremacy to a scholasticism which held its own alongside of
that of the Lutherans. In opposition to it, the Cocceian federal school
undertook to produce a purely biblical system of theology in all its
departments.
§ 161.1. =Preliminaries of the Arminian Controversy.=--In the
_Confessio Belgica_ of A.D. 1562 the Protestant Netherlands
had already a strictly Calvinistic symbol, but Calvinism had
not thoroughly permeated the church doctrine and constitution.
There were more opponents than supporters of the doctrine of
predestination, and a Melanchthonian-synergistic (§ 141, 7),
or even an Erasmian-semipelagian, (§ 125, 3) doctrine, of
the freedom of the will and the efficacy of grace, was more
frequently taught and preached than the Augustinian-Calvinistic
doctrine. So also Zwingli’s view of the relation of church
and state was in much greater favour than the Calvinistic
Presbyterial church government with its terrorist discipline.
But the return of the exiles in A.D. 1572, who had adopted
strict Calvinistic views in East Friesland and on the Lower
German Rhine, led to the adoption of a purely Calvinistic creed
and constitution. The keenest opponent of this movement was
Coornhert, notary and secretary for the city of Haarlem, who
combated Calvinism in numerous writings, and depreciated doctrine
generally in the interests of practical living Christianity.
Political as well as religious sympathies were enlisted in
favour of this freer ecclesiastical tendency. The Dutch War
of Independence was a struggle for religious freedom against
Spanish Catholic fanaticism. The young republic therefore
became the first home of religious toleration, which was scarcely
reconcilable with a strict and exclusive Calvinism.--Meanwhile
within the Calvinistic church a controversy arose, which divided
its adherents in the Netherlands into two parties. In opposition
to the strict Calvinists, who as supralapsarians held that the
fall itself was included in the eternal counsels of God, there
arose the milder infralapsarians, who made predestination come
in after the fall, which was not predestinated but only foreseen
by God.
§ 161.2. =The Arminian Controversy.=--In A.D. 1588, James
Arminius (born A.D. 1560), a pupil of Beza, but a declared
adherent of the Ramist philosophy (§ 143, 6), was appointed
pastor in Amsterdam, and ordered by the magistrates to controvert
Coornhert’s universalism and the infralapsarianism of the
ministers of Delft. He therefore studied Coornhert’s writings,
and by them was shaken in his earlier beliefs. This was shown
first in certain sermons on passages from Romans, which made him
suspected of Pelagianism. In A.D. 1603 he was made theological
professor of Leyden, where he found a bitter opponent in his
supralapsarian colleague, Francis Gomarus. From the class-rooms
the controversy spread to the pulpits, and even into domestic
circles. A public disputation in A.D. 1608, led to no pacific
result, and Arminius continued involved in controversies
till his death in A.D. 1609. Although decidedly inclined
toward universalism, he had directed his polemic mainly against
supralapsarianism, as making God himself the author of sin.
But his followers went beyond these limits. When denounced by
the Gomarists as Pelagians, they addressed to the provincial
parliament of Holland and West Friesland, in A.D. 1610, a
remonstrance, which in five articles repudiates supralapsarianism
and infralapsarianism, and the doctrines of the irresistibility
of grace, and of the impossibility of the elect finally
falling away from it, and boldly asserts the universality of
grace. They were hence called Remonstrants and their opponents
Contraremonstrants. Parliament, favourably inclined toward
the Arminians, pronounced the difference non-fundamental,
and enjoined peace. When Vorstius, who was practically a
Socinian, was appointed successor to Arminius, Gomarus charged
the Remonstrants with Socinianism. Their ablest theological
representative was Simon Episcopius, who succeeded Gomarus at
Leyden in A.D. 1612, supported by the distinguished statesman,
Oldenbarneveldt, and the great jurist, humanist, and theologian,
Hugo Grotius of Rotterdam. Maurice of Orange, too, for a long
time sided with them, but in A.D. 1617 formally went over to
the other party, whose well-knit unity, strict discipline, and
rigorous energy commended them to him as the fittest associates
in his struggle for absolute monarchy. The republican-Arminian
party was conquered, Oldenbarneveldt being executed in 1619,
Grotius escaping by his wife’s strategem. =The Synod of Dort=
was convened for the purpose of settling doctrinal disputes.
It held 154 sessions, from Nov. 13th, 1618, to May 9th, 1619.
