that God will have all men to be saved, and that 'he concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.' Castellio died a few months before Calvin, without leaving a school behind him; but his ideas were afterwards more fully developed by the Socinians and Arminians.1

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the doctrine of predestination made headway in the Reformed Church. It was strongly advocated in Zurich by Peter Martyr. His opponent, Theodor Bibliander (Buchmann), a distinguished Orientalist, 'the father of exegetical theology in Switzerland,' and a forerunner of Arminianism, was removed from his professorship of Hebrew on account of his advocacy of free-will (1560), though his salary was continued to his death (1564). The dogma of predestination consolidated the Calvinistic creed, as the dogma of consubstantiation consolidated the Lutheran creed. Both these distinctive dogmas maintained their hold on the two Churches until the theological revolution towards the close of the eighteenth century began to undermine the whole fabric of Protestant orthodoxy and to clear the way for new creations.

§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA. A.D. 1675.

Literature.

L. FORMULA CONSENSUS ECCLESiarum HelvetICARUM REFORMATARUM, circa Doctrinam de Gratia universali et connexa, aliaque nonnulla capita (Einhellige Formul der reform, eidg. Kirchen, betreffend die Lehre von der allgemeinen Gnad und was derselben anhanget, sodann auch etliche andere Religionspunkten). Composed A.D. 1675; first printed at Zurich, 1714, as an appendix to the Second Helvetic Confession; then 1718, 1722, etc., in Latin and German. The official copy, in both languages, is in the archives of Zurich. The Latin text has a place in Niemeyer's Collectio, pp. 729–739; the German text in Böckel, pp. 348–360. The writings of AMYRAUT, CAPPEL, and LA PLACE; their friends, PAUL TESTARD, JEAN DAILLÉ, and DAVID BLONDEL; their opponents, PIERRE DU MOULIN, FR. SPANHEIM, and ANDRÉ RIVET; and the decisions of the Synods of ALENÇON, CHARENTON, and LOUDON (1637-1659). See below.

II. J. JAO. HOTTinger (d. 1735): Succincta et solida ac genuina Formula Consensus... historia, Latin and German, 1723. By the same: Helvetische Kirchengeschichte, Zurich, Theil III. pp. 1086 sqq.; IV. pp. 258, 268 8qq.

BAYLE: Dict. art. Amyraut.

CH. M. PFAFF: Dissertatio histor. theologica de Formula Consensus Helv. Tübingen, 1723.

J. RUD. SALCHLI: Stricturæ et observationes in Pfaffii dissertationem de F. C. Bern, 1723.

(BARNAUD): Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des troubles arrivées en Suisse à l'occasion du Consensus. Amsterd. 1726.

WALCH: Religionsstreitigkeiten ausserhalb der luth. Kirche, Jena, 1733, Vol. I. pp. 454 sqq.; III. pp. 736 899.

HAGENBACH: Kritische Gesch. der ersten Basler Confession. Basle, 1827, pp. 173 sqq.

ALEX. SOHWEIZER: Die Protest. Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der Reformirten Kirche. Zweite Hälfte (Zurich, 1856), pp. 439–563. By the same: Die Enstehung der helvetischen Consensus-Formel,

1 On Castellio, see Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. pp. 310-373, and his essay, S. Castellio als Bestreiter der calvinischen Prädestinationslehre, in the Theol. Jahrbücher of Baur and Zeller, 1851.

aus Zürich's Specialgeschichte näher beleuchtet, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für histor. Theologie 1or 1860, pp. 122-148 (gives an extract from the MS. of J. H. Heidegger's Gründliche und wahrhaftige Historie). Comp. also Schweizer's art. Amyraut, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. 2d ed. Vol. I. pp. 356–361; and on the Life and Writings of Amyraut, in the Tübinger Theol Jahrbücher for 1852.

F. TREOHSEL: Helvetische Consensus-Formel, in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. V. pp. 755–764 (partly based on MS. sources).

GUST. FRANK: Geschichte der Protestant. Theologie, Leipz. 1865, Vol. II. pp. 35 sqq.

AUG. EBRARD: Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. (1866), pp. 538 sqq. and 552 sqq. Also his art. on Amyraldism (against Schweizer), in the Reform, Kirchenzeitung for 1853, No. 27 sqq.

