RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN
ENGLAND <• u//^
FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE END OF LAST CENTURY
S Contribution to tfje Jgistorg of SCfjeologg*
BY THE REV. JOHN HUNT, M.A.
OP 'AN ESSAY ON PANTHEISM'
VOLUME 77.
D
Y-lll
, ^ 'I
STRAHAN & CO., PUBLISHERS
56 LUDGATE HILL, LONDON
1871
TAYLOR AND CO., PRINTERS,
LITTLE QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS.
PREFACE.
IT was stated in the Preface to the First Volume that the
object of this work was to trace the history of religious
thought in England since the Keformation. I then inti
mated that I was not writing a philosophy of the history of
religion, but a part of the history itself. Merely to have
given my own conclusions, or my own theories, would have
been easier for me, and perhaps more agreeable to the
reader. But I preferred collecting and arranging material
which would not only illustrate the stand-point from which
I was writing, but also have a permanent value in itself.
It has been suggested by a reviewer that it would have
added to the interest of the work if I had said more about
the characters of the men of whom I have occasion to write,
and less about their books. It was also suggested that I
might have traced the connection of doctrines prominent at
certain times with the same or kindred doctrines in other
countries. Both these things would doubtless have been
interesting, but they are beyond my province. I fixed the
limits, that the work, within these limits, might be as com
plete as I could make it. A history of ideas could not be
expected to have the same interest as a history of events ;
and when confined to England, there was a necessity for
details that will often seem tedious. I have tried to give
an account of the chief parties, the more important contro
versies, and of all books or tracts that have or ever had any
vi PREFACE.
representative value. It has been intimated that there is a
principle of progress or development to be traced in this
history, but I have not been forward to trace it. Its stages
are not abruptly marked, and it is better that they should
be left to show themselves in their final results. An oak
requires centuries to complete its growth, and for that
very reason, we do not think of measuring it every day to
see how much it has grown.
Several reviewers have expressed a wish for more dates
and references. With this wish I have endeavoured to
comply, but without admitting that the first volume was
deficient in either of these. Dates were not always given
in figures, but it was generally mentioned who was Arch
bishop of Canterbury at the time of any controversy or the
public activity of any great writer. I did not see the
necessity of giving a reference for every quotation. This
might be necessary in an argument, but it is not always
necessary in giving an analysis of the subject or the con
tents of a book. One reviewer complained of the hardship
of being unable to find the context when he met anything
remarkable which he wished to examine further. He in
stanced the case of such a writer as Baxter, where he
would have to hunt through half-a-dozen folio volumes.
The case was imaginary, as there is no collected edition
of Baxter's controversial works. I generally had to quote
from tracts, the name of which is always mentioned.
When the quotation is from a book, the subject itself will
generally indicate the chapter, which may be easily found
by the table of contents. In this volume I have more fre
quently given the page in figures, at least when the quo
tation is direct. In other cases, the substance of what is
said will be found not far from the quotation.
It has been objected that it is difficult to know when I
sun Diving wi,Mf an author says, or only drawing my own
inferences, but this is a difficulty almost inseparable from
PEEFACE. vii
tins kind of writing. The principle I have adopted is to
state impartially what I supposed any author to mean.
This is sometimes done partly in the author's words and
partly in mine. When I am speaking expressly for myself,
it is done so as there can be no doubt who is speaking.
The present volume completes the seventeenth century,
with the addition of the chief part of the Deist controversy.
I have kept strictly to the plan of merely recording what
men said. The significance of these controversies and their
value to the philosophy of history may appear more clearly
in the last volume. It is better that the reader should be
left for the present to his own conclusions, and not be dis
tracted by anything which I have to say. The mere history
will itself refute many arguments which are vehemently
urged in party controversies. It will also, it is to be hoped,
save a great deal of writing, for many men will see that
all they have to say has been said already.
vi PREFACE.
representative value. It has been intimated that there is a
principle of progress or development to be traced in this
history, but I have not been forward to trace it. Its stages
are not abruptly marked, and it is better that they should
be left to show themselves in their final results. An oak
requires centuries to complete its growth, and for that
very reason, we do not think of measuring it every day to
see how much it has grown.
Several reviewers have expressed a wish for more dates
and references. With this wish I have endeavoured to
comply, but without admitting that the first volume was
deficient in either of these. Dates were not always given
in figures, but it was generally mentioned who was Arch
bishop of Canterbury at the time of any controversy or the
public activity of any great writer. I did not see the
necessity of giving a reference for every quotation. This
might be necessary in an argument, but it is not always
necessary in giving an analysis of the subject or the con
tents of a book. One reviewer complained of the hardship
of being unable to find the context when he met anything
remarkable which he wished to examine further. He in
stanced the case of such a writer as Baxter, where he
would have to hunt through half-a-dozen folio volumes.
The case was imaginary, as there is no collected edition
of Baxter's controversial works. I generally had to quote
from tracts, the name of which is always mentioned.
When the quotation is from a book, the subject itself will
generally indicate the chapter, which may be easily found
by the table of contents. In this volume I have more fre
quently given the page in figures, at least when the quo
tation is direct. In other cases, the substance of what is
said will be found not far from the quotation.
It has been objected that it is difficult to know when I
am Diving wh:il mi snithor says, or only drawing my own
inference^ l>ut this is a difficulty almost inseparable from
PREFACE. vii
this kind of writing. The principle I have adopted is to
state impartially what I supposed any author to mean.
This is sometimes done partly in the author's words and
partly in mine. When I am speaking expressly for myself,
it is done so as there can be no doubt who is speaking.
The present volume completes the seventeenth century,
with the addition of the chief part of the Deist controversy.
I have kept strictly to the plan of merely recording what
men said. The significance of these controversies and their
value to the philosophy of history may appear more clearly
in the last volume. It is better that the reader should be
left for the present to his own conclusions, and not be dis
tracted by anything which I have to say. The mere history
will itself refute many arguments which are vehemently
urged in party controversies. It will also, it is to be hoped,
save a great deal of writing, for many men will see that
all they have to say has been said already.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
Page
Schemes of Comprehension ........ 1
The Church and the Zing 2
Bishop Wilkins' scheme ........ 3
Zeal of the Commons against Nonconformists ... 4
Controversies on toleration 4
Nonconformists vindicated 5
Thomas Tomkyns against toleration ..... 5
John Corbet advocates a Broad Church .... 6
And pleads the moderation of Nonconformists ... 7
Dr. Perrinchief answers John Corbet ..... 7
And shows that toleration only increases schismatics . . 8
Ilerbert Thorndike answers John Corbet .... 9
Archbishop Sheldon's patronage of the intolerant clergy . 9
Samuel Parker protests against the claims of conscience . 10
And shows the danger to the state from toleration . . .11
Bishop Croft's 'Naked Truth ' 11
The Fathers not to be followed as authorities . . .12
The Church should be built on a rock, and not on ceremonies 13
John Wilson's * Nehushtan ' . . . . . . .14
The Lord's Supper abused — why not abolished? . . . 14
Simon Patrick's « Friendly Debate ' 1.5
He forgets the lessons he learned at Cambridge . . .16
Stillingfleet's ' Mischief of Separation ' and ' Ircnicum ' . 1(>
x TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Controversies on toleration — continued.
Schism defined "
Nonconformists agree with the Church in doctrine . 17
Baxter answers Stillingfleet 18
Conformity made more difficult by the Act of Uniformity . 18
Stillingfleet charges Baxter with ' the sin of schism ' . 19
He is answered by John Owen . . . 20
And by ' Some Nonconformists ' 21
'Assent and consent' scarcely to be given even to the
Bible .... . . 22
The 'Congregational Brethren* plead for a Broad Na
tional Church .22
Stillingfleet on the ' Unreasonableness of Separation' . .23
The Old Puritans opposed to separation . . . .23
' The Conformists' Pleas for the Nonconformists . . .24
Dr. Whitby's ' Protestant Reconciler ' 25
The Scriptures not a rule for ceremonies . . . .26
Henry Dodwell on * Separation from Episcopal Churches ' . 26
The Bishop constitutes the Church 27
Episcopal sacraments necessary to salvation . . . .28
Roman Catholic Controversy in the time of James II. . . . 29
Gibson's ' Preservative ' 29
Dr. Stratford on ' The Necessity of the Reformation ' . .30
Continued by Dr. Claget 30
And Gilbert Burnet 31
Dr. Cave vindicates the Church of England from the charge
of schism 31
Dean Hascard from the charge of novelty . . . .31
No proper priesthood in the Church of England . . .32
Knglisk orders valid and regular . . . . . .33
Christ alone a proper priest ....... 33
Dr. Lloyd on ' Papal Supremacy ' 34
Dr. Resbury on the ' Visible Church ' 35
Dr. Freeman on the ' Catholic Church ' .... 35
On the name l Catholic ' 36
Roman Catholics called ' Catholics ' only in conventional
language 36
Dr. Patrick on Antiquity ....... 37
The Church of England not new 38
John Williams on ' Uninterrupted Duration ' ... 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
Page
"Roman Catholic Controversy in the time of James II. — continued.
Popes that have been heretics 38
Dr. Fowler on 'Amplitude, or Multitude and Variety of
Believers' 38
Dr. Thorp on the ' Succession of Bishops' . . . .39
Dr. Payne on 'Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive
Church' 39
Dr. Claget on the ' Union of the Members among themselves
and with their Head' ........ 40
Dr. Scott on ' Sanctity of Doctrine ' 40
Dr. Linford on ' Efficacy of Doctrine ' . . . . .41
Thomas Tenison on ' Holiness of Life ' .... 42
Resbury on the * Glory of Miracles ' 42
Other notes of the Church 42
Tenison and Sherlock on ' The Eule of Faith ... 43
Dry den's ' Hind and Panther' 44
A Eoman Catholic monarch not compatible with the existence of
the Church of England 45
Passive obedience 45
SamuelJohnson's ' Julian the Apostate' . . . .46
Was the Roman empire hereditary ? . . . .46
Julian treated with contempt by the Christians . . .47
The Bishop of Nazianzum threatens to 'kick ' Julian . . 48
The Christians sing psalms against him . . . .48
And dance in their churches when they hear of his death . 49
The first Christians suffered according to the laws, under
Julian against the laws . . . . . . .49
The King subject to the law ....... 50
' Constantius the Apostate,' an answer to ' Julian ' . . 50
' Jovian,' another answer to * Julian' . . . . .51
The Roman empire not hereditary . . . . .52
The Bishop of Nazianzum did not wish to kick the Emperor 52
No tyrants to be resisted if they are kings . . . .53
Sherlock's ' Case of Resistance ' 54
' Julian's Arts to Undermine and Extirpate Christianity ' . 55
Constantius not an Apostate 55
The Homilies do not teach passive obedience . . .56
The compilers of them assisted other nations against evil
rulers ........... 56
The Christians resisted Julian .... 57
xii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Passive obedience — continued.
Non-resistance practically refuted . . 57
The bishops oppose the exercise of the royal prerogative, and
are prosecuted and acquitted 59
The conversion of Dr. Sherlock ... .60
He advocates allegiance to William and Mary . . .61
His conversion due to Bishop Overall's ' Convocation Book ' . 61
Sherlock's adversaries 62
His doctrine resolved into Might is Right . . . .63
Cromwell's government legalized by Sherlock's rule . . 63
The Non jurors deny that there has been a ' thorough ' set
tlement . . 64
Dr. Hickes answers Sherlock 65
Stillingfleet writes against the New Separation . . .66
Proves from English history the lawfulness of the new oaths 67
The Nonjurors and Schism . . . . . . - 67
The Nonjuring bishops . 68
Sancroft's sermon at the first consecration after the Restoration 68
Crete and England compared . • " . • . . • . . .69
Sancroft recommends a friendly alliance with Nonconformists 70
Bishop Ken . . . . 70
A narrow Churchman 71
His sermon on Daniel 72
Bishop Turner answers 'Naked Truth' . . - . . .72
Disputes the brevity of the Christian creed . . . .73
Recommends that people be compelled to go to church . . 74
Bishop Thomas 74
Dr. Hickes' Sermons . .• 75
Charles II. the head stone of the corner . . . .75
Hickes on the ' Real Presence ' 76
On the French Protestants 77
John Kettlewell 78
His rational explanations of faith and revelation . . .79
Limits his explanations ........ 79
Attaches great importance to the mere rites of religion . . 79
Defends passive obedience 80
Jeremy Collier and the immorality of the stage . . .81
The Usages controversy 82
Charles Leslie 82
His doctrines .... 83
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xlii
Page
The Nonjurors and Schism — continued.
Leslie's views of episcopal authority 84
Henry Dodwell 85
The soul made immortal by episcopal baptism . . .85
Dodwell consistently condemns the English .Reformation . 86
The Church of England become schismatical . . . .86
The last of the Nonjurors . . . . . . .87
Isaac Barrow 88
On the Creed 89
His theology .90
On the sacraments ......... 09
His sermons ethical ........ 91
Makes religion appeal to the interests of men . . .92
On the Pope's Supremacy ... .92
St. Peter's supposed primacy 93
St. Peter left no will ... .... 94
Archbishop Leighton . 95
ACalvinist 96
Opposed to oaths and impositions . 96
And to re- ordination 97
CHAPTER VIII.
A new era in the history of the Church of England . . .98
Archbishop TiUotson -99
Importance of an acquaintance with his theology . . . 100
Decline of sacerdotalism, witchcraft, and Calvinism . . 100
On the atonement . . . . • • • » • 101
On the moral constitution of man • 102
On the influence of rewards and punishments
Appeals to self-interest ....
The old theology struggles with the new . . . -104
Reason and faith ....
Moral certainty of the truth of Christianity . .107
Argument from miracles 10?
Inspiration
xiy TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Archbishop Tillotson— continued.
The veracity of God the foundation of faith . . 109
Natural religion more certain than revealed .
Archbishop Sharp
On the Church 112
On the truth of Christianity U3
On predestination H^
Faith and reason ... ... 114
On the Sabbath I15
On the Eucharist US
liishop Kidder US
The ' Demonstration of the Messias ' w . • 116
Against the Jews 117
Prophecies of the Messias 117
Was the Messias to work miracles ? 118
Miracles a good testimony .• 119
Evidence that Jesus wrought miracles . . 120
The Messias was to suffer . .- . . . 120
Jewish genealogies uncertain .... 121
On the Pentateuch . . : • . . 122
Bishop Patrick r . . 123
At Cambridge . . 124
Becomes a Conformist ........ 125
On the Sacraments 125
The Puritan doctrine of Sacraments 126
Baptism explained as admission to a covenant . . . 126
1 Mensa Mystica ' . 127
On the ' real presence '........ 128
The sacrifice of the Supper 128
' The Witnesses of Christianity ' 129
Bishop Fowler 130
On the Latitudinarians 131
The Christianity of Christ 131
Christianity rational ........ 132
The Latitudinarians and doctrine 133
The * Design of Christianity ' 134
Bishop Stillingfleet 135
The ' Irenicum ' 135
The primitive Church a broad Church 136
No church polity in the New Testament .... 136
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
Page
Bishop Stillingfleet — continued.
Origin and development of church government . . . 137
The ' Origines Sacrse ' 138
Scripture histories defended 139
The genesis of Deism 140
Dr. Laud's ' Labyrinth,' or how do we know the Scriptures
to be divine without the infallible Church ? 141
Laud defended 141
Faith resolved into probabilities which amount to moral cer
tainty 142
Archbishop Tenison . . .143
Conference with Pulton 144
Tenison's charity , . . 145
Bishop Burnet 145
On Christ's satisfaction for sin 145
On Episcopacy 146
On baptism 147
On the eucharist 147
Bishop Moore 148
Bishop Grove 149
Bishop Williams .149
On revelation .......... 150
The certainty of it 151
Marks of the true revelation 151
Miracles not necessary for immediate revelation . . . 152
The truth of Scripture 153
It rests on the providence of God 153
William Sherlock 154
His ' Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ ' . . 154
Denies the doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice . . 155
John Scott 150
On rational religion ........ 157
On the ' Christian Life ' 157
Natural religion the foundation of revealed .... 158
Dr. William Outram 158
On the sacrifice of Christ 158
Christ an expiatory victim . 159
Dr. Daniel Whitby 160
On the evidences of Christianity ...... 161
Christian miracles and other miracles ..... 161
xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Dr. Daniel Whitby — continued.
The miracles of the early Church .
On original sin
God's justice defended 164)
Original sin and infant baptism •
Sermon on reason 165
All parties assume the supremacy of reason .
God knowable if revealed ..;-.. • 167
The Scriptures the only rule of faith 167
Christians to prove all things
Later creeds more obscure than the Apostles' Creed . .169
Joseph Glanvill . .- . . . . . . -170
His scepticism . . . . . • » • • • 170
On the pre-existence of souls . . ••• 171
The theories of creation and propagation of souls refuted . 172
Pre-existence of souls proved from Scripture .... 173
Lord Bacon and induction . . . . .- . • .174
The Eoyal Society ..... ... 174
Its history by Bishop Sprat - 174
Christianity and philosophy ..... . . • 175
Supposed danger to religion from natural studies . . .175
Christianity established by the inductive method . . . 176
The Church of England the patron of science . . . 177
And represents the commercial and enterprising genius of the
nation . . . 178
The Hon. Robert Boyle .. .. ... 179
His ' Excellency of Theology' • 179
By ' theology ' he means ' revelation ' as distinguished from
natural theology . . . . 180
1 The Christian Virtuoso ' • . . . . • . . .181
' Discourse of Things above Reason ' . . • 182
The ' Discourse ' continued ....... 183
John Locke . . . . 183
On grounds of certainty 184
Morality eternal 184
Revelation altogether distinct from natural religion . . 185
Yet not to be received if it contradicts natural knowledge . 186
Locke denies that natural religion is clearer than revealed . 187
The ' Reasonableness of Christianity ' . . . . 188
Locke orthodox on the atonement . . 188
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xvii
Page
John Locke — continued.
Cessation of being the natural result of Adam's sin . . 189
Locke's opponents ......... 190
Sir Isaac Newton 191
His interpretation of prophecy 191
On the Trinitarian texts 192
On the Arian controversy 192
Himself an Arian . 193
CHAPTER IX.
The supremacy of reason 194
Dr. Bury's ' Naked Gospel ' 195
The Gospel is mainly love to God and man .... 195
Faith means obedience 196
Speculations concerning the incarnation not recessary and
dangerous 197
The Gospel independent of the speculations .... 198
Le Clerc vindicates ' The Naked Gospel ' 199
William Nicholls refutes ' The Naked Gospel ' 200
Beginning of the great Trinitarian controversy .... 201
Thomas Firmin's tracts ........ 202
The Athanasian Creed not Catholic 202
Sherlock on the Trinity 203
Makes saving faith belief in the Athanasian Creed . . . 203
The Trinity. — Three persons but one substance . . . 204
Dr. Wallis on the Trinity 205
Dr. Jane answers Dr. Wallis 206
Dr. Wallis answered by a Unitarian ..... 207
And by an Arian 207
Dr. Wallis defends himself 208
Dr. Jane receives Sherlock's view of the Trinity, but rejects
his explanations ......... 208
South answers Sherlock 209
Mystery defined 210
Person defined . . . . . . . . .211
Different forms of the Trinity . . . . . .212
b
xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
TIu- great Trinitarian controversy — continued.
South's view that of the schoolmen • • • 213
John Howe on the Trinity . • 213
Person not the same as substance .... • 214
Sherlock answers Howe ....... 214
Firmin's ' Third Collection of Tracts ' . .215
Unitarians did not deny the expiatory sacrifice of Christ . 216
Bishop Burnet on the Trinity .... 217
Unitarians worship Christ . ... 217
Tillotson on the Trinity ... • 218
The Word made flesh . .218
Dr. Williams defends Tillotson . . 219
Bishop Burnet on satisfaction ... . 219
' The Agreement of the Unitarians with the Catholic Church ' 219
No real difference between Unitarians and Trinitarians . . 220
Sherlock's doctrine condemned by the University of Oxford . 221
Sherlock preaches against reason before the Lord Mayor and
Aldermen 221
Declares that what Scripture says is to be received, though
contrary to reason ........ 222
Dr. Thomas Burnet's Archaeologise Philosophies .... 223
His ' Theory of the Earth ' . .223
No seas nor hills before the Flood 223
How the mountains were formed ...... 224
St. Peter on the world before the Flood . . . 224
Dr. Burnet's heresies refuted by Bishop Croft . . . 224
Burnet declares the Mosaic creation to be a myth . . . 225
Charles Blount and Deism 225
His ' Life of Apollonius ' . 226
Nathaniel Taylor replies to Blount's ' Oracles of Reason ' . 226
Kevelation necessary because of the doctrine of satisfaction . 227
Charles Leslie's ' Short and Easy Method with the Deists ' . . 228
The impossibility of the books of Moses being forgeries . . 229
Arguments for the truth of Christianity . .... 229
Charles Gildon converted by Leslie's ' Short and Easy
Method' 230
And writes ' The Deists' Manual ' 231
Leslie refutes the Unitarians 231
Denies that they are Christians 232
Tillotson to be a blasphemer, a Deist, and an Atheist 233
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xix
Page
Charles Leslie — continued.
1 The Growth of Deism ' .234
' The Five Groans of the Church ' 235
' The Growth of Error ' 235
John Toland 236
His ' Christianity not Mysterious ' 236
Its object to defend Christianity 237
He applies Bacon's method to the Scriptures .... 237
Reason is above Fathers and Councils ... . 238
Toland builds on Locke's philosophy 239
Revelation must agree with our natural ideas . . . 240
Nothing in the Gospel above reason 241
No mystery in Christianity 242
The Fathers on Toland's side 242
Mysteries introduced into Christianity from the Pagans . 243
' Christianity not Mysterious ' presented by the Grand Jury
of Middlesex 243
Burned by order of the Irish Parliament . . . 244
Eefuted by Oliver Hill 245
By Thomas Beconsall 245
By John Gailhard 245
By Thomas Beverley 245
By John Norris 246
By Peter Browne, afterwards Bishop of Cork . . . 247
By Edward Synge, Archbishop of Tuam .... 248
Toland the cause of the controversy between Locke and
Stillingfleet 248
Locke repudiates Toland's principles ..... 249
Toland's ' Letters to Serena ' . . . . . . . 250
Toland generally supposed to be a Deist .... 251
He writes the 'Life of Milton' 251
Ascribes ' Eikon Basilike' to Bishop Gauden . . . . 252
Dr. Blackball preaches against Toland before the House of
Commons 252
Toland defends the ' Life of Milton ' 252
And raises a controversy about the canon of Scripture . . 253
Samuel Clarke on the defence of the ' Life of Milton ' . . 253
Stephen Nye defends the canon of Scripture . . . 253
Richardson's ' Canon of the New Testament Vindicated ' . 254
Jeremiah Jones vindicates the canon . . . . . 255
// -2
XX TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
John Toland — continued.
Toland publishes ' ^azarenus ' 256
Maintains that the Ebionites were the Nazarenes . . . 257
Thomas Mangey answers ' Nazarenus ' 257
Defends the Gentile Christians 258
Thomas Brett on * Nazarenus ' 259
Paterson's ' Anti-Nazarenus '. ...... 259
Toland's character 259
His excessive vanity 260
His ' Pantheisticon ' 261
His epitaph for himself 262
Dr. South 262
A Calvinist 263
Yet his theology often rational 263
His ' moral preaching '........ 264
Eeligion profitable and ' safe ' 265
Bishop Bull 265
On justification 266
The ' Harmonia Apostolica ' 266
Answers to it 267
' Defence of the Nieene Faith ' 267
Testimony of the Fathers . . . . . .268
'The Judgment of the Catholic Church' . . . .268
Bishop Beveridge 269
The theology of Calvin has the universal consent of the
Fathers 270
John Norris 271
His theology from Malebranche 271
The Logos in all men .-'.•' 271
John Ray 272
Belongs to the Royal Society 272
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. : —
Tracts on the Unitarian controversy . ... 273
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxi
CHAPTER X.
Page
The Act of Toleration 279
Vindicated by John Locke .... . 279
The Church of England and the civil magistrate . . . 280
The duties of the State distinct from those of the
Church .- 281
Locke's doctrine of Church and State that of the Church of
England 281
The Bill of Comprehension 281
Its provisions 282
The Eoyal Commission 283
Their discussions 284
Changes in the Prayer-book 285
The Nonconformists satisfied ....... 285
Sects beyond the reach of comprehension ..... 286
The Quakers 286
They pretend a Divine commission ..... 287
The Quakers and the Bible 287
William Penn 288
His theology 288
On satisfaction for sin and imputed righteousness . . . 289
He denies that satisfaction was necessary .... 290
' Christ within ' 290
The Spirit and the Scriptures 291
Is the Spirit enough without the Scriptures ? 291
The Pagans had the light within 292
Which is the rule of faith — the Spirit or the Scrip
tures? 293
Creeds disparaged 294
Toleration advocated 295
Barclay's ' Apology ' 295
The Quakers had no affection for Cromwell .... 295
Their Divine Commission . 296
xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
William Penn — continued.
What is revelation ? 296
Revelation universal 297
And not limited to the Bible 298
Quakers orthodox . 299
George Keith answers Penn and Barclay . . . 300
Keith's 'Retractations' 300
Light within not the rule of faith . . . 301
The Quakers and Deism 302
Charles Leslie against the Quakers . 303
Their blasphemy 303
The Baptists 304
John Bunyan .......... 304
His terrible theology 305
His too literal interpretations of Scripture .... 306
Incongruities of his theology . . • 306
His controversial writings . 307
His answer to Dr. Fowler's * Design of Christianity ' . . 308
On reprobation 309
On the Sabbath 310
On close communion 311
Baptism indifferent 311
Not necessary to make a Christian 312
Union of Presbyterians and Independents 313
Occasional Conformity 314
The Lord Mayor at Pinners' Hall 314
De Foe on occasional conformity ...... 315
Answered by John Howe . . . . . . .315
' The Shortest Way ' with the Dissenters . . . .316
Sacheverell and Leslie against occasional Conformity . . 317
' Moderation a Virtue '........ 318
Lord Barrington on occasional conformity .... 318
Bishop Burnet defends it ....... 319
Dr. Bates 320
Necessity of satisfaction for sin ...... 321
John Flavel 321
On the soul 322
Samuel Clark 322
On verbal inspiration . 322
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxm
Page
Samuel Clark — continued.
He proves it from Scripture itself .
Maintains the Divine authority of the Hebrew points . . 324
Changes among the Presbyterians . • 324
Thomas Emlyn . .
Teaches Arianism ... • 326
Denies that Christ is the supreme God . . 327
Answered by Joseph Boyse . • 327
On the worship of Christ
Do Roman Catholics give Christ the highest wor
ship? .... .329
Augustine worshipped Christ's humanity . . 330
Bishop Fowler on the pre-existence of Christ . 330
Emlyn on Leslie's ' Dialogues ' . . . 331
On baptism
CHAPTER XI.
Natural religion .... .333
Eeason and revelation . . . 333
Authority of Scripture . . 334
Nathaniel Culverwell .... .334
' The Light of Nature ' . .334
No jarring between faith and reason . . . 334
Light of nature seen in the Pagan world . 335
Eternal law really God ........ 335
Extent of the law of nature ....... 336
Human reason is divine .... . 337
The Scriptures the foundation of the Church
William Wollaston .338
His ' Religion of Nature Delineated '
Reason shows that there is a God ... . 339
Objections to a special Providence . . . . 340
xxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
William Wollaston — continued.
Human duties 341
' The Religion of Jesus Delineated ' 3 11
From Christianity to Deism 342
Lord Shaftesbury 342
Ridicule the test of religion . . . . . ' . 343
This liable to be misunderstood 344
The Jews could not endure raillery 345
The disposition of mind necessary for the consideration of
religion .......... 346
Morality eternal . . • 347
And not dependent on the word of God , 347
Right and wrong discernible by reason, and by their con
sequences 348
Rewards and punishments a security for virtue . . . 349
Deism not fairly inferred from Shaftesbury 's doctrine of
virtue 349
Selfishness has a good as well as a bad sense . . . 350
' Whatever is, is right ' 351
Pope's ' Essay on Man' ....... 352
Man's error in supposing himself the final cause of crea
tion 352
The Author of nature studies the general good . . . 353
Individuals sacrificed for the general good .... 354
Physical and moral evil serve the general good . . . 354
Shaftesbury 's theology follows Spinoza 355
Pope follows Shaftesbury ....... 356
Relation of optimism to Christianity 357
Foundation of Shaftesbury's Deism ..... 357
His treatment of miracles ....... 358
On the rule of faith 358
Supremacy of reason ........ 359
Brown's ' Essay on the Characteristics ' . . . . 360
Shows that anything may be ridiculed 361
The unselfish philosophy reviewed 361
Balguy's ' Letter to a Deist ' 362
He maintains the necessity of rewards 363
Anonymous replies to Shaftesbury 36 1
A ' Letter not in Raillery ' 365
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxv
Page
Lord Shaftesbury — continued.