Invitations were accepted by twenty-eight theologians from
England, Scotland, Germany, and Switzerland. Brandenburg took
no part in it (§ 154, 3), and French theologians were refused
permission to go. Episcopius presented a clear and comprehensive
apology for the Remonstrants, and bravely defended their cause
before the synod. Refusing to submit to the decisions of the
synod, they were at the fifty-seventh session expelled, and then
excommunicated and deprived of all ecclesiastical offices. The
Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession were unanimously
adopted as the creed and manual of orthodox teaching. In the
discussion of the five controverted points, the opposition
of the Anglican and German delegates prevented any open and
manifest insertion of supralapsarian theses, so that the synodal
canons set forth only an essentially infralapsarian theory of
predestination.--Remonstrant teachers were now expelled from
most of the states of the union. Only after Maurice’s death
in A.D. 1625 did they venture to return, and in A.D. 1630 they
were allowed by statute to erect churches and schools in all the
states. A theological seminary at Amsterdam, presided over by
Episcopius till his death, in A.D. 1643, rose to be a famous
seat of learning and nursery of liberal studies. The number of
congregations, however, remained small, and their importance
in church history consists rather in the development of an
independent church life than in the revival of a semipelagian
and rationalistic type of doctrine.[472]
§ 161.3. =Consequences of the Arminian Controversy.=--The Dort
decrees were not accepted in Brandenburg, Hesse, and Bremen,
where a moderate Calvinism continued to prevail. In England
and Scotland the Presbyterians enthusiastically approved of the
decrees, whereas the Episcopalians repudiated them, and, rushing
to the other extreme of latitudinarianism, often showed lukewarm
indifferentism in the way in which they distinguished articles
of faith as essential and non-essential. The worthiest of the
latitudinarians of this age was Chillingworth, who sought an
escape from the contentions of theologians in the Catholic church,
but soon returned to Protestantism, seeking and finding peace in
God’s word alone. Archbishop Tillotson was a famous pulpit orator,
and Gilbert Burnet, who died A.D. 1715, was author of a “History
of the English Reformation.” In the French Reformed church, where
generally strict Calvinism prevailed, =Amyrault= of Saumur, who
died A.D. 1664, taught a _universalismus hypotheticus_, according
to which God by a _decretum universale et hypotheticum_ destined
all men to salvation through Jesus Christ, even the heathen, on
the ground of a _fides implicita_. The only condition is that
they believe, and for this all the means are afforded in _gratia
resistibilis_, while by a _decretum absolutum et speciale_
only to elect persons is granted the _gratia irresistibilis_.
The synods of Alençon, A.D. 1637, and Charenton, A.D. 1644,
supported by Blondel, Daillé, and Claude, declared these doctrines
allowable; but Du Moulin of Sedan, Rivetus and Spanheim of Leyden,
Maresius of Groningen [Gröningen], and others, offered violent
opposition. Amyrault’s colleague, =De la Place=, or _Placæus_,
who died A.D. 1655, went still further, repudiating the
unconditional imputation of Adam’s sin, and representing original
sin simply as an evil which becomes guilt only as our own actual
transgression. The synods just named condemned this doctrine.
Somewhat later Claude =Pajon= of Saumur, who died A.D. 1685,
roused a bitter discussion about the universality of grace,
by maintaining that in conversion divine providence wrought
only through the circumstances of the life, and the Holy
Spirit through the word of God. Several French synods condemned
this doctrine, and affirmed an immediate as well as a mediate
operation of the Spirit and providence.--Genuine Calvinism was
best represented in Switzerland, as finally expressed in the
=Formula Consensus= _Helvetica_ of Heidegger of Zürich, adopted
in A.D. 1675 by most of the cantons. It was, like the _Formula
Concordiæ_, a manual of doctrine rather than a confession. In
opposition to Amyrault and De la Place, it set forth a strict
theory of predestination and original sin, and maintained with
the Buxtorfs, against Cappellus of Saumur, the inspiration of
the Hebrew vowel points.
§ 161.4. =The Cocceian and Cartesian Controversies.=--If not
the founder, certainly the most distinguished representative in
the Netherlands of that scholasticism which sought to expound
and defend orthodoxy, was =Voetius=, who died A.D. 1676,
from A.D. 1607 pastor in various places, and from A.D. 1634
professor at Utrecht. A completely different course was pursued
by =Cocceius= of Bremen, who died A.D. 1669, professor at
Franeker in A.D. 1636, and at Leyden in A.D. 1650. The famous
Zürich theologian, Bullinger (§ 138, 7), had in his “_Compend.
Rel. Chr._” of A.D. 1556, viewed the whole doctrine of saving
truth from the point of view of a covenant of grace between God
and man; and this idea was afterwards carried out by Olevianus
of Heidelberg (§ 144, 1) in his “_De Substantia Fœderis_,” of
A.D. 1585. This became the favourite method of distribution
of doctrine in the whole German Reformed church. In the Dutch
church it was regarded as quite unobjectionable. In England it
was adopted in the Westminster Confession of A.D. 1648 (§ 155, 1),
and in Switzerland in A.D. 1675, in the _Formula Consensus_.
Cocceius is therefore not the founder of the federal theology.
