CHAPTER XXV - PROTESTANTISM—TRUE AND FALSE

WICKLIF, Huss, Luther,—the Reformers,—stood upon the platform of “The Word of God, the whole Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God.” They abandoned the sophistries of the schools, and rested solely upon this declaration, which must be the basis of every true reform in all ages. While this principle was adhered to, the Reformation succeeded gloriously: when the principle was abandoned, the Reformation suffered accordingly. In the Word of God lies the strength of the work of God.ECE 772.1

2. In this position there was another great advantage that the Reformers held over their papal antagonists. So long as they stood by the Word of God alone, they occupied a field with which the papists were wholly unacquainted; and the more the Reformers studied and applied the plain Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God, the more easily they could defeat their adversaries. Their adversaries knew this, and therefore they employed every artifice to draw the Reformers into the scholastic field; for there the papists had every advantage which the Protestants had in the other. While the leaders of the Reformation lived, the papists were unsuccessful in every attempt in this direction, and so the Reformation was successful everywhere; but when these leaders were removed from the world, and their faith and zeal were not inherited by their successors, and when to the craftiness of the papists were added the zeal and artfulness of Loyola and his Order, the Protestants were finally corrupted by the arts and stratagems of their opponents and induced to revive the subtleties of the schools in defending and illustrating religious truth. So it may be said with truth that, while the Protestants imbibed scholasticism from the papacy, they allowed the papacy to steal from them their pure and true Protestantism. All that will be needed to demonstrate this will be simply to mention the subjects of controversy that engaged the Protestant disputants for more than a hundred years.ECE 772.2

3. The papal doctrine of the Eucharist is that, at the word of the priest, the bread and the wine become veritably the flesh and blood of the Lord. This trans-substantiation; that is, change of substance. Luther renounced this; but went no further than to hold that while the bread and the wine are not the actual flesh and blood of the Lord, yet that the Lord is actually present with the bread and the wine. This is con-substantiation; that is, with the substance. Carlstadt and Zwingle denied both and held, as now generally by Protestants, that the bread and the wine are simply memorials of the broken body and shed blood of the Saviour. A conference of the principal men who held the two views, was held; but after much discussion, in which Zwingle plainly had the best of the evidence and argument, Luther declared that he would not be driven from his position by “reason, common sense, carnal arguments,” nor “mathematical proofs.” After this, in his later years even Luther swerved from the genuine Christian Protestant principle, which he had so clearly proclaimed and so valiantly defended, and denied to the Zwinglians any right of toleration; and advocated the banishment of “false teachers,” and the utter rooting out of the Jews from “Christian lands.” ^{1[Page 773] Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” Vol. xiv, sec. ii, pars. 22, 23}ECE 773.1

4. The death of Luther (Feb. 18, 1546) left Melancthon at the head of the Reformation in Germany; and his views on the Supper were almost, if not identical with, those of the Reformed, i. e., the Swiss, or Zwinglians, as distinguished from the Germans, or Lutherans. His love of peace and his respect for Luther had caused Melancthon to hold his views in abeyance while Luther lived; but after Luther’s death, this very love of peace led him into a war that lasted as long as he lived. For, holding views so favorable to those of the opposition, and believing besides that, even in the widest difference of opinion on this subject, there was nothing that justified any division, much less such bitter contention, between the friends of the Reformation, his desire for peace induced him to propose a union of Lutherans and Zwinglians. This immediately caused a division among the Lutherans, and developed what Mosheim calls the “rigid Lutherans” and the “moderate Lutherans,”—the moderate Lutherans favoring union, and the rigid Lutherans attacking with renewed vigor all together, and Melancthon in particular.ECE 773.2

5. Just here also was introduced another element of contention for the rigid Lutherans. Calvin appeared, as a sort of mediator between the Lutherans and Zwinglians. He proposed to effect a more perfect union, by modifying the opinions of both parties. But instead of his efforts being acceptable, the rigid Lutherans accused all who in the least degree favored the union, of being Crypto-Calvinists; i. e., secret Calvinists. By thus adding an epithet, the prejudice was increased against any effort toward conciliation; and besides, a bitter controversy was opened between Lutherans and Calvinists.ECE 774.1