The Helvetic Consensus Formula (Formula Consensus Helvetica) is the last doctrinal Confession of the Reformed Church of Switzerland, and closes the period of Calvinistic creeds. It has been called a 'symbolical after-birth.' It was composed in 1675, one hundred and eleven years after Calvin's death, by Professor JOHN HENRY HEIDEGGER, of Zurich (1633–1698),' at the request and with the co-operation of the Rev. LUCAS GERNLER, of Basle (d. 1675), and Professor FRANCIS TURRETIN, of Geneva (1623-1687). It never extended its authority beyond Switzerland, but it is nevertheless a document of considerable importance and interest in the history of Protestant theology. It is a defense of the scholastic Calvinism of the Synod of Dort against the theology of Saumur (Salmurium), especially against the universalism of Amyraldus. Hence it may be called a Formula anti-Salmuriensis, or anti-Amyraldensis.

THE SYNOD OF DORT AND THE THEOLOGY OF SAUMUR.

The Twenty-third National Synod of the Reformed Church in France, held at Alais, Oct. 1, 1620, adopted the Canons of Dort (1619), as being in full harmony with the Word of God and the French Confession of 1559, and bound all ministers and elders by a solemn oath to defend them to the last breath. The Twenty-fourth National Synod at Charenton, September, 1623, reaffirmed this adoption.3

But in the theological academy at Saumur, founded by the cele

1 Author of Concilii Tridentini Anatome historico-theologica; Enchiridion Biblicum; Historia sacra patriarcharum; and Histoire du Papisme.

'Author of the Institutio theologica elenchthicæ (1679-85), which still keeps its place among the best systems of Calvinistic theology. New edition, Edinburgh and New York, 1847, in four volumes. His son, John Alphonsus (1671-1737), Professor of Church History in Geneva, was inclined to Arminianism, and advocated toleration. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. II. pp. 784 sqq.

3

Aymon. Tous les Synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France. A la Hayo, 1710, Vol. II. pp. 183, 298; Schweizer, 1. c. pp. 229 sqq.

brated Reformed statesman Du Plessis Mornay (1604), there arose a more liberal school, headed by three contemporary professorsJOSUÉ DE LA PLACE (PLACEUS, 1596–1655), LOUIS CAPPEL (CAPELLUS, 1585-1658), and MOYSE AMYRAUT (MOSES AMYRALDUS, 1596-1664)— which, without sympathizing with Arminianism, departed from the rigid orthodoxy then prevailing in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches on three points-the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, the particular predestination, and the imputation of Adam's sin.

Saumur acquired under these leaders great celebrity, and attracted many students from Switzerland. It became for the Reformed Church of France what Helmstädt, under the lead of Calixtus, was for the Lutheran Church in Germany; and the Helvetic Consensus Formula of Heidegger may be compared to the Consensus repetitus' of Calovius (1664), which was intended to be a still more rigorous symbolical protest against Syncretism, although it failed to receive any public recognition.1

The further development of the Saumur theology was arrested by the political oppression which culminated in the cruel revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. (1685), and aimed at the utter annihilation of the Reformed Church in France. But its ideas have silently made progress, and were independently revived in more recent times.

VERBAL INSPIRATION.

Louis Cappel, the most distinguished of an eminent Huguenot family, and one of the first Biblical scholars of the seventeenth century, made the history of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures his special study, and arrived at conclusions which differed from the orthodox theory of a literal inspiration. He discovered and proved that the Hebrew system of vocalization did not date from Adam, nor from Moses, nor from Ezra and the Great Synagogue, but from the Jewish grammarians after the completion of the Babylonian Talmud.2 This

1 See p. 351, and Schweizer's comparison of the two documents, Vol. II. pp. 532 sqq. Arcanum punctationis revelatum,' added to his Commentarii et notæ criticæ in Vetus Testamentum, Amst. 1689. Cappel wrote this tract in 1622, and sent the MS. to the elder Buxtorf. of Basle (d. 1629), who returned it with the advice to keep back his view. It was first published anonymously by Erpenius at Leyden, 1624. Twenty years afterwards Buxtorf the younger (d. 1664) attacked it in his Tractatus de punctorum origine, antiquitate et autoritate, Basil. 1648. Against this Cappel wrote his Vindicia Arcani punctat. revel., but

view is confirmed by the absence of vowels on Jewish coins, on the Phoenician and Punic monuments, on the inscription of the Moabite stone (discovered 1868), and by the analogy of the other Semitic languages. Cappel unsettled also the traditional view of the literal integrity and sacredness of the Masoretic text, and showed that the different readings (Keri and Ktib), while they had no bearing on faith and morals, and therefore could not undermine the authority of the Scriptures, are not to be traced to willful corruption, but must be consulted, together with the ancient translations, in ascertaining the true text.1