' Bart'lemy Fair ' ... 365
Mandeville's ' Fable of the Bees ' 365
He defends vice 366
Bishop Butler on Shaftesbury 366
Berkeley's ' Minute Philosopher ' 367^"
On ridicule applied to test religion 368
Warburton on Shaftesbury 369
Anthony Collins 369~
Use of reason in religion 370
Revelation must not contradict reason 371
Contradictions, however, may be only apparent . . . 371
' Vindication of the Divine Attributes ' 372
Immateriality of the soul does not prove its immortality . 373
1 Discourse of Free- thinking' 373
Duty of free-thinking 374
' Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles ' 375
' The Grounds and Reasons ' 376
Prophecies have a sense typical or secondary . . . 377
Whiston's views on prophecy ...... 378
Says the Old Testament texts were corrupted by the
Jews . . . 378
This incredible 378
Answers to Collins . • . . . . . . . 372
By Richard Bentley 380
Dr. Francis Hare 381
Dr. Daniel Williams 381
And John Addicombe ........ 382
Bishop Chandler on prophecy 382
Universal expectation of a Messiah among the Jews and
Gentiles 383
Virgil and the Messianic prophecies ..... 384
Cicero and the Sibylline verses ...... 384
The Jewish longing for the Messiah 385
Twelve Messianic prophecies 385
The messenger of the covenant 385
The coming of Elijah 385
The desire of nations .... ... 386
The Son of David . . 386
XX vi TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Anthony Collins — continued.
•The Messiah a sufferer ....
The great kingdom
The Son of man .
The seventy weeks . • 387
The ruler in Israel .
He that was to come
The rebuilding of the tabernacle of David .
The righteous servant ....
Prophecies typical and allegorical .... • 389
St. Matthew's quotations from the Old Testament are merely
accommodations ....••••• 389
Whiston's ' Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Pro-
phecy' • 390
He restores the true text of the prophecies . .391
Samuel Clarke replies to Collins . ... 391
And Arthur Ashley Sykes ... .392
Bishop Kidder gives up Isaiah vii. 14 .. . 393
Sykes recommends moderation ...... 394
Thomas Sherlock on prophecy . 394
Samuel Chandler and Dr. Lobb on prophecy . . . 395
Collins's ' Literal Scheme ' 395
Chandler's twelve Messianic prophecies considered . . 396
1 Son of man ' the Eoman empire' 397
Zerubbabel ' the ruler in Israel ' 398
Collins's sincerity . . * . . 399
Thomas Woolston . .' .- 400
On the fulness of time .' .' .' . . . . . 400
4 The Old Apology for Christianity Eevived ' . . . . 400
' Aristobulus ' 401
4 Free Gifts to the Clergy ' . ..• 401
Woolston scarcely sane ........ 402
His object . . . 403
Allegorical interpretations ....... 404
' Discourses on the Miracles ' 404
Casting the traders out of the Temple only a parable . . 405
The demoniacs of Gadara 40C
The transfiguration 406
The woman with the issue of blood . 407
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVii
Page
Thomas Woolston — continued,
The woman with the spirit of infirmity 407
The woman of Samaria 408
The cursing of the fig-tree 408
The lame man at the pool of Bethesda 409
The five porches are the five books of Moses .... 410
The man born blind 410
The turning water into wine ....... 411
The healing of the paralytic ....... 412
The resurrection of Lazarus ....*.. 412
Was Lazarus really dead ?..*.... 413
Allegorical meaning of these miracles 414
The resurrection of Jesus 414
Woolston's opponents 415
Nathanael Lardner on the miracles 416
Simon Brown on miracles ....... 416
Bishop Smalbroke on miracles ...... 417
The Fathers did not deny the literal meaning . . . 418
A miracle defined ......... 418
False miracles ......... 419
Woolston's arguments frivolous 420
The swine in Gadara 420
The woman with the issue of blood ..... 421
The cursing of the fig-tree 421
The man at the pool of Bethesda 422
The man born blind 423
Arguments from omissions not valid ..... 424
Bishop Pearce on the miracles of Jesus 424
Objections to the resurrection of Jesus answered . . .425
The disciples did not believe that He was to rise again . . 426
Difficulties may sometimes be explained .... 426
The time of figs 427
Sherlock's ' Trial of the Witnesses ' . . . . .428
Probability or possibility of miracles 429
The resurrection of Jesus 430
Character of Woolston's mind ...... 431
Matthew Tindal 431
At Oxford . .432
High Church and Low Church 433
xxviii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Matthew Tindal — continued.
' The Rights of the Christian Church ' . . 433
' Christianity as Old as Creation ' 434
Does not depend on authority 431
But by a revelation to reason 435
The religion of nature . 436
The rational life a righteous life 437
Punishment is for the good of the sinner . . . .438
Worship is for our benefit, not for God's .... 438
Natural and revealed religion the same in essence . . . 439
Neglect of reason the cause of superstition . . . .440
Divine laws never arbitrary 441
Positive religion less important than morality . . . 441
Superstition the enemy of religion 442
And often destructive of morality 443
Creeds and rites substituted for religion .... 443
Reason infallible ......... 444
By reason we know that the Scriptures come from God . . 444
The Scriptures appeal to reason 445
And can be tested by reason 446
Internal evidence surer than external 446
Tindal and Samuel Clarke 447
Deism a consistent scheme before Christianity . . . 447
Yet insufficient 448
Perplexity of the philosophers 449
Uncertainty even under the Gospel 450
Tindal calls himself a Christian Theist 450
Dr. Stebbing against Tindal 451
He explains and defends Clarke's meaning .... 451
Doctrines necessary to salvation ..... . 452
What is Christianity ? 453
John Balguy against Tindal 454
Explains Clarke 455
And maintains the agreement of Christianity with natural
religion .......... 455
Conybeare replies to Tindal 456
Shows the necessity of revelation ...... 457
A ml makes law to depend on the will of God . . . .457
What God does cannot be arbitrary 458
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxix
Matthew Tindal — continued.
Dr. Leland replies to Tindal 459
Object of positive commands ....... 400
Insufficiency of reason ........ 460
John Jackson replies to Tindal 461
Bishop Gibson and Tindal 462
APPENDIX.
(A) Works on Practical Eeligion 463
(B) The Bishops from 1661 to 1720 467
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN
ENGLAND
VOL. II.
CHAPTER VII.
SCHEMES OF COMPREHENSION. — BISHOP CROFT ON ' NAKED
TRUTH/ - CONTROVERSIES ABOUT CONFORMITY. — STILLING-
FLEET. - BAXTER. - OWEN. - PATRICK. - WHITBY. — THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY UNDER JAMES II. - DRYDEN^S ' HIND
AND PANTHER/ - PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. - SAMUEL JOHNSON^ S
' JULIAN THE APOSTATE/ - ' CONSTANTIUS THE APOSTATE/ -
DR. HICKES' ' JOVIAN/ - JAMES II. AND THE SEVEN BISHOPS. -
SHERLOCK ON ALLEGIANCE. - ANSWERS TO SHERLOCK. - THE
NON-JURORS. - ISAAC BARROW. - ARCHBISHOP LEIGHTON.
Act of Uniformity had passed the Commons by a
J- very small majority.* It was the work of some reso
lute Churchmen who were bent on the exclusion of the
Puritans. We can only guess at the amount of favour
which it met among the great body of the clergy. Many
who had been zealous for the Covenant became ardent
Churchmen. Some refused to conform, and many, who
had overcome their own scruples, sympathized with the
Nonconformists. A year had not elapsed before some on
both sides had begun to devise schemes of comprehension. Schemes of
The majority of the nonconforming Ministers were Presby-
terians ; that is to say, they belonged to the party which
* Neal says 186 against 180. Hallam tween the two houses. The Lords
corrects Neal, and says there was no would have exempted schoolmasters,
division at all on the Bill, and only tutors, and those who had the edu-
one on a part of it. Dr. Stoughton cation of youth.' All historians are
corrects Hallam, and says that there agreed that the House of Corn-
were at least four divisions on parts mons, after the Restoration, was less
of the Bill. Neal, after all, is probably tolerant than the House of Lords.
right. He adds that ' it met with Macaulay says they were more zealous
greater obstacles among the Lords, for royalty than the King, more zealous
who offered several amendments, for Episcopacy than the bishops.
which occasioned conferences be-
VOL. II. B
2 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. bore that name, but wlio would have been satisfied with
the scheme pf Episcopacy laid down by Archbishop Ussher.
They were not far from conformity. They were peaceable
and loyal subjects. By their influence chiefly the nation
had been induced to bring back the King. Charles had
promised them considerable changes in the government and
ritual of the Church. The promise was never fulfilled. They
were now, in a sense, Nonconformists against their will.
They desired comprehension, and one party at least in the
Church desired to comprehend them.
The present comprehensive character of the Church of
England is a result of history, and not in any sense the
product of the intention of any party. At the Reformation,
The Church the Church was established on its national basis. The King
and the King. wag regar(jed as identical with the nation, and with him the
Church s%emed to stand or fall. Since that time the kings
of England had been zealous for the Church, and subjects,
who regarded themselves as pre-eminently true Churchmen,
had never failed to sacrifice life and property in defence of
the King. Like Hippocrates' twins, to use Stillingfleet's
illustration, the Church and the King rejoiced and wept to
gether. It seemed impossible that their cause could ever
be other than one. These Churchmen made two natural
mistakes. They supposed themselves to be the Church of
England, and the King to be the English people. The
Restoration triumph was of short duration, longer indeed
in appearance than in reality. The bishops, who had brow
beaten and outschemed the Puritans at the Savoy Con
ference, soon found that the King could be as faithless to
them as he had been to the Presbyterians. In the extra
vagance of their loyalty lay their danger. The divinely-
appointed ruler was secretly of another religion, if of any
religion at all. He began to devise schemes against the
Church of which he was the head. The efforts of Charles
and his successor to exercise the dispensing power in behalf
of toleration belong to the history of England. We have to
do with them here only as introducing a new element into
the controversy between Conformist and Nonconformist.*
* Charles proposed a Comprehen- gcnce for Independents, in which Ro-
sion for Presbyterians, and an Indul- man Catholics were to be included.
SCHEMES OF COMPREHENSION. 3
In 1667, the Presbyterians proposed conditions on which CHAP. VII.
they were willing to conform. The conditions were drawn
up in the form of a Bill for Parliament. It was asked that
ministers ordained by Presbyters might be instituted to
benefices by subscribing to the doctrinal articles,, and that
the word ' consent' be omitted in the subscription to the
Prayer Book, which was only to receive ' assent/ It was
asked that an incumbent who scrupled to use the Prayer
Book himself might get another clergyman to read it. The
' three nocent ceremonies ' were to be left at the option of the
minister. The Bill for this scheme was never presented
in Parliament, but it prepared the way for that which was
proposed next year to the Presbyterians. Bishop Wilkins' Bishop Wil-
scheme, as it is called, had the support of Churchmen of his J
own school, and of the leading Nonconformists. It ori- hension.
ginated with the Lord Keeper Bridgeman, and was earnestly
supported by Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Baron, and the
Earl of Manchester, who was then Lord Chamberlain. The
King was favourable, and the Duke of Buckingham took a
great interest in it, out of opposition, it is said, to Lord
Clarendon. For those ordained by Presbyters, Bishop
Wilkins proposed that they, might receive imposition of
hands by the bishop as simply a calling according to the
present law. The Bishop might use such words as these :
' Take thou legal authority to preach the Word of God, and
to administer the Sacraments, in any congregation of the
Church of England when thou shalt be lawfully called there
unto/ The word ' legaP was accepted by the Presbyterians
as a compromise, instead of a declaration that by this ordi
nation they did not renounce their former ordination. They
also suggested that there should only be required f approval '
This was regarded as an unlawful ex- separation between them and the Kino-.
ercise of the dispensing power. It The Commons still showed great /» ;il
was opposed out of hatred Loth to for the Church against the dispensing
Roman Catholics and to Noncon- prerogative of the King. They passed
formists. Instead of agreeing to the this }rear the Five-Mile-Act, by which
King's scheme of toleration, Par- every Nonconformist minister was
liament passed an Act for the prohi- forbidden, under a heavy penalty, to
bition of Conventicles. In 1665, the come within five miles of any city or
King again proposed a toleration for borough which sends a member to
Nonconformists on condition of an Parliament, or any parish in which,
annual payment. This was firmly since the ' Act of Oblivion,' he had
opposed by the bishops, and from this been ' pastor, vicar, or lecturer.'
date Clarendon reckons the complete
B2
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England ;
that some things in the Prayer Book on which there were
differences of opinion might be optional ; that the word ' sa-
cramentally' might be added after Regenerated' in the Bap
tismal Service ; the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in the
Catechism changed ; and the absolution in the Visitation of
the Sick made conditional. On all essential questions between
Conformists arid Nonconformists both sides had come to an
agreement. For once in the history of the Reformed Church
of England the wounds were almost healed. Hitherto there
had been railing controversies, in which men, moved by the
spirit of party, magnified their differences, and made the
breach wider. Now there had been a peaceable conference
between the judicious men of both sides, and the result was
a satisfactory basis for a permanent union. But the spirit
of the framers of the Act of Uniformity was still mighty in
the House of Commons. They voted that no Bill of Com-
prehension should be passed that year, but rather that the
laws against the Nonconformists be more rigidly enforced.*
Contemporaneous with proposals for toleration and decla
rations of indulgence, the Nonconformist controversy went
on under various forms. We have to trace it chiefly in a
multitude of tracts, few of which are of much value or con
tain anything which had not been often said before. The
liberal principles of Hooker were the guide of many Con
formists, but some took the narrower ground of Episcopacy
by divine right. The Nonconformists had made great pro
gress since their ancestors fought for the divine institution
of the ' Holy Discipline/ They had their turn in the work
* In 1672, the King again published
a ' Declaration of Indulgence,' which
had the same intention and the same
effect as all similar efforts. It was
meant to secure toleration for Ro
man Catholics ; it ended in allying
Churchmen with Dissenters, and in
creating new laws against all Non
conformists, whether Roman or Puri
tan. The Commons asked the King
to withdraw his 'Declaration,' and
then, with the support of the King
and the approbation of the Puritans,
1ln \ p;i<sod the Test Act, which ex
cluded Roman Catholics from civil
offices. A Bill passed the Commons
for the relief of Protestant Dissenters,
but it was rejected by the Lords.
They were thus left in the same posi
tion as the Roman Catholics. In
1675, a scheme of Comprehension,
similar to that of Bishop Wilkins,
was proposed by Tillotson, Stilling-
fleet, and other eminent Church
men, and approved by Baxter. It
is said also to have been supported
by some of the bishops who had op
posed the former Bill. The dread of
Popery tr-mlod to unite all Protest
ants.
CONTROVERSIES ON TOLERATION. 5
of compulsion in the time of the Long Parliament, bnt they CHAP. VII.
had been so often sufferers that toleration for others had be
gun to appear a necessity. For a fair estimate of the tone
of the Nonconformists of this time, we may take an anonymous
tract called ' A Proposition made to King and Parliament for
the Happiness and Safety of the Kingdom/* The author Noncpnform-
called himself ' A Lover of Sincerity/ He described the ^e™
Nonconformists as inoffensive people. There was nothing,
he said, against them but what Pliny charged on the first
Christians — that they met together for preaching and
prayer. He spoke of the zeal which some had for unifor
mity ; but that, he said, was not unity, as no external force
could change men's convictions. The multitude of Noncon
formists are described as having no objections to bishops,
organs, or the Book of Common Prayer. What they object
to is declarations, oaths, subscriptions. They are afraid to
perjure themselves. Severe impositions, the writer said,
defeat the object of the imposers. Men's spirits natu
rally rise against compulsion. In the time of Charles I.
all the Puritans wore their hair short. Laud made an order
that all the clergy should have their hair short, but the
Puritans were the first to rebel and claim the right to wear
long hair. The author recommended entire freedom of wor
ship, with the regulation that the meeting-houses might be
open during service wherever there was any fear of dis
loyalty to the King or the Government.
The answer to this tract was a specimen of the worst
spirit of the party which triumphed at the Restoration. It Thomas
was written by Thomas Tomkyns, chaplain to Archbishop
Sheldon, and is called ( The Inconveniences of Toleration/ ration.
It was denied that the Nonconformists were inoffensive
people. They could devour widows' houses as well as make
long prayers. For proof of this it was enough to mention
the times of ' the late usurper/ Toleration was condemned
in Scripture. The Church of Pergamos sinned in suffering
them to remain in its communion who held ' the doctrine
of Balaam' and 'the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes/ A
Church should keep itself pure ; it should reject those who
hold false doctrines, and have no communion with them.
* Published in 1667. The author's name is said to have been Jenkyns.
6 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
IEAR VII. The modern Puritans,, Tomkyns described as being like their
forefathers in the time of Queen Elizabeth. They chose for
troubling the Church a time when there was great trouble
in the State. But this was only in accordance with their
seditious principles. They set their own Church authority
above that of the State. This was proved by many quota
tions from documents which chiefly concerned the Presby
terians of Scotland, especially by the words of Andrew Mel
ville. When summoned before the King and his Council,
Melville said that 'what was spoken in the pulpit ought
first to be tried by the Presbytery, and neither King nor
Council might in the first instance meddle therewith, though
the speeches were treasonable/*
In the same year a similar controversy was begun by John
Corbet, in a ' Discourse of the Religion of England/ Cor
bet had been Kector of Bramshot in Hampshire, before the
Act of Uniformity. About the time of the Kestoration he
had written a book called ' The Interest of England in the
Matter of Religion/ In this book he had advocated a com
prehensive Church wide enough to embrace the bishops and
the Presbyterians. There was, he said, no ground, either
in reason or justice, why one party should be exalted and
another subverted. It would be for the interest of the State
and of the Protestant religion to protect and encourage
both parties by a just and equal accommodation. The tract
of 1667 was without the author's name, but the principles
advocated were the same. Three religious parties, the
writer said, existed in England, the Conformists, the Pro
testant Dissenters, and the Roman Catholics. The doc
trines of the last were regarded as subversive of civil
government, and for that reason toleration of them was im
possible. It was part of their religion to kill kings, and to
persecute all who differed from them. The Reformed reli
gion, on the other hand, makes good subjects and good
Christians. In the balance of Protestantism the Noncon
formists were of great moment. They were satisfied with
* Quoted on the authority of Spot- Prayer, yet they could not give their
tiswood. Jenkyns wrote an answer assent to everything without some
to Tomkyns, showing that though the change. Tomkyns wrote again in
Nonconformists could join in Common the same spirit as before.
CONTROVERSIES ON TOLERATION. 7
the Church of England in doctrine, and asked simply a CHAP. VII.
change or toleration in a few points of ecclesiastical polity.
They were not people to be despised as insignificant,, for
they represented no small part of the sobriety, frugality,
and industry of the nation. They were not fthe great
wasters, but mostly in the number of getters/ To meet the
circumstances of the times, Corbet advocated an e establish
ment, a limited toleration, and a discreet connivance.'' He
pleaded with those in power to show moderation, and to
make the great essentials of Christianity the foundation of
unity. In order to this they must revise the Act of Uni
formity. The Church of England, he said, was once divided
between Calvinists and Arminians, and now both parties
are peaceably comprehended. The difficulty of compre
hending Conformists and Nonconformists would not be
greater than this. The more solid part of the Noncon- And pleads
formists, it was urged, would readily acquiesce in a widened tion^f Non"-
establishment. Those of narrow and rigid principles were conformists.
to be persuaded to moderation. This union of Protestants
was shown to be for the interest of the King, of the clergy,
the nobility, the gentry, and indeed the whole nation.
Corbet's book was answered by Dr. Perrinchief and Dr. Perrin-
Herbert Thorndike, both Prebendaries of Westminster;
also in an anonymous tract called ( Dolus an Virtus ?' Per
rinchief' s treatise was ' A Discourse of Toleration/ He
could not justify giving licence to Dissenters and schisma
tics, for all dissension and schism had their beginning in
the evil passions of evil men. The Apostles had set forth
the authors of heresies as those who served not the Lord
Jesus Christ, but had made shipwreck of faith. This was
proved with great learning, and confirmed by the history of
the Church. The abominations of the Gnostics were not
to be named even by a sober heathen. The Donatists were
the great disturbers of the North African Church, and their
schism began at the election of Csecilianus, Bishop of
Carthage, through the ambition of Botrus and Cselesius,
two of the unsuccessful competitors for the office. Schis
matics Dr. Perrinchief describes as cunning men who lie
in wait to deceive, and who speak ' great swelling words/
Their followers have itching ears, and are laden with divers
8 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. lusts. No man can think otherwise of the greatest part of
Dissenters. They are like the old Manichees, who capti
vated St. Augustine in his youth, promising that they did
not ask faith unless 'they made the truth clear and evi
dent/ Divisions and dissensions hinder growth in grace, for
the whole body should be ' fitly joined together and com
pacted/ It is the duty of kings, as nursing fathers, and
queens, as nursing mothers of the Church, to put an end to
divisions, and to remove ''pests/ St. Paul recommends
Timothy to withdraw himself from men that are given to
perverse disputings, and to reject heretics. Heresies are
injurious, not only to the Church but also to the State.
Constantine experienced this when he complained that he
could not go to war with Persia because of the heresy of
Arius.
Shows that So far Dr. Perrinchief has proved the mischief done by
only increases schismatics. He then shows that toleration only increases
schismatics. the perverse generation. Julian the Apostate knew this
when he gave ' public liberty to all and every sect of the
Galileans/ One of his courtiers, Ammianus Marcellinus,
says that c he did this with so much the more industry, that
toleration and licence increasing their dissensions, he need
not for the time to come fear that people would agree to
gether, he having had experience that no beasts are more
savage to men than most of the Dissenting Christians are
to one another/ The same results are found in the history
of the Donatists. No sooner did Constantine give them tole
ration, than their followers, the Circuincelliones, went through
the towns and villages resisting the governors of provinces,
delivering debtors from creditors, setting slaves free from
their masters, and many other acts of injustice. But when
Honorius made severe laws against them, the fiercest of the
Circumcelliones, as St. Augustine tells the heretic Vincen-
tius, ' became manifestly good Catholics, and condemned
their former conversation and miserable error/ But for
toleration, we should never have heard of such sects as
Seekers and Quakers. Perrinchief adds that sectaries can
not be classed with Conformists as peaceable subjects, but
must be excluded from toleration as enemies of the govern
ment, on the same ground that we exclude Catholics. In a
CONTROVERSIES ON TOLERATION. 9
continuation of the controversy, Perrinchief proved that CHAP. VII.
toleration was opposed by Christ and His Apostles, by the
first Christians, by all Christian emperors in the first ages
of Christianity, and by all emperors of modern times. Ne
cessity alone, he said, could justify it, and a standing army
would be necessary to make it safe.*
Thorndike also denied that the Presbyterians were good Herbert
subjects. It is often difficult to find out his meaning, for Jnswera John
his arguments are generally obscure, anjl his language some- Corbet,
times unintelligible. The scope of the treatise seems to be
that as Latitudinarianism was becoming strong in the Univer
sities, and threatening to inundate the Church, we could get
no help from the Presbyterians. Their tendencies were all
in the same direction. This was proved from the writings of
Episcopius, in which the Trinity and original sin were
regarded as open questions. To comprehend the Presby
terians, would be to give them equal authority with ' the
Catholic Church/ It would be opening the door for the
influx of heresies worse than theirs, and these would ' make
hay in the sunshine/ The proper remedy is to enforce
' the Catholic faith/ and the laws of ' the primitive Church
within the first six General Councils/ It is the business
of those in authority to compel all parties to stand to that
on which the primitive Church was agreed.f
These writers were protected and promoted by Archbishop Archbishop
Sheldon, who wrote no books, but who never scrupled to ratronage of
identify himself with the narrowest Conformists, and never the intolerant
faltered in his opposition to every class of Dissenters. His c
next chaplain after Tomkyns was the notorious Samuel
Parker, who died Bishop of Oxford under the second James.
Parker had been originally an Independent and a virulent
enemy of the Church. He came over to the Conformists,
but he brought his virulence with him, which was changed
only as to the objects against whom it was directed. In 1670
he published his ' Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity/ In
* Corbet wrote ' A Second Dis- < A Peace Offering-, or Plea for Indul-
course of ^ the Religion of England,' gence.'
and Perrinchief 'A Continuation of f The ' Dolus an Virtus?' did not
the Discourse of Toleration ; or, In- deal in argument, its substance was
dulgence not justified,' which con- expressed in the motto, Vcc vobis hy-
tained also an answer to a tract called pocritcc !
10 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. the full title it is described as a defence ' of the authority of
the civil magistrate over the consciences of his subjects in
matters of religion/ It promises also to set forth ' the mis
chief and inconveniences of toleration/ and to answer ' all
protests pleaded in behalf of liberty of conscience/ The
doctrine usually ascribed to Hobbes, that all distinctions
between right and wrong have their origin in the will of the
prince is carefully disowned. Conscience and the civil ma
gistrate are both pronounced to be vicegerents of God. In
any case where right is clear, conscience is to oblige before
all laws civil or ecclesiastical. While stating these propo
sitions Parker complains of the pretences of conscience. It
claims an absolute and unlimited power over the actions of
human life. He calls it the greatest of all disturbers of
government. When subjects rebel against their sovereign,
they plead conscience. They have even put kings to death
under the guidance of their conscience; it is the great
author of rebellion in the State and of heresy and schism in
the Church. Let authority command what it mav, under
the pretence of conscience men do what they list. If the
power of the prince is not to be above this pretence, then
the authority of the prince will cease to be supreme. For
the peace and tranquillity of a commonwealth, it is necessary
that religion be subject to the authority of the sovereign.
Christianity, in all probability, would have been destroyed
but for the wisdom of Constantine in checking tumults
and seditions among Christian sects. Till the Bishop of
Rome usurped one-half of the jurisdiction, the Church
was well governed by the vigilance of the emperors. In
the times of the Apostles the lack of civil jurisdiction was
supplied by miracles; Church censures were then followed
by immediate divine punishments. One of the first prin
ciples of the Reformation was the reassertion of the civil
power in matters of religion. This was done in all the Re
formed Churches, but especially in the Church of England.
Those who deny this power under pretence of being led
by the Spirit, Parker calls 'pragmatical divines/ The civil
magistrate has power to enforce laws of morality, from
which it is inferred that he must also have power to enforce
ritual. The ground of this inference is, that with the rude
'THE NAKED TRUTH/ II
multitude superstition is a greater enemy to God than licen- CHAP. VII.
tiousness. To permit different sects of religion in a com- Show^h"0
inonwealth is only to make so many occasions for public dis- danger to the
turbance, religious factions being ever the most seditious, toleration 0£
Hobbes' doctrine, according to Parker, was injurious, be- different
cause it denied the existence of Deity. But the civil magis- re glor
trate finds religion of great service to the government of a
State. There is no fear so vehement as the fear of hell ;
there are no hopes so powerful as the hopes of heaven.
These have infinitely greater force to deter men from evil
than any interests that are merely secular. The practical
conclusion to which Parker comes is, that if the Noncon
formists have weak and tender consciences, they should cast
the responsibility on those who have authority in Church
and State. For the well-being of a commonwealth it is
absolutely necessary that men's consciences be governed.
