as more permanent causes, the little encouragement now given to the study of divinity. The great subserviency to the civil power to which the church was now reduced, and the poor provision made for the supply of the pastoral office, had rendered her service no longer attractive to persons of birth, or of promising abilities; so that, as a profession, the ministry sank greatly in the estimation of mankind.

By the monastic institutions in the primitive and Roman Catholic churches, poverty had been rendered not dishonourable in a Christian teacher ; but it could not be so among the members of the Protestant ministry, who were expected to enter into all the various relations of life, and to become burdened with all its wants and cares. The spirit of the first reformers, which could have combated with these disadvantages of station, did not rest long upon the great body of their successors; and though their names and writings for some time commanded veneration, yet, by degrees, the authority of the first reformers and of the standard writings of their church, began to be lessened. Men were first content to be formally orthodox, without life or power; then, generations arose that would think for themselves; and the principles of religious liberty being resolutely vindicated, while some few searched the Scripture with pious care, and improved in religious knowledge, the greater part used this privilege to choose for themselves new religious systems which differed widely from the principles of the early reformers and from the records of revelation. As we approach nearer to our own times, the infidel philosophy made many converts, and threatened here, as elsewhere, the very extinction of the Christian faith, as a prejudice of former times.

Still, the ancient confessions of the Lutheran church were upheld by public sanction. Their authority with the clergy could hardly be denied, and they doubtless formed a rallying point and a firm hold of support to those who loved the doctrines of the reformers, when contending against their modern evaders and gainsayers.

The term Pietist also appears to designate a new spirit of religious reformation, which had arisen “ to stem the torrent of vice and corruption, and to correct the licentious manners both of the clergy and people!.” The name, like others of the same kind, seems to have been given to persons and classes of men of very different descriptions. Some are deseribed as being totally hostile to the doctrines of the reformers ; as avowed ene

| Mosheim.

mies to the whole fabric of the established church; but in regard to others, it is undeniable that their only object was, the restoration of religion to its power, and bringing back the church to its original purity.

The pious and learned Spener is reported to have been the founder of the societies to which the name Pietists afterwards attached. The object of these societies, which were formed at Frankfort, was religious improvement, and a desire to rekindle the dying zeal of the professors of the Gospel. Some of the disciples of Spener, at Leipsic, followed the example, about 1689; among whom were the professors Frankius, Schadius, and Antonius. - They disapproved of the usual mode of education, and set up in their colleges lectures for the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. These lectures, which, strange as it may seem, were considered in a Protestant university as a novelty, were much frequented, and their happy effects were attested by many. But more took umbrage at the awakened spirit of real religion, and great contentions and tumults arose. It was amidst these commotions that the term Pietists was given in derision to the frequenters of these · Biblical Colleges.' Afterwards, like many other terms of a similar origin, it came to be applied, without any discrimination or consideration, to all persons who attempted to emerge or to rouse others from the deadlike state of the public profession of religion. In this extensive sense, though it may not improbably include some classes who were very erroneous in their views and practices, - it was sure to attach to all that remnant of true believers, who acted


the principles and with the spirit of the first reformers. “The contagion," it is said, “ was diffused with incredible celerity through all the Lutheran churches."

It is acknowledged that the real Pietists, the disciples of Spener and Franks, had no design to " introduce any change into the doctrine, discipline, or form of government, that was established in the Lutheran church.” But if we are to credit our reporter, as the fanatic sects sprang up at this time of the reformation, and discredited its cause, so, while pietism roused the slumbering zeal of many, “ there started up on a sudden, in all cities, towns, and villages, where Lutheranism was professed, persons of various ranks and professions, of both sexes, learned and illiterate, who declared that they were called by a • divine impulse,' to pull up iniquity by the roots, to restore religion to its primitive lustre, and propagate it through the world, and to govern the church by wiser rules than those by


which it was at present directed'.” The most extravagant things are related of these sectaries ; how far in truth, and how far in prejudice, it is difficult to determine. As the Romanists attributed all the evils which arose in the days of Liber, to his principles and exertions, so the Pietists had to bear the odium of all that their enemies chose to brand with that name. But, upon the whole, we may collect that there was, at this time, a considerable revival of real religion in the Lutheran churches; and though sometimes proscribed and persecuted, it was not extinct at the end of the period of which we treat.



On this very

The disagreement respecting the eucharist, as we have remarked in a former part of this history, had divided the Protestants into two great bodies, the Lutherans and the Helvetians, This latter denomination includes all those reformed churches that did not receive Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation. This is the only original distinction between the Lutheran and the reformed Helvetian or Calvinistic churches. point, however, the opinions of the reformed churches had undergone a change, which brought them nearer to Luther than to Zuinglius, their first leader : for the “ real presence,” and actual participation of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's supper, so unequivocally taught by Bucer and Calvin, and now generally received by the reformed churches, was much farther removed from Zuinglius's opinion than from that of Luther; and though his more bigoted followers refused to see it, or to listen to any terins of union, Melancthon and his friends would have readily consented to it. Indeed, they received from their more zealous brethren, the appellation of " Crypto-Calvinists,” for the sentiments which they discovered.