These views, which are now generally accepted among Biblical scholars, met with violent opposition. Even the Buxtorfs, father and son, at Basle, who immortalized themselves by their rabbinical learning, advocated the divine inspiration of the Hebrew vowels. The Protestant orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, both Calvinistic and Lutheran, was very sensitive on this point, because it substituted an infallible Bible for an infallible papacy; while the Roman orthodoxy cared much more for the divine authority of the Church than for that of the Scriptures.

UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR PREDESTINATION.

Moses Amyraut, originally a lawyer, but converted to the study of theology by the reading of Calvin's 'Institutes,' an able divine and voluminous writer, developed the doctrine of hypothetical or conditional universalism, for which his teacher, John Cameron (15801625), a Scotchman, and for two years Professor at Saumur, had prepared the way. His object was not to set aside, but to moderate and liberalize Calvinism by ingrafting this doctrine upon the particularism of election, and thereby to fortify it against the objections of Romanists, by whom the French Protestants were surrounded and threatened. Being employed by the Reformed Synod in important

they were not published till 1689, by his son, Jacques C., in an Appendix to his Commentary. His views on the late origin of the Hebrew vowels were anticipated by rabbinical scholars, Abn-Ezra (d. 1174) and Elias Levita (d. 1549).

1 Critica sacra, etc., Paris, 1650, folio; another edition, by Vogel, in three volumes, Halle, 1775-86. The work was finished October, 1634, but the printing was delayed by the op position of the Protestants until his son, Jean Cappel, who seceded to the Roman Church, procured a royal privilege for its publication in Paris.

diplomatic negotiations with the government, he came in frequent contact with bishops, and with Cardinal Richelieu, who esteemed him highly. His system is an approach, not so much to Arminianism, which he decidedly rejected, as to Lutheranism, which likewise teaches a universal atonement and a limited election.1

He

Amyraut maintained the Calvinistic premises of an eternal foreordination and foreknowledge of God, whereby he caused all things inevitably to pass-the good efficiently, the bad permissively. also admitted the double decree of election and reprobation. But in addition to this he taught that God foreordained a universal salvation through the universal sacrifice of Christ offered to all alike (également pour tous), on condition of faith, so that on the part of God's will and desire (voluntas, velleitas, affectus) the grace is universal, but as regards the condition it is particular, or only for those who do not reject it and thereby make it ineffective. The universal redemption scheme precedes the particular election scheme, and not vice versa. He reasons from the benevolence of God towards his creatures; Calvinism reasons from the result, and makes actual facts interpret the decrees. Amyrant distinguished between objective grace which is offered to all, and subjective grace in the heart which is given only to the elect. He also makes a distinction between natural ability and moral ability, or the power to believe and the willingness to believe; man possesses the former, but not the latter, in consequence of inherent depravity. He was disposed, like Zwingli, to extend the grace of God beyond the limits of the visible Church, inasmuch as God by his general providence operates upon the heathen, and may produce in them a sort of unconscious Christianity, a faith without knowledge; while within the Church he operates more fully

1

3

Amyraut's writings on this subject are: Traité de la Prédestination (also in Latin), Saumur, 1634; Echantillon de la doctrine de Calvin sur la Prédestination, 1637; De la justification, 1638; De providentia Dei in malo, 1638; Defensio doctrinæ Calvini de absoluto reprobationis decreto, 1641; Dissertationes theol. quatuor, 1645; Exercitatio de gratia universali, 1646; Disputatio de libero hominis arbitrio, 1647; Sermons sur divers textes de la Ste. Écriture, 1653; Irenicum sive de ratione pacis in religionis negotio inter Evangelicos, 1662. Amyraut wrote besides a system of Christian Ethics (in six volumes), and a number of exegetical and practical works. See a list in Herzog, Vol. I. pp. 296 sq.

26

Ou de permettre tellement les mauvaises, que l'événement soit entièrement undubitable.' The same distinction was a century later made by New England Calvinists under the lead of Jonathan Edwards, who knew of the Saumur theology through the works of Stapfer.