Differences of religion should not be tolerated; and uni
formity should be enforced on the same principle that laws
are made for ordering all ' the other affairs and transactions
of human life/
It would be a libel on the Church of England to suppose
that it was ever fairly represented by such men as Gilbert
Sheldon, Samuel Parker, or Herbert Thorn dike. Within
the Church there were many anxious for the comprehen
sion of Nonconformists, and willing to leave, as indifferent,
all the points about which they scrupled. In 1675, Herbert Bishop Croft's
Croft, Bishop of Hereford, appeared as ' An Humble Mode- rj
rator/ in a book which he called ' The Naked Truth, or the
True State of the Primitive Church/ The Bishop told the
Lords and Commons that all their zeal for enforcing uni
formity had visibly failed; it was now time to try some
other method than compulsion. He proposed, as the sole
confession of faith, the Apostles' Creed. It was sufficient
for the primitive Church and it ought to be sufficient for us.
Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch for nothing more than
the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. En
forced subscriptions to articles of faith might be well meant,
but the history of the Church testifies that they have done
nothing but evil. A plain commandment is broken to esta
blish what, after all, is only a doubtful truth. The Scrip-
12 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. ture, the Bishop said, is itself a complete rule of faith.
Without the help of formularies, it is able to make men wise
unto salvation. We appeal to the Fathers, but we forget
that many of the Fathers had been philosophers, and had
brought into the Gospel their ( school terms and dearly-
beloved sciences/ St. Paul foresaw this when he warned
Christians against ' philosophy and vain deceit/ Constan-
tine at one time intended to forbid the use in Christianity
of all terms not derived from Scripture. Had he done
what he intended, the Arian heresy would have expired,
and we should never have heard either of Homoousian or
Homoiousian.
The Fathers Bishop Croft thinks that our Eeformers being educated
lowed as C " *n ^e Church of Rome, had an undue reverence for the
authorities, judgment of the Fathers. They were disposed to admit
their authority for three or four centuries, some for five or
six. This brought them into great difficulties in their con
troversies with Koman Catholics. It would have been wiser
if they had claimed the same right of judging for them
selves which the old Fathers claimed. Cyprian, for instance,
says that a bishop is to be guided by his own reason and
conscience, being responsible for his doctrines to God only.
Augustine says that he submits to no doctor of the Church,
be he ever so learned or ever so holy, any further than he
proves his doctrine by Scripture or by reason. And he asks
that other men would do the same as to his teaching. A
strict adherence to the Fathers, the Bishop adds, was not
necessary in controversies with Roman Catholics. There is
no Father from whom they do not differ on some point.
The Fathers were as liable to err as we are. Two of the
earliest of them — Papias and Irenaeus — were Millenarians.
Augustine erred in some of the things concerning which he
was most confident, as the necessity of baptism and the
Lord's Supper for the salvation of infants, and his certainty
that there were no antipodes. As to Councils, if the later
erred, as all our Reformers said, why not the earlier also ?
The gates of hell shall not indeed prevail against the Church,
but where is it said that they shall not prevail against
General Councils ? On the contrary, the Scriptures tell us
that in the days of Antichrist the true Church shall be driven
on ceremones.
CEREMONIES INDIFFERENT. 13
into the wilderness and shall scarcely be visible by the CHAP. VII.
world.
As to ceremonies,, the Bishop wonders that any could be
zealous either for or against them. He took up the usual
ground, that in matters indifferent we should obey our
rulers as children obey their parents. Yet he said it was
the duty of rulers, as well as of parents, not to provoke their
children to wrath. The Apostles complied with Jewish pre
judices in abstaining from things strangled. Our Reformers
on the same principle wisely retained the surplice, not to
make too great changes in the externals of worship. But
now, zeal for the surplice when people are generally against
its use, ' savours more of passion than of religion in the go
vernors of the Church.''* The Church should be built on a The Church
rock, and not on the sand of ceremonies. The body is more bu°jj on^
than meat. The substance is more than the shadow, rock and not
IT, ., • ,L • -i i i i i T • i» •
1 orce, it was maintained, should never be used in religion,
except against those who troubled the State. It was im
possible to make men really believe contrary to their convic
tions. To compel the observance of mere ceremonies made
people more violent against them, because they suspected
that something was intended which was not apparent. f
On the side of the Nonconformists, John Wilson, one of
* To the plea that the white sur- to keep the people from thinking
plice was an emblem of righteousness, about the affairs of government.
the Bishop answered, ' Not surely such Marvel says that of late years the
dirty nasty surplices as some of them clergy have afforded the public con-
wear, especially the singers in the siderable pastime, and that they con-
Cathedral.' tinue to supply the press with books,
f ' Naked Truth ' was answered by of which the arguments are rare and
Samuel Parker in 1676. Parker's ridiculous. It was noticed by Dryden
vehemence evoked the satire of An- that the controversy had returned
drew Marvel. His 'Polity ' had been to the days of Elizabeth, when Mar-
ridiculed in 'The Rehearsal Trans- tin Mar- Prelate performed the part
posed.' The ' Animadversions on which Marvel does now.
Naked Truth' were now mf;de the 'Naked Truth' was also answered
subject of a humorous treatise, called by Dr. Turner, Master of St. John's,
' Mr. Smirke, or the Divine in Mode.' Cambridge, afterwards Bishop of Ely.
Of Bishop Croft's book, Marvel says Dr. Gunning, at that time Bishop of
that it is impossible for any one to Ely, preached against it in a .sermon
read it without wishing that he were before the King. Dr. Fell, Bishop of
the author of it. Parker ho cannot Oxford, wrote against it ' Lex Talionis,
treat with seriousness. It is conjee- or the Author of Naked Truth Stript
tured that he is employed by the au- Naked.' Bishop Croft was compared
thorities of the Church to amuse the to Jxidas. He said to Episcopacy
laity, on the same principle that some ' Hail, Master!' and Him betrayed it.
rulers provide public entertainments
14 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. the ejected ministers, published in 1668, ' Nehushtan,
John Wilson's a Sober and Peaceable Discourse concerning the Abolition
'Nehushtan.' of Things abused to Superstition and Idolatry/ At an
earlier period this would have been reckoned a valuable
book, but the arguments had all already done good service.
Hezekiah destroyed the brazen serpent, calling it Nehushtan,
or a lump of brass. From this it was argued that the rulers
in Church and State have authority to prohibit, in the public
worship of God, the use of things that have been abused to
idolatry. It was easy to mention many things in the primi
tive Church, as the love-feasts and the holy kiss, that had
been discontinued because they had been abused. It was
also easy to quote from the great writers of the English
Church many passages which inculcated the principle tha,t
idolatrous ceremonies should be renounced, however an
cient or venerable. Jewel, Hooker, Morton, Abbot, the
Homilies and authorized documents of the Church, are all
clear on this point. But no one, either Conformist or Pu
ritan, had ever been able to draw the line of demarcation
between the things that were to be retained and those
which were to be rejected. The Christian religion itself
had been abused to superstition, and he only that rejected
it was a thorough Puritan. The Churches themselves had
been polluted with Roman rites. The Church bells had
been used to summon people to the idolatry of the Mass.
The font had been denied with incantations in baptism
and the pulpit profaned by the presence of a mass priest.
Why then should not Church and Church bells, pulpit
and font, go the way of cope and surplice, kneeling
and crossing? They have all been abused to idolatry,
and some modern Hezekiah may call them ' Nehushtan/
John Wilson, indeed, touches the nerve of the controversy
when he comes to the question why the Lord's Supper is
not to be abolished, though it has been abused to supersti
tion. The brazen serpent was erected by command of God.
It cured the people in the days of Moses ; yet when they
burnt incense to it in the time of Hezekiah, it was taken
down and called Nehushtan. In the doctrine and worship
of the Church of Rome, there is nothing which has been so
thoroughly perverted from its original meaning, or made
THE 'FKIENDLY DEBATE.' 15
the instrument of superstition and idolatry as the Lord's CHAP. VII.
Supper. Yet no Puritan has proposed on this account to
abolish it. Wilson's answer is that it was intended by
Christ for a permanent institution. This is the best answer
that can be given. Yet the difficulty covers the whole
surface of the controversy. If the most evidently divine
institution of the Christian religion has been most abused,
who will draw the line between things to be retained and
things to be abolished ?
Simon Patrick's ' Friendly Debate between a Conformist Simon ^
and a Nonconformist' was published in 1669. It was &< Friendly
general debate on the questions of conformity, with answers Debate.'
to 'Nehushtan' and other Puritan works. Patrick was at
this time a popular preacher in London, and Rector of
St. Paul's, Covent Garden, where he had succeeded Thomas
Manton. The ' Friendly Debate' was not worthy of the
man who had been the intimate friend of John Smith, of
Cambridge. But in those days abusive polemics were not
incompatible with the most ardent piety. The beginning
of the dialogue sufficiently indicates the tone and character
of the whole book. The Conformist tells the Noncon
formist/ that as there was no law made by Christ which
compelled him to live within five miles of a market town,
he ought not therefore to break the law of the land as
expressed in the ' Five-Mile Act.' This is really said sin
cerely. It is no burlesque of the principle of obedience to
them that are above us. If the rulers in Church and State
say that we ought not to live within five miles of a market
town, and Christ does not say the contrary, then we ought
to obey. Patrick wrote ' A Continuation' and ' A Further
Continuation ' of his debate, in which he answered many
opponents.* He went over the whole ground of the contro
versy, quoting and refuting all the Puritan authors since
the time of Thomas Cartwright. Calvinism is unfairly
identified with Antinomianism, and the name flung at all
Puritans. So early did the great Churchmen forget that
the Conformists never had any difference with the Puritans
on doctrine, and especially in reference to the doctrines of
Calvin. In the dialogue the Nonconformist is represented
* The most important was < Philagathus.'
i6
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII,
Patrick for
gets the les
sons he
learned at
Cambridge.
Stillingfleet
on ' The Mis
chief of
Separation.'
His 'Ireni-
cum.'
as following an experimental or internal conviction, which
he calls ' the demonstration of the Spirit/ He opposes the
spiritual to the rational, saying that he can only hear those
preachers who have seen with their eyes and heard with
their ears and handled with their hands the Word of Life.
Patrick, in defiance of the lessons he had learned at Cam
bridge, explains ' the demonstration of the Spirit ' as the
evidence of miracles. He makes ridicule of the inward con
viction, excludes it as an evidence for truth, and seems
to rest Christianity entirely on outward facts which are be
yond the reach of experience.
But all these controversies were insignificant compared
with that which began with Stillingfleet. In 1680 he
preached a sermon before the Lord Mayor, in the Guildhall,
on ' The Mischief of Separation/ Stillingfleet was at this
time Dean of St. Paul's. It gave greater offence to the
Nonconformists, from the circumstance that the preacher
was reckoned one of the most liberal divines of the Church.
He had taken an active part, along with Tillotson, in draw
ing up the last Scheme of Comprehension, which, from the
dread of Roman Catholicism, had been eagerly supported
by both parties. In his youth, before the Restoration,
while Rector of Sutton, in Cambridgeshire, he had written
an ' Irenicum/ a work which had fairly been classed with
Jeremy Taylor's l Liberty of Prophesying/ It might be
difficult to show any real difference of sentiment between
the ( Sermon ' and the ' Irenicum/ But in the ' Sermon '
he has to deal with the fact of a separation, the blame of
which he charges upon the Nonconformists. On their own
showing, their objections to conformity were not, he said, of
sufficient weight to warrant separation. So far as opinion
and practice were concerned, Stillingfleet did not think it
would be difficult to compose their differences. But in
addition to these there was the strength of prejudice, which
he found it impossible to overcome.
The text of the sermon was Phil. iii. 16, 'Let us walk by
the same rule/ The preacher said that the occasion of
St. Paul's writing was the danger of a schism in the
Church of Antioch. The Gentile Christians had been forced
either into a compliance with the Jews or into a perpetual
STILLINGFLEET ON SEPARATION. 17
scliism. Paul and Barnabas had been carried away with CHAP. VII.
the dissimulation. The same false apostles who had
wrought these evils at Antioch were now at Philippi. St.
Paul beseeches the Philippians not to give way to divisions.
Ho tells them to beware of dogs, that is, the preachers of
circumcision. He supposes a certain fixed rule, and the
necessity of all Christians following it, notwithstanding their
different attainments. This is applied to the Nonconformists.
If they knew the necessity of following the one rule, as
conscientious men they would not live in known sin, that is,
schism, which is explained, not as the separation of different Schism de-
churches, that is, of the churches of different countries fined>
from each other, but as the separation of some in one coun
try from the Church of that country. The case of the non-
conforming ministers might be reckoned hard. But this
cannot be said of the case of the people. They are not
required to give ' assent and consent ' to all and everything
in the Prayer Book. They may object to certain rites, and
refuse to conform to them. This would be harmless. But
it is quite another matter when they form separated congre
gations under other teachers.
It is this sinful and mischievous separation which is
schism. It was shown that those who separate have no Nonconform-
fault to find with the doctrine of the Church. They admit ^-thThT
that our parochial churches are true churches, and that com- Church in
munion with them is not unlawful. The plea is, that their
separation is not a sin ; in fact, that their meeting in dif
ferent places is really not a separation. The Apostles, Stil-
lingfleet says, placed their converts under the care of the
bishops and deacons. In the ancient canons the idea of a
church was always that of a diocese. Presbyters who re
jected the authority of the bishops became schismatics. The
Nonconformists deny that their separation is a schism, and
yet they preach when and where they like, without regard to
the law of the Church. They administer the sacraments in a
different manner from that which the Church prescribes ; yet
they say there is no separation, or, at least, not such a sepa
ration as constitutes schism. This, the preacher said, is far
from ingenuous dealing. No cause was ever worse defended.
They admit that it is lawful to hold communion with the
VOL. n. c
i8
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. Church, and yet they separate and go about to vindicate the
separated ministry from the guilt of schism. Tenderness of
conscience might be pleaded for scruples, but not surely for
deliberate separation. The sermon ends with some good
advice to Nonconformists.
The advice was not valued nor the arguments appreciated.
The sermon was answered immediately by Baxter, Owen,
Alsop, and many others, including an answer by ' Some
Nonconformists.'' They did not all argue from the same
standpoint. The sermon was really directed against Baxter
and those who, like him, were unwilling to be considered
separatists from the Church of England. Baxter was at this
time an occasional preacher at Pinner's Hall and other places
in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's. Immediately on the pub
lication of this sermon he addressed to Stillingfleet a series of
questions, which embraced a defence of his past and present
conduct as a nonconforming minister of the National Church.
He denied altogether that he took the same ground as
the old Nonconformists. They were Presbyterians in the
proper sense of that word. They were exclusive and scru
pulous about trifles. They would have made the Church
narrower had that been in their power. But Baxter and
the majority of the Nonconformists of his time asked ' a
Catholic union on the broad basis of the essentials of Chris
tianity on which they were all agreed/ When the ministers
met at Sion College, in the time of the Savoy Conference,
they asked, Baxter says, nothing but Archbishop Ussher's
scheme of Episcopacy, with more freedom in the use of the
Liturgy. They were met by the Act of Uniformity, which
made conformity more difficult than it had ever been. 'I
am past doubt/ he exclaims, ' but Richard Hooker, Bishop
Bilson, Archbishop Ussher, and such others, were they now
alive, would be Nonconformists.' Stillingfleet and Baxter
held similar views as to the exercise of the civil power in the
province of religion. They both agreed in the duty of obeying
the magistrate within certain limits, though these limits were
never well defined. They both agreed also in the divine in
stitution of a ministry in the Church, with a commission, which
no civil magistrate could either give or take away. Baxter
pleaded that he could not submit to the ' impositions, and
BAXTER AND STILLINGFLEET. 19
lie could not be silent/ There were parishes in London CHAP. VII.
with populations as large as sixty thousand, far beyond the
reach of the ministrations of the conforming clergy. He was
an ' ordained minister/ He could not be silent, and it was
' sacrilege ' that he should be put aside. He was willing to
be regarded as Stillingfleet's curate, working without reward
among those who were not reached by the ordinary paro
chial clergy. As one ' standing on the verge of the grave,'
he expresses his wonder how any man, under these circum
stances, could justify the silencing of the ejected ministers.
Stillingfleet answered that Baxter's separation was pro- Stillingfleet
perly schism, and, therefore, it was sin. The Noncon- te^with. ' the
formists confessed that the doctrines of the Church were sin of schism.'
good and agreeable to the word of God, and yet they up
held separate meetings. The plea of supplying the lack of
the administrations of the parochial clergy was not admitted.
The meetings were intended for opposition. The main ar
gument derived from ordination was easily settled. The
Church, Stillingfleet said, always had power to reduce
bishops and presbyters to lay communion. If those who
have been legally silenced are to go on preaching, all autho
rity in Church and State will be at an end. It was never
evident whether disobeying the authority of the Church or
that of the State was the ' formal reason ' of the sin of the
Nonconformists. One of the questions which Baxter asked
was concerning ' the constitutive regent part' of the Na
tional Church. Was it the king or a sacerdotal head ? He
could not determine whether the ' same rule ' by which all
were to walk was to be some decree of the civil ruler
or some unmistakable principle of the Christian Church.
Stillingfleet spoke in general terms of obeying authority.
Baxter reduced his arguments to three heads, — that it is
the business of the magistrate to choose what persons the
people shall hear, in what words the ministers shall pray,
to what books they shall assent, and that those who do
not obey are sinful schismatics. Against this Erastianism
Baxter argues from the incapacity of the magistrates to
choose the ministers of religion, quoting the custom of the
ancient Church, which never suffered a bishop to be elected
by the magistrates without the consent of the clergy. The
c 2
20 EELTGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. magistrate may silence a minister, and the silencing may be
unjust as well as just. But what, he asks, is this * rule' by
which we are all to walk ? He gives twelve interpretations
of the text, specially rejecting the one which makes the
1 rule ' the will of the magistrate. He adds, that it cannot
surely be the Act of Uniformity. By that Act the Noncon
formists were thrust out of the Church. If it be the rule,
then the sin of schism would consist simply in disobeying a
command about religion which no man has authority to give.*
Owen's ' Vindication of the Nonconformists from the
Charge of Schism/ was not written precisely from the
same standpoint as Baxter's. He was, however, agreed
with Baxter and Stillingfleet that, as regards doctrine, all
the ( sober Protestant people of England were of one mind.'
And this itself was a reason in ordinary prudence for mutual
forbearance. To the general principles of Stillingfleet' s
sermon, he had no special objections. They might serve
either party until it was determined on which side the blame
of the separation rested. Drawing his argument from the
text, Owen said that St. Paul had before him the differences
between the Jewish converts and the believing Gentiles.
The Conformists were likened to the Jews, who wished to
impose on the Gentiles rites that had not been commanded
by Christ. The Gentiles did not wish to have these rites
imposed. ( We,' Owen says, ' desire nothing but what
the churches of the Gentiles desired of old as the only means
to prevent division : namely, that they might not be im
posed on to observe those things which they were not satisfied
that it was the mind of Christ they should observe.' St.
Paul recommended ' an open door for peace and quietness/
and his advice is applicable to us. As a Congregationalist,
Owen could not see why individual churches could not be
separate as well as national churches, without being charge
able with ' the sin of schism.' If Stillingfleet could show
him what the ' rule ' really is, and where it is prescribed by
Christ or His Apostles, he would answer for the willingness
of the Nonconformists to follow it.
* In his later years Baxter entered yet advocating the authority of the
more fully into the spirit of the Church civil ruler in religion. See his hook
of England as a national establishment, 'Of National Churches,' noticed in
not justifying the Act of Uniformity, Vol. I. p. 269 of the present work.
ANSWERS TO STILLINGFLEET. 21
The answer to Stillingfleet's sermon by ' Some Noncon- CHAP. VII.
formists/ was even more latitudinarian than those of Bax- t som^on-
ter and Owen. The authors subjoined ' a scheme of union, conformists'
or materials for a bill which would heal both parties/ Some ItiUingflect.
of them were Congregationalists, but they were all agreed to
come within the pale of the National Church, and acknow
ledge the civil ruler as the supreme head in all things eccle
siastical as well as civil. They could not set aside their
character as ministers of Christ. Necessity was laid upon
them to preach the Gospel, and they must obey God rather
than man. They sought unity, but if it could only be
obtained at the expense of silence, they had no choice.
Public worship and preaching the gospel were divine insti
tutions, but the order of parish churches was only by
human law. They accepted the axiom of John Hales, ( that
it is not the refuser, but the imposer, who is guilty of
schism/ The Act of Uniformity enforced re-ordination and
declaration of ' assent and consent ' to all and everything
in the Book of Common Prayer. But to submit to re-ordi
nation, was to say that they were not already ordained.
It was to sanction a principle which had been repudiated
by many eminent bishops of the Church of England, and
which involved the exclusion from communion of the Re
formed Churches abroad. No agreement, it was said, could
be made while an f unfeigned assent ' was required to the
creed of St. Athanasius. They could not say of the whole
Greek Church, that all its members would everlastingly
perish. They could not give ( unfeigned consent ' to the
article which seems to deny the possibility of salvation to
the virtuous heathen. In the service for the fifth of No
vember there is a prayer for the three estates of the realm,
though it is a question, undecided, which are the three
estates ? Some say the King, Lords and Commons ; others
say the Commons, with the Lords spiritual and temporal.
In the revised Liturgy, the bishops are made an order dis
tinct from the presbyters. This is contrary to the judg
ment of all the great authorities on Church government.
Such men as Davenant, Ussher, Field, and Mason would now
be ejected as Nonconformists. The writers had formerly
been zealous against many of the things now imposed, which
22
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII.
' Assent and
consent '
scarcely to be
given even to
the Bible.
The 'Congre
gational
Brethren'
plead for a
Broad
National
Church.
was a special difficulty in the way of their giving ' unfeigned
consent/ The rigid use of the words ' assent and consent '
seemed a device to make conformity impossible for those
who had been opposed to the impositions. They doubted if
they could give ' assent and consent ' to everything even in
the Bible itself, certainly not to any two versions of it.
They could not give ( unfeigned consent ' to the version of
Psalm cv. 28, in King James' Bible, and at the same time
to that in the Prayer Book. In the former it reads, ' They
rebelled not against His word,' and in the latter ' They were
not obedient to His word/
In the scheme of union, even the ' Congregational
Brethren ' were willing to be comprehended within the
Church as National. It was asked that the King and Par
liament would sanction ' their separate meetings by a law,
as his Majesty did by his Declaration/ This they said would
be enough to constitute them integral parts of the National
Church. ' The Congregational Churches would then own
the King for head over them/ The civil power would
keep ' every several congregation to that gospel order them
selves profess,' and supervise their constitution in things in
different. It was suggested that a general approval of the
contents of the Prayer Book might take the place of
' assent and consent ' and that the Articles and Homi
lies might be open to any fair interpretation. This was ex
plained as an interpretation which any learned expositor
may give them. The object of this modification of subscrip
tion to the Articles, was to give Calvinists and Arminians
an equal standing within the Church. The ministers were
willing to submit to re-ordination provided the bishops ex
plained this ordination as for the exercise of their office in a
new charge.*
who would not worship at all if they
were not allowed to worship in sepa
rate meetings. By Stillingfleet's own
statement, it appears that the people
were more opposed to the disputed
ceremonies than the nonconforming
ministers. Multitudes in conscience
regarded them as 'sinful,' so that
they had either to act against their
conscience or be separate. It was
difficult for them to see the ' sin ' of
separation when they were not con-
* Vincent Alsop wrote, ' The Mis
chief of Impositions.' This was a
brisk pamphlet, but the arguments
are not to be mentioned. John Howe
wrote a long letter concerning Still
ingfleet's sermon. It was addressed
to ' A Person of Qtiality in the City,
who took offence at the Sermon.'
Howe states the case in some calm,
plain words. There were many pas
tors who had scruples about con
formity, and there were many people
STILLINGFLEET'S DEFENCE. 23
Stillingfleet answered his many adversaries in a long trea- CHAP. VII.
tise, called ' The Unreasonableness of Separation/ What he stillin^floet
said of his opponents seemed to be true on both sides : on the ' Un-
'They profess to bring water to quench the flames, but nes
they only add fuel to the fire/ This was not done willingly, ration.'
It was the result of the inheritance which they had from the
doings of violent men. Had they started with the ground
clear, reconciliation might have been easy. But liberal and
zealous for the peace of the Church as both sides were, the
circumstances in which they were placed made them regard
each other as bitter enemies. Stillingfleet said that Baxter
seemed ' resolved to leave his life and sting together in the
wounds of the Church/ He likened himself to Bishop
Jewel, who, after all his labours in defence of Protestantism,
received nothing but abuse from the Nonconformists. He
taunted the Dissenters as being in league with Roman
Catholics against the Church of England. Their dislike of
the liturgy and of cathedral services was derived from the
Jesuits, who by the constitution of their order are excused
from attending cathedral worship. It was the Jesuits who
set up extempore praying and enthusiastic preaching, and
from them these things were learned by the Puritans.
Stillingfleet filled long pages with statements of this kind,
which may have been believed in his day, and which certainly
had a great influence in converting individual Dissenters to
the Church. Conformity might not be agreeable to the Puri
tans, but contact with the Church of Rome was the greatest
of abominations. When they looked to their own case it
was hard, but the national establishment appeared to them
all as a mighty bulwark against the Papacy. They wished
to be of it. No Puritan, except an occasional Brownist, The Old
ever advocated separation for its own sake. Stillingfleet ^J^8 op~
made use of this against the Nonconformists of his time, separation.
Calvin and Beza had used their influence to prevent a sepa
ration of the Puritans from the Church of England. Thomas
Cartwright wrote strongly against the separation of Browne
vinced that authority had heen given of Uniformity was well meant and
to the rulers in every national Church had a good object, but it had so visi-
to appoint ceremonies, the observance bly failed that even in the judgment
of which was binding on all the people of its promoters it must be regarded
of the nation. Howe thinks the Act as virtually obsolete.
24 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. and Harrison. But though the old Puritans were so zealous
against a separation, they had, according to Stillingfleet,
the same reasons for it as the Nonconformists after the
Restoration. But this was scarcely true. It was the new
impositions of 1662 which constituted the strongest plea on
the side of the Nonconformist.*
There were many writers on the Church side who were
disposed to make great allowance for those who objected to
the new impositions. Among these are specially to be
'ThcConform- noticed the author of several tracts called ' The Conformists'
the iFoncon-1 Pleas for tne Nonconformists ' and Dr. Whitby, who wrote
formists < The Protestant .Reconciler5 under the name of ' A Well-
Wisher of the Church's Peace and a Lament er of her Sad
Divisions/ The author of the ' Pleas' gives significance to
what must ever be regarded as the true defence of the Non
conformists of that time. f There were/ he says, ' cross
bars put up to keep them out of the Church, and whilst
these cross-bars remain, it is vain for Churchmen to send
forth exhortations to unity.' It was stated plainly, that for
eighteen years their sufferings had been great and their
forbearance commendable. It was their peculiar hardship
that f they were ejected in a time of joy all over the land,
and after an Act of Oblivion, when all parties pretended to
be reconciled and made friends.' Archbishop Bramhall had
* The ' Unreasonableness of Sepa- peace and concord.' One reason
ration' was answered by a host of urged for moderation towards Non-
writers, some new and some old. conformists is their near agreement
Baxter wrote ' A Search for the with the Church and their desire not
English Schismatic,' which was meant to be separated from it. ' A few
to prove that all Nonconformists were years ago,' Baxter says, ' a Puritan
not schismatics. He wrote also ' A was one who was against bishops,
Second Defence of the Mere Noncon- ceremonies, and liturgy, and a Prcs-
formists,' and in the same year 'An byterian was one who was for lay
Apology for the Nonconformists' elders, and the power of classes ; ' but
Ministry.' This contained, besides 'now, in England, a Puritan is one
many arguments already advanced, that is no more against, and as much
answers to the bishops who had been for, archbishops, bishops, liturgy and
the chief promoters of the ejection of ceremonies as in my books I have
the Nonconformists. It also pro- long published myself to be.' A
posed reasons for 'endeavouring their Presbyterian, he adds, is now against
restoration.' It is dedicated to lay elders and the ruling power of
Compton, Bishop of London, Barlow, presbyteries and synods. He only
Bishop of Lincoln, Croft of Here- asks 'that these lie consulted, and
ford. Rainbow of Carlisle, Thomas of that they may share the governing
St. David's, Lloyd of Peterborough, power with the archbishops and
and 'as many more as are of their bishops,
moderation and love of our common
'THE PROTESTANT RECONCILER.' 25
called the ' Articles of Keligion' Articles of Peace. This was CHAP. VII.
done to open the door for the High Church Arminians.