He simply gave it a new and independent development, and freed
it from the trammels of scholastic dogmatics. He distinguished
a twofold covenant of God with man: the _fœdus operum s. naturæ_
before, and the _fœdus gratiæ_ after the fall. He then subdivided
the covenant of grace into three economies: before the law
until Moses; under the law until Christ; and after the law in
the Christian church. The history of the kingdom of God in the
Christian era was arranged in seven periods, corresponding to the
seven apocalyptic epistles, trumpets, and seals. In his treatment
of his theme, he repudiated philosophy, scholasticism, and
tradition, and held simply by Scripture. He is thus the founder
of a purely biblical theology. He attached himself as closely as
possible to the prevailing predestinationist orthodoxy, but only
externally. In his view the sacred history in its various epochs
adjusted itself to the needs of human personality, and to the
growing capacity for appropriating it. Hence it was not the idea
of election, but that of grace, that prevailed in his system.
Christ is the centre of all history, spiritual, ecclesiastical,
and civil; and so everything in Scripture, history, doctrine, and
prophecy, necessarily and immediately stands related to him. The
O.T. prophecies and types point to the Christ that was to come
in the flesh, and all history after Christ points to his second
coming; and O. and N.T. give an outline of ecclesiastical and
civil history down to the end of time. Thus typology formed the
basis of the Cocceian theology. In exegesis, however, Cocceius
avoided all arbitrary allegorizing. It was with him an axiom in
hermeneutics, _Id significan verba, quod significare possunt in
integra oratione, sic ut omnino inter se conveniant_. Yet his
typology led him, and still more many of his adherents, into
fantastic exegetical errors in the prophetic treatment of the
seven apocalyptic periods.
§ 161.5. A controversy, occasioned by Cocceius’ statement, in his
commentary on Hebrews in A.D. 1658, that the Sabbath, as enjoined
by the O.T. ceremonial law, was no longer binding, was stopped
in A.D. 1659 by a State prohibition. Voetius had not taken
part in it. But when Cocceius, in A.D. 1665, taught from Romans
iii. 25, that believers under the law had not full “ἄφεσις,”
only a “πάρεσις,” he felt obliged to enter the lists against this
“Socinian” heresy. The controversy soon spread to other doctrines
of Cocceius and his followers, and soon the whole populace seemed
divided into Voetians and Cocceians (§ 162, 5). The one hurled
offensive epithets at the other. The Orange political party
sought and obtained the favour of the Voetians, as before they
had that of the Gomarists; while the liberal republican party
coalesced with the Cocceians. Philosophical questions next
came to be mixed up in the discussion. The philosophy of the
French Catholic =Descartes= (§ 164, 1), settled in A.D. 1629 in
Amsterdam, had gained ground in the Netherlands. It had indeed
no connexion with Christianity or church, and its theological
friends wished only to have it recognised as a formal branch of
study. But its fundamental principle, that all true knowledge
starts from doubt, appeared to the representatives of orthodoxy
as threatening the church with serious danger. Even in A.D. 1643
Voetius opposed it, and mainly in consequence of his polemic,
the States General, in A.D. 1656, forbad it being taught in the
universities. Their common opposition to scholasticism, however,
brought Cocceians and Cartesians more closely to one another.
Theology now became influenced by Cartesianism. Roëll, professor
at Franeker and Utrecht, who died A.D. 1718, taught that the
divinity of the Scriptures must be proved to the reason, since
the _testimonium Spir. s. internum_ is limited to those who
already believe, rejected the doctrine of the imputation
of original sin, the doctrine that death is for believers
the punishment of sin, and the application of the idea of
eternal “generation” to the Logos, to whom the predicate of
sonship belongs only in regard to the decree of redemption
and incarnation. Another zealous Cartesian, Balth. Bekker, not
only repudiated the superstitions of the age about witchcraft
(§ 117, 4), but also denied the existence of the devil and demons.
The Cocceians were in no way responsible for such extravagances,
but their opponents sought to make them chargeable for these. The
stadtholder, William III., at last issued an order, in A.D. 1694,
which checked for a time the violence of the strife.
§ 161.6. =Theological Literature.=--Biblical oriental philology
flourished in the Reformed church of this age. =Drusius= of
Franeker, who died A.D. 1616, was the greatest Old Testament
exegete of his day. The two =Buxtorfs= of Basel, the father
died A.D. 1629, the son A.D. 1664, the greatest Christian
rabbinical scholars, wrote Hebrew and Chaldee grammars,
lexicons, and concordances, and maintained the antiquity and
even inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points against Cappellus
of Saumur. =Hottinger= of Zürich, who died A.D. 1667, vied with
both in his knowledge of oriental literature and languages, and
wrote extensively on biblical philology, and besides found time
to write a comprehensive and learned church history. =Cocceius=,
too, occupies a respectable place among Hebrew lexicographers.