6. The bitterness of the opposition to Melancthon was increased by his connection with the “Interim,” which was this: In 1547 a diet was held at Augsburg, and Charles V required of the Protestants that they should submit the decision of religious contests to the Council of Trent. The greater part of the members of the diet consented. But under the pretext of a plague raging in Trent, the pope issued a bull transferring the council to Bologna. The legates and all the rest of the papal party obeyed the pope, but the emperor ordered all of the German bishops to remain at Trent. This virtually dissolved the council; and as the pope refused to reassemble the council at Trent, and the emperor refused to allow his bishops to go to Bologna, plainly there could be no council to decide the religious contests, and the action of the diet was nullified. Now, to keep the matter under control until the difference between the pope and the emperor could be settled, and the council reassembled, Charles ordered Julius Pflugius, bishop of Nuremburg; Michael Sidonius, a creature of the pope; and John Agricola, of Eisleben, to draw up a formulary which might serve as a rule of faith and worship for both Protestants and Catholics, until the council should be ready to act. This formulary, from its purpose of being only to cover the interval that should elapse till the council should act, was called the “Interim.” But instead of pacifying the contestants, it only led to new difficulties, and involved the whole empire in violence and bloodshed.ECE 774.2

7. Maurice, elector of Saxony, affected to remain neutral in regard to the “Interim,” but finally in 1548 he assembled the Saxon nobility and clergy in several conferences, to take counsel about what should be done. In all these conferences, Melancthon was accorded the chief place. He finally gave it as his opinion “that the whole of the book of ‘Interim’ could not by any means be adopted by the friends of the Reformation; but declared at the same time that he saw no reason why it might not be adopted as authority in things that did not relate to the essential parts of religion, or in things which might be considered indifferent.” This decision set his enemies all aflame again; and with Flacius at their head, the defenders of Lutheranism attacked Melancthon and the doctors of Wittemberg and Leipsic “with incredible bitterness of fury, and accused them of apostasy from the true religion.”—Mosheim. ^{2[Page 775] “Ecclesiastical History,” cent. xvi, sec. iii, part ii, chap 1, par. 28.}ECE 774.3

8. Melancthon and his friends, however, defended his view, and a warm debate followed upon these two points: “1. Whether the points that seemed indifferent to Melancthon were so in reality? 2. Whether in things of an indifferent nature, and in which the interests of religion are not essentially concerned, it be lawful to yield to the enemies of the truth. Then out of the debate about things indifferent grew several others, from which arose yet others, and so on indefinitely. While Melancthon and his colleagues were at Leipsic discussing the “Interim,” among other things they had said, “The necessity of good works in order to the attainment of eternal salvation, might be held and taught, conformably to the truth of the gospel.” This declaration was severely censured by the rigid Lutherans, as being contrary to the doctrine and sentiments of Luther. George Major maintained the doctrine of good works, and Amsdorf the contrary. In this dispute Amsdorf was so far carried away by his zeal for the doctrine of Luther, as to assert that good works are an impediment to salvation. This added new fuel to the flame, and on it raged.ECE 775.1

9. Out of this debate grew another, known as the “Synergistical” controversy, from a Greek word signifying co-operation. The disciples of Melancthon, led by Strigelius, held that man co-operates with divine grace in the work of conversion. The Lutherans, led by Flacius, head of the university of Saxe-Weimar, held that God is the only agent in the conversion of man. This dispute led to yet another, concerning the natural powers of the human mind. On this subject a public debate was held at Weimar in 1560, between Flacius and Strigelius. Flacius maintained that “the fall of man extinguished in the human mind every virtuous tendency, every noble faculty, and left nothing but universal darkness and corruption.” Strigelius held that this degradation of the powers of the mind was by no means universal. And, hoping to defeat his opponent by puzzling him, put this question: “Should original sin, or the corrupt habit which the human soul contracted by the fall, be classed with substances or accidents?” “Flacius replied that “original sin is the very substance of human nature.” This bold assertion opened another controversy on the nature and extent of original sin.ECE 775.2