But the latitude given to them was denied to the Noncon
formists. Baxter had asked a clause of explanation, that
by ' assent and consent' was only meant ' as to the use of
the book.' The Lords were willing that such a clause
should be added, but it was rejected by the Commons.*
The old Nonconformists had never been treated with the
severity of those of 1662. Whitgift complained that his
treatment of the Nonconformists had been unjustly ex
aggerated. Even Bancroft provided for the maintenance of
some of the ministers whom he deprived. This author says,
that in the time of Charles I. conformity was not rigidly
enforced. This was doubtless true during the Primacy of
Abbot, and in many of the dioceses even to the death of
Laud. It is added, that the severities of the Presbyterians
under the Commonwealth were not so great as report made
them. They tolerated all who were ' tolerable/ reserving
punishment only for the ' heretical.'
Dr. Whitby said that the things imposed should never Dr. Whithv's
have been made a condition of communion. But once im- 'r™testunt
posed the Nonconformists- should have yielded. It is re
marked, that though Stillingfleet says a great deal against
resisting impositions, yet he says very little which tends to
justify them. The Dissenters, on the other hand, say a
great deal about the impositions, but fail to show that it is
altogether unlawful to refuse submission to them. The Pre
face to the Book of Common Prayer speaks of ceremonies
as things indifferent. Jesus set no value on mere ritual.
He endorsed the words of Hosea, that mercy is better than
sacrifice. It was prophesied of Jesus by the evangelical
prophet that ' He shall not break the bruised reed.' All the
governors of the Church should be of this spirit. Like St.
Paul, they should be ' all things to all men.' Dr. Whitby
quoted many things to the same effect from Stillingfleet's
1 Irem'cum ;' adding, that perhaps Dr. Stillingfleet ' can now
answer these arguments,' for, said Dr. Whitby, ' I am sure I
cannot.'
* Macaulay says, ' The Hcmse of King, more zealous for Episcopacy
Commons was, during some years, than the Bishops.' — ' History of Eng-
inore zealous for royalty than the land,' vol. i. p. 175.
26 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. The second part is addressed to the Nonconformist laity.
They had no subscriptions to make, and therefore had not
the same difficulty as the ministers. They were exhorted to
do what they could do in conscience to heal the divisions of
the Church. Christ attended the regular worship of His
country, though there were many things in the Jewish
Church of merely human origin. This fact had so per
plexed the first Puritans, that William Ames supposed an
extraordinary revelation, on the authority of which all cere
monies were instituted. This, as Whitby truly judged, was
but a supposition. The Puritan text, afterwards appro
priated by High Churchmen, about Moses being faithful over
his house, was easily dealt with. The Jews had a living
judge of controversies. The rulers appointed the ceremonies.
The Puritans put the Scriptures in the place of the living
judge. Henry Jeanes, writing against Dr. Hammond, says
The Scrip- that ' Scripture is a perfect adequate and complete rule of
nilcSfor°cerc- ceremonies, as well as worship.' Dr. Whitby pronounces
monies. this ' a false assumption/ The rule is imperfect, and in fact
prescribes nothing.*
Henry Dod- The last writer on this controversy whom it is necessary
wellon 'Sepa- ^o mentiOn is Henry Dodwell. His treatise on ' Separation
ration from ^
Episcopal from Episcopal Churches represents the view of a party
which has at least the merit of being logically consistent.
* The following CTirious recanta- nounce all irreverent and unmeet ex-
tion was imposed on Whitby by his pressions contained therein, "by which
patron, Bishop Ward. Of Whitby' s I have justly incurred the censure or
sincerity in reading it we cannot displeasure of my superiors : and fur-
speak. 'Oct. 9, 1683. I, Daniel thermore, whereas these two proposi-
Whitby, Doctor of Divinity, Chan- tions have been deduced and con-
cellor of the Church of Sarum and eluded from the said book, viz. (1)
Rector of the parish Church of St. That it is not lawful for superiors to
Edmund's in the city and diocese of impose anything in the worship of
Sarum, having been the author of a God that is not antecedently neces-
book called ' The Protestant Kecon- sary ; (2) The duty of not offending
ciler,' which, through want of pru- a weak brother is inconsistent with
dence and deference to authority, I have all human authority of making laws
caused to be printed and published, concerning indifferent things, I do
am truly and heartily sorry for the hereby openly renounce both the said
same, and for any evil influence it propositions, being false, erroneous,
hath had upon the Dissenters from and schismatical, and do revoke and
the Church of England established by disclaim all tenets, positions, and as-
law or others ; and whereas it con- sertions in the said book from whence
taineth several passages which I am i/tcw jiositiomt can be inferred ; and
convinced in my conscience are ob- urAffiMOMW I have offended therein, I
tioxioM in fl«- CHIIOI/N and do reflect do humbly beg pardon of God and
upon the governors of the said Church, the Church for the same.'
1 do hereby openly revoke and re-
DODWELL ON SEPARATION. 27
Stillingfleet, and all the moderate Conformists, spoke much CHAP. VII.
of obeying the rulers in Church and State. The only limit
they set to obedience was, when authority imposed idola
trous worship, such as that of the Church of Rome. But
the multitude of men were lost in the borderland. Who
was to determine the precise point at which obedience
should cease ? Some men's consciences stopped only at
the impositions of the Church of Rome, but the consciences
of some other men could not submit to the impositions of
the Church of the Restoration. Dodwell said that we are to
obey the Church in whatever it imposes. A Church is co
extensive with a nation. The Episcopacy of a nation con
stitutes a national Church, and with the bishops it stands
or falls. Here, then, the case is clear against Noncon
formists. To be separate from an Episcopal Church is to
be outside of the covenant of mercy, and to be aliens from
the Christian Commonwealth. Where the bishop is, there The Bishop
is the ark of safety. Where the bishop is not, the floods
of Divine wrath may any moment sweep away the genera
tions of men. Separation from the bishop is a clear and
tangible definition of schism. Those who are guilty of it
cease to be able to administer valid rites or sacraments.
To disobey the bishop is to despise the very principles of
government, which is more than to violate particular laws.
In accordance with the doctrine of securing the ' main
chance/ Dodwell recommends adherence to the Episcopal
Church so long as outside of it there is the least possibility
of missing salvation. It is the highest maxim of human
prudence, that wherever there is any uncertainty we
should ' keep on the securer side/ That this is the safer
way is proved by many arguments. One is, that member
ship of a visible, that is, an Episcopal Church, is a better
evidence of salvation than any good works done by those out
side of the Church. This, at least, is certain, that a good
life and Church membership are safer than a good life and
separation from the Church. The Church is the ordinary
way of salvation. There may be extraordinary ways, but in
them the chances must be less. In the Church we have
' the legal conveyance of the heavenly inheritance/ This is
all connected with a theology which regards reason and
28
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. philosophy as profane adversaries of the Church and the
bishops. Dodwell says that God is concerned to have His
will performed just because it is His will. He does not
choose to save men by mere preaching or by prayer. He
has appointed sacraments as essentially necessary, and
ministers ordained by bishops duly to administer them.
Prayers by persons not of the Church can avail only for
their own conversion, and the only prayers effectual in the
Church for those in separation are prayers for their restora
tion to the Church. Dodwell says finally that if the Non
conformists continue without Christ's baptism, they must
continue without Christ's salvation. If they refuse to come
to the Lord's Supper, they refuse that corporal union with
Christ which in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel is
declared necessary to eternal life. In this supper only can
they eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood.*
* The great work of this era on
the subject of Conformity was called
' A Collection of Cases and other Dis
courses lately written to Eecovcr
Dissenters to the Communion of the
Church of England. By some Divines
of the City of London.' This work
consists of three large volumes in the
collected form The tracts bear dates
from 1683 to 1685, and are of suffi
cient importance to have been noticed
in the text, but other books have
taken their place. The writers were
Grove, Williams, Sherlock, Sharp,
Calamy (Benjamin), Hesketh, Scott,
( 'laget, Fowler, Hickes, Resbury,
Tillotson, Hascard, Freeman, Evans,
Patrick, Tenison, Cave, Francklin,
Newcomin, Hooper, Stillingfleet, and
Samuel Fuller. The tracts are of
unequal value, and written by men of
very different views, though all agree
ing as to Conformity. Dr. Grove
;i-i-ribes the wounds of the Church to
' the extreme scrupulosity of some,'
saying also that they are ' kept still
bleeding by the subtilty and" cunning
artifice of others.' He can find no
ground as a centre of unity for Pro-
testants but the Church of England,
and it must, he says, be effected by
impositions, and not by toleration.
Separation, unless for unlawful im
positions, is called schism. The whole
Jirgimiriit is lhal tin- Nonconformists
should conform for the sake of unity,
but that the Conformists should yield
nothing. Dr. Williams quotes tho
testimonies of many old Nonconform
ists against separation, which, how
ever, prove little more than their un
willingness to separate. Benjamin
Calamy, a son of the celebrated Dr.
Calamy, had become a strong Con
formist, and wrote on the claims of
the ' Weak Brethren.' Their being
' weal ' had been a plea against the
impositions, but Calamy said that in
the sense of St. Paul the Dissenters
regarded themselves as the 'opposite
of weak brethren.' The moral is that
they are to obey lawful governors in
things indifferent. Tenison's main
argument with the Dissenters w;is
the services of the Church of England
in behalf of Protestantism. The most
remarkable tract was by Hesketh, on
the ' Case of Compelling Men to the
Holy Sacrament.' Christ had given
a command to ' compel them to come
in.' In compelling men to receive
the Lord's Supper the governors of
Church and State are said to be
actuated by kindness and not any
consideration for their own interests.
They are compelling Nonconformists
to their greatest good, that is to have
their souls strengthened and nourished
by the body and blood of Christ. This
tract is in the third, or supplementary
volume.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 29
When James II. came to the throne it was soon evi- CHAP. VII.
dent that the Church of England had to make a life and Koman
death struggle for existence. The open encouragement Catholic con-
which the king gave to the Roman Catholic religion, timVo? James
and the multitude of books in its defence which were scat- II.
tered over the country, were sufficient to alarm all sincere
Protestants. During the reign of James the whole strength
of the clergy was required for the refutation of the claims of
the Church of Rome. If any Nonconformist had ever
doubted the essentially Protestant character of the Church
of England, all such doubts must now have been dispelled.
Every party in the Church gave evidence not to be mistaken
that there could be no peace with Rome till Rome is re
formed. It cannot be said that in this controversy the works
in defence of Protestantism were of greater value than those
that had already been produced. The subject long before
this had been exhausted. After Chillingworth there was
nothing to be said. The writings of this period are mostly
brief and intended chiefly for the general reader. The
work was immediate. The attack was sudden and had to
be suddenly repelled. The defenders of the Church of
England, however, were well prepared. Their opponents
were before them as straw and stubble.*
The number of books produced by this controversy form
by themselves a considerable catalogue. f Half a century
after their publication, the chief of those on the Protestant
side were collected by Bishop Gibson and published in three
folio volumes, with the title of l A Preservative Against Gibson's
Popery/J In the preface, Bishop Gibson says that the #
device of the Roman Catholics of that age was ' the bringing
down Popery to less distance from Protestantism, as well
as the raising Protestantism to as many degrees nearer
Popery/ By this means ( unwary' and ignorant people
were deceived. But the Churchmen of every class knew
* Macaulay says, ' It was indeed rate.' — ' History of England,' vol. ii.
impossible for any intelligent and p. 110.
candid Roman Catholic to deny that f There is an edition of 1689, and
the champions of his Church were in another corrected in 1714.
every talent and acquirement com- J It is really true that Dr. John
pletcly overmatched. The ablest of Henry Newman has attempted to
them would not, on the other side, sneer at Gibson's ' Preservative.'
have been considered as of the third
30 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. their position. They regarded the difference between the
Churches as vital, and they defended the separation as
necessary while the Roman Church was unreformed.
Following the order in Gibson's collection, the first trea-
tise is bv Dr- Stratford, afterwards Bishop of Chester. The
subject is the necessity of Reformation. The Roman claim
to infallibility is reckoned the insuperable barrier between
Rome and Protestants. The corruptions of the Church be
fore the Reformation were so many that the Reformers had
no choice but at once to set about removing them. An in
fallible Church could never have fallen into such errors as
prevailed before the Reformation. It is true that many texts
are quoted for infallibility, but they are like the one cited
by the ' angelical doctor' to prove the necessity of implicit
faith, ' the oxen were ploughing and the asses were feeding
beside them/ Particular churches, according to Dr. Strat
ford, may have been infallible while the Apostles lived. They
had the promise of being led by the Holy Spirit into all
truth. The Church over which Timothy presided had erred.
It has now ceased to exist. There is no Church of Ephesus.
The city has not a single Christian family. Authority, it is
maintained, does not imply infallibility. A magistrate or a
parent may have to judge, and yet their judgments may err.
In the Church of Rome infallibility has disproved itself.
That Church imposes doctrines contrary to Scripture and
reason; and unknown to antiquity. Such are its claims to
be infallible, to be the whole Catholic Church, to govern
princes, and the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation
decreed by the fourth Lateran Council.
This subject was continued by Dr. Claget, preacher at
Gray's Inn. He justified the Reformation by our Refor
mers, because there was no hope of any remedy from the
Church of Rome. The pretended reformation by the Council
of Trent was ' vanity.' It made worse that which was already
bad, and it converted many private opinions into dogmas ne
cessary to salvation. The English Reformers aimed simply at
retaining truth and rejecting error. The Church of Rome,
claiming to be the whole Catholic Church, was the cause of
the separation of the Church of England. It was not Cran-
mer's blame that he was the first Reformer. It was the
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 31
blame of his predecessors in the see of Canterbury, who did CHAP. VII.
not begin a Reformation before his time. If the subject is
to be discussed on the ground of the regularity of English
orders, Dr. Claget is willing to do it even on that ground.
But he does not regard ordination as the door into the sheep-
fold. Good shepherds may come into the fold without regu
lar orders, even as many have come in with them who were
thieves and robbers. Gilbert Burnet, afterwards Bishop of And Gili.ert
Salisbury, followed Dr. Claget on the same subject. He
regarded the Church of Rome as having made shipwreck
of faith. Its doctrine, worship and practice are opposed
to the nature, designs, and character of the Christian faith.
It is the 'mystery of iniquity/ Antichrist, the Roman Baby
lon that was to bewitch the earth with her sorceries.
Dr. Cave vindicated the Church of England from the Dr. Cave
charge of schism. It retained the ancient creeds as the church of
confession of its faith. It reverenced the first four General Eng-land from
Councils, and taught no doctrines that could not be proved 8Chism*rSe °
by the word of God and 'the general consent of the Fathers/
Next to the word of God, the Church of England reverenced
antiquity. It appeals to both, and desires by both to be
ruled. It retains episcopal government, but it passes no
judgment on those churches which have dispensed with
Episcopacy. This subject was continued by Dr. Altham,
Rector of Bishopsgate. The separation was entirely charged
on the Church of Rome. We never wished to separate, but
we had no other alternative. Altham defines heresy as ' an
error in the foundation of religion openly taught and obsti
nately defended/ In this sense the Church of England
could not be charged with heresy, for it receives nothing as
an article of faith which may not be proved by Holy Scrip
ture. For this reason alone it accepts the three creeds. The
visible Church is not regarded as a judge of controversies,
nor its essence as consisting of a succession of bishops, but
in holding the pure doctrines taught in the word of God.
Dr. Hascard, Dean of Windsor, vindicated the Church Dean
tr i
of England from the charge of novelty. He compared £JJJfl£
Christianity to the pearl of great price, which the Church charge of
of Rome had covered with heaps of rubbish. These were
removed by the Reformers and the pearl shone again with
32 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IX ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. its first splendour. The Christian faith is described as very
simple in itself. It consists in believing that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God. St. Paul told the Philippian jailor to
believe this and he would be saved. Christianity is not
identified with a visible Church or with Church offices. The
true Church, according to Dr. Hascard, is not always visible.
In the time of Arius no man knew where to find it. Before
the Reformation it was again hidden by clouds of error.
Gilbert Burnet contributed a learned treatise on the vali
dity and regularity of English ordinations. It had been
objected against Archbishop Parker's consecration that the
commission came from Parliament without authority from
the Church ; that the consecrators were without sees ;
two were elect, one a quondam, and one a suffragan. As
all subsequent consecrations depend on Parker's, it was
inferred that the Church of England had no true bishops,
and therefore it could be no part of the Catholic Church.
Its priests could not administer the Lord's Supper without
committing sacrilege, and being guilty of a ' sacramental
forgery/ Its members could not eat Christ's flesh and drink
His blood. Its recognition of the foreign Reformed Churches
as true churches, was urged as sufficient evidence that it
did not consider bishops as necessary to the essence of a
No proper church. The very words of the ordination service, ' Take
priesthood m ^1OU authority to preach the word of God and to administer
the Church of J r .
England. sacraments, ignored the idea of a proper priesthood. Here
is no mention of the power of consecration, though Arch
bishop Bramhall says that the form of words must express
power to consecrate or make present Christ's body. There
is nothing said of sacrifice, the proper function of the priest
hood. The compilers of the English service had no power
over the body of Christ. They were made bishops merely
by authority of Parliament and could not confer the office
of priesthood. From the time of Edward to the Restoration
there were no words in the Ordination Service implying
consecrating power, while the necessity of such words
was admitted both by Bramhall and Mason.
Burnet answers, that we require no other words for ordina
tion than those which were used by Christ when He or
dained His Apostles. The words 'Hocfacite' were used at
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 33
the institution of tlie Eucharist, not at the ordination of the CHAP. VII.
first preachers of the Gospel. They are not the words En<ylj~J^~
actually in use in the Church of Rome. The Roman form Orders valid
is, ' Receive thou power to offer sacrifice to God, and to ai
celebrate Mass both for the quick and the dead/ The
forms of the Primitive Church had no words giving power
to consecrate. Nor have the forms of the Greek Church to
this day, and yet the Church of Rome itself recognizes
Greek Orders. The Latin Church was willing at the Council
of Florence to receive the Greek into communion without
re-ordination of its priests. In the ordination service
of the Council of Carthage, the oldest in existence, there is
nothing required but the episcopal blessing, and the im
position of the hands of the bishop and the presbyters.
Dionysius the Areopagite says, that in his time the priest
was ordained kneeling before the bishop, who consecrated
him with prayer, signing him with the sign of the cross.
After this the bishop and the rest of the clergy gave him the
kiss of peace. Morinus quotes from several ancient rituals,
where no such power is mentioned as the power to conse
crate. The oldest in which it is found was about seven
hundred years old. The words were, ' Receive power to
offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate masses/ Yet in
rituals of the eleventh century these words are not found,
which proves that they were not in general use. Pope Inno
cent said that the words, ' Be thou a priest/ were in them
selves sufficient. Burnet says that our priests receive the
power of consecrating which Christ left to His Church, but
not the power ' to perform the incredible miracle of transub-
stantiation/ The Christian priesthood is not the same in
kind as that of the sons of Levi. Christ alone was a priest Christ alone a
as they were priests. As to our bishops being appointed proper
by authority of Parliament, Burnet answers, that it was
always so with bishops in similar cases. They have their
authority as bishops from Christ. But if the objectors will
argue the question only on their own ground, Burnet is
ready even for this. Cranmer had the pall from Rome.
He may have been a heretic, but heresy does not destroy
the validity of orders. Felix was consecrated Bishop of
Rome by the Arians in the place of Liberius, and yet he
VOL. II. D
34 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. vn. was reckoned a righteous Pope, and his ordinations valid.
According to Morinus, the ordinations of such heretics as
Nestorians, Pelagians, Eutychians, and Monothelites were
admitted to be valid by the Church of Rome. In 1662, the
words "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work
of a priest " were added to the Ordination Service, but no
one ever supposed that ordination according to the old form
was not valid.
Dr. Lloyd on The subject of the Papal Supremacy was undertaken by
' femac ^~ ®T' Llo7d> afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph. During the first
three hundred years after Christ he could find only two
Popes, Victor and Stephen, who had taken upon them to
censure any who were not of their own diocese. And even
these censures, so far as we can learn, were only declara
tions of non- communion, such as any bishop in the present
day might make in regard to the Bishop of Rome. As
Bishop of the imperial city, it was natural that he should
have precedence. But that is not supremacy. If the Pope
had no lawful dominion over the whole Church, it followed
that he had none over the Church of England. The right
accorded to him before the Reformation was not supremacy.
It was always subordinate to a General Council. Dr. Patrick
took up fche same subject in its relations to Scripture. He
denies that any supremacy was ever given to St. Peter.
The power of the keys, whatever that may mean, was con
ferred on the other apostles, as well as on St. Peter. The
claim of supremacy was built on ' three metaphorical speeches'
addressed to St. Peter, and yet in none of these is there a
syllable concerning the Bishop of Rome, or the successor of
St. Peter. These speeches are : f Upon this rock will I
build my Church •' ' I will give thee the keys of the king
dom of heaven / and, ' Feed my sheep/ A matter of so
vast importance should have had a better foundation, and
been delivered in plainer words. To build the Papal Supre
macy on such texts as these is to trifle with the Scriptures.
Dr. Patrick adds, that surely the Church of Rome may cease
talking about the danger of the laity wresting the Scrip
tures. It is impossible that they could be more wrested
than these passages have been by learned priests.
Dr. Resbury, Rector of Shadwell, followed Dr. Patrick in
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 35
a discourse on the visible Church, with reference to the claim CHAP. VII.
of the Pope to be its head. He interpreted the passages Dr
usually applied to the visible Church as applicable only to the on 'The
invisible. The Catholic Church was the whole company of the church '
faithful in heaven and earth. The visible Church, he said,
would never fail ; that is, there will always be men holding
the faith of Christ. The number, however, may be so
small that the Church will scarcely be visible before the
world. It has been so in past times. Athanasius stood
alone against the world in the time of Arius. Yet history
records that there were other faithful bishops besides Atha
nasius. In the darkest of the middle ages Christ had
always faithful witnesses to bear testimony against the ge
neral corruption. Resbury did not believe that the visible
Church was always to appear before the world in its unity,
its catholicity, and its external organization, nor did he be
lieve that the Church of Rome was that visible Church. The
passages generally quoted to prove the perpetual visibility
of the Church say nothing of its having a visible head, nor
of that head being the Bishop of Rome.
The most important series in Gibson's collection is that Dr. Freeman
on the ' Catholic Church/ The first is by Dr. Freeman, ^tholic
afterwards Dean of Peterborough, who defines the Catholic Church.'
Church on earth as consisting of all Christians in all ages
who have professed the Christian faith. Dr. Sherlock, Dean
of St. Paul's, goes deeper into this question. He argues
against the claims of the Papacy, from the unity of the whole
Church in heaven and earth. That Church, of which the
Church on earth is but a part, is Christ's body. Its unity
does not consist in its having a visible organization, but in
having Christ for its head. A visible head might make the
Church on earth one, but it could not make the whole Church
one, unless that visible head were also the head of the
Church in heaven. It is indeed possible that even this the
Pope professes to be, for he canonizes saints that are in
heaven and he releases souls out of Purgatory. If the Pope
is only head of the Church on earth, it cannot, be said that
that Church is the ' one body/ for the body of Christ is the
whole Church in heaven and earth. And if Christ be that
head of the whole Church, the headship of the Pope is not
D 2
36 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
required to constitute unity. External acts of worship and
mutual intercourse are not necessary to constitute the unity
of the Church. Without these the whole Church in heaven
and earth is one.
Bellarmine's fifteen notes of the Church are examined
in succession by several writers. Dr. Sherlock, in some
general remarks, shows that the Cardinal is wrong in the
very principles on which he starts. He ought to lay down
certain notes by which the Catholic Church may be known,
but instead of that he only seeks to find some marks by
which the Church of Rome may be distinguished from other
churches. Dr. Freeman begins with the first note, which
is the name Catholic. Bellarmine said that this* name
always belonged to those in communion with the see of
Rome. Dr. Freeman answers that the ancient Fathers
called that Church Catholic which held the Catholic faith,
that is, the faith preached by Christ and His Apostles. It
got the name Catholic because it was to be preached always
and everywhere and to be believed by all. In the first ages
the main body of the Church held the Catholic faith, and
in those days the name really was a note of the Church.
The separatist sects took their names from their leaders.
Hence Cyril of Jerusalem advised his catechumens, when
they went to any strange city, to ask for the Catholic Church,
for there ' the true faith is taught/ And Pacianus, identi
fying the true faith and the Catholic Church, says, ' Chris
tian is my name, Catholic is my surname ; by the one I am
distinguished from heathens, by the other from heretics and
schismatics/ So long as a Church holds the Catholic faith
it is Catholic. When it ceases to hold that faith the name
ceases to be a note of the Church. It is but an idle argu
ment to say that because the Church of Rome calls itself
Catholic therefore it is Catholic. In ordinary speech we,
in courtesy, call members of the Church of Rome Catholics
because they do not like to be called Papists, which, how
ever, is really their proper name. In conventional lan
guage, the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church. This
is the meaning of Augustine's words, cited by Bellarmine,
' Tli, -it should a stranger happen in any city to inquire even
of a heretic where he might go to find a Catholic Church,
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 37
the heretic would not dare to send him to his own house or CHAP. VII.
oratory/ But that which is now called the Catholic Church
has corrupted the faith. Names, at best, Dr. Freeman
adds, are but arbitrary things. The Church of Sardis had
a name to live, but it was dead. The Church of Laodicea
boasted that it was rich when it was very poor. Simon
Magus was called the great power of God. Mahomet was
called a great prophet. It was foretold that many would come
saying ' I am Christ/ The Bishop of Rome calls himself the
Vicar of Christ, but many call him Antichrist. It is added
that this name Catholic, which is made a note of the Church,
is never in the New Testament applied to the Church.
Dr. Patrick took up the second note, 'Antiquity/ which Dr. Patrick
was not peculiar to the Church of Koine, but common to all
other false religions. There was a time when the Church
was new. Yet even then the argument from antiquity was
used. The woman of Samaria rested her faith here, ' Our
fathers worshipped on this mountain/ She really had anti
quity on her side. It was in Samaria that Abraham and Jacob
built altars. Here was the sanctuary in the days of Joshua.
Here was Shiloh, where the ark of God rested for three
hundred years, and here the patriarchs were buried. Jeru
salem was then in possession of the Jebusites, yet after
wards it was chosen for the worship of Jehovah. The com
plaint of the Jews against Jesus was that He did not follow
the tradition of the elders. They called the first Christians
a 'sect/ — the 'sect of the Nazarenes/ The Pagans objected
to St. Paul's doctrine that it was new, supposing, as Augus
tine says, 'that truth is proved by antiquity, not by eter
nity/ But Bellarmine has chosen the wrong word. By an
tiquity he means priority. The Catholic Church was before
heretics, just as God was before the devil, or as the wheat
in the parable was sown before the tares. The devil has
great antiquity, but he has not priority, neither has the
Church of Rome. Its doctrines are not to be found in the
New Testament. We know their history and their origin.
The Papal authority itself began with Pope Stephen. He
was followed by Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine. The last
of these was sharply rebuked by the African bishops, for
his intrusion into their affairs upon the pretence of a canon
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII.
The Church
of England
ont new.
John Wil
liams on ' Un
interrupted
Duration.'
Popes that
have been
heretics.
Dr. Fowler on
' Amplitude
or Multitude
and Variety
of Believers.'
of the Nicene Council. The efforts of other Popes after
supremacy and the resistance they met are matters of his
tory. Boniface at length succeeded in wresting from Phocas
the title of Universal Bishop, and to his Church the title of
Head of all Churches. The Church of England is no new
Church. It has nothing new except condemnation of the
novelties of the Church of Rome. If that Church had not
made new articles of faith,, our Reformers would not have
found it necessary to make articles in condemnation of
those of the Church of Rome. Tertullian says that those
churches alone are Apostolic which hold the doctrines of
the Apostles.
John Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, discussed
Bellarmine's third note, ' Uninterrupted Duration/ Bellar-
mine assumes that his Church existed in the beginning. The
same is assumed by all the rival churches. At the Council
of Trent the Bishop of Bitonto confessed the Greek Church
to be the mother of the Latin. But duration cannot be
proved until it is certain that the Roman Church will continue
to the end. And if duration is to be received for a standing
note of a church, then the Churches of Asia, which have
ceased to exist, could never have been true churches.