In England, both before and after the Restoration, scholarship
was found, not among the controversial Puritans, but among the
Episcopal clergy. =Brian Walton=, who died A.D. 1661, aided by
the English scholars, issued an edition of the “London Polyglott”
in six vols., in A.D. 1657, which, in completeness of material
and apparatus, as well as in careful textual criticism, leaves
earlier editions far behind. =Edm. Castellus= of Cambridge in
A.D. 1669 published his celebrated “_Lexicon Heptaglottum_.” The
Elzevir printing-house at Amsterdam and Leyden, boldly assuming
the prerogatives of the whole body of theological scholars,
issued a _textus receptus_ of the N.T. in A.D. 1624. The best
established exegetical results of earlier times were collected
by Pearson in his great compendium, the “_Critici Sacri_,” nine
vols. fol., London, 1660; and Matthew Pool in his “_Synopsis
Criticorum_,” five vols. fol., London, 1669. Among the exegetes
of this time the brothers, J. Cappellus of Sedan, who died
A.D. 1624, and Louis Cappellus II. of Saumur, who died A.D. 1658,
were distinguished for their linguistic knowledge and liberal
criticism. =Pococke= of Oxford and =Lightfoot= of Cambridge were
specially eminent orientalists. =Cocceius= wrote commentaries
on almost all the books of Scripture, and his scholar =Vitringa=
of Franeker, who died A.D. 1716, gained great reputation by his
expositions of Isaiah and the Apocalypse. Among the Arminians the
famous statesman =Grotius=, who died A.D. 1645, was the greatest
master of grammatico-historical exposition in the century, and
illustrated Scripture from classical literature and philology.
The Reformed church too gave brilliant contributions to biblical
archæology and history. =John Selden= wrote “_De Syndriis Vett.
Heb._,” “_De diis Syris_,” etc. =Goodwin= wrote “Moses and Aaron.”
=Ussher= wrote “_Annales V. et N.T._” =Spencer= wrote “_De
Legibus Heb._” The Frenchman =Bochart=, in his “_Hierozoicon_”
and “_Phaleg_,” made admirable contributions to the natural
history and geography of the Bible.
§ 161.7. Dogmatic theology was cultivated mainly in the
Netherlands. =Maccovius=, a Pole, who died A.D. 1644, a
professor at Franeker, introduced the scholastic method into
Reformed dogmatics. The Synod of Dort cleared him of the charge
of heresy made against him by Amesius, but condemned his method.
Yet it soon came into very general use. Its chief representatives
were Maresius of Groningen [Gröningen], Voetius and Mastricht
of Utrecht, Hoornbeck [Hoornbeeck] of Leyden, and the German
Wendelin, rector of Zerbst. Among the Cocceians the most
distinguished were Heidanus of Leyden, Alting of Groningen
[Gröningen], and, above all, Hermann Witsius of Franeker, whose
“Economy of the Covenants” is written in a conciliatory spirit.
The most distinguished Arminian dogmatist after Episcopius
was =Phil. Limborch= of Amsterdam, who died A.D. 1712, in
high repute also as an apologist, exegete, and historian. The
greatest dogmatist of the Anglican church was =Pearson=, who died
A.D. 1686, author of “An Exposition of the Creed.” The Frenchman
=Peyrerius= obtained great notoriety from his statement, founded
on Romans v. 12, that Adam was merely the ancestor of the Jews
(Gen. ii. 7), while the Gentiles were of pre-Adamite origin
(Gen. i. 26), and also by maintaining that the flood had been only
partial. He gained release from prison by joining the Catholic
church and recanted, but still held by his earlier views.--Ethics,
consisting hitherto of little more than an exposition of the
decalogue, was raised by =Amyrault= into an independent science.
Amesius dealt with cases of conscience. =Grotius=, in his “_De
Veritate Relig. Chr._” and =Abbadie=, French pastor at Berlin,
and afterwards in London, who died A.D. 1727, in his “_Vérité de
la Rel. Chrét._,” distinguished themselves as apologists. =Claude=
and =Jurieu= gained high reputation as controversialists against
Catholicism and its persecution of the Huguenots.--The Reformed
church also in the interests of polemics pursued historical
studies. Hottinger of Zürich, Spanheim of Leyden, Sam. Basnage
of Zütpfen, and Jac. Basnage of the Hague, produced general
church histories. Among the numerous historical monographs the
most important are =Hospinian’s= “_De Templis_,” “_De Monachis_,”
“_De Festis_,” “_Hist. Sacramentaria_,” “_Historia Jesuitica_;”
=Blondel’s= “_Ps.-Isidorus_,” “_De la Primauté de l’Egl._,”
“_Question si une Femme a été Assisse au Siège Papal_” (§ 82, 6),
“_Apologia sent. Hieron. de Presbyt._” Also =Daillé= of Saumur
on the non-genuineness of the “Apostolic Constitutions” and the
Ps.-Dionysian writings, and his “_De Usu Patrum_” in opposition
to Cave’s Catholicizing over-estimation of the Fathers. We have
also the English scholar =Ussher=, who died A.D. 1656, “_Brit.
Ecclesiarum Antiquitates_;” H. Dodwell, who died A.D. 1711,
“_Diss. Cyprianicæ_,” etc.; Wm. Cave, who died A.D. 1713, “Hist.
of App. and Fathers,” “_Scriptorum Ecclst. Hist. Literaria_,”
etc.--Special mention should be made of =Eisenmenger=, professor
of oriental languages at Heidelberg. In his “_Entdecktes
Judenthum_,” two vols. quarto, moved by the over-bearing
arrogance of the Jews of his day, he made an immense collection
of absurdities and blasphemies of rabbinical theology from Jewish
writings. At his own expense he printed 2,000 copies; for these
the Jews offered him 12,000 florins, but he demanded 30,000.