10. In 1560 Melancthon died, glad, as he said on his deathbed, to be freed from the contentions of theologians. After his death, many who wished to see these divisions and animosities healed, endeavored to put an end to the controversies. After many vain attempts, in 1568 the elector of Saxony and the duke of Saxe-Weimar summoned the most eminent men of each party to meet at Altenburg, and there, in an amicable spirit, sought to reconcile their differences. But this effort came to naught. Then the dukes of Wirtemberg and Brunswick joined in the effort; and James Andreas, professor at Tubingen, under their patronage traveled through all parts of Germany working in the interests of concord. At last, they were so far successful as to gather, after several conferences, a company of leading divines at Torgau in 1576, where a treatise, composed by Andreas, was examined, discussed, and corrected, and finally proposed to the deliberations of a select number, who met at Berg, near Magdeburg. There all points were fully and carefully weighed, and discussed anew; and as the result of all, there was adopted the “Form of Concord.” And now that the “Form of Concord” was adopted, discord was fully assured; for it was only a source of new tumults, and furnished matter for dissensions and contests as violent as any that had gone before. Besides this, the field now widened, so that the Calvinists and Zwinglians were all included in the whirl of controversy.ECE 776.1

11. Now that Calvin appears upon the scene, the field was not only enlarged, but new material was supplied; for he differed from both Lutherans and Zwinglians, not only with regard to the Lord’s Supper, but his essential tenet of absolute decrees of God, in the salvation of men, was an entirely new element in the strife; and from the very nature of the case it propagated a multitude of new disputes. It is not necessary to enlarge upon them, nor to draw them out in their full members. It will be sufficient merely to name the leading subjects. Differing from both Lutherans and Zwinglians on the presence of Christ in the Supper, of course the controversy on that subject was re-opened, and again canvassed through all its forms: First, What is the nature of the institutions called Sacraments? Second, What are the fruits of the same? Third, How great is the majesty and glory of Christ’s human nature? Fourth, How are the divine perfections communicated to the human nature of Christ? Fifth, What is the inward frame of spirit that is required in the worship addressed to the Saviour?ECE 776.2

12. On the divine decrees: 1. What is the nature of the divine attributes? 2. Particularly those of justness and goodness? 3. Fate and necessity? 4. What is the connection between human liberty and divine prescience? 5. What is the extent of God’s love to mankind? 6. What are the benefits that arise from the merits of Christ as mediator? 7. What are the operations of the divine Spirit, in rectifying the will and sanctifying the affections of men? 8. The final perseverance of the elect. Other subjects: 1. What is the extent of external ceremonies in religious worship? 2. What are the special characteristics of things indifferent? 3. How far is it lawful to comply with the demands of an adversary in discussing things indifferent? 4. What is the extent of Christian liberty? 5. Is it lawful to retain, out of respect to the prejudices of the people, ancient rites and ceremonies which have a superstitious aspect, yet may be susceptible of a favorable and rational interpretation?ECE 777.1

13. But, however bitter the opposition between Lutherans and Calvinists, and the contentions among the Lutherans themselves, and again, between all of these on the one hand and the Catholics on the other, they could call a truce upon all their differences, and unite—all, Catholics, Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists—in the common onset against Anabaptists. The name Anabaptists, signifies re-baptizers, and was applied indiscriminately to all who denied the validity of sprinkling for baptism, and especially of infant baptism, or sprinkling, rather. Before the period of the Reformation, there were, scattered throughout almost all the countries of Europe, and persecuted everywhere, lineal descendants, in point of doctrine, of the Albigenses and the Waldenses, who did not practice infant baptism (sprinkling), but held to the genuine doctrines of baptism, the sleep of the dead, and some to the true Sabbath. Of course, these doctrines caused them even then to be considered abominable heretics; but when, unfortunately, in the early days of the Reformation, some of the name ran into wild fanaticism, all of the name were classed together in it; and the severest of penal laws of those severe times, were enacted against all who could be classed as Anabaptists.ECE 777.2

14. “In almost all the countries of Europe, an unspeakable number ...preferred death in its worst forms to a retraction.... Neither the view of the flames that were kindled to consume them, nor the ignominy of the gibbet, nor the terrors of the sword, could shake their invincible ...constancy, or make them abandon tenets that appeared dearer to them than life and all its enjoyments.... And it is much to be lamented that so little distinction was made between the members of this sect, when the sword was unsheathed against them. Why were the innocent and the guilty involved in the same fate? Why were doctrines purely theological ...punished with the same rigor that was shown to crimes inconsistent with the peace and welfare of civil society? Those who had no other marks of peculiarity than their administering baptism to adult persons only, and their excluding the unrighteous from the external communion of the Church, ought undoubtedly to have met with milder treatment than that which was given to those seditious incendiaries, who were for unhinging all government and destroying all civil authority.... It is true that many Anabaptists suffered death, not on account of their being considered rebellious subjects, but merely because they were judged to be incorrigible heretics; for in this century the error of limiting the administration of baptism to adult persons only, and the practice of re-baptizing such as had received that sacrament in infancy, were looked upon as the most flagitious and intolerable of heresies.”—Mosheim. ^{3[Page 778] “Ecclesiastical History,” cent. xvi, sec. iii, part ii, chap 3, par 6.}ECE 778.1