Williams doubts if the duration of the Church of Rome
until now has been uninterrupted. The city was frequently
sacked and destroyed. At one time it was deserted by the
Popes for seventy years. If, as Bellarmine says, heresy
makes void the succession of orders, then the Church of
Rome has not had uninterrupted duration. Pope Zephy-
rinus was a Montanist, Marcellinus sacrificed to idols,
Liberius and Felix were contaminated with the Arian heresy,
Anastasius was a Nestorian, Honorius a Monothelite, and
John XXIII. denied the life to come. The doctrines of the
present Church of Rome are not those of the ancient Church
of Rome. It cannot be said that there has been uninter
rupted duration where there has been change.
The fourth note is ' Amplitude or Multitude and Variety
of Believers/ which was taken up by Dr. Fowler, afterwards
Bishop of Gloucester. This was the argument of Deme
trius for Diana, ' whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.'
There have always been more Pagans than Christians. Even
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 39
now there are more Mahometans than Roman Catholics. All CHAP. VII .
men know the words of St. Jerome, ( the world groaned and
wondered that it had become Arian/ Athanasius against the
world is almost a proverb. The Church described in the
Apocalypse was to have power over all kindreds, nations,
and tongues, but it was not therefore the true Church.
In the time of Christ the Church was a little flock, that
went in by a strait gate and a narrow way. It is true
that the redeemed are to be a great multitude, a number
which no man can number. But as yet the Church has
ever been small compared with the multitudes of mankind.
If numbers were to be taken as the note of the true
church, Roman Catholics, Dr. Fowler says, would not gain
much. Their number, it is added, scarcely exceeds that of
Protestants.
Dr. Thorp, Prebendary of Canterbury, examined the fifth Dr. Thorp on
note, ( Succession of Bishops/ He admits the necessity of cession^f
true and lawful pastors, and that the chief power of ordination Bishops.'
is with the bishops — the successors of the apostles. All
this, he says, is agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of
England. But though this be necessary to the right order
ing of a church, he doubts if it be necessary to its essential
existence. The admission to the true Church is by baptism,
and that is valid by whomsoever administered. If heresy
and schism can destroy the succession it must have been
destroyed long since in the Church of Rome. The divine
right of bishops was opposed in the Council of Trent by
those who held the divine right of the Pope. Bellarmine
admits that there may be the true succession without true
Churches, as in the Churches of the East. So that succes
sion of bishops is no evidence of true doctrine, for then
every church founded by the Apostles would have been in
fallible. The Fathers always prefer true doctrine to a suc
cession of persons, for without the former the latter avails
nothing.
Bellarinine's sixth note, ' Agreement in Doctrine with the
Primitive Church ' was considered by Dr. Payne, Preben- Payne on
* , , . 'Agreement
dary of Westminster. This was admitted to be a satis- in Doctrine
factory test of a true church. The Church of England ap- pj^J;^
pealed to Scripture aloiio, but it was always willing to Church.'
4o
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII.
Dr. Claget on
the * Union of
the Members
among them
selves and
with their
Head.'
Dr. Scott on
' Sanctity of
Doctrine.'
follow the canon of Lirinensis, ' to have the line of Scrip
ture interpretation directed 'by the rule of Catholicity and
ecclesiastical judgment/ Scripture is our rule, but we are
not afraid to meet the Church of Rome on the ground of
antiquity. The Reformers before Cranmer and Ridley were
not well read in the Fathers. They made their appeal to
Scripture alone. Payne says that this was right, and far
better than opening the wide question concerning the doc
trine and authority of the primitive Church. But when the
champions of the Church of Rome appealed to the Fathers,
the Reformers of the Church of England said that to the
Fathers they should go. Bishop Jewel had shown that
all the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome were un
known to the Fathers. The Roman Church does not really
profess to rest on antiquity, but on its present authority
and its supposed infallibility.
The seventh note is the ' Union of the Members among
themselves and with their Head/ In treating of this note
Dr. Claget regarded the Church as limited to those who
were really true Christians. They are one, and Christ is
their Head. Bellarmine described the unity of Catholics to
consist in this, that ' they all agree to submit their own sense
to the sense of one and the same pastor/ Dr. Claget
answers that the members of every Church are so far united
as to agree among themselves in their common faith. The
unity of the Church of Rome is nothing more than this. It
has its sects and parties like all other churches. Its General
Councils do not agree. Its Popes do not agree. It is even
a question where the seat of infallibility is to be found.
In the Church of England we have all the unity that is
necessary. We hold the true faith. We take the Scripture
alone for our guide, and we have Christ for the Head of the
Church.
Bellarmine' s eighth note was ' Sanctity of Doctrine/ This
subject fell to Dr. John Scott, Rector of St. Giles-in-the-
Fields. Sanctity of doctrine really meant true faith. As a
Church might be a true Church and yet hold many errors,
and, on the other hand, as a schismatical Church might hold
the true faith without error, Dr. Scott did not see how the
true faith could be a note in Bellarmine's sense. By a note
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 4!
Bellarmine meant a mark by which the inquirer might be CHAP. VII.
guided in his search for the true Church. But here we
must first know the true doctrine before we find the true
Church. This is perfectly right on the Protestant ground,
but the Roman Catholic theory supposes a man to have
found the true Church before he finds true doctrine. Dr.
Scott says that for an ordinary inquirer, with the New Tes-
.tament in his hand, it is not difficult to find the truth. All
that he needs is ( probity of mind ' and ' sound intellec
tuals/
Dr. Linford, Prebendary of Westminster, discussed Bellar- Dr.Linfordon
mine's ninth note, the ' Efficacy of Doctrine/ This means the
success of the Church of Rome in the conversion of nations.
It is answered that physical force has often been more effi
cacious with the Church of Rome than its doctrines. For
this we are referred to the persecution of the Huguenots
and the history of the time of Charlemagne. Mezeray, in his
life of Charlemagne says, that conquerors used to take
pledges from the conquered nations that they would abide
in the Christian faith. It is true that the gospel in the
past ages had great success, as Christ had foretold. But
he never spoke of its success as an evidence of its truth,
In all ages errors have been widely diffused. Christianity
itself, after existing for three hundred years, was suddenly
overcome by Arianism. It was embraced by the whole
nation of the Goths under Bishop Ulphilas. Three hundred
years later arose Mahometanism, which, according to Lin-
ford's reckoning, numbered six thirteenths of the whole
world, while all Christians together did not make more
.than five thirteenths. Bellarmine's historic proofs of the
efficacy of Roman doctrine were the conversion of whole
nations, as the English, the Germans, the Vandals, and the
Jews. Linford answers ' that Augustine converted the
. English by deforming the old British Churches, that Boni
face could not keep the Germans from idolatry without the
. help of the king of the Franks, that the Vandals were con
verted by the arms of the King of Denmark/ and as for the
Jews, Heraclius, the Emperor, charged Dagobert, the King
of France, that ' all Jews who did not become Christians,
were to be banished or put to death/
42 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. f Holiness of Life/ Bellarmine Js tenth note, was considered
Thomas~Teni- ^7 Thomas Tenison, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.
son on ' Holi- The word ' holy ; has two senses. One is that of calling, dedi-
f Llfe- cation, or separation for a sacred object. In this sense the
Church is holy. It was so called in the creed, before the
insertion of the word Catholic. In this sense St. Paul
called the Church of Corinth holy, in this sense all baptized
persons are holy. The other holiness is inward or actual.
Tenison cannot see how, in either sense, holiness is to be a
mark by which the true Church is to be known. If actual
holiness is to be a note of the true Church, then the Church
of the Jews established by God Himself must have been
without it at one time. And if it were a mark, the Church of
Rome could gain but little by it. The Latin Church of the
tenth century, as we read of it in Baronius, Bellarmine, and
Genebrard, was not holy. The Popes of that age were
' monsters ' rather ' apostatical than apostolical/ William
of Malmesbury says that at the time of the Norman GJpn-
quest ' the priests could scarcely stammer out mass, and all
sorts of people were given to shameful intemperance/ The
note of actual holiness would never lead us to Bellarmine' s
Church.
Resbury on The eleventh note is the ' Glory of Miracles/ According
1 °f to Bellarmine, the Catholic Church in all ages has been
able to work miracles, in order to establish its claims
against heretics. This subject was taken up by Dr. Res-
bury, who said that miracles, independent of their character,
were not sufficient to establish the truth of any religion.
He contrasted the miracles of the Gospel with those men
tioned by Bellarmine. The Cardinal might, if he liked,
believe the ecclesiastical miracles, but Resbury had no
disposition that way, much less to receive them for a note
of the true Church.
Other notes The last four notes are, the t Light of Prophecy/ the ' Con-
rch* fession of Adversaries/ the < Unhappy end of the Church's
Enemies/ and ( Temporal Felicity/ These are discussed re
spectively by Dr. Claget, Dr. Kidder, afterwards Bishop
of Bath and Wells, Dr. Stratford, and Dr. Grove. Bellar
mine claimed for the Church of Rome the gift of prophecy
as well as the glory of miracles. To refute its pretensions
ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 43
was easier than to establish them. The confession of CHAP. VII,
adversaries was that of Pagans, Jews, and Turks, in which
Dr. Kidder did not find anything in favour of the Church of
Rome to the prejudice of the Reformed Churches. Con
cerning the unhappy end of the Church's adversaries, Dr.
Stratford quoted the words of Solomon, l that all things
were alike to all men, and that there is no difference
between him that sacrificeth and him that sacrificeth not/
Bellarmine's cases of the unhappy end of adversaries were,
Luther dying suddenly, after spending a merry evening
with his friends; (Ecolampadius being found dead in his
bed; and Calvin being eaten up of worms. Temporal
felicity was judged but a poor note of the true Church, in
the light of what we read in Scripture of the calamities of
the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked.
Two other tracts in the collection require to be noticed. Tenison and
One is on ' A Guide in Matters of Faith/ by Dr. Tenison, < The Rule of
and the other on the ' Protestant Resolution of Faith' by Dr.
Sherlock. These two tracts may be regarded as fairly set
ting forth the views of the representative theologians of the
Church of England at this time. Tenison says that we are
to use every available means to discover the truth, but
when all is done, men must and will be judges for them
selves. These words are quoted from Thorndike. Tenison
quotes them not because they were remarkable, but because
they were Thorndike's, who of all the divines of that age
leaned most on authority. Since the days of the Apostles
the Church has had no infallible guide. There have been
five pretenders to this office : — the primitive Church, the
bishops of the primitive Church, General Councils, the
present Church declaring the true sense of the Church in
former ages, and the Roman Catholic Church. These
Tenison reviews in order, rejecting the claims of them all.
Dr. Sherlock shows that the Church of England never re
sorts to the primitive Church as an authority. It seeks the
help of the early ages to find out the meaning of Scripture,
but it does not receive the Church of any age, excepting
that of the Apostles, as an infallible interpreter. When we
speak of the authority of the Church, we only mean that
the governors have done their best to determine what is
44 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. true doctrine. It does not imply infallibility. The Church
of England finally resolves its faith into the Scriptures,
which are our sole infallible authority.
Prydcn's On the Roman Catholic side,, we should not omit Dry-
Pbth "^ ^en's ' ^n(^ an(^ Panther.' The Poet Laureate had become
a convert to the faith of the King. Whether sincerely or
not is a subject on which Sir Walter Scott takes the one
side, and Lord Macaulay the other. Dryden had written a
controversial tract against Stillingfleet, which the great
controversialist merely noticed in company with some others
of equally little value. The poet retired to the country,
and assailed the Church of England with his own weapons.
The ' milk-white hind, immortal and unchanged/ was the
Roman Catholic Church. The spotted panther was the
Church of England. The Presbyterians, Independents,
Free-thinkers, Quakers, Anabaptists, and Unitarians, were
respectively the ' insatiate wolf/ the ' bloody bear/ the
' buffoon ape/ the ( quaking hare/ the ' bristled boar/ and
t false reynard/ The panther is
' Sure the noblest creature next the hind,
And fairest creature of the spotted kind.'
It is, however, a beast of prey. The Church of England
is charged with indecision in its teaching. Its doctrine of
the real presence in the Eucharist, is called a contradiction :
' Not only Jesuits can equivocate ;
For real, as you now the word expound,
From solid substance dwindles to a sound.
Methinks an ^Esop's fable you repeat,
You know who took the shadow for the meat.'
It denies the authority of Fathers and Councils and yet
it appeals to them :
' And, after all her winding ways are tried,
If doubts arise, she slips herself aside,
And leaves the private conscience for a guide.'
The panther may hate the other beasts, but it does the
work of the wolf when the hind is near. The lion, that is
James II., suffered all the beasts to drink at a stream, and
among them the hind.
'Drank a sober draught.'
Then v^
' The surly wolf, with secret envy burst,
Yet could not howl ; (the hind had seen him first |)
But what he durst not speak the panther durst.'
KOMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 45
The accession of a Eoman Catholic monarch to the throne CHAP. VII.
of England seemed to overthrow the main foundation on ^ Roman
which the Protestant Church was established. The Re- Catholic
i -i i -i -i , , i • ,i n, monarch not
formers had looked to the sovereign as the representative of compatible
the national life. The Reformation took the form of a pro- with the ex-
_. . . istcnce of tho
test, not merely against Roman doctrine but against foreign Church of
supremacy. The Duke of York, becoming a Roman Enoland-
Catholic, , gave rise to a perplexing question about the
duty of allegiance if in the probable course of events he
should succeed to the throne. A Bill of Exclusion passed
the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords. The clergy
had finally to make a choice between the Protestant re
ligion and the divine right of the King.
During the early part of the seventeenth century, and Passive
indeed on till the Revolution of 1688, passive obedience was
supposed to be the unquestioned doctrine of the Church of
England. The royalists regarded themselves as the only
true Churchmen, and those who opposed the arbitrary go
vernment of the first Charles were also accounted enemies
of the Church of England. It is true that the Church of
England had always looked to the King as its protector, and
had always inculcated the duty of obedience to lawful go
vernment. It was also true that a party of Churchmen had
gone with King Charles in maintaining that his will must
be law.* A Christian subject, it was said, could have no
rights against his sovereign. Christianity inculcated obedi
ence, and the first Christians never resisted the government
of the most abandoned of the Roman Emperors. The doc
trine of the Church of England on this subject was never
definite. When it came to be discussed, it was found diffi
cult to prove that anything was ever meant beyond a duo
respect for those who are entrusted with the secular power.
In tho multitude of addresses presented to King Charles
in favour of the succession of the Duke of York, great
importance was placed on the argument drawn from the
* This doctrine always had some down the principle that a king could
limits, even with the most obsequious take a subject's money. Andrewes,
Churchmen. The King once asked who was sometimes facetious, said
Bishops Neyle and Andrew-es if he the King might take brother Neyle's
could not always tax his subjects money, for he offered it.
when he wanted money. Neyle laid
46 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. obedience of the first Christians. This argument was exa-
Samuel John- mmed by Samuel Johnson in a work which was called
son's ' Julian ^ ' Julian the Apostate/ Johnson had been Chaplain to the
1 e' Lord Eussell who was executed for the part he had taken in
the Exclusion Bill. He denied that passive obedience was
the doctrine of Christianity, of the Fathers, of the Reformers,
or of the Church of England. St. Paul always stood on his
privileges as a Roman citizen. He even told slaves if they
could get their freedom, to use it rather. The Fathers did
not give allegiance to Julian, and the Reformers of the
Church of England would gladly have excluded Queen Mary
from the succession, according to the will of Edward VI.
The bishops, in the reign of Elizabeth, agreed to the statute
which makes it high treason to say that an Act of Parlia
ment does not bind the crown. The same bishops urged
the execution of the Queen of Scots as one that had tried
' to seduce the people of God in this realm from true reli
gion/ A Bill of Exclusion against the Duke of York would
be in perfect harmony with the spirit and the deeds of the
Reformers. To those who pleaded the oaths of allegiance,
the answer was, that they are Protestant oaths. The mean
ing of their imposition was the exclusion of the Roman
power and the Roman Catholic religion.
Was the Johnson's first point in regard to Julian is to prove that
Roman Em- j^e J(oman empire was hereditary. Eusebius, speaking of
tary ? Constantino, says, ' Thus the throne of the empire descended
to him from his father, and by the law of nature was reserved
for his sons, and for their posterity, and was to descend for
ever as another paternal inheritance does/ Eumenius, in
an address to Constantine, says, ' It was not the casual con
sent of men, it was not any sudden effect of their favour,
which made you a prince. You gained the empire by being
born into the world/ Julian was the grandson of Constan
tine, and his rightful heir as Constantine was of his father
Constantius Chlorus. If, Johnson says, a divine right should
be wanted, whatever that may mean, we have it in the words
of Eusebius, that the empire was entailed ' by the edict of
nature/ in another place called ' the law of nature/ There
are also the .words of Julian himself, that God had vouch
safed to crown him 'with His own unspotted right hand/
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 47
It was this title which the Christians set aside, not indeed CHAP. VII.
by a Bill of Exclusion, for Julian had come to the throne
under the profession of a Christian. They could not remon
strate with Constantius while alive, for they were ignorant
of Julian's apostasy. But what they had no occasion to do
while Constantius lived, they did after his death. Gregory,
in his invective, immediately after Julian's death, addressing
the soul of Constantius, reproached him with having saved and
made Julian a king, ' who was both ill-saved, and made an
ill king/ One of the things which Constantius lamented on
his death-bed as unworthy of his reign, was the assistance
he had given to Julian, not knowing that he was an apo
state.
In the lifetime of Julian, the Christians treated him
with great indignity, prayed for his confusion, beat his
priests before his eyes, and would have beaten him too if he
had not kept out of their way. He called them Galileans ;
and they in like derision named him Idolianus, instead of Julian treated
Julianus; because of his many sacrifices, the bull-burner; temp^by'the
because he worshipped Jupiter and Adonis, Pisseus and Christians.
Adonasus. The people of Antioch excelled in this, and even
chafed him into the revengeful humour of writing a book
against them. They ridiculed him for the shape of his body,
his manner of walking, and his goat's beard. For this they
were commended by Theodoret, who says they ' did always
abominate Julian, who ought never to be remembered.'
The same Theodoret records of Maris, the blind Bishop of
Chalcedon, that he was led by the hand to the temple of
Fortune, where Julian was sacrificing, and reproached the
Emperor, calling him ' impious apostate, and an atheist.'
The Emperor, in return, reproached him with his blindness,
saying, ( Your Galilean God will not cure you.' To which
the bishop answered, ' I thank God for striking me with
blindness, that I may not see thy face, who art thus fallen
into impiety.' We read again that Valentinian, when he
was colonel of the Household Guards, went with Julian
in procession to the Temple of Fortune. The chaplains
were sprinkling those who entered with holy water. When
Yalentinian saw the holy water coming near his clothes, ' he
struck the chaplain with his fist, saying, that it would not
48 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. cleanse him, but defile him.' This made Augustine say of
Valentinian, that he ' was a confessor of the Christian faith
under Julian, and lost his place in the Guards for it.'
Gregory Nazianzen, in the funeral sermon on his father's
death, mentions his father's determined opposition to
Julian. The Emperor had come to Nazianzum with his
archers, and imperiously demanded the temple. Gregory
The Bishop says that his father the bishop so boiled with anger,
t°hfr^;;1™ that if he had got his hands on Julian, he would not
' kick ' Julian, have gone away without being ' kicked.' The passage is
admitted to be difficult, because it seems to make an emperor
afraid of a kicking from an old bishop. But Johnson says it
is impossible to understand it in any other sense.
The Christians showed the same contempt for Julian even
in their devotions. He commanded them to remove the
bones of Babylas and his fellow-martyrs from Daphne, where
Apollo's temple stood. They did so, gladly dancing before the
coffin, singing David's psalms, and adding at the end of every
verse, ' Confounded be all they that worship graven images ! '
Julian seized Theodorus, one of the leaders, put him in
prison, and treated him with great cruelty. Yet Theodorus
would do nothing but chant the refrain, ' Confounded be all
they that worship graven images ! ' To the same effect is
Theodoret's account of the widow Publia, who had a choir
of virgins devoted to virginity. When the Emperor passed
The Chris- they sang their psalms more lustily, that he might hear, —
ps^m^-ainst ' TllG id°ls °f the heatlien are silver and goldJ tne work of
him. men's hands.' Julian was vexed, and commanded them to
be silent when he passed, but they only sang the louder, —
' Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered.' To all
this Gregory Nazianzen testifies when he says, in an oration,
1 As for his destruction, how can any one appear to have
done more towards it than my father, either in public striking
the villain with the joint prayers and supplications of all
the people together, and not at all fearing the times, or in
private drawing forth his nightly squadrons against him ?
I mean his lying upon the ground, where he tore out his old
flesh, and watered the floor with his tears for almost a whole
year together.'
The death of Julian was to the Christians the occasion of
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 49
triumphant joy. It was made known to some of them by CHAP. VII.
revelation before the news had time to reach the West.
Libanius asked a Christian schoolmaster what the carpen
ter's Son was doing ? The Christian, ' being filled with
divine grace/ answered, ' The Creator of the world, whom
you call the carpenter's Son, is making a coffin/ In a
few days, Theodoret says, it was known at Antioch that the
'wretch' was dead. To St. Julian Sabba it was revealed
that ' the wild boar, the enemy of the Lord's vineyard, had
suffered the punishment of his sins and lay dead/ When
the Christians heard this they 'fell a- dancing, and offered up
to God a hymn of thanksgiving/ Theodoret says, ' His old
friends, the Antiochians, as soon as they heard of his death,
kept feasts and public joyful meetings, and they not only had
dances in their churches and chapels of the martyrs, but And dance in
likewise in their theatre/ They proclaimed the victory of ^ct^ch('H
the Cross, crying aloud with one voice, ' God and His Christ hear of his
have gotten the victory/ It was unknown by whose hand (
the spear was thrown which caused Julian's death. Socrates
supposes he was killed by one of his own soldiers. Callistus
says that the spear was thrown by a demon. Theodoret
says ' whether it was man or angel/ he was the ' minister
of the divine appointment and direction/ Libanius insi
nuates that the death of Julian was the work of a Christian ;
which, Sozomen says, may be true, adding, 'You can hardly
blame him who shows himself so courageous for God and
for that religion which he approves/ Over a monument
which the Christians erected to the memory of Julian, they
inscribed 'Thou persecutor next to Herod, thou traitor
next to Judas, who hast testified thy repentance by hanging
thyself as he did, killer of Christ after Pilate, and next to
the Jews thou hater of God/
Johnson finds a difference between the case of the Chris
tians under the first emperors and those under Julian. The The first
first Christians suffered according to the laws, but those JjJjj^jfJ^
under Julian were persecuted contrary to the law. Our cording to the
position is like that under Julian. We have our religion j
settled by such laws as cannot be altered without our con-
sent. It is not of the essence of the Gospel to be a suffer
ing religion. The prescriptions of prayers and tears, with
VOL. TT. E
50
EELIGIOTIS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
The king
subject to the
Constantius
CHAP. VII. the passive obedience of the Theban legion, are not the re
medies for the present time, when the laws of our country
are in our favour. Most men are satisfied that Archbishop
Abbot's doctrine was more the doctrine of the Church of
England than that of Sib thorp ; and that Mainwaring was
more orthodox when he recanted, than when he preached
his ' pulpit law/ as Lord Falkland called his mischievous
flattery. The royal prerogative is no ' boundless bot
tomless pit of arbitrary power and self-will/ There is no
authority upon earth above the law, much less against it.
The law makes the king, and so long as he is under the law
he ig Q.^ yica^ but not when he ig agamst thG law. TQ
the fiction that the king is responsible to God only, John
son answers that in that case the Kunip Parliament did
right in sending Charles I. to the proper tribunal. Julian
ends with ' A Comparison between Popery and Paganism/
The essential identity of the two forms of religion was as
sumed all through the book, and made a part of the argu
ment.
' Julian the Apostate ' was immediately answered by ' Con-
stantius the Apostate/ This tract was anonymous. It
professed to give an account of the life of Constantius, and
'the sense of the Primitive Christians about his successor
and their behaviour towards him/ It was also to fshow the
unlawfulness of excluding the next heir upon account of
religion, and the necessity of passive obedience as well to
the unlawful oppressor as the legal persecutor/ It had this
motto from the Homily on Willful Rebellion, ' Let us either
deserve to have a good prince or patiently suffer and obey
such as we deserve/ It was dedicated to Samuel Johnson,
who was told that, like Julian, he had taken holy orders,
and, like him, he had ' denied a, passive crucified Saviour/
The apostasy of Constantius was his going over to the
Arians ; and the argument is, that as the Christians did not
refuse allegiance to the Arian apostate Constantius, they
would not have promoted a Bill of Exclusion against the
heathen apostate Julian. Constantius persecuted the ortho
dox against law, that is, if the will of a king be not in itself
the highest law. He came to the throne under the pix>fes-
sion of the same religion as his father. He joined the Arians,
Julian.'
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 51
and caused many of the orthodox to bo pnt to death on CHAP. VII.
charges that had no foundation, and yet they never had so
much as an evil thought of their emperor. Athanasius, Ho-
sius, and other bishops were always subject to him. Curs
ing an Emperor, the author says, is no such Catholic doc
trine as Samuel Johnson supposes it to be. Constantius
had been a great persecutor, yet when he died he was car
ried forth by the Christians with all the solemnity with
which ' they are accustomed to honour the corpse of a pious
hero.'' Arianism, and not Christianity, was the religion of
the empire under Constantius. The orthodox, therefore,
were in the same position as the first Christians when the
empire was pagan. But in neither case was there any re
sistance shown to the powers ' ordained of God/ Another
answer to Samuel Johnson was announced at the end of
' Constantius/ as almost ready. This answer had the name
of Julian's successor, Jovian.
' Jovian' was published anonymously, but it was known < Jovian,'
to be the work of Dr. George Hickes. afterwards Dean of another an-
QT-yp-p j-y-v
Worcester, and celebrated as a Nonjuror. The life of Jovian * Julian.'
was chosen chiefly because the facts of that life were sup
posed to be a direct refutation of many of the statements
made in ' Julian the Apostate/ Jovian was appointed
Julian's successor, though in no way related to him ; while
Procopius, the nearest kinsman, was passed by, which shows
that the Eoman empire was not hereditary. Jovian was a
confessor of the Christian religion in the reign of Julian.
From this Dr. Hickes argues that either Julian did not
persecute illegally, or that the Christians quietly submitted
to the Emperor, even when persecuted contrary to the law.
Jovian was lampooned by the people of Antioch in the same
way as Julian had been which proves that the cause of the
satire against Julian was not his religion. When Jovian
was elected Emperor by the soldiers, they all cried out that
they were Christians. This is mentioned to prove that Ju
lian's soldiers were perfect examples of passive obedience
and non-resistance. They must have had sufficient force to
resist the Emperor if they had thought resistance a duty.
Dr. Hickes says that the Eomans had no idea of entail.
Hereditary succession was grounded entirely on feudal laws,
E 2
52 EELIGMOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. and was received from the barbarous nations which invaded
the empire.
The Roman If the Roman empire was not hereditary, it follows that
hcrSitary ^ne case of Julian is no parallel to that of James II. Be
sides the arguments from facts, Dr. Hickes notices the terms
in which Gregory Nazianzen speaks of Julian;s succession
to the empire. He was ' made' Caesar. The same word*
is used in the Septuagint for the creating of Saul and Ish-
bosheth kings, because they were kings purely by election.
Julian indeed had the vanity to boast that he had been or-
dained Emperor by God Himself, and that he had signs
from heaven admonishing him not to resist the wishes of the
army. Eusebius testifies that Constantino was declared
Emperor by a voice from heaven. But surely, Dr. Hickes
says, there must be a difference between the miraculous
signs which were wrought for Constantino and those which
Julian affirmed were given to him. Constantius, on his
death-bed, lamented that he had made Julian Caesar, be
cause he was free not to have done it if that had been his
will. Had Julian been passed by, that would not have been
exclusion, seeing he had 110 hereditary right. It would only
have been preterition or non-election. Roman emperors, as
well as Roman citizens, were always at liberty to disinherit
their nearest relations. When Eusebius says the throne of
the empire descended to Constantine from his father, he is
careful to add that it was by his father's order, which is in
consistent with the idea of entail.