They now persuaded the court at Venice to confiscate them before
a single copy was sold. Eisenmenger died in A.D. 1704, and his
heirs vainly sought to have the copies of his work given up to
them. Even the appeal of Frederick I. of Prussia was refused.
Only when the king had resolved, in A.D. 1711, at his own expense
to publish an edition from one copy that had escaped confiscation,
was the Frankfort edition at last given back.
§ 161.8. =The Apocrypha Controversy= (§ 136, 4).--In A.D. 1520
Carlstadt raised the question of the books found only in the
LXX., and answered it in the style of Jerome (§ 59, 1). Luther
gave them in his translation as an appendix to the O.T. with the
title “Apocrypha, _i.e._ Books, not indeed of Holy Scripture,
but useful and worthy to be read.” Reformed confessions took
up the same position. The Belgic Confession agreed indeed that
these books should be read in church, and proof passages taken
from them, in so far as they were in accord with the canonical
Scriptures. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer gives readings
from these books. On the other hand, although at the Synod of
Dort the proposal to remove at least the apocryphal books of Ezra
or Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, was indeed rejected,
it was ordered that in future all apocryphal books should be
printed in smaller type than the canonical books, should be
separately paged, with a special title, and with a preface and
marginal notes where necessary. Their exclusion from all editions
of the Bible was first insisted on by English and Scotch Puritans.
This example was followed by the French, but not by the German,
Swiss, and Dutch Reformed churches.--Continuation, § 182, 4.
§ 162. THE RELIGIOUS LIFE.[473]
The religious life in the Reformed church is characterized generally
by harsh legalism, rigorous renunciation of the world, and a thorough
earnestness, coupled with decision and energy of will, which nothing in
the world can break or bend. It is the spirit of Calvin which impresses
on it this character, and determines its doctrine. Only where Calvin’s
influence was less potent, _e.g._ in the Lutheranized German Reformed,
the catholicized Anglican Episcopal Church, and among the Cocceians,
is this tendency less apparent or altogether wanting. On the other
hand, often carried to the utmost extreme, it appears among the English
Puritans (§§ 143, 3; 155, 1) and the French Huguenots (§ 153, 4), where
it was fostered by persecution and oppression.
§ 162.1. =England and Scotland.=--During the period of the
English Revolution (§ 155, 1, 2), after the overthrow of
Episcopacy, Puritanism became dominant; and the incongruous
and contradictory elements already existing within it assumed
exaggerated proportions (§ 143, 3, 4), until at last the opposing
parties broke out into violent contentions with one another.
The ideal of Scottish and English =Presbyterianism= was the
setting up of the kingdom of Christ as a theocracy, in which
church and state were blended after the O.T. pattern. Hence
all the institutions of church and state were to be founded on
Scripture models, while all later developments were set aside
as deteriorations from that standard. The ecclesiastical side of
this ideal was to be realized by the establishment of a spiritual
aristocracy represented in presbyteries and synods, which,
ruling the presbyteries through the synods, and the congregations
through the presbyteries, regarded itself as called and under
obligation to inspect and supervise all the details of the
private as well as public life of church members, and all this
too by Divine right. Regarding their system as alone having
divine institution, Presbyterians could not recognise any other
religious or ecclesiastical party, and must demand uniformity,
not only in regard to doctrine and creed, but also in regard to
constitution, discipline, and worship.[474]--On the other hand,
=Independent Congregationalism=, inasmuch as it made prominent
the N.T. ideas of the priesthood of all believers and spiritual
freedom, demanded unlimited liberty to each separate congregation,
and unconditional equality for all individual church members.
It thus rejected the theocratic ideal of Presbyterianism, strove
after a purely democratic constitution, and recognised toleration
of all religious views as a fundamental principle of Christianity.
Every attempt to secure uniformity and stability of forms
of worship was regarded as a repressing of the Spirit of God
operating in the church, and so alongside of the public services
private conventicles abounded, in which believers sought to
promote mutual edification. But soon amid the upheavals of this
agitated period a fanatical spirit spread among the various sects
of the Independents. The persecutions under Elizabeth and the
Stuarts had awakened a longing for the return of the Lord, and
the irresistible advance of Cromwell’s army, composed mostly
of Independents, made it appear as if the millennium was close
at hand. Thus chiliasm came to be a fundamental principle of
Independency, and soon too prophecy made its appearance to
interpret and prepare the way for that which was coming. From the
_Believers_ of the old Dutch times we now come to the =Saints= of
the early Cromwell period. These regarded themselves as called,
in consequence of their being inspired by God’s Spirit, to form
the “kingdom of the saints” on earth promised in the last days,
and hence also, from Daniel ii. and vii., they were called Fifth
Monarchy Men. The so called Short Parliament of A.D. 1653, in
which these Saints were in a majority, had already laid the
first stones of this structure by introducing civil marriage,
with the strict enforcement, however, of Matthew v. 32, as well
as by the abolition of all rights of patronage and all sorts
of ecclesiastical taxes, when Cromwell dissolved it. The Saints
had not and would not have any fixed, formulated theological
system. They had, however, a most lively interest in doctrine,
and produced a great diversity of Scripture expositions and
dogmatic views, so that their deadly foes, the Presbyterians,
could hurl against them old and new heretical designations
by the hundred. The fundamental doctrine of predestination,
common to all Puritans, was, even with them, for the most part,
a presupposition of all theological speculation.