15. As before remarked, the Anabaptists became the one object of the attack of all parties, civil and religious. Their opposition to infant baptism somewhat disconcerted Melancthon in the presence of the fanatics at Wittemberg. He owned that they had hit upon a “weak point;” and his doubts on this point led him to make the familiar statement, “Luther alone can decide” the question of their inspiration. It was the fear of being landed in anabaptism that was the reason that “Luther did not face this question thoroughly.” The Protestant Council of Zurich ordered “that any one who administered anabaptism should be drowned;” and the order was actually executed upon Felix Mantz, “who had formerly been associated with Zwingle at the commencement of the Reformation.” One of the very earliest of Calvin’s theological efforts, was the composition of a book entitled “Psychopamychia,“ on the immortality of the soul, in opposition to the Anabaptists in France.ECE 779.1

16. In entering the seventeenth century we find a new element upon the sea of controversy. Philosophy of the different schools was in each school striving for ascendency; and if not a direct cause of many of the disputes of this century, it gives a coloring to them. At this time philosophy was represented in the two classes of Peripatetics (followers of Aristotle) and Fire-Philosophers (from their proposition that “the dissolution of bodies by the power of fire is the only way in which the first principles of things can be discerned”). The Peripatetics held the professorships in almost all the places of learning, and held that all who questioned Aristotle were little less criminal than downright heretics; and so there was a lively contest kept up between them and the Fire-Philosophers, or chemists. But there was a union of the interests of these two, when, about 1640, the Cartesian gauntlet, “Cogito, ergo sum” (i. e., I think, therefore I am), was thrown into the arena. Both the Peripatetics and the Chemists turned with all their energy against the new philosophy; “not so much for their philosophical system as for the honors, advantages, and profits they derived from it.” And, “seconded by the clergy who apprehended that the cause of religion was aimed at and endangered by these philosophical innovations, they made a prodigious noise and left no means unemployed to prevent the downfall of their old system.... They not only accused Descartes of the most dangerous and pernicious errors, but went so far, in the extravagance of their malignity, as to bring a charge of atheism against him.”—Mosheim. ^{4[Page 780] Id., cent. xvii, sec. i par 32.}ECE 779.2

17. In opposition to Descartes, Gassendi also entered the lists, and this gave rise to yet another school of philosophy, the Mathematical. That of Descartes was called the Metaphysical, or Cartesian, philosophy. As the Peripatetic was the only philosophy taught in the Lutheran schools, the rise of the new philosophy was a new subject for discussion and opposition there, and gave scope for yet more exercise of the controversial propensity. Another thing that greatly troubled the Lutherans was, that in 1614 John Sigismund, elector of Brandenburg, entered the communion of the Calvinists, and granted to all his subjects entire liberty in religious matters, and left to the free choice of all whether they would embrace one religion or another, or any at all. But the Lutherans “deemed it intolerable that the Calvinists should enjoy the same privileges as themselves.” And this was carried to such a length that the people of Brandenburg were prohibited from studying at the university of Wittemberg.ECE 780.1

18. But that which gave the Lutherans the most trouble in this century was the efforts of a succession of persons to bring about a state of harmony between them and the Calvinists. James I of England tried it, and failed. In 1631, in a synod of the Calvinists at Charenton, an act was passed, which granted that the Lutheran religion “was conformable to a spirit of true piety, and free from pernicious and fundamental errors,” but the overture was not accepted. In the same year, a conference was held at Leipsic, between several of the most eminent doctors of both communions, in Saxony and Brandenburg. And although the Calvinists showed all possible fairness, and made concessions that the Lutherans themselves could scarcely expect, yet all their efforts were looked upon and regarded with suspicion, as being only schemes to ensnare them; and the conference broke up with nothing done. In 1645 Udislaus IV, king of Poland, called a conference at Thorn, but it only increased the party zeal. In 1661 William VI, landgrave of Hesse, called a conference at Cassel, in which the doctors there assembled came to an agreement, embraced one another, and declared that there was nothing between them of sufficient importance to prevent union and concord. This was no sooner learned by the Lutheran brethren, than they turned all their fury against their delegates, and loaded them with reproaches of apostasy, Calvinism, etc.ECE 780.2