Dr. Hickes finds the behaviour of the Christians towards
Julian altogether different from the account given by Samuel
Johnson. The soldiers were obedient when they might have
rebelled. The commanders were willing to be put to death,
Tlie Bishop of if it were the Emperor's wish. It was difficult to explain
did not wish the passage about the Bishop of Nazianzum ' kicking ' the
to kick the Emperor, but it was much more difficult to believe that ' so
good and apostolic a bishop would so deliberately resolve to
kick any man, much less his own sovereign.' It was impossible
that he could have forgotten St. Paul's words, that a bishop
must be no striker. Moreover, Gregory's father, according
to his own account, was at that time a feeble old man,
* j8a<riAeuo>.
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 53
'scarce ublo to breathe;' how then could he think of kick- CHAP. VII
ing an Emperor at the head of a troop of archers V The story
of Publia is not denied, but it is shown that she was satis
fied when Julian gave her a beating. This was what she
really wanted. She longed to be a sufferer. She desired
persecution. Her delight was in passive obedience. The
Christians, as Gregory Nazianzen testifies of Julian's sol
diers, strove to be martyrs, and he adds, that the gentle
ness of Julian was the greatest cruelty which the Christians
had to endure. Julian himself used to say, that ' the Chris
tians flew to martyrdom as bees to their hive'. Kesistance
was far from their creed, and further from their practice.
Augustine says, ' Julian was an infidel Emperor ; nay, was
he not an apostate, unjust and an idolater? And yet the
Christian soldiers served under an infidel Emperor.' And
Dr. Hickes says, that if God were to suffer a Popish Julian
to reign over us, ' I would die rather than resist him ; and
if this make a man a parasite, a sycophant, and murderer,
the Christian subjects of Julian were such, and I must be
so too till rny life's end.'
Dr. Hickes concludes with a long defence of passive obe
dience. He had preached a sermon on the subject, which
was noticed in ' Julian the Apostate.' He states his doc
trine plainly, that the King is accountable to none but God.
He has the sole power and disposal of the sword. The
Gospel requires from all subjects passive obedience, or non-
resistance. It matters not whether the sovereign be good
or evil, just or unjust, Christian or Pagan. If a sovereign No tyrants to
wishes tyrannically to take away a subject's life, the subject cy
is bound by the common laws of sovereignty not to resist, nor kings,
defend himself. The kings of England are kings previous
to their coronation, and descent of the crown purges from all
crimes. But, though willing to admit a Roman Catholic sove
reign to the succession, Dr. Hickes is yet resolved that he
will never himself become a Roman Catholic. He differs
from the author of ' Julian' in his view of the Church of
Rome, regarding it as a true Church, though corrupt ; while
Johnson said that its being corrupt took away from it the
character of a true Church. This distinction is less than
in words it appears to be. Many English theologians
54 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. contended for the Church of Rome being a true Church,
adding the explanation that it was so in the sense that a
thief is a true man. Dr. Hickes agreed entirely with
Johnson in his comparison of Popery and Paganism. He
was not ashamed of the name of Protestant, and he pro
nounced Protestantism nothing else but primitive Chris
tianity.
Hickes was supported by William Sherlock, at that
time Rector of St. George's, Botolph Lane. His first
Sherlock's tract was called ' The Case of Resistance of the Supreme
sistancc.' * Powers Stated and Resolved according to the Holy Scrip
ture/ The prevalence of what Sherlock calls ' Popish and
fanatic conspiracies/ sufficiently declared that the time had
come for a full discussion of this subject. Roman Catholics
did not admit the divine right of the King as opposed to the
Pope, nor did those whom Sherlock calls fanatics admit
that right as opposed to their liberties. These conspiracies
looked very different, yet they ' were tied together by the
tail with a firebrand/ The duty of passive obedience might
be proved out of Scripture by the doctrine and practice of
the primitive Christians, or by the fundamental constitution
of the government under which we live. The argument from
Scripture is the only one which Sherlock uses in this tract.
God Himself, it is said, set up a supreme government among
the Jews, which they were not to resist. The men who
opposed Moses and Aaron are described by St. Jude as
those fwho despise dominions/ God took care to provide
for a succession of rulers over the Jewish people. It had
been objected to this, that God gave the Jews a King in His
anger. The answer is, that their request of a King- implied
the rejection of Jehovah as their ruler. The King is the
' Lord's anointed/ He is not to be resisted. This is
proved by many passages out of the New Testament as well
as by histories from the Old. Zimri, who slow his master,
had not peace, and no man can have peace who resists his
sovereign.
Johnson replied to the authors of ' Constantius ' and ' Jo
vian/ in a further discourse, called ' Julian's Arts to Un
dermine and Extirpate Christianity/ In this book he
brings additional evidence from facts concerning Julian's
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 55
treatment of tlie Christians, and their behaviour towards CHAP. VII.
him, comparing the devices of the "Papists' to those of < juiian'8 Arts
Julian. His character for moderation and justice is not j;°duj^™a™
admitted. He wished to have credit for these qualities, but Christianity.'
this was merely one of his arts of dissimulation. Sozomen
and Nazianzen both record that when great barbarities were
committed by the Pagans on the Christians in Gaza, Julian
spoke of it as a matter not of any importance that a few
Galileans should be put to death. He tried many ways of
converting the people to Paganism. The soldiers, and those
who had learned the duty of passive obedience, he easily
persuaded, for, as Gregory said, ' they knew no other law
but the will of their prince/ Those whom he could not con
vince by sophistry, he tempted by promises of earthly pos
sessions. And that those who resisted all temptations
might be hunted down, he made choice of magistrates, who,
in Gregory's words, were 'most inhuman/ His edicts are
in themselves evidence sufficient that his chief object was
to destroy Christianity. All Christians were forbidden to
be schoolmasters or physicians. They were not allowed to
be soldiers, under pretence that their religion did not per
mit them to use the sword. He took their church plate,
because it was too rich for the service of the Son of Mary,
and he sent soldiers to relieve them of their money, that
' they might go the lighter to heaven/ When the Christians
complained of their injuries, he answered, ' It is your part,
when you are ill-used, to bear it, for this is the command
ment of your God/
It was not admitted that Constantius was an apostate. Constantius
He was a Christian emperor. The author had ascribed to ^^ apo"
him all the cruelties of the Arians during his long reign.
He had given an incorrect account of the orthodox Fathers
under Constantius. Their language was not that of passive
obedience. St. Hilary called Constantius Antichrist, in the
very title of a book written against him.* He addressed
him in these words, ' Thou ravening wolf, we see thy sheep's
clothing/ Lucifer Calaritanus also wrote a book against
Constantius, in which are these words, with many more to
* ' ContraConstantium Augustum.' stantium Antichristum.'
Its original title was ' Contra Con-
56 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. the same effect — l Pray shew but one of the worshippers of
God that ever spared the adversaries of his religion/ This
book was commended by Athanasius, who said that the
author had brought ' the truth to light, and set it upon a
candlestick, that it might give light to all/
Besides arguments for passive obedience from the Fathers
and the Scriptures,, Johnson answered those from the Homi
lies and the writings of eminent divines of the Church of
The Homilies England. The obedience inculcated by the Homilies is not,
pasSve obe- ne says-> submission to lawless violence,, but only to lawful
dience. authority. The main object of the Homilies on subjection
to civil rulers was to condemn rebellion in the interest of
the Roman Popes and the introduction of the Roman
Catholic religion. It is surely then, Johnson argues, a per
version of the teaching of the Homilies to use this doctrine
of obedience to the civil ruler as a means of introducing
that religion. These Homilies were written by Bishop
Jewel, and yet Bishop Jewel says in his Apology, speak
ing of the foreign Reformers/ — ' Neither doth any of
these teach the people to rebel against their prince, but only
to defend themselves by all lawful means against oppression ;
as did David against Saul, so do the nobles of France at
this day/ Bishop Bilson, too, in a book expressly written
on the subject, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, defends
the conduct of the French Protestants and the doctrine of
Luther. He says, indeed, that ' the subject has no refuge
against his sovereign, but only to God by prayer and
patience/ But this is spoken of those who have not the
laws on their side. Moreover, the compilers of the Homi
lies, the representative clergy of the Church of England in
Elizabeth's reign, not only maintained in several Convoca
tions the justice of the warfare of the French, Scotch, and
Dutch Protestants for their lives and liberties, but laid down
The compilers their purses to help them. Queen Elizabeth assisted the
d r nobility of Scotland in their Reformation, and the Earl of
Warwick was sent with an army to assist the Huguenots,
who were then called by the bishops and clergy in Convo
cation ' the professors of God's holy gospel and true
religion/ for so they ' had it in their hearts to call a parcel
of Calvinists who never had a bishop among them, whom
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 57
some in this degenerate age would sooner unchurch and CHAP. VII.
destroy than aid and assist/ These were the men who
compiled the Homilies. If, then, passive obedience be the
doctrine of the Homilies, it is widely different from the prac
tice of the compilers.
In answer to ( Jovian/ Johnson says that Constantius'
family was extinct in Julian. The election, therefore, of
Jovian by the army, does not prove that the empire was not
hereditary. Procopius pretended kindred with the house
of Flavius, but it was only pretension. Jovian's ( quiet be
haviour,' under Julian, does not prove that other Christians
were quiet. It does not prove that Valentinian did not The Chris-
strike the priest when he offered to sprinkle the holy water
upon him at the gate of the temple of Fortune. The con
duct of the people of Antioch towards Julian was, according
to Theodoret, the conduct of the Christians at Antioch. They
are commended for it, and described as those who received
the Gospel from Peter and Paul. The army under Julian
was not Christian. When Jovian was elected Emperor, he
expressly refused the office, because he was a Christian,
and the army heathen. On this the soldiers with one
voice called out that they were Christians. They had
been Christians under Constantius, Pagans under Julian, and
they were now willing to be Christians again under Jovian.
There are always such ' wretches ' in the world. Themis-
tius says, ' They do not worship God, but the people,' and
one of our own historians, speaking of the same kind of
men in the beginning of Queen Mary's reign, says, ' They
are so forward to worship the rising sun, that, to make sure
work of it, they even adore the dawning day/ They do
not wish a change of religion ; but when it is made, the
prince's religion is the current coin of the realm. The
Fathers certify that in Julian's time the empire was Pagan,
and the Christians had to hide themselves in their houses,
or flee for safety into the wilderness.
Bishop Burnet records that he once in conversation told
King James that it was impossible for him to reign quietly Non-resist-
over this nation so long as he was of the Roman Catholic cally Refuted,
religion. The king answered sharply, ( Does not the
Church of England maintain the doctrine of non-resistance
58 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
,'HAP. VII. and passive obedience ?' Burnet begged him not to de
pend on that, as ' there was a distinction in that matter that
would be found out when men thought they needed it/
The first check which King James received was from that
very section of the clergy who were his best friends, and
who had been the most zealous advocates of non-resistance.
Not content with the free exercise of the religion which he
had chosen, the King was employing* all the supposed privi
leges of the royal prerogative for the subversion of the Pro
testant Church. The hope of a reconciliation between the
Church of England and the Church of Rome was gone.
One other scheme remained, that of uniting the Noncon
formists with the Roman Catholics against the Church of
England. This appears to have been the Court policy at
different eras in the reigns both of Charles and James. The
royal power, being above law, might dispense with law;
and it was readily concluded that if this power were exer
cised in favour of toleration to Nonconformists they would
not object to its exercise. It would include freedom for
Roman Catholics ; and Churchmen, from their own doctrine
of non-resistance, would not resist the wish of the King.
These calculations were found not to be correct. When
the famous ( Declaration for Liberty of Conscience' was
published in 1687, the Nonconformists had scruples about
accepting it, because they did not believe in the preroga
tive from which it originated.* Permission was given to
all persons to hold religious assemblies. The penal laws
were not to be executed, the Test Acts were to be suspended,
and the oaths of supremacy and allegiance not required.
Many of the Dissenters, not seeing all that was involved in
* The King says, ' We cannot but making- no doubt of the concurrence
heartily wish that all the people of of our two Houses of Parliament,
our dominions wore members of the when we shall think it convenient
Catholic Church, yet we humbly for them to meet. In the first place,
thank Almighty God it is and hath we do declare that we will protect and
a long time been our constant sense maintain our archbishops, bishops,
and opinion that conscience ought not and clergy, and all other subjects of
to be constrained nor people forced the Church of England, in tho free
in matters of mere religion. "We exercise of their religion, as by law
therefore, out of our princely care established, and in the quiet and full
and affection to all our loving sub- enjoyment of all their possessions
jects, have thought fit, by virtue of without any molestation or disturb-
our royal prerogative, to issue forth ance whatever.'
this our Declaration of Indulgence,
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE.
59
this exercise of tlio royal will, presented addresses ex- CHAP. VII.
pressing gratitude,* but the clergy who believed in the
prerogative made the distinction of which Burnet had
hinted to the King. When the order was passed in Council
for this ' Declaration' to be read in all churches, as many The bishops
bishops as could come to London met at Lambeth. They °PP°s.e th-e
composed an address to the King, and pronounced the the royal
( dispensing power ' ' illegal/ as declared by the Parliament prerogative,
of 1662 and reaffirmed by that of 1672.f
The bishops were prosecuted for ' affronting his Majesty Are prose-
and censuring him and his government/ After being sent Acquitted
to the Tower they were tried at Westminster and acquitted,
to the great joy of the nation. On the day of their acquittal
the Prince of Orange was invited to England. In a few
months James had fled and William succeeded to the throne.
The great body of the clergy at once took the oaths to the
new monarch. They professed, however, to retain the doc-
that liberty to us which you allow to
all mankind.' To which the Bishop
of Peterborough added, ' The reading
this Declaration is against our con
science.' The King asked, ' Do you
question my dispensing power? Some
* When Charles tried the exercise
of his prerogative in the Declaration
of 1672, the Nonconformists generally
regarded this as the best way of set
tling the question. Dr. Robert "Wilde,
the facetious Puritan poet, gives a
humorous account in a letter to a
of you have printed and preached for
it when it was to your purpose ;' add-
I will have my Declaration
friend of the joy which the news of
the ' Declaration ' brought him in his ing, a. w^ ^«,v^ ^j ^^^m*^^
retirement at Oundle. His wife was published.' The Bishop of Bristol
laying the tablecloth, which, in better answered, ' "We will honour you, but
<Wa Vmrl V.PPTI in'a < lir.yspplnf.Vi ' His we must fear God.' The address was
days, had been his ' horsecloth,
maid had gone for mustard, and he
was himself sitting with the frying-
pan on his knee, ' admiring the hiss- Lloyd, of St. Asaph's ; Turner,
ing music of four salt herrings which n
had been in as bad a pickle almost as
the Dutch fleet or the sons of the
Church at the reading the Indul
gence on the day before.' Hearing the
postboy's horn blowing near his win-
subscribed by seven bishops : San-
croft, Archbishop of Canterbury ;
of
Ely; Lake, of Chfchester; Ken, of
Bath and Wells; White, of Peter
borough; Trelawney, of Bristol. It
had the approbation of Compton, of
London; Lloyd, of Norwich; Fr;un]>-
ton, of Gloucester ; Ward, of Salis-
dow, he knew that there was a letter bury; Mew, of Winchester, and Lamp-
./» _ i • -¥TT1 1 JT i T^' i I. _ 1_ _ £ T71 J. Tl 3 ~£ ~\T ' ^1,
for him. When he saw the ' Dieu et
mon Droit,' he laughed so loud that
his wife ran with ' a herring tail
hanging out of her mouth to see what
was the matter.'
f AVhen tho bishops presented the
address, the King said, ' I did not ex
pect this.' He pronounced it rebel
lious; 'the sounding of Sheba's trum
pet,' and worse than all 'the seditious
preachings of the Puritans in the
year '40.' 'I hope,' said the Bishop
of Bath and Wells, 'you will give
leugh, of Exeter. Lloyd, of Norwich,
did not receive the invitation, through
a mistake of the postmaster. MONV
was taken ill on his journey from
Winchester to London. The Bishop
of London was under suspension for
refusing to suspend Dr. Sharp, Rector
of St. Giles-in-thc-Fields, and after
wards Archbishop of York, who had
offended the King by preaching
against Romanism. The Declaration
was not read in more than two hun
dred churches throughout England.
60 KEL1GIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. trine of hereditary right, and in various ways vindicated
their consistency. Some alleged that William of Orange
was King by right of conquest. He had not been set up
by the authority of Parliament, which, they said, had no
power to make or unmake kings, but by his army and navy
conquering the nation. Others said that God, in the fulfil
ment of prophecy and by His own eternal decrees, had set
William upon the throne, and therefore all the subjects of
his nation should give him allegiance. A more favourite
explanation was that James had abdicated, for by deserting
the kingdom he had dethroned himself. It was therefore
incumbent on the clergy to help to put another in his place,
lest the nation should fall into a republic, which would
have been the greatest of calamities. A fourth reason for
taking the oaths to William was the command of St. Paul
to submit to the powers that be. It was declared not to be
the duty of subjects to inquire into the rights of princes, but
to submit to those who were in possession of the kingdom.
Some were dissatisfied with all these reasons, and re
signed their preferments rather than take the oaths to
William and Maiy. The last reason, however, was the
cause of a great controversy, from its being defended by
The conver- William Sherlock, who had written as strongly in favour of
Sherlock/' uon-resistance, and who long scrupled to acknowledge
William as King. Sherlock was now Master of the Temple,
and, by the indulgence of the government, he had been per
mitted to hold his preferment after he had refused the
oaths. His ultimate conversion was naturally ascribed to
motives not the highest. His wife had always supported
the Prince of Orange, and, according to Dr. Hickes, she
' sent in a man and horse ' to his assistance. It was gene
rally said that Sherlock's conversion was ' due to the devil
and Mrs. Sherlock/ He published the reasons of his
taking the oaths, vindicating himself from inconsistency.
He still adhered to the doctrine of non-resistance, re
tracting only one passage of any significance. That was
his explanation of St. Paul's words ' All power is of God/
which in his former tract, he had limited to ' legal ' power.
On this word ' legal/ and its bearing on the case of James
and the Prince of Orange, the whole question turned.
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 6l
Sherlock's treatise was called ' The Case of the Allegiance CHAP. VII.
due to Sovereign Powers Stated and Resolved According He advo
to Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church eates alle-
of England/ In the beginning, he purposely avoided the \vinium°and
inquiry concerning the ' legal right ' of William and Mary. Mary.
That was a question not to be discussed, for no actual
government would allow subjects to question its right. If
the Revolution could be justified, Sherlock would find no
difficulty in answering all objections to the new oaths. But
he denies the necessity of going into that question at all.
It is quite enough for him that the government of William
and Mary is a settled government. It is therefore ' of God/
The powers that be ' are ordained of God/ With the origin
and history of these powers, the question of our obedience
has nothing to do. Sherlock, in the title of his tract, indi
cates that he does not confine himself to reason and Scrip
ture. He even declared his principles to be those of the His conver-
Church of England. His authority was the Convocation jjgjoiw.
Book of Bishop Overall. By reading this book, he had all's ' Convo-
beon convinced that it was right to give allegiance to catlon B
William and Mary. The Convocation Book had just been
published for the first time by Archbishop Sancroft, and
with the object of teaching the people to give allegiance
only to King James. That the Church of England had
been very careful to instruct her children in their duty to
princes, and to obey the laws, was not denied on either side.
' But/ Sherlock added, ' she has withal taught, that all
sovereign princes receive their power and authority from
God, and therefore every prince who is settled in the
throne is to be obeyed and reverenced by us as God's
minister and not to be resisted ; which directs us what to do
in all revolutions of government, when once they come to
a settlement, and those who refuse to pay obedience and
swear to such princes whom God has placed on the throne,
whatever their legal right be, do as much reject the doctrine
of the Church of England, as those who teach the resistance
of princes/
The Convocation Book, after speaking of the changes in
government which God often makes for the sins of the
people, says, ' the authority either so unjustly gotten, or
62 RKLTGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor, being
always God's authorit}r, is ever to be reverenced and obeyed/
It is again said, that he greatly errs who supposes that in
any new forms of government 'begun by rebellion, and
after thoroughly settled, the authority of them is not of
God/ or that ' the Jews in Egypt or Babylon might law
fully for any cause have taken up arms against any of these
Kings/ The Convocation Book says that the Lord is not
bound by the laws which He prescribes to others. He com
manded Jehu, a subject, to be anointed king over Israel, pur
posely to punish the sins of Ahab and Jezebel. The
Moabites and Ammonites could have no legal right to the
government of Israel, and yet the Convocation Book says,
that it was not lawful for the Israelites ' to take arms
against the Kings, whose subjects they were, though in
deed they were tyrants/ It was the same under the ' four
monarchies/ which were all violent usurpations. Jaddus
bound himself by an oath of allegiance t*p King Darius, but
he transferred his allegiance to Alexander, as soon as Alex
ander conquered Darius. These principles, clearly laid
down in the Convocation Book, were advocated by Sher
lock, both from Scripture and reason. His argument was
grounded on the belief that no event in the world happens
merely by divine permission, but that God is the author of
all good and all evil, either to private persons or public
societies.
Sherlock's The answers to Dr. Sherlock were very numerous. Some of
adversaries. those who took ^Q oaths were ciissatisfied that he still advo-
cated non-resistance, and those who did not take the oaths
found his reasons valid only as mere excuses for retaining his
preferments. Of the former class, was the author of the tract
called, ' Kemarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Book, intituled The
Case of the Allegiance/ It was shown that on Dr. Sher
lock's principles, those who opposed King John, Henry III.,
and Edward II. were rebels and traitors, though warranted
by the laws of the land. The notion of irresistible authority
in princes, the writer said, was not then hatched. It did not
appear till long after the Reformation. Queen Elizabeth
and her Parliament were of another opinion when they
gave subsidies to relieve distressed subjects against their
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 63
princes. When Sibthorp and Mainwaring broached their CHAP. VII.
traitorous positions in the time of Charles I., they were im
peached in Parliament. And yet clergymen will have
that to be the doctrine of the Church which would destroy
the State and all human society. The writer denies that
it is the doctrine of the Church of England, or that the
Convocation Book can in any official way represent the
Church of England. The canons of that Convocation never
had the assent of Parliament, nor the King's Letters Patent.
It is only a few of the clergy who believe that the Convo
cation, in any sense, is the representative body of the Church
of England. Sherlock's doctrine is described as the prin- His doctrine
ciple of waiting till the battle is fought out, and then taking
the side that wins. The ' late king ' is admitted by Sher- Eight.
lock to have a ' legal right ' to the crown, for ' God alters
no legal right/ And from this it is inferred that Sherlock
cannot acknowledge ' a legal right ' in ' their present
majesties.' He had made a distinction between the case
of the Prince of Orange and that of Cromwell ; for in the
days of the latter, we had no King, no Lords, and but ( a
part of the House of Commons.' To this the writer an
swers that the powers of that time were ' the powers that
be/ and, on Sherlock's principles, were ' ordained of God.'
It could not be said that in Cromwell's time there was no
( settlement ;' for the Highlanders in Scotland were sub
dued, Ireland was reduced to subjection, and the govern
ment was acknowledged by all the princes and governments
in Christendom.
Another writer on the same side wrote, ' Some Modest
Eemarks on Dr. Sherlock's New Book.' He wished that
the Convocation Book might have the same effect on the
Archbishop which it had on Dr. Sherlock. To take the
oaths to William and Mary was right by all means, but to
wait till a new government was settled after a revolution,
was not an easy rule to follow. When is a government
1 thoroughly settled'? Sherlock's answer is, when one Cromwell's
power is driven out and another placed on the throne in i
the full administration of government. This is paralleled Sherlock's'
by the reasons which William Jenkyns addressed to Crom
well's Government for his being released from prison.
64 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. Jenkins had been concerned in the Love Plot for the re
storation of Charles II., but in prison he was convinced
that under Cromwell the ' powers that be' were ordained of
God. With Dr. Sherlock it is orthodox doctrine; with
William Jenkyns it was only cant and enthusiasm. The
writer says that Dr. Sherlock need not have hesitated so
long about giving allegiance to William and Mary; for, had
he known the constitution of this kingdom, he would have
known that the two Houses of Parliament were sufficient to
give a ( legal right/ But his principles are those of fthe
heathens and Persians, that he who has the best success is
favoured by heaven, and that God establishes the prosper
ous, right or wrong, and therefore he is resolved to adore
the rising sun/ The writer also remarks that the bishops
who authorized the Convocation Book had no intention
of teaching the principles which Dr. Sherlock had learned
from it. The royal prerogative was the idol of the bishops
in the reign of King James I. They were mostly favourers
of the Spanish and French matches. ( 'Tis a thousand to
one/ the writer adds, 'but that same bishop might be a
member of this Convocation, who thanked God he had
never read a line in Chaucer or Calvin, and in a sermon
at Court made use of this simile, that our religion stood
between two beasts, the Puritan and the Papist/*
On the side of the Nonjurors there were also many replies
to Sherlock. He had deserted them when the weight of his
name and position was of importance to their cause. One
was called ' The Trimming Court Divine/ The argument
was, that as the Primate and some other of the bishops had
not taken the oaths, there had not been a ( thorough settle
ment 3 of the new monarchy. There was another, called,
c An Answer to the late Pamphlet/ in which the author
maintained that Sherlock had not given the right sense of
the Convocation Book. He was said to have omitted many
The Non- things necessary to the understanding of the subject. It
jurors deny was denied that the government under William and Mary
been a ' tho- was yet f thoroughly settled/ Limerick, a place of power,
* Another pamphlet on the same on one column, and on the other the
side was called. 'Sherlock against opposing words of tho Master of the
Sherlock,' placing the words of the Temple.
Rector of St. George's, Botolph Lane,
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 65
trust, and importance, had not been reduced to obedience. CHAP. VII.
Dr. Sherlock mistakes the meaning of 'thoroughly settled '
in the Convocation Book. The case of Athaliah is adduced.
She had in her hands all places of power and trust for six
years, and yet the Convocation is so far from saying that
obedience was due to her, that they expressly justify re
sisting her and putting her to death. Dr. Sherlock's doc
trine is said to be inconsistent with the main and funda
mental doctrine of the book, while he indirectly censures
'the worthies of the Church of England who suffered be
tween the years forty- two and sixty/
Of the Nonjuring answers the most important was written Dr. Ilickes
by Dr. Hickes. It was called, ' A Vindication of Some among
Ourselves against the False Principles of Dr. Sherlock/ It
had reference to ' The Case of Allegiance/ and also to a ser
mon preached in the Temple Church on the 29th of May,
1G92. In a dedication to the Benchers, the preacher says
the law of England is divided by an eminent lawyer into
three parts — Lex Ecclcsice, Lex Goronce, and Lex Terra1,. If
Dr. Sherlock's doctrine be correct, that providential posses
sion supersedes Lex Coronce and gives a usurper a divine
right to the Crown, then in the other cases the Pope may
have a divine right to the Church of England if he can get
possession of it, and the King a divine right to the estates
of his subjects if he can only make them his own by force.
The pamphlet is in the form of a letter, and Dr. Sherlock
is informed that his sermons are ' pitiful/ not ' fit for the
press/ and that he has written many wretched pieces since
he took the oaths. He was told, further, that ' though he
had made the right of William and Mary to depend on their
possession, ignoring abdication and vacancy, the principle
on which the Convocation had proceeded, yet in his sermon
before the House of Commons he had servilely justified the
Revolution, on the plea that King James had abdicated and
therefore the throne was vacant.' It was easy, in the judg
ment of Hickes, to divine the reason which had most weight
with Sherlock. ' A providential king in possession/ he
said, 'hath bishoprics and deaneries at his disposal, but
the legal king out of possession hath nothing to bestow/
Hickes' pamphlet is not so much a vindication of those
VOL. TT. F
66
RELiaiOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Stilling-flcct
CHAP. VII. who did not take the oaths as an accusation against those
who did.*
Every effort was made by the government and the leading
Churchmen to retain the Nonjurors in the Church. But
this was impossible so long as they refused the oaths. They
maintained that they were the Church of England, and
under this pretence they continued the -exercise of their
spiritual functions. A schism was the result, and the usual
question followed as to which side the real cause of the
schism was due. Dr. Stillingfleet, already famed for his
0PPosition to the Nonconformists, wrote ' A Discourse Con-
Separation. cerning the Unreasonableness of the New Separation/ It
was to him surprising that those who had been so zealous
against separation should themselves so easily fall into
schism. They had often urged on the Nonconforming min
isters to be content with the place assigned them by the
authorities of the Church, that of lay members, but why
were not the Nonjurors satisfied with the same place?