§ 162.2. At the same time with the _Saints_ there appeared
among the Independents the =Levellers=, political and social
revolutionists, rather than an ecclesiastical and religious sect.
They were unjustly charged with claiming an equal distribution of
goods. Over against the absolutist theories of the Stuarts, all
the Independents maintained that the king, like all other civil
magistrates, is answerable at all times and in all circumstances
to the people, to whom all sovereignty originally and inalienably
belongs. This principle was taken by the Levellers as the
starting-point of their reforms. As their first regulative
principle in reconstructing the commonwealth and determining the
position of the church therein they did not take the theocratic
constitution of the O.T., as the Presbyterians did, nor the
biblical revelation of the N.T., as the moderate Independents
did, nor even the modern professed prophecy of the “Saints,” but
the law of nature as the basis of all revelation, and already
grounded in creation, with the sovereignty of the people as
its ultimate foundation. While the rest of the Independents
held by the idea of a Christian state, and only claimed that
all Christian denominations, with the exception of the Catholics
(§ 153, 6), should enjoy all political rights, the Levellers
demanded complete separation of church and state. This therefore
implied, on the one hand, the non-religiousness of the state,
and, on the other, again with the exception of Catholics, the
absolute freedom, independence, and equality of all religious
parties, even non-Christian sects and atheists. Yet all the
while the Levellers themselves were earnestly and warmly attached
to Christian truth as held by the other Independents.--Roger
Williams (§ 163, 3), a Baptist minister, in A.D. 1631
transplanted the first seeds of Levellerism from England to North
America, and by his writings helped again to spread those views
in England. When he returned home in A.D. 1651 he found the sect
already flourishing. The ablest leader of the English Levellers
was John Lilburn. In A.D. 1638, when scarcely twenty years old,
he was flogged and sentenced to imprisonment for life, because he
had printed Puritan writings in Holland and had them circulated
in England. Released on the outbreak of the Revolution, he joined
the Parliamentary army, was taken prisoner by the Royalists
and sentenced to death, but escaped by flight. He was again
imprisoned for writing libels on the House of Lords. Set free
by the Rump Parliament, he became colonel in Cromwell’s army,
but was banished the country when it was found that the spread
of radicalism endangered discipline. Till the dissolution of the
Short Parliament his followers were in thorough sympathy with
the Saints. Afterwards their ways went more and more apart; the
Saints drifted into Quakerism (§ 163, 4), while the Levellers
degenerated into deism (§ 164, 3).
§ 162.3. Out of the religious commotion prevailing in England
before, during, and after the Revolution there sprang up a
voluminous =devotional literature=, intended to give guidance
and directions for holy living. Its influence was felt in foreign
lands, especially in the Reformed churches of the continent, and
even German Lutheran Pietism was not unaffected by it (§ 159, 3).
That this movement was not confined to the Puritans, among
whom it had its origin, is seen from the fact that during the
seventeenth century many such treatises were issued from the
University Press of Cambridge. =Lewis Bayly=, Bishop of Bangor
A.D. 1616-1632, wrote one of the most popular books of this
kind, “The Practice of Piety,” which was in A.D. 1635 in its
thirty-second and in A.D. 1741 in its fifty-first edition, and
was also widely circulated in Dutch, French, German, Hungarian,
and Polish translations.--Out of the vast number of important
personages of the Revolution period we name the following three:
1. In =John Milton=, the highly gifted poet as well as eloquent
and powerful politician, born A.D. 1608, died A.D. 1674, we
find, on the basis of a liberal classical training received
in youth, all the motive powers of Independency, from the
original Puritan zeal for the faith and Reformation to
the politico-social radicalism of the Levellers, combined
in full and vigorous operation. From Italy, the beloved
land of classical science and artistic culture, he was
called back to England in A.D. 1640 at the first outburst
of freedom-loving enthusiasm (§ 155, 1), and made the
thunder of his controversial treatises ring over the
battlefield of parties. He fought against the narrowness
of Presbyterian control of conscience not less energetically
than against the hierarchism of the Episcopal church;
vindicates the permissibility of divorce (in view, no
doubt, of his own first unhappy marriage); advanced in his
“_Areopagitica_” of A.D. 1644 a plea for the unrestricted
liberty of the press; pulverized in his “_Iconoclastes_”
of A.D. 1649 the Εἰκὼν βασιλική, ascribed to Charles I.;
in several tracts, “_Defensio pro Populo Anglicano_,” etc.,
justified the execution of the king against Salmasius’s
“_Defensio Regia pro Carolo I._;” and, even after he
had in A.D. 1652 become incurably blind, he continued
unweariedly his polemics till silenced by the Restoration.
