and impious?" the
answer comes back from the Catechism, "No; for it is impossible that
those who are planted in Christ should be without the fruits of
gratitude." This opinion had a strong tendency to isolate theology still
more than scholasticism had done, from all practical interests. "What
shall we do?" was an idle question, for, as a matter of course, man
could do nothing. But "what must I be?" was the all-important and
searching inquiry. Thus ethics glided into radical casuistry, and, in
this form, became united with the scholastic theology.

The homiletic literature of that day indicates the unification very
clearly. Besides being a tirade against schismatics of all classes, the
discourse was often a discussion of grammatical principles, accompanied
with a description of the spiritual condition of every hearer. After the
singing of the hymn in the middle of its delivery, the people adjusted
themselves to hear the application in which their cases were to be
stated. There was _first_, an enumeration of "heretical sinners,"
divided into numerous groups; _second_, the "unconverted," separated
into many subdivisions; and _third_, the many flocks of Christians. It
was in this part of the sermon that the casuistry of the preacher had
full play, and he who could subdivide his congregation in such a way
that every auditor could not mistake his own proper position, received
great honor from his brethren. The hearer waited until he "heard his
name called," after which he might sink back again to his dreams. Even
to this day, on leaving a Dutch church, it is a common question among
the separating members to inquire of each other, "Have you heard the
dominie call your name?" They mean by this, "Have you heard the pastor
so describe people that you could not mistake the class to which you
belong?"

We have now stated the two sources from which many of the troubles and
defections of the Church of Holland have sprung. On the one hand was
dogmatism, with its endless distinctions, begotten and fostered by
Scholasticism. On the other, practical mysticism, cherished into
strength by a disgusting system of casuistic ethics. The reaction
against those prevalent errors was Rationalism. They were the domestic
fountains of that species of error.

But there were men who, when they saw the evils their venerated Church
was suffering, threw themselves into the breach, and contended for her
deliverance.

Cocceius, the celebrated opponent