Taking the oaths was not made a condition of communion.
Those who did take them might be perfectly conscientious
in so doing, why then should the Nonjurors refuse to com
municate with them ? Stillingfleet argued that the general i
good absolved men from the oath taken to King James. ,
No oath, not even a vow to Grod, is binding on men, when i
it interferes with a manifest good. The case of a slave is i
instanced. The best writers are said to be agreed that if a i
slave be kept in chains, he is under no obligation of con
science to his master. Stillingfleet defended the doctrine i
of passive obedience, but he denied that in the Church of
England it ever meant anything else but allegiance to a j
king or queen actually in possession. It was objected ]
that, according to the casuists, no oath ought to be taken |
to the prejudice of a third person. To which Stillingfleet i
answers, that it is also a principle among the casuists that
no oath ought to be taken against the public good. Again,
* There was published at Amster-
dam, in 1689, 'A History of Passive
Obedience.' On this work Samuel
Johnson wrote ' Reflections.' The
'History' is abundant in citations
from Scripture, Fathers, formularies
of \}w rhureh of England, and writ-
ings of her divines, to prove that the
King is the minister of God. John- j
son's answer is, that the King is so as
long as he does what is right. King i
James II. became 'the minister <>(' the
devil.'
PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 67
it was said that an oath should not be taken contrary to a CHAP. VI r.
former oath ; to which the answer is, that the former oath is
not in force when it is repugnant to the welfare of the
nation. Cases are produced from English history where Proves from
allegiance was transferred without regard to a former oath. &£?«,-
The Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Win- lawfulness of
Chester and Salisbury, with the majority of the English the new oaths'
nobility, did not hesitate to give allegiance to Stephen, not
withstanding their oath to Maud, the daughter of Henry I.
Another case was that of King John, who was merely king
de facto, elected by the people, as Archbishop Hubert de
clared at the coronation. Yet, as Duke of York, he had
taken an oath of allegiance to Henry V. so long as he lived.
The three estates of the realm put this oath aside because
of the public good. The passages in the Homilies which
condemn rebellions and revolutions are explained as refer
ring to the usurpations of the Popes, and their disposition
to disturb kingdoms. It was also shown that some of the
Roman emperors, to whom allegiance is commanded in the
New Testament, were chosen by the armies, or made empe
rors by right of conquest.
Stillingfleet was briefly answered by Samuel Grascombe,
and vindicated by Dr. John Williams, who defended the
oaths to William and Mary as agreeable to the laws and
constitution of this realm. Though the government was
compelled to inflict penalties on those of the clergy who
were disobedient, yet these penalties, Williams said, did not
affect them as members of the Church. They could not
officiate as ministers, but they could continue in communion
as members. They were the very men who had always The Non-
cried out most vehemently against schism, yet they wil
rather destroy the Church than suffer inconvenience to
themselves. The civil power does not profess to make or
'unmake either bishops or priests, but it has a right to
deprive men who refuse that allegiance which is necessary
for good government. Their conduct was often contrasted
.with that of the Nonconformists, who, as a rule, continued
to receive the sacraments at church, and though unwilling
to be silent, conformed so far as in conscience they could
conform. Samuel Grascorabe replied to Williams that it
F 2
68
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. was impossible for the Nonjurors to continue members of
the Church of England, so long as the names of William
and Mary were found in the Prayer Book. The oath, he
maintained, was really made a condition of communion.
The Non- Eight bishops,* and, it is said, about four hundred clergy
men, refused to take the oaths. f The bishops were San-
croft, Archbishop of Canterbury; Turner, Bishop of Ely;
Lloyd, of Norwich ; White, of Peterborough ; Thomas, of
Worcester ; Frampton, of Gloucester ; Ken, of Bath and
Wells ; and Lake, of Chichester. Sancroft had been raised
to the Primacy on the death of Sheldon in 1678. He was
a High Churchman, but like the highest Churchmen of that
age, a decided Protestant. It was supposed that he was
made Archbishop of Canterbury in the hope that he might
be used as an instrument to bring in the Roman Catholic
religion. If this supposition be correct, those who promoted
the appointment were certainly deceived. Sancroft's dis
position was gentle, and his character vacillating, but some
times he could be firm. He left no writings, if we except three
sermons that were preached on public occasions. He had a
great aversion to allow anything he wrote to be printed.
Perhaps he knew, as Macaulay has shown, that his English
could not bear criticism. The occasions of the three sermons
were, the first consecration of bishops after the Restoration,!
the solemn fast after the Fire of London, and a fast for
imploring the mercies of God in the protection of Charles II.
during ' the Popish Plot/
Sancroft's The first sermon is the only one which has any theological
sermon at the interest. It is a defence of Episcopacy against the ( modern
oration after platform ' of Geneva and the usurpations of the Papacy.
the^Restora- rphe text |g about Titus being> jeft in Qrete to or(Jajn pres.
byters, called also bishops, in every city. This converti
bility of the words presbyters and bishops was the strength
of the argument advanced by the Presbyterians. But San-
croft says, that though a bishop may bo called a presbyter,
* Some include Cartwright, of J The bishops wore Cosin, of Dur-
Chester, who had to leave England ham ; Lucy, of St. David's ; Laney,
after the Revolution. of Peterborough ; Sterne, of Carlisle ;
t The list at the end of Kettle- Walton, of Chester ; and (iuuden, *f
well's works does not amount to more Exeter,
than 220,
THE JSTOKJURORS. 69
a single presbyter is never called a bishop. The text is ex- CHAP. VII.
plained on the supposition that Titus was Archbishop or
Metropolitan of Crete. He was to consecrate a bishop for
every city in the island, and to govern these bishops as his
suffragans. The Apostles in this way gave grace to their
successors, and that -grace has come down to us, even as the
oil on Aaron's beard flowed down to the skirt of his gar
ment. The model of Church government was set up at
Crete, and Sancroft addressed the Presbyterians in the
words of St. Paul, when there was danger of shipwreck,
' Sirs, ye should not have parted from Crete,' and so c have
gained harm and disgrace.' The modern Titus was
Archbishop Juxon, who was consecrating a whole province
of bishops at once. We have, now, Crete in England. S10*6 ai^
r . : . .° England com-
J3oth islands are a kind of tngon betwixt three points or pared,
promontories. Both are called by ancient writers ( the
happy islands/ and both were called ' white/ because on
one side they were bounded by cliffs of chalk, — ' Candid
a candidis, as Albion cib albis rupibasJ The parallel is
curious, but, like most parallels strictly followed out, it
borders on burlesque. St. Paul quoted a poet, who said that
the Cretans were always liars. A prophet he was, Sancroft
adds, and prophesied of this present age that it might ' see
its face and blush.' The English nation, but lately, had
slandered ' the Lord's anointed.' They had accused the
brethren and the fathers, that they might devour men
more righteous than themselves. Pliny says, that there
was no poisonous animal in Crete/ and Solinus adds, that
it Lad no serpents ; but he should have excepted the inha
bitants, who were ' evil beasts/ and not only evil, but ' veno
mous.' In this, too, we resemble Crete. We have vipers that
have eaten out the bowels of their common mother. Grotius
' says, that the Cretans were a mutinous and seditious people,
and it were to be wished that in this the English nation had
not been like them. We have also had a ( Cretan labyrinth/
! — an endless maze of errors and heresies ; and, in the laby-
riut li, an hideous monster, a ' Minotaur semibovemque virum,
Btemivirunique bovem, Rome and Geneva, Cracovia, ay, and
Mecca too.' But now we have a Theseus to slay the monster,
and an Ariadne to lend the clue. We have the restoration
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. of the Apostolic government, the ( Cretan model,' a Metro
politan with a whole province of bishops.
This sermon was preached when Bancroft was compara
tively a young man. Its style is antiquated and its ideas
exploded. He had inherited more of the past than the
leading divines who were of his age ; and but for the great
events that happened during his Primacy, he would have
been passed by as the most insignificant of the Reformed
Archbishops of Canterbury. His refusing to take the oaths
to William might have been pardoned, but no man now
approves of his conduct in separating from the communion
of the Church of England, and taking steps to perpetuate the
schism of the Nonjurors. Yet a man who, for conscience'
sake, could give up the revenues of the See of Canterbury,
and live contentedly in obscurity on fifty pounds a year, is
deserving of admiration, whatever his weaknesses may
have been. When there was danger of Roman Catholicism
being introduced by stealth into England, Bancroft coun
selled a friendly alliance with Nonconformists. He in
structed the clergy to have a very tender regard for
Protestant Dissenters ; they were, ' upon occasions, offered,
to visit them at their houses, and receive them kindly at
their own, and treat them fairly whenever they meet them,
discoursing calmly and civilly with them, persuading them,
if it may be, to a full compliance with the Church, or at
least, that, whereunto we have already attained we may
walk by the same rule and mind the same thing/
Bishop Ken. Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, is the best known
of the Nonjuring bishops. He is one of the few men who,
belonging to one party, have yet preserved the esteem of
all parties. Ken's intellect was not great, but like some
narrow streams, it was pure and beautiful. A few successful
lines in two hymns, among volumes of very poor verses,
have almost. done for him what the Elegy in a Country
Churchyard has done for Thomas Gray. By these lines he
is remembered by many who have forgotten or never known
that he was a Nonjuror. But the cause of the Nonjurors
does not gain much from Ken. He was the last to decide on
the refusal of the oath, and the first to deplore the schism
which followed. Macaulay has shown that the difference
Bancroft
recommends
a friendly
alliance with
Noncon
formists.
THE WON J URGES. 71
between Ken and tlie Whigs was not a difference of prin- CHAP. VII.
ciple. He would have given allegiance to William, if it had
been true, as it was reported, that James had ceded Ireland
to the French king. So .that Ken recognised a point where
resistance was a duty. In a letter to Dr. Hickes, in 1700,*
he earnestly recommended the other Nonjurors to resign
their canonical claims and communicate in public offices
with the Church. The ground on which he advised this
was that the peace of the Church should supersede all
ecclesiastical canons, which at best were only of human
authority.
Ken, however, belonged entirely to the narrow Church A narrow
party which embraced the Nonjurors. The Latitudina-
rians, as they were called, were in his judgment scarcely
Christians. They were regarded as men who had betrayed
their baptismal faith. f Bishop Burnet was a mere traducer
of the Church. But, like all really devout High Churchmen,
Ken was a zealous advocate for keeping ' holy the Sabbath
day/ The day of rest, under the gospel, was delivered, he
said, from Jewish rigour, but' not from the piety of the
Jewish Sabbath. He kept to the 'real presence' in the
Eucharist, in the sense described by Dryden, when he wrote,
' Nonsense never can be understood.'
Ken had piety, firmness of character,^ and, what is better
than either orthodox or even rational theology, he had a
living faith in righteousness. ' There is/ he says, in one
of his sermons, 'nothing stable but virtue; nothing that can
keep us steady in all revolutions but the love of God ; and
when the worldly wise men and the mighty fail by their
own weakness, or moulder by the decays of time, or wear
out of fashion, or are overwhelmed by a deluge of envy, or
are blown away by the breath of God's displeasure, or when
the world of its own accord frowns and forsakes them and
their name and memory perish, the man that loves God is
still the same ; God whom he loves is still the same ; with
* Prose Works, p. 49. Chester for Nell G-wynne, Ken an-
f Prose Works, p. 67. swered, ' Not for his whole kingdom.'
| When Charles II. asked the use It is said that for this Charles made
of Ken's prebcndal residence at Win- him a bishop.
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT US' ENGLAKD.
His sermon
on Daniel.
CHAP. VII. Him is no variableness or shadow of turning/ * In a fune
ral sermon on Lady Mainard, there is a charming picture
of a devout woman whose piety was of Ken's own type.
In the celebrated sermon on Daniel, preached at Whitehall,
Ken has sketched the character and conduct of Daniel in
words which are generally regarded as applicable to himself.
The text is ' 0 Daniel, a man greatly beloved/ The He
brew youth had kept himself uiicorrupted by the luxury or
religion of the king. He was afraid to break the law of his
own religion in eating the meat offered to Bel. He refused
to obey the decree which forbade him to ask a petition
from any god or man except from the king. ' For Daniel,
personally, it was grievous to offend Darius, who had been
to him a gracious and indulgent master. When his duty to
God and obedience to his king stood in competition, though
it was an inexpressible grief to the good man that ever
there should be such a competition, he obeyed God/f
Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely, published several occa
sional sermons and some tracts. The most important of the
latter was an answer to Bishop Croft, called ' Animadver
sions on Naked Truth/ It was written several years be
fore Turner was a bishop and published without his name.
Bishop Croft's book was also anonymous. Turner did not
know against whom he was writing. The author of ' Naked
Truth' is not spoken of in the most courteous language.
His Christianity is regarded as defective, and his faith in
God's ' Vicegerent,' Charles II., as not what it ought to be.
The argument of ( Naked Truth' was directed against the
multitude of creeds and impositions that were now made neces
sary to salvation. Bishop Croft pointed to the simplicity
of faith, as described in the New Testament. Philip spent
but a short time in catechizing the Ethiopian eunuch. He
only required the confession that Jesus is the Christ, and
then he proceeded to baptism. Turner's answer is that
which would be given by any orthodox advocate of the
creeds in the present day. The subsequent creeds are only
* Prose Works, p. 171. against him. Ken answered that
f An incorrect account of this ser- if his majesty had not neglected his
mon was carried to tho king. Ken duty of being present, his enemies
was tmmmoned to appear before James, would not ha vo had this opportunity
when ho was charged with preaching of accusing him.
Bishop
Turner.
Answers
k Naked
Truth.'
THE NONJUROKS. 73
amplified forms of the doctrines expressed in the Apostles' CHAP. TIL
Creed. As new heresies arose, new and more decisive de
finitions of the faith had to be made. The Apostles' Creed
is admitted to contain all that is necessary to salvation, on
the ground that it contains the substance of all the other
creeds. A description of the Thirty-nine Articles is taken
from Bishop Laney. They are called e Articles of Peace/
but not in the sense of comprehending men of different
views. Neither are they new articles of faith. They are
articles which are to express the opinions of all the clergy
in certain controversies. That they are not articles of faith
is supposed to be proved from the fact that subscription is
not required from the laity.
The brevity of the creed of the Ethiopian eunuch is dis- Disputes the
puted. He may have had longer instruction, and he may
have learned more than appears from the narrative. His creed,
confession was that Jesus is the Christ, but surely, Turner
says, he had learned of the third Person in the Trinity.
Philip's baptism must have embraced more than the baptism
of those who did not know whether there be any Holy
Ghost. The formula of baptism in the name of the Trinity
must itself have taught him more than the mere sonship of
Christ. The immersion in the water was a lesson of dying
unto sin, and the emersion, of a life unto righteousness.
Socinians, yea Mahometans, believe that Jesus is the
Christ. The confession of Philip must therefore have in
cluded more than the words seern to imply. It must have
been equivalent to that of Peter, ' Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God.' And in this case, it was the rock
on which Christ built His Church. To the plea that we
should always express doctrine in Scripture language,
Turner makes the very sensible answer that we cannot.
If the things taught in the Scriptures are to be taken up by
the human intellect, they must be expressed in such words
as the human mind can invent to express them. Though
Bishop Croft was on the Liberal side, his argument evi
dently supposed some special virtue in the words of Scrip
ture over ordinary human speech. Turner, unconscious
probably of the whole bearing of what he maintained, said
that we could not escape making deductions or inferences
74 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
( 'HAP. VII. from the Scriptures. It is useless to exalt reason, and abuse
reasoning. The Schoolmen, Turner says, had a noble de
sign : they wished to systematize divinity, to arrange it in
such an order as that the whole matter might be seen at
once. This approbation of the Schoolmen is an admission
of the necessity of reasoning in matters which concern re
ligion. It supposes that the truth received is in proportion
to the capacity of the receiving mind, and that by reasoning,
reason itself is made perfect.
Recommends In Turner's treatise, we can discern some of the peculiar
com S^to ° mapks of tlie ' good churchman ' of this age. He says that
go to Church, the civil magistrate should compel the people to give the
clergy a fair hearing. It is admitted that they cannot be
compelled to believe the gospel, but after they have been
compelled to hear it, the responsibility of not believing rests
with themselves. The example of the Pope is commended,
who compels all the Jews in Rome to hear one sermon
every week. It is denied that a bishop is free to follow his
own judgment. Bishops were always subject to general
councils, and it is altogether incredible that God would
permit a free general council to err in matters of faith. A
general council is supposed to represent the majority of the
bishops, either by their presence or by their suffrages.
Turner, however, was a decided Protestant, though he
advocated a great many ' Catholic ' ceremonies. He de
fended bowing towards the altar, but he denied, with em
phasis, that this is done because of any supposed corporal
presence of Christ. It is done, he says, when there is no
communion, which is a demonstration that there is 110 inten
tion of reverence for any real presence.
Bishop William. Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, was also author of
Thomas. a few tracts and sermons. One tract, called ' Roman
Oracles Silenced/ confirms what is evident of all the Non-
jurors, that they had no sympathy with the Church of Rome,
or with the Roman doctrines condemned in our Articles.
f Roman Oracles ' was an answer to a work of Henry
Tuberville, appealing to antiquity in defence of the
Roman Catholic religion. The Bishop's answer is only a
fragment, and was left unfinished at his death. The true
Church of England ground is maintained, that our only
THE NONJUKORS. 75
appeal is to the Scriptures,, yet if the Church of Rome CHAP. VII.
wishes the battle to be fought on the ground of antiquity,
we are willing to fight it even there. The Church of Rome,
the Bishop says, may have an unbroken succession of
bishops, though he doubts if even that can be proved. But
a succession of bishops is no security for a succession of
true doctrine. By many testimonies from the Fathers, it is
shown that the doctrines of the Church of Rome are not
those of the early Church.
The most eminent of the Nonjuring clergy were Dr.
Hickes, Thomas Wagstaffe, John Kettlewell, Jeremy Col
lier, and Charles Leslie. At the time of the separation, Dr.
Hickes* was Dean of Worcester. Besides his controversial
writings, which were chiefly on the subject of the oaths,
he wrote some learned works on the Saxon and other
Northern languages. In 1713, he published two volumes Dr. Hickes'
of sermons which had been preached at different times, S€
chiefly on public occasions. These sermons may be taken
as specimens of the ordinary teaching of the loyal Church
men, in the time of the second Charles. In one which was Charles II.
preached on the 29th of May, 1684, Charles is called < the
stone which the builders rejected/ but which 'has now be
come the head stone of the corner/ The prophecy of
Ezekiel, concerning the ruin and restoration of the house of
Judah, was thought to have had ' a second fulfilment in the
wonderful, if not plainly miraculous restoration of King
Charles/ The people cried out as if it were by ' inspiration/
Hosanna to the King ! ' Rebels and traitors, Papists and
Church robbers, united with loyal Churchmen, to hail the
return of the Lord's anointed/ Ethiopians changed their
skins and leopards their spots. Lions associated with lambs,
* 'He was the younger hrother of bitter remembrance of small injuries,
that unfortunate John Hickes, who But ho was strong- in his religious and
had heen found hidden in the malt- political faith ; he reflected that tho
house of Alice Lisle. James had, in sufferers were Dissenters, and he suh-
spite of all solicitation, put hoth John mittedtothe will of the Lord's anointed,
Hickes and Alice Lisle to death, not only with patience, but with corn-
Persons who did not know the strength placency. He became, indeed, a more
of the Dean's principles, thought that loving subject than ever, from the
he might possibly feel some resent- time when his brother was hanged
ment on this account, for he was of and his brother's benefactress be-
no gentle or forgiving temper, and headed.' — Macaulay's History of Eng.
could retain during many years, a vol. iii. p. 459.
76 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. and wolves with kids. Tlic veterans in blood even prayed
for fclie king as lie passed their ranks. The spirit of grace
and supplication had been poured out upon them, that with
repentance and sorrow they miyht look on 1dm whom they
had pierced. The kings of the earth esteemed him smitten
of God and afflicted ; but God said of him, as of Cyrus His
anointed, He is my Shepherd. Cromwell was the great
image in Nebuchadnezzar's vision, but Charles was ' the
stone which smote the image and became a great moun
tain, even like Mount Zion, which shall never be removed,
but is the joy of the whole earth/
Hickes says that the Church and State in England have
two enemies, — the Papists and the Nonconformists. Both
were enemies of the State, for both claimed the right to
dethrone kings if their deeds were evil. But both were
enemies of the Church. There is no trace in these sermons
of any disposition to regard the errors of the Church of
Rome as of small importance. Primitive truth and Catholic
truth were to Dr. Hickes the same as Protestant truth.
The Church of England, in the name of the primitive
Church, protested against the heresies of the Church of
Rome. It is, therefore, strictly and truly Protestant. No
Puritan ever condemned more strongly the Roman doctrine
Hickes on the of the real presence. Speaking of the ' great' wafer,
which is said to be 'very Christ/ Dr. Hickes says, ' This
they keep in a pix on purpose, and on solemn days
carry it in procession, as the Pagans did their idols, to be
adored ; and wherever it is met the people must fall down
and worship, and wheresoever the priest makes a stand there
must be prayers offered up unto it, as unto the very Christ.
The heathens were never guilty of more gross and more
absurd idolatry than this. The worshipping of a leek or an
onion, or an head of garlic, as the Egyptians did, is not
more against common sense and reason than the worshipping
of a wafer, the work of a baker, or confectioner's shop.' *
His views of justification by faith, and of the imputation
of Christ's righteousness, are also altogether Protestant.
In a sermon on the praise and honour due to the Virgin
Mary, he condemns with great decision the Mary-worship of
* Vol. i. p. 197.
Real Pre
sence.'
THE NONJUBOB8, 77
the Churcli of Rome. From many prayers and hymns he CHAP. VII.
shows that Roman Catholics in their worship have deified
Mary. He quotes a curious parody on the ' Te Deum/
approved by Pope Paul V., but condemned by a later pope.
It begins thus : —
< We praise Thoe, 0 Mary ;
"We acknowledge Thee to be The Lady ;
All the earth doth worship Thee,
The Mother of the Everlasting God.'
There is nothing in Dr. Hickes' own views of what is due
to Mary that would offend any Protestant. We except only
the use of the phrase 'mother of God/ It was used by
some of the Fathers, and therefore all must use it who
aspire to be ' CathohV Churchmen. Yet Dr. Hickes, in
the very page in which he uses it, quotes the words of the
Athanasian creed, which declare that Christ was ' God, of
the substance of His Father, begotten before the world, and
man of the substance of His mother, born in the world/
Regarding the doctrines of the Church of Rome as sub
versive of Christianity, Dr. Hickes defended the French On the French
Protestants in their refusal to submit to the authority of
Church or State in France. Their position is compared to
that of the first Christians, who were under the necessity of
disobeying the supreme authority. This is maintained in a
curious sermon on ( The True Notion of Persecution/
When heretics are persecuted, that is considered to be only
just punishment. But when men suffer for the truth, they
are truly persecuted. Heretics suffer not as Christians, but
as criminals. They are neither confessors nor martyrs.
They shall not receive the promised reward of suffering in
the world to come. The same doctrine was laid down by
the Roman Catholic bishops in the days of Queen Mary,
when they burned Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. Modern
High Churchmen have given up the cause of the Huguenots
with that of all reformed unepiscopal churches. But Dr.
Hickes pleaded, that though they had not bishops they were
willing to have them ; and if the bishops of France would
receive the doctrines of the Reformation, the French Pro
testants would then be willing to submit to their jurisdic
tion. This willingness to receive the Apostolic order neces-
78 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. sary to constitute a Church went a long way to justify the
French Protestants. But the English Nonconformists, who
rejected that order, were mere fanatics and enthusiasts.
Spiritual worship, like what the Quakers advocated, was
pronounced ' blasphemy/ And the ground of this judgement
was, that Quakers supposed the Spirit to descend now upon
religious assemblies, as it did in the days of the Apostles.* f
John Kettle- Next after Ken, John Kettlewell, Vicar of Coleshill, in
Warwickshire, was the best of the Nonjurors. He had
great industry, J and what we may call a genius for practical
religion. His peculiar theological views, and the importance
which he attached to them, are sufficiently manifest in his
works. But he is always clear on the essentials of religion,
in which all Christians are professedly agreed. His notions
about the virtue of sacraments, and the necessity of Church
membership for the attainment of everlasting life, are some
times offensive. But, to atone for this, he is free from the
doctrines too frequent in the most pious Puritan writers,
which limit Divine mercy to a channel quite as narrow and
arbitrary.
The curious Churchism which arose after the Restora
tion was a combination of rational religion with submission
to authority. The authority was never well defined, and
the rational ingredient was chiefly the result of antagonism
to the theology of the Puritans. All Christians believe that
salvation, in a sense, depends on the receiving of Chris
tianity. Salvation, as explained by Kettlewell, is ' endless
comfort/ and its contrary is ' endless torment/ The Puri
tan, that is, the Calvinist, settled by an eternal decree who
were to embrace Christianity and who were not. The
Churchman, that is, the consistent logical High Church
man, said it depended on membership with a true Church,
in which sacraments were properly administered. When
either of these parties explained themselves, practically
they were compelled to neutralize their own positions. If
they did not, they said something outrageous. When Ket-
* Hiekes, vol. i. p. 102. contain nothing that was not said hy
f Thomas Wagstaffe published other writers.
several tracts, but they aro entirely + Kettlewell died at the age of
on the nonjuring controversy, and forty-two, yet his collected works
make two folio volumes.
THE NON JURORS. 79
tlewell lays down the conditions of salvation, he first ex- CHAP. VII.
plains faith as submission to authority, —believing what is Hig j^j^^
told us on the authority of another. Then he explains that explanations
this faith, by the figure metonymy, moans obedience. The revelation1
end and object of faith is, to produce obedience to the laws
which the Gospel declares necessary to eternal life. We
are to believe what God has revealed. This includes in it
self true obedience, for works are sure to follow a genuine
faith. Then it turns out, in the course of the argument,
that revelation is not measured by Christianity. It includes
everything which God reveals, whether mediately by a
written revelation, or immediately to the natural reason.
Some things, he says, are revealed by the light of nature.
This light m the spirit of a man is ' the candle of the
Lord/ All matters of knowledge become matters of faith,
because they rest on ' God's revelation/ By natural faith
we know ' that there is a God, and that He is the rewarder
of them that diligently seek Him/
Notwithstanding these explanations of faith, we are not Limits his
to conclude that Kettlewell admitted the wide sense in e3
which faith in Christ was understood by such Fathers as the
Alexandrian Clement. Their tendency was antagonistic to
the peculiarities of Kettlewell' s theology. He still iden
tifies believing in Christ with being a member of the Church.
He does not say expressly that out of the Church there is
no salvation. He puts it in the modified form, which, for
practical purposes, is virtually the same, that out of the
Church there is no assurance of salvation. The resolution
of revelation into knowledge, and of faith into obedience, if
done in the Alexandrian spirit, would exclude mere authority,
and bring the credenda of Christianity within the province
of the reason or the light of conscience. But this would
lessen the importance of the uncompreheiided dogmas, the
mysteries, and the positive rites, while with these is in
separably interwoven the religion of men who have not
passed the stage represented by John Kettlewell.
The baptismal waters wash away sin not by a figure but Attaches
in reality. The visible Church is the body of Christ as truly ^ftoX^"
as the members of a man's body are parts of his body, mere rites of
Before any spiritual influence can come from Christ to men, re
8o
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Defends
passive obe
dience.
CHAP. VII. they must be within the pale of the Church. He works effi
caciously in the members of the Church through ordinances
that He has appointed. The chief of these is the Supper or
Communion of His body and blood. Here we feast upon
a sacrifice. Here we offer unto God a commemoration of
the death of His Son, and thus present the argument which
is most efficacious for obtaining divine mercies. The Com
munion Table was an awful mystery to John Kettlewell. It
was a table spread for him in the wilderness in the midst of
his ghostly enemies. The well-springs of salvation were
there. The heavenly manna was there, not in any figure of
speech, but in a reality which might be either spiritual or
material. He was overawed by the presence of the heavenly
food, and even wondered why it should only be eaten, and
not e adored/
Kettlewell wrote an answer to Sherlock's ' Case of
Allegiance/ and some other pieces on the subject of pas
sive obedience. These need not trouble us here, as he
said but little which was not said by other advocates of the
same cause. With a misapprehension of the genius of
Christianity, perfectly in character with the constitution of his
mind, Kettlewell supposed that the conditions under which
the first Christians had to live were applicable to all Chris
tians in all times. Christianity he called a suffering religion,
and therefore true Christians should seek for persecution,
that their virtues may be perfected. The precepts of the
gospel he supposes to forbid resistance to princes, however
wicked they may be. The very spirit of resistance is said
to be opposed to the spirit of Christianity. This is proved
by many arguments and by many passages from Christ and
His Apostles, from the history of the Jews, and from the
practice of the first Christians under the Roman Emperors.