The “_Iconoclastes_” and “_Defensio_” were burned by the
hangman, but he himself was left unmolested. He now devoted
himself to poetry. “Paradise Lost” appeared in A.D. 1665,
and “Paradise Regained” in A.D. 1671. To this period,
when he had probably turned his back on all existing
religious parties, belongs the composition of his “_De
doctrina Christiana_,” a first attempt at a purely biblical
theology, Arian in its Christology and Arminian in its
soteriology.[475]
2. =Richard Baxter=, born A.D. 1615, died A.D. 1691, was quite
a different sort of man, and showed throughout a decidedly
ironical tendency. At once attracted and repelled by the
Independent movement in Cromwell’s army, he joined the force
in A.D. 1645 as military chaplain, hoping to moderate, if
not to check, their extravagances. A severe illness obliged
him to withdraw in A.D. 1647. After his recovery he returned
to his former post as assistant-minister at Kidderminster
in Worcestershire, and there remained till driven out by the
Act of Uniformity of A.D. 1662 (§ 155, 3). Those fourteen
years formed the period of his most successful labours. He
then composed most of his numerous devotional works, three
of which, “The Saint’s Everlasting Rest,” “The Reformed
Pastor,” “A Call to the Unconverted,” are still widely read
in the original and in translations. At first he hoped much
from the Restoration; but when, on conscientious grounds,
he refused a bishopric, he met only with persecution,
ill treatment, and imprisonment. Through William’s Act
of Toleration of A.D. 1689, he was allowed to pass the
last year of his life in London. On the doctrine of
predestination he took the moderate position of Amyrault
(§ 161, 3). His ideal church constitution was a blending
of Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, by restoring the original
episcopal constitution of the second century, when even the
smaller churches had each its own bishop with a presbytery
by his side.[476]
3. =John Bunyan=, born A.D. 1628, died A.D. 1688, was in his
youth a tinker or brazier, and as such seems to have led
a rough, wild life. On the outbreak of the Civil War in
A.D. 1642, he was drafted into the Parliamentary army.[477]
At the close of the war he married a poor girl from a
Puritan family, whose only marriage portion consisted in
two Puritan books of devotion. It was now that the birthday
of a new spiritual life began to dawn in him. He joined
the Baptist Independents, the most zealous of the Saints of
that time, was baptized by them in A.D. 1655, and travelled
the country as a preacher, attracting thousands around
him everywhere by his glorious eloquence. In A.D. 1660
he was thrown into prison, from which he was released by
the Indulgence of A.D. 1672 (§ 155, 3). He now settled in
Bedford, and from this time till his death, amid persecution
and oppression, continued his itinerant preaching with
ever-increasing zeal and success. “The Pilgrim’s Progress”
was written by him in prison. It is an allegory of the
freshest and most lively form, worthy to rank alongside
the “Imitation of Christ” (§ 114, 7). In it the fanatical
endeavour of the Saints to rear a millennial kingdom
on earth is transfigured into a struggle overcoming all
hindrances to secure an entrance into the heavenly Zion
above. It has passed through numberless editions, and has
been translated into almost all known languages.[478]
§ 162.4. =The Netherlands.=--From England the Reformed Pietism
was transplanted to the Netherlands, where =William Teellinck=
may be regarded as its founder. After finishing his legal studies
he resided for a while in England, where he made the acquaintance
of the Puritans and their writings, and was deeply impressed with
their earnest and pious family life. He then went to Leyden to
study theology, and in A.D. 1606 began a ministry that soon bore
fruit. He was specially blessed at Middelburg in Zealand, where
he died A.D. 1629. His writings, larger and smaller, more than a
hundred in number, in which a peculiar sweetness of mystical love
for the Redeemer is combined with stern Calvinistic views, after
the style of St. Bernard, were circulated widely in numerous
editions, eagerly read in many lands, and for fully a century
exerted a powerful influence throughout the whole Reformed church.
Teellinck in no particular departed from the prevailing orthodoxy,
but unwittingly toned down its harshness in his tracts, and
with the gentleness characteristic of him counselled brotherly
forbearance amid the bitterness of the Arminian controversy. In
spite of much hostility, which his best efforts could not prevent,
many university theologians stood by his side as warm admirers
of his writings. It will not be wondered at that among these was
the pious Amesius of Franeker (§ 161, 7), the scholar of the able
Perkins (§ 143, 5); but it is more surprising to find here the
powerful champion of scholastic orthodoxy, Voetius of Utrecht,
and his vigorous partisan, Hoornbeeck of Leyden. =Voetius=
especially, who even in his preacademic career as a pastor had
pursued a peculiarly exemplary and godly life, styled Teellinck
the Reformed Thomas à Kempis, and owned his deep indebtedness to
his devout writings. He opened his academic course in A.D. 1634
with an introductory discourse, “_De Pietate cum Scientia
conjungenda_,” and year after year gave lectures on ascetical
theology, out of which grew his treatise published in A.D. 1664,
“_Τὰ Ἀσκητικὰ s. Exercita Pietatis in usum Juventutis Acad._,”
which is a complete exposition of evangelical practical divinity
in a thoroughly scholastic form.