19. Besides these public efforts, there were others of a private character. John Duraeus, a Calvinist, a native of Scotland, “during a period of forty-three years, suffered vexations, and underwent labors which required the firmest resolution, and the most inexhaustible patience; wrote, exhorted, admonished, entreated, and disputed: in a word, tried every method that human wisdom could suggest, to put an end to the dissensions and animosities that reigned among the Protestant churches.... He traveled through all the countries in Europe where the Protestant religion had gained a footing; he formed connections with the doctors of both parties; he addressed himself to kings, princes, magistrates, and ministers.... But his views were disappointed.... Some, suspecting that his fervent and extraordinary zeal arose from mysterious and sinister motives, and apprehending that he had secretly formed a design of drawing the Lutherans into a snare, even attacked him in their writings with animosity and bitterness, and loaded him with the sharpest invectives and reproaches: so that this well-meaning man, neglected at length by his own communion, ...spent the remainder of his days in repose and obscurity at Cassel.”—Mosheim. ^{5[Page 781] “Ecclesiastical History,” cent xvii, sec. ii, part ii, chap. i par. 6.} That which he proposed as the foundation upon which they might unite, was, the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer.ECE 781.1

20. Another of the most zealous of the peacemakers was John Matthias a Swedish bishop, who with George Calixtus, attempted to carry on the work of Duraeus. But the opposition was so bitter that Matthias was obliged to resign his bishopric; Calixtus was accused of syncretism, and to his “charge many other things were laid, besides the crime of endeavoring to unite the disciples of the same Master in the amiable bonds of charity, concord, and mutual forbearance.” ^{6[Page 781] Id., par. 7. The Italics are his.} This “crime” was called Syncretism.ECE 781.2

21. The Pietistical controversy was another that engaged the attention of the Lutherans during this century. This originated in the efforts of Philip James Spener, of Frankfort, who “had in view the promotion of vital religion, rousing the lukewarm and indifferent, stemming the torrent of vice and corruption, and reforming the licentious manners of both the clergy and people.” ^{7[Page 782] Id., par. 26.} The better to accomplish this, Spener and his adherents proposed that, besides the stated times for public worship, private assemblies for prayer and other religious exercises should be held. For these laudable and most necessary aims they were nicknamed Pietists, and the opposition to them and their designs, was as strong as was that to any of the others.ECE 781.3

22. This subject was carried further by some of the professors at Leipsic, who for the purpose of instructing the candidates for the ministry in something better than how to perpetuate broils, “undertook to explain in their colleges certain books of Scripture in order to render these genuine sources of religious knowledge better understood, and to promote a spirit of practical piety and vital religion in the minds of their hearers.... Accordingly these lectures were much frequented, and their effects were visible in the lives and conversation of several persons, whom they seemed to inspire with a deep sense of the importance of religion and virtue.” But immediately the cry arose that this was “contrary to custom.” “Hence rumors were spread, tumults excited, animosities kindled, and the matter at length brought to a public trial, in which these pious and learned men were indeed declared free from the errors and heresies laid to their charge, but were at the same time prohibited from carrying on that plan of religious instruction which they had undertaken with so much zeal.” ^{8[Page 782] Id., par. 87.}ECE 782.1

23. But this did not put down the good work thus begun; for the contest spread rapidly through all the Lutheran Churches in Europe. Therefore the doctors and pastors of Wittemberg thought themselves obliged to proceed publicly, first against Spener in 1695, and afterward against his disciples, which gave rise to new debates. The Pietists held, (1) that none should be admitted to the ministry but such as had been properly educated, and were distinguished by wisdom and sanctity of manners, and who had their hearts filled with divine love; (2) that the scholastical theology should be abolished; (3) that polemical divinity, that is, the controversies between Christians, should be less eagerly taught; (4) that all mixture of philosophy and human learning with the Holy Scriptures should be abandoned; and (5) that no person who was not himself a model of piety, was qualified to be a public teacher of piety, or a guide to others in the way of salvation.ECE 782.2