On another important point, also, the reformed churches had now almost all of them embraced Luther's sentiments ; viz. respecting the doctrines of divine grace. Luther had the sagacity to perceive that there was a fundamental difference between him and Zuinglius on this head. But it is very remarkable that, in the age succeeding the reformation, the Helvetians, generally speaking, were become completely the followers of Luther respecting these doctrines, and the Lutherans the disciples of Zuinglius.

I Mosheim,

In reference to controversies in former ages of the church, the Lutherans, from being Augustinians, became Semi-Pelagians, and the Helvetians, from being Semi-Pelagians, were become the followers of Augustin. This applies not, however, to all the Helvetic divines ; many of them were originally Augustinian in their sentiments, and fully co-operated with Calvin, in declaring these doctrines to be their common faith. It was from the circum-" stance of Calvin's standing up as the vindicator of these doctrines, when they began to be less insisted upon by the Lutherans, that his name rather than that of Luther has been applied to this doctrinal system, which afterwards was designated by the term Calvinism, though in reality it differed nothing from the system of the Augustinians, except in its new connexion with the distinguishing doctrine of the Protestants —" justification by faith alone, for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

The clear understanding of this matter, is of great importance to the illustration of many important passages in the subsequent history of the reformed churches. The accidental origin or propriety of the term is immaterial; the use of a distinguishing epithet is convenient and almost necessary. There are, indeed, different modes of stating the system called Calvinism, as there are diversities in the systems of doctrines opposed to it; and this is likely to be the case, where the question affects the understanding of the entire system of revealed religion, and is connected with so many important inquiries respecting the philosophy of the human mind. Calvinist and Anti-Calvinist, considered as generic distinctions, are of great importance to be correctly understood.

The Calvinist, in his view of his opponents, considers the whole question to turn on this point — whether salvation be of GRACE or of works; - meaning by grace, the gratuitous act of the Divine mind towards man, -- and by works, every effort which the human mind can put forth towards God, or our fellowcreatures.

For his use of the terms grace and works, he refers to Rom. xi. 5, where St. Paul says, " Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works : otherwise, grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace: : otherwise work is no more work." The Anti-Calvinist, of course, does not admit that the apostle is here speaking of an election of individuals to eternal life, as the Calvinist supposes. But, at all events, the apostle is speaking of some election or other, and this is the Calvinist's notion of election to eternal life; and the text, as to the use and opposition of the terms grace and works, clearly states his sentiments. The Anti-Calvinist, who divides salvation between grace and works, cannot say that in those points where it is of grace it is any more of works, or vice versa. There need not, therefore, be any ambiguity in the terms ; for the Calvinist,- he to whom the term is with propriety applied, - unequivocally maintains, that in the decree of Divine predestination, man's election to eternal salvation by Christ turns upon a gratuitous act of God towards him, and that every thing necessary to the obtaining of salvation, is a consequence flowing from this gratuitous election.

All Anti-Calvinists, not excepting, perhaps, those called Pelagians themselves, assert a co-operation, both on the part of God and of man, in the business of salvation; and most Calvinists assent to the statement. But the question returns : Is the concurrence of man, in this co-operation, derived from himself as an independent moral agent, or is this concurrence itself an effect of the operation of God? The operation of God, so far as he is graciously pleased to work in the salvation of man, cannot be supposed to be defective; but is there left a decisive point, where man may fail, or may not fail, in his operation? This is the hinge of the whole controversy, and the real question on which the parties join issue. The Calvinist maintains that the operation of God, according to the purpose of his grace, is decisive; the Anti-Calvinist, that the will or act of man is decisive, and preponderativg. However strongly the Calvinist expresses himself upon the constituted necessity of man's co-operation with God in his salvation, and however he makes it a part of that salvation, that he does co-operate, because he is operated upon both to will and to do, yet he rests the decisive term upon the will and act of God. The Anti-Calvinist, however much he ascribes to Divine grace, in the plan of salvation in general, or however he depreciates the unassisted powers of man at every step, still makes the decisive point to turn on the agency of man. How extremely little soever be that which his humility will ascribe to human agency, yet there, it is obvious, the whole must hinge ; for of that alone in the co-operation it can be said, it may, or it may not, fail.

It is worthy of remark, that the great philosophical question concerning liberty and necessity, which has engaged the minds of inquiring men in all ages, and which appears so much connected with the Calvinistic controversy, did not always enter into it. Many who were strictly necessitarians, on the metaphysical

« VorigeDoorgaan »