Front Page Titles (by Subject) §90 - The Divine Feudal Law: Or, Covenants with Mankind, Represented
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
§90 - Samuel von Pufendorf, The Divine Feudal Law: Or, Covenants with Mankind, Represented 
The Divine Feudal Law: Or, Covenants with Mankind, Represented, trans. Theophilus Dorrington, ed. with an Introduction by Simone Zurbruchen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The copyright to this edition, in both print and electronic forms, is held by Liberty Fund, Inc.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Concerning the Abdicating of former Principles.Then Jurieu delivers four ways of Reconciling and Uniting divided Parties. Of which the first is, If one part would Abdicate its Principles, and way of Worship, in a word its Religion, and pass over to the other. An Example of which there was in the ancient Church, when having Abdicated Arianism both parts joyn’d, and by common consent Establish’d the Truth of the same Substance.71 But Jurieu pronounces (p. 141.) that this way of Reconciling Protestants, is neither possible nor just. As he is not to be heard who would be a Mediator of Peace between the Spaniards and French, if he should propose such Conditions of Peace as this, That the former should deliver themselves, and all that is theirs into the Power of the latter. And formerly in France they were receiv’d with scorn, (p. 142.) who invited the Reform’d to a Reunion, with this Law, that they should return into the Bosom of the Church. In which very thing they sought the Ruine of the Reform’d Religion under the Name of Peace and Union: When nevertheless a War is wont to be laid down between two contending sides, by something yielded, and something retain’d. We on the other hand say, That as this way of Uniting those that disagree would be the most perfect, if one part laying aside their Errour would come over to the other, so it is neither impossible nor unjust. For even Jurieu himself acknowledges it is what can be, from the Example of the Extinction of Arianism, when nevertheless it is not to be doubted but heretofore the like Substance was no less dear to the Arians, then now the Absolute Decree is to the Reform’d, and the things which follow from thence. And why cannot a Mind free from Prejudice acknowledge that the Opinion which has hitherto pleas’d, does not agree with the genuine Sense of Scripture? Especially when the Contention among Protestants is only about the Truth of Principles, to which if a Man will prefer his Authority, he is guilty of a rash Contentiousness. Nor is the Strife among them, as it is between them and the Papists about Dominion and Wealth. Therefore it is absurdly too that he instances in the War between the Spaniards and the French. For these contend for Countries and Empire, and so about such things as can be divided into parts, but not about any Temporal Emolument, so not about the external Government of the Church: About which there is so great a Contention between the Church of England and the Presbyterians there, who yet both go under the Name of the Reform’d. When our Men would readily endure that whatever Government of the Church is receiv’d in any place, and no less that the Ceremonies to which they have been accustomed, should be retain’d. It is also a weak thing to compare what is requir’d by the Papists of the Reform’d in France, with what we desire towards the Uniting of Protestants. For they went about to draw these under the Dominion of Antichrist, and to the Profession of Principles that ought to be abhor’d. We wish that they would dismiss a few Principles unknown to the first Ages of the Church, and brought into it at length by Augustine through the heat of Dispute. But yet if the Reform’d pretend that they are not convinced of Errour by our side, they may not absurdly desire that a friendly and solid Debate be first held by Writings, rather then Discourse. Since, lastly, as Jurieu himself acknowledges, many of the Reform’d prefer the Opinion of our Men before the Particularism, but so as that they are unwilling to have the liberty of thinking otherwise taken from them; whose Communion, too the Particularists do not shun,72 and therein show they reckon that Principle not to be a Fundamental; why at length can they not proceed altogether to abandon that Particularism, if it shall be demonstrated by our side that that Principle is not only repugnant to the Scriptures, but also has very many hard Consequences attending it?
[71.]Arianism (called after Arius, c. 250–c. 336) denied the divinity of Christ and was one of the most widespread and divisive heresies in the history of Christianity. A series of ecumenical councils (the first at Nicea, 325) were convened to solve the problems raised by Arianism. Only with the Council of Constantinople in 381 was the Nicene orthodoxy on the Trinity secured in the Church.
[72.]Particularists adhere to the decree of absolute predestination.