24. Out of these sprung other debates on such questions as, (1) “Can the religious knowledge acquired by a wicked man be termed theology?” (2) “How far can the office and ministry of an impious ecclesiastic be pronounced salutary and efficacious?” (3) “Can an ungodly and licentious man be susceptible of illumination?” The Pietists further demanded the suppression of certain propositions that it was customary to deliver from the pulpit publicly, which, unqualified, were certainly capable of being interpreted as granting indulgence: such as, “No man is able to attain that perfection which the divine law requires. Good works are not necessary to salvation.” Also the Pietists prohibited dancing, pantomimes, theatrical plays, etc., among their members; and this again gave an opportunity for the scholastics to display their ingenuity. They raised the question, first, whether these actions were of an indifferent character; and then from that, whether any human actions are truly indifferent; i. e., equally removed from moral good on one hand, and from moral evil on the other.ECE 783.1

25. In the Calvinist Church, after the death of its founder, the controversy over the “divine decrees” continued through the seventeenth century. From the college at Geneva the doctrine of Calvin spread to all parts of Protestant Europe, and into the schools of learning. But there arose a difference of opinion, not about the “decrees” in themselves, but about the nature of the decrees. “The majority held that God simply permitted the first man to fall into transgression; while a respectable minority maintained with all their might, that to exercise and display his awful justice and his free mercy, God had decreed from all eternity that Adam should sin, and had so ordered events that our first parents could not possibly avoid falling.” ^{9[Page 783] Id., chap 2, par. 10} The two parties in this division were the Sublapsarians (those who held to permission) and Supralapsarians.ECE 783.2

26. But these forgot their differences whenever and wherever there appeared those who “thought it their duty to represent the Deity, as extending His goodness and mercy to all mankind.” This new controversy arose in the early part of the century, and is known as the Arminian controversy, from James Arminius, professor of divinity in the university of Leyden, who was the originator of it. Arminius had been educated a Calvinist, at the College of Geneva, and because of his merit had been chosen to the university of Leyden. After leaving Geneva, and as he grew older, his mind more and more revolted from the doctrine of Calvin on predestination, and entertained the Scriptural doctrine that the grace of God is free to all, and brings salvation to all men; that none are prohibited, by any decree, from its benefits, nor are any elected thereto, independent of their own actions, but that Christ brought salvation to the world, and every man is free to accept or reject this offer as he chooses. But as Calvinism was at that time flourishing in Holland, the teaching of Arminius drew upon him the severest opposition.ECE 783.3

27. Arminius died in 1609, and Simon Episcopius, one of his disciples, carried the work forward with unabated vigor, and in a little while the controversy spread through all Europe, and created as much tumult in the Calvinist Church as Calvinism had formerly caused in the Lutheran. And the stubbornness of the Lutherans was repeated on the part of the Calvinists. Again there were those who sought to bring the contending parties to an accommodation, but with no success. At last, in 1618, by the authority of the States-General, the national synod was convened at Dort, to discuss the points of difference and come to an agreement. Deputies assembled from Holland, England, Hesse, Bremen, Switzerland, and the Palatinate; and the leading men of the Arminians came also.ECE 784.1

28. Episcopius addressed the assembly in a discourse, “full of moderation, gravity, and elocution.” But his address was no sooner finished than difficulties arose, and the Arminians found that instead of their being called there to present their views for examination and discussion, it was that they were to be tried as heretics; and when they refused to submit to the manner of procedure proposed by the synod, they were excluded from the assembly, and the famous synod of Dort tried them in their absence. Naturally enough, they were pronounced “guilty of pestilential errors,” and condemned as “corrupters of the true religion:” and all this after the solemn promise which had been made to the Arminians that they should be allowed full liberty to explain and defend their opinions, as far as they thought necessary to their justification! After this the doctrine of “absolute decrees” lost ground from day to day; and the way in which the synod had treated the Arminians only increased their determination, and besides drew to them the sympathy of many: so much so indeed, that the whole provinces of Friseland, Zealand, Utrecht, Guelderland, and Groningen, never would accept the decisions of that assembly. Immediately after this, too, the controversy over the Cartesian philosophy entered the Calvinist Church, and set it all awhirl again, and kept it so.ECE 784.2

29. Since, in scholasticism and theological controversy, the leadership of professed Protestantism occupied so much of papal ground and partook so largely of the papal spirit, it could only be expected that the natural and logical consequence should follow, and this same professed Protestantism be found occupying the central and peculiar ground of the papacy in the union of Church and State. A second great apostasy had begun.ECE 785.1