§ 162.5. During the controversy in the Dutch Reformed Church
between =Voetians and Cocceians=, beginning in A.D. 1658, the
former favoured the pietistic movement. In the German Pietist
controversy the Cocceians were with the Pietists in their
biblical orthodoxy joined with confessional indifferentism, but
with the orthodox in their liberality and breadth on matters of
life and conduct. The earnest, practical piety of the Voetians,
again, made them sympathise with the Lutheran Pietists, and their
zeal for pure doctrine and the Church confession brought them
into relation with the orthodox Lutherans. As discord between
the theologians arose over the obligation of the Sabbath law,
so the difference among the people arose out of the question of
Sabbath observance. The Voetians maintained that the decalogue
prohibition of any form of work on Sabbath was still fully
binding, while the Cocceians, on the ground of Mark ii. 27,
Galatians iv. 9, Colossians ii. 16, etc., denied its continued
obligation, their wives often, to the annoyance of the Voetians,
sitting in the windows after Divine service with their knitting
or sewing. But the opposition did not stop there; it spread
into all departments of life. The Voetians set great value upon
fasting and private meditation, avoided all public games and
plays, dressed plainly, and observed a simple, pious mode of
life; their pastors wore a clerical costume, etc. The Cocceians,
again, fell in with the customs of the time, mingled freely in
the mirth and pastimes of the people, went to public festivals
and entertainments, their women dressed in elegant, stylish
attire, their pastors were not bound by hard and fast symbols,
but had full Scripture freedom, etc.--Continuation, § 169, 2.
§ 162.6. =France, Germany, and Switzerland.=--The Reformed church
of =France= has gained imperishable renown as a martyr-church.
Fanatical excesses, however, appeared among the prophets of the
Cevennes (§ 153, 4), the fruits of which continued down into
the eighteenth century, and appeared now and again in England,
Holland, and Germany (§ 160, 2, 7).--In =Germany= the Reformed
church, standing side by side with the numerically far larger
Lutheran church, had much of the sternness and severity that
characterized the Romanic-Calvinistic party in doctrine, worship,
and life greatly modified; but where the Reformed element was
predominant, as in the Lower Rhine, it was correspondingly
affected by a contrary influence. The Reformed church in
Germany in its service of praise kept to the psalms of Marot and
Lobwasser (§ 143, 2). Maurice of Hesse published Lobwasser’s in
A.D. 1612, accompanied by some new bright melodies, for the use
of the churches in the land. Lutheran hymns, however, gradually
found their way into the Reformed church, which also produced two
gifted poets of its own. =Louisa Henrietta=, Princess of Orange,
wife of the great elector, and Paul Gerhardt’s sovereign, wrote
“Jesus my Redeemer lives;” and =Joachim Neander=, pastor in
Bremen, wrote, “Thou most Highest! Guardian of mankind,” “To
heaven and earth and sea and air,” “Here behold me, as I cast
me.”--In German =Switzerland= the noble =Breitinger= of Zürich,
who died A.D. 1645, the greatest successor of Zwingli and
Bullinger, wrought successfully during a forty years’ ministry,
and did much to revive and quicken the church life. That the
spirit of Calvin and Beza still breathed in the church of Geneva
is proved by the reception given there to such men as Andreä
(§ 160, 1), Labadie (§ 163, 7), and Spener (§ 159, 3).
§ 162.7. =Foreign Missions.=--From two sides the Reformed
church had outlets for its Christian love in the work of foreign
missions; on the one side by the cession of the Portuguese
East Indian colonies to the Netherlands in the beginning of the
seventeenth century, and on the other side by the continuous
formation of English colonies in North America throughout
the whole century. In regard to missionary effort, the
Dutch government followed in the footsteps of her Portuguese
predecessors. She insisted that all natives, before getting
a situation, should be baptized and have signed the Belgic
Confession, and many who fulfilled these conditions remained as
they had been before. But the English Puritans settled in America
showed a zeal for the conversion of the Indians more worthy
of the Protestant name. John Eliot, who is rightly styled the
apostle of the Indians, devoted himself with unwearied and
self-denying love for half a century to this task. He translated
the Bible into their language, and founded seventeen Indian
stations, of which during his lifetime ten were destroyed in
a bloody war. Eliot’s work was taken up by the Mayhew family,
who for five generations wrought among the Indians. The last
of the noble band, Zacharias Mayhew, died on the mission field
in A.D. 1803, in his 87th year.[479]--Continuation, § 172, 5.