Our business is to bear the cross, and not to stand up for
legal right. Kettlewell called the prayers for William and
Mary in the Prayer Book ' immoral/ This he held to
be a sufficient reason for separation from the Established
Church. There is a long letter in the ' Life ' prefixed to his
works, showing the sinfulness of the oaths to William and
Mary, and justifying the schism. It was addressed to a
clergyman who had taken the oaths against his conscience.
THE NONJURORS. 8 1
The clergyman addressed to the deprived Bishop of Norwich OHAP. VII.
'•.& penitent letter of confession, bewailing his awful sins in
forsaking the house of Stuart. He begged to be again ad
mitted to ' the peace of the Church/ and hoped that his
repentance would cause joy in heaven !
Jeremy Collier is best known from his ' Ecclesiastical Jeremy
History/ his f Historical Dictionary/ and his tracts on the
immorality of the stage. The best evidence we can have of
the genuine sincerity of Collier's mind is his opposition to
the stage. This was something altogether uncommon with
a Churchman of his party. It was supposed that only a
Puritan could interfere with the liberty of the theatre. Collier
had to bear the reproach of being successor to William
Prynne, the scourge of actors in the reign of the first Charles.
But if the theatres were bad in the time of Charles I., what
could they have been under Charles II. ? It was no abstract
question of the good or evil influence of the drama. It was
no question whether or not the theatre might be made con
ducive to the morality of the people. The fact was patent.
The theatres were haunts of vice. The plays of the chief The immo-
play-writers of the time were full of profanity and immorality. \teslm °
Collier compared the plays of Dryden, Wycherley, and Con-
greve, with the plays of the old Greeks and Romans, and
found the latter to excel in morality and modesty. He
quoted the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church against
the influence of the stage, and he specially complained that
by modern plays the clergy are ridiculed, which he held
equivalent to the ridicule of religion.*
In 1703, after the great storm, Collier wrote a ' Dissuasive The great
from the Play House, in a Letter to a Person of Quality, ™ar
Occasioned by the late Calamity of the Tempest/ He re
garded the great tempest as a punishment for the open
profligacy of the nation, of which the stage was but too
faithful a representative. In the conclusion he says : ' We
* This work was answered by Con- Her s False Citations.' Collier an-
greve, and led to a great controversy, swered in ' A Defence of the Short
Collier wrote a defence of his treatise, View.' An anonymous author wrote
and other writers were engaged on 'Animadversions on Mr. Congn -\.-'s
both sides. Collier's treatise is called late Answer.' ' The Ancient and
4 A Short View of the Immorality and Modern Stage Surveyed,' another an-
Prophaneness of the English Stage.' swer to Collier, was also anonymous.
Congreve wrote 'Amendments of Col-
VOL. II. U
82
EELIGIOUS THOrailT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. have lately felt a sad instance of God's judgments in the
terrible tempests, terrible beyond anything of that kind in
memory or record. For not to enlarge on the lamentable
wrecks and ruins, were we not almost swept into a chaos ?
Did not nature seem to be in her last agony, and the world
ready to expire ? And if we go on still in such sins of de
fiance, may we not be afraid of that punishment of Sodom,
and that God should destroy us with fire and brimstone ?
What impression this late calamity has made upon the play
house, we may guess by their acting Macbeth, with all its
thunder and tempest, the same day ; where, at the mention
of the chimneys being blown down, the audience was pleased
to clap at an unusual length of pleasure and approbation.
And is not the meaning of all this too intelligible ? Does it
not look as if they had a mind to brave out the judgment,
and make us believe the storm was nothing but an eruption
of Epicurus' atoms, a spring-tide of matter and motion, and
a blind sally of chance ? This throwing Providence out of
the scheme, is an admirable opiate for the conscience ; and
when recollection is laid asleep, the stage will recover, of
course, and go on with their business effectively/ Some of
the Nonjurors regarded this storm as sent specially in their
behalf, because it killed Bishop Kidder in his palace at
Wells.
Collier has also left some tracts on what was called the
Controversy of the Usages, which was the occasion of a
division among the Nonjurors in the beginning of the
eighteenth century. He wanted to restore the first Prnyor
Book of Edward VI., because it had more ceremonies than
the authorized book. There were prayers for the dead, a
variety of dresses, mixing water with the Eucharistic wine,
and some other things which even now are not unknown.
Dr. Johnson says that there was only one of the Non-
jurors who was a good reasoner. That one was Charles
Leslie. He was the son of Dr. John Leslie, who had been j
successively bishop of the Isles, of Clogher, and of Derry. |
Charles Leslie was born in 1650. He studied law at the ;
Temple, in London, but in 1680 he entered into Holy Orders.
In 1687 he was made Chancellor of the Cathedral of Connor, ;
where his capacity for dialectics was first exercised
The Usages
controversy.
Charles
Leslie.
THE NONJUROKS. 83
the Roman Catholics. James II. gave the see of Clogher to CHAP. VII.
Patrick Tyrrel, who openly professed the Roman Catholic
religion. The bishop began his episcopal work by establish
ing convents and challenging the clergy of his diocese to
a public disputation. Leslie accepted the challenge and
defended Protestantism to the satisfaction of all Protestants.
The appointment of a Roman Catholic bishop was followed
by that of a sheriff of the same religion. Leslie persuaded
the magistrates that it would be illegal for them to allow the
sheriff to act. He was disqualified by his religion. The
sheriff said that he was of the king's religion. Leslie
answered that it was not a question of the king's religion.
It was a question of law. The king's will is only known to
his subjects through the law. Leslie was in fact the leader
of the Protestants in Ireland against the arbitrary proceed
ings of the king. When it was dangerous for him to reside
in Ireland he came to London, but the doctrine of passive
obedience kept him on the side of James. It is said that
he went so far as to maintain that James II., by becoming
a Roman Catholic, had ceased to be ' defender of the faith '
or ' head of the Church/
Leslie's works, with the exception of his political pamph- His doctrines.
lets, are entirely controversial. He defended his opinions
against Roman Catholics, Dissenters, Deists, Socinians, and
Quakers. Concerning the first two he said nothing that
requires to be repeated. His controversies with the last
three we shall meet again. His own position was that of
an orthodox Episcopalian, adhering rigidly to Church dogmas
and holding Episcopacy necessary to the essence of a Church.
He defends the doctrine of satisfaction for sin in the most
absolute sense, founding it not merely on the justice of God,
but on the abstract principle tlmt God is justice. It was
impossible, he says, that God could have been merciful, but
by the scheme of substitution for the sins of men. Yet
this literal substitution is held in union with an Arminian
theology, and is in consequence exposed to the objection of
satisfaction being made for some men who shall never be
forgiven. The Church is constituted by the bishops. It. is
not a sect like the sects of the philosophers, but a society
with governors appointed by Christ. All error is supposed
o 2
84 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. to come into the Church through disobedience to the bishops.
It is shown from Ephraim Pagitt's ' Heresiography ' and
Thomas Edwards' l Gangrena/ that in the time of the
Commonwealth there were sixty sects, the very number
mentioned by Epiphanius. But on the restoration of tho
bishops in 1660,, they almost immediately disappeared.
Some might ascribe this to penal laws and test acts, but
Leslie found a sublimer cause.
The arguments by which the Church of England Episco
pacy is maintained against that of the Church of Rome
might require special notice, were they not the arguments
frequently urged by others who thought as Leslie did.
They are now abandoned by all consistent reasoners. What
ever authority is granted to bishops as such must be granted
to the bishops of the Church of Rome in an equal measure
His views of with those of the Church of England. But while Leslie
episcopal claimed authority for the bishops of the Church of Eng
land, he added explanations by which that authority was
attenuated to nothingness. If bishops are heterodox, even
the bishops of a whole nation, then the people must seek
orthodox bishops from other nations.* Of course the test
of orthodoxy is the doctrine of the Primitive Church. But
in any case the people are the judges. They must determine
whether or not their bishops agree in doctrine with the
Primitive Church. This is no mere inference from Leslie's
position. It really accords with what he says on private
judgment, in a dialogue specially devoted to it. He denies
that the Church of England ever claims authority in mat
ters of faith. Its claim to authority never extends beyond
rites and ceremonies or the government of the Church.
The clause in Article XX., that the Church has ' authority in
controversies of faith/ is paralleled by Chap. xxxi. in the
Westminster Confession, that the Church is ' ministerially
to determine controversies of faith/ It has authority, but
that authority is not infallible. The Scriptures are the
chart to guide the Christian traveller. The Church of Rome
puts her authority above the Scriptures, and bids men trust
blindly to her guidance. Leslie shows that the Church of
England has a commission to be a guide, but the Dissenters
* Leslie's Works, vol. i. p. 500.
THE NONJURORS. 85
have not. The value of this commission, which does not CHAP. VII
give the Church authority to teach doctrine or to interpret
the Scriptures, we are not at present compelled to examine.
It would be a great omission to speak of the Nonjurors, Henry Dod-
and to pass by the learned but eccentric Henry Dodwell. wel1'
He was not in orders, but theology was his favourite study.
He wrote many books full of very odd things, for which no
body is responsible but himself. He builds, Bishop Ken
said, great things on feeble foundations. He had already
taken a part in the Nonconformist controversy, and he had
also amused the world with a curious doctrine about the
immortality of the soul. The soul, he said, is naturally
mortal, but it is made immortal by baptism, providing the
person baptizing has been properly ordained by a bishop.
•He distinguished between the soul and the spirit, quoting
Plato and St. Paul, with many old philosophers and ancient
Fathers, for the difference between the natural soul and the
intellectual or immortal spirit. Plato, in the ' Timaeus/ had
shown that the spirit was created by the supreme Deity,
but the soul, by the ' Demiurgus/ St. Paul had discoursed
of the natural and spiritual body, and Philo did not really
differ either from Plato or St. Paul. It was shown from
many Fathers that this immortal spirit was joined to the
body in baptism. The unbaptized Pagans, with all un-
christened infants, having only mortal souls, when they die
cease to exist. Those who have heard the Gospel and re- The soul
jected it, and those who like Presbyterians, Independents, tai hv episco-
Baptists, and Quakers, have heard the Gospel, but have pal baptism.
never become members of the body of Christ, that is, the
Episcopal Church, shall have a terrible fate. They shall be
kept in being, not by the favour of God, but by His will,
that they may suffer a never ending punishment. Like
Chorazin and Bethsaida they shall be cast into the nether
most hell, while merely psychical Pagans, who like the
people of Sodom and Gomorrha, have been terribly wicked,
shall go for a time to Hades, which is somewhere in the
regions of the air. To consign to outer darkness the Non
conformists who had not received proper baptism, might
seem uncharitable, but Dodwell atoned for it by the final
annihilation of Pagans and un christened infants, whom the
86
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII.
Dodwcll con
sistently con
demns the
English Re
formation.
The Church
of England
become
schismatical.
orthodox Nonconformists had given over to eternal perdition
for the sin of Adam.
Dodwell took an active part in the nonjuring controversies.
He defended the rights of the deprived bishops, on the
ground that the State conld not deprive them. The college
of bishops alone could deprive a bishop. With his usual
consistency, Dodwell carried out this principle, till he ended
in a condemnation of the English Reformation. It was the
State which deprived the bishops that refused the oaths of
supremacy in 1559. If this deprivation was admitted to
be just, then the same power which deprived them could
surely deprive other bishops in 1689. The facts of the
English Reformation were well known. Bonner, as well
as Cranmer, had taken out commissions from the king to
hold their sees. The Reformation was re-established under
Elizabeth by the State. All these things, in Dodwell's
judgment, were errors of our ' dear mother/* and all done
contrary to c primitive antiquity/ The saving clause was the
renunciation of the title ' head of the Church ' by Queen
Elizabeth. And this was due, though Dodwell does not
mention the fact, to the persuasion of Thomas Lever, a
Puritan. The modified doctrine of the Church is incor
porated in Art. XXXVII. On the distinction there recog
nized between the civil and the sacred functions Dodwell
founds his argument for the independence of the clergy.
They have an apostolical commission to rule the Church.
But over against this stands the fact, that since the Reforma
tion the civil government has ruled the Church for them.
If the civil power could not deprive a bishop, it followed
that the nonjuring bishops were not deprived. It followed
also, onDodwell's principles, that the new bishops who came
into their places were schismatics. The Church of England
had therefore become schismatical. But here a division arose
among the Nonjurors. Archbishop San croft made new
bishops, who were to continue the holy seed of the true
Jacobite to all generations. Dodwell joined the party which
opposed the continuation of a nonjuring succession* The
new bishops who had taken the sees of the deprived bishops,
* See ' The Doctrine of the Church
of England concerning the Indepen
dence of the Clergy
Powers/ sec. iii.
on the Lay
THE NON JURORS. 87
would cease, lie said, to be schismatics as soon as the sees CHAP. VII
were ecclesiastically vacant by death or resignation.* They
were not heretics. They had not departed even from the
' truly Catholic doctrine of passive obedience and non-
resistance/ But they were not ' lawful' bishops so long as
the deprived bishops claimed the sees. The whole Catholic
Church in heaven and earth is one ; and the ' heavenly' or
'mystical' Bishop has to ratify in heaven whatever is done
by any bishop 011 earth. Whilst, therefore, Sancroft lived
without resignation and without deprivation by his brother
bishops, it was impossible that the heavenly inhabitants
could regard John Tillotson as Archbishop of Canterbury,
or ratify in heaven the documents signed and sealed at
Lambeth. Dodwell had yet other arguments. The Non-
jurors were the ' peculium' of the Church, the salt of the
earth in that degenerate age. The Church of England had
been given up to Latitudinariaiis and Puritans. The Non
conformists were conforming occasionally, and who could
tell the result if they were suffered to leaven the Church
with their heresies ? The infection might spread till in the
national Church Episcopacy itself might not be considered
necessary for the administration of that sacrament on which
depended the immortality of the soiil.f
The history of the noniuring sect after the deprivation of History of
ii i • i • i i -i n nil . i -i • i • thoNonjurors
the bishops is soon told. Sancroft delegated his arcmepi-
scopal powers to Lloyd, who, with White and Turner, ad
mitted Hickes and Wagstaffe to the nonjuring episcopate
in 1694. Dodwell and his party continued with the Non-
jurors till the last of the deprived bishops was dead. He
* ' Case in View Considered,' and the notes of the organ had a power to
'Case in Fact.' counteract the influence of devils on
f Dodwell wrote a preface to a the spinal marrow of human beings,
sermon, by Charles Leslie, against In his treatise on this subject, he re
in: images in different communions; marked that there was high authority
and a curious book on the lawfulness for the opinion that the spinal mar-
of instrumental music in public wor- row, when, decomposed, became a ser-
ship. Macaulay says, ' He published pent. Whether this were or were not
a treatise in which he maintained correct, he thought it unnecessary to
that a marriage between a member decide. Perhaps, he said, the eminent
of the Church of England and a Dis- men in whose works it was found had
srntrr was a nullity, and that the meant only to express figuratively
couple so married were, in the sight the great truth that the old serpent
of heaven, guilty of adultery. He de- operates on us chiefly through the
fended the use of instrumental music spinal marrow.' — History o
in public worship, on the ground that vol. iii. p. 462.
88 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. then returned to the Church. After the death of Wag-
staffe, Hickes, with the assistance of some Scotch bishops,
consecrated Collier and two other new bishops. But the
little sect was soon again divided. By some it was thought
sinful to pray with the Liturgy of the national Church, in
which there were neither prayers for the dead nor any pre
scription to mix water with the Eucharistic wine. They
separated formally in 1718, each party continuing its succes
sion of bishops, and making the ' peculium' an ever-decreas
ing remnant. Both parties performed their consecrations
with the help of Scotch bishops, the Episcopal Church of
Scotland being divided into two corresponding parties.
The Nonjurors continued to diminish till their final extinc-
The List of tion, which can scarcely be dated. The last bishop is said
jurors. to have died in Ireland in 1805, and a living specimen of
the now extinct species, a nonjuring clergyman, was dis
covered in 1815, somewhere in the west of England.*
Two eminent theological writers, not hitherto mentioned,
died in the reign of Charles II. These were Dr. Isaac Bar
row and Archbishop Leighton, two men who had but little
resemblance to each other and neither of whom can claim
Isaac Barrow. anv distinguished place for originality in theology. Barrow
* See Lathbury's Hist, of theNon- Christ not only restored, but refined
jurors. upon this sacerdotal government.
The most zealous opponent of the He established His hierarchy, not in
Nonjurors seems to have been Hum- princes, but in apostles. Solomon did
phry Hody. He discovered a MS. not properly deprive Abiathar of his
of the thirteenth century, called the priestly office, but required him to
Baroccian, which contained a treatise resign it under the penalty of being
on ecclesiastical history. From this put to death. Abiathar was guilty of
he was able to show that the universal rebellion, which destroyed, it was
custom of the Church had been, that supposed, the parallel between him
though a bishop were deprived unjustly, and the nonjuring bishops. The au-
that was never made the occasion of a thor's judgment seemed to be that in
schism. Many bishops had been de- ecclesiastical matters, the State could
prived by emperors, but they always not govern without the co-operation
continued in the communion of the of the Church. In the ' Unity of the
Church. 'Solomon and Abiathar' Priesthood,' by Dr. Bisby, it was
was a popular tract, said to have been shown to be ' dissonant to all primitive
written by a Mr. Hill. It was in the practice, to the ancient constitutions
form of a dialogue, and both sides and canons of the Church,' to have
were well argued. The Levitical law bishops thrust out by civil rulers and
was supposed to have given all go- new ones put in their places. The
vernment to the priesthood. But the ancient cry was ' One God, one Christ,
people wished a king, and then the one Bishop.' Now we have more
mitre became subject to the crown, than one in a diocese. The result is
A similar sacerdotal government was schism, and the new bishops are the
said to have existed before the Flood, schismatics.
ISAAC BARROW. 89
was educated at Cambridge, in the time of the Common- CHAP. VII.
wealth, but he is altogether free from the Puritan spirit.
He cannot be classed with the Platonists, yet he is too
rational for the ordinary type of a High Churchman. He
received orders from Bishop Brownrig before the Restora
tion, thus espousing the cause of the Episcopal clergy in
the hour of their adversity. He was outside of the con
tending parties, in a sense above them, not, however, by
any spirit) of mystical philosophy or religious intuition, but
in virtue of a vigorous practical intellect. In 1660 he was
appointed Professor of Greek in the University of Cam
bridge, in 1663 Professor of Mathematics, and in 1673,
when Barrow had scarcely passed the forty-third year of his
age, King Charles did one of those wise things which he is
said never to have done, by appointing him to the master
ship of the great college of Trinity. In doing this the king
said, with as much truth as wisdom, that the new Master of
Trinity was ' the best scholar in England/ Barrow had
earned a great reputation as a mathematician before he en
tered on the study of divinity. To this study he brought a
clear intellect, great sincerity, and immense industry. He
did not build on the foundations that had been laid by Cud-
worth and Whichcot. He was more orthodox than they
had been. Great mathematicians are rarely heretics. They
reason indeed, and reasoning usually leads to heresy ; but
mathematicians generally take dogmas as axioms, and con
fine their reasoning to assumed positions.
Barrow's theological works may be divided into three
classes: his 'Exposition of the Creed/ his Sermons, and
his ' Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.' In the first chiefly
we find his theology, in the second his gospel, and in the
third his Protestantism. On the Creed, Barrow differs from On the Creed.
Pearson as to the foundation on which belief rests, and so
far also as to the nature of faith. He denies that faith rests
on bare authority, or that that only is believing which de
pends on testimony. ' Spirits/ he says, ' are to be tried,
and revelations themselves to be examined, before we can
upon their word believe any particular doctrine avouched
by them/ The trying of spirits and examining of revela
tions implies in man a faculty of judging. Faith then does
EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. not rest on bare authority. It lias a foundation in reason
and so far in knowledge. Barrow expressly produces argu
ments to this effect. To prove that God must be veracious
because He says so, or that revelation in general must be
trusted from particular revelations,, he calls petitioncs prin-
cipii most inconclusive and ineffectual discourses.* He sup
poses that if we could inquire into the faith of the first
Christians, we should find that it rested on reason and not
on mere authority. Keason, Barrow says, is the foundation
of faith ; yet there are things revealed beyond or out of rea
son, to be believed solely on the authority of that revelation
of which we are certified by reason. In this way he is both
rational and orthodox, but on the ground of a distinction
which has been often disputed. In a revelation which is to
be judged by reason, everything contained in the revelation
is supposed to be taken into the reckoning.
In his expositions of the doctrines laid down in the Creed,
there is not much in which Barrow differs from Pearson.
In opposition to the Calvim'sts, lie makes the atonement
universal ; yet he agrees with the most ' Evangelical ' on
both sides in making it an actual expiation of sin. The
wrath of God was appeased by the infinitely precious blood
of Christ. God was thereby reconciled to men who were
His theology, alienated from Him . Barrow is also clearly ' Evangelical '
in his views of justification, distinguishing it as a legal act
distinct from actual holiness or sanctification, which is a
subsequent work. In church polity he agrees with Hooker
and the great body of the divines of the Church of England,
in holding that no special form of government is laid down
in the Scriptures. Concerning the Sacraments he says, ' It
is a peculiar excellency of our religion that it doth not much
employ men's care, pains, and time about matters of cere
monial observance, but doth chiefly, and in a manner
wholly, exercise them in works of substantial duty agreeable
to reason, perfective of man's nature, productive of true
glory to God and solid benefit to nian/f
He recognizes, however, in the two sacraments of the
On the
Sacraments.
* ' Exposition of the Creed,' p. 16 ;
ed. 1G97.
f See * The Doctrine of the Sacra
ments,' appended to the 'Exposition
of the Creed.'
ISAAC SARROW. 9!
Gospel means for the effectual infusion of grace in those CHAP. VII.
who receive them rightly. By baptism we are admitted into
covenant with God, made new creatures, have the remission
of siiis, with the seal and assurance of eternal life. The
Eucharist is a commemorative representation of Christ's
passion. In it the benefits of that passion are conveyed to
worthy receivers. It declares the mystical union of Christ
with the believer, and it seals that union which exists among
all His true disciples.
The general tone of Barrow's sermons has never found
much favour among religious people. They want the mys
tical element, which has always a charm for piety. They
want also the fervour, or what some people would call, the
' unction' of Puritanism; and they say too little about the
Church and the sacraments to be much esteemed by High
Churchmen. They are orthodox in doctrine, but ethical His sermons
and cold, reasoning sometimes from the pleasures of religion, cthlcal-
and at other times appealing to present or future interest.
The great argument for the truth of Christianity is, that the
moral life which it prescribes is agreeable to reason. How
much this really proved, and how it affected the meaning of
Christianity, was more fully discussed in the beginning of
the following century. The wonder is that, being so ortho
dox, Barrow went so far with reason ; or that, having gone so
far, he did not go further. In a sermon on ' The Pleasant
ness of Religion/ he identifies religion with wisdom. It is,
he says, a revelation of truth, pleasant and peaceable, and
freeing us from ' the inconveniences, the mischiefs, and the
infelicities to which we are subject/ This is doubtless true
of wisdom, and in a sense true also of religion. But it is a
vague and poor gospel to those who believe Christianity as
Barrow professed to believe it, and to those who do not
believe Christianity it is a mere truism concerning wisdom,
but of no meaning when spoken of religion. Wisdom, it is
said, confers the advantages which belong to clear under
standing, deliberate advice, and sagacious foresight. Solo
mon, in the words of the text, had said that wisdom's ways
are ways of pleasantness, and that all her paths are peace.
All philosophy and all teachers of morality have said the
same ; and so far as Christianity agrees in this teaching so
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Makes re
ligion appeal
to the inter
ests of men.
CHAP. VII. far it is rational and good, But is this the chief part of
Christianity ? In Barrow's theology it could not be, yet in
the general tone and tenour of his sermons it is. He reckons
of little value ' a nice orthodoxy/ and he condemns ' a politic
subjection of our judgment to the peremptory dictates of
men/ He commends ' a sincere love of truth/ and the re
ception of ' doctrines fundamentally good/ acknowledging
that there are things necessary to be believed,, yet making
the test of good the practical issue of mending our ways.
The mere titles of many of Barrow's sermons, as the
' Pleasantness of Religion/ the ( Profitableness of Religion/
and ' Upright Walking Sure Walking/ indicate clearly that
the ethical side of Christianity was the one which he favoured
most. He addressed his arguments to the interests of men,
both in this life and the future. He set no value on the
mere performances of duties from fear of punishment or
hope of temporal reward; yet he urged motives for becom
ing religious from consideration of rewards and punishments
in the life to come. The mere possibility of eternal punish
ment is thought to be a motive sufficient to affect ' rational
and prudent' men. But the main argument ever is the de
lights of religion. It is true that the wicked often prosper.
Persons void of piety say that it is vain to serve God ; and
even pious men, when their spirits are dejected, often ask,
' What profit shall we have if we pray unto Him?' The
profit of religion is explained as consisting of hope and con
tentment. Piety frees a man's life from disorder and de
struction. It prescribes medicine for the soul as physicians
do for the body. Barrow, however, felt that his argument
was not complete. The unrighteous have often prosperity,
while the godly are in adversity. There is always ' some dead
fly in our box,' and, therefore, we must ' not seek our content
here, but in another world/ The poor but pious man cannot
be wretched, and the reason is that he ( hath interest in goods
incomparably most precious.'
The l Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy ' contains nothing
new or original. It takes the form of a refutation of a num
ber of l suppositions ' on which this supremacy ia erected.
It is a claim made by the Church of Rome, but the title of
the claim is uncertain. The Roman doctors have never
On the Pope'
supremacy.
ISAAC BARROW. 93
agreed about the extent of the authority due to the Pope, CHAP. VII.
which is ' a shrewd prejudice against it, as if a man had a
piece of land and nobody could tell where it lies, or how it
was consigned to him/ We naturally suspect such a title.
If God, Barrow says, had instituted such an office as that
claimed by the Pope, we should have known something
satisfactory about its nature and use. The Pope has never
been able to define his own authority, which must be an
argument for his incapacity to determine questions of faith.
Barrow speaks of the claims which the Popes have made to
temporal dominion over kings and kingdoms, quoting the
Bulls of Pope Sixtus against Henry of Navarre, and of
Paul V. against Queen Elizabeth. He traces the growth of
these claims from their first beginning, till they culminated
in Gregory VII. He then argues that if the Popes have
erred in this, it is no trifling error. Yet a great portion of
the Koman Catholic world do not admit these claims to tem
poral authority, and those who refuse to admit them are
described by Bellarmine and Baronius as fa sort of heretics
skulking in the bosom of the Church/ But the Church of
Home is not even agreed as to the Pope's spiritual authority.
Some decrees, to use Bellarmine's words, do not allow the
Pope any other supremacy than that which the Duke of
Venice has in his Synod, or the General of an Order in his
congregation. Barrow concludes that if the Church of Rome
has really any doctrine on the subject, it must be that the
Pope's sovereignty is absolute.
The following ' suppositions ' are refuted in detail : — 1 .
' That St. Peter had primacy over the Apostles/ Barrow gt. Peter's
admits that St. Peter had a primacy of ' worthy reputation, supposed
probably seniority, and some other things/ But it is denied
that he had a primacy of authority. 2. ' That St. Peter's
primacy, with its rights and prerogatives, was not personal,
but derivable to his successors/ Barrow maintains that this
primacy, whatever it consisted in, was personal. All bi
shops, according to St. Cyprian, were successors of St. Peter.
None of the Fathers have ever spoken of such a succession
as the Roman doctors claim. 3. ' That St. Peter was Bishop
of Rome/ Barrow says, that with good reason this may be
denied, and it cannot be answered. An apostle is above a
94 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VII. bishop, as a king is above a lord mayor. It would have
been a degradation for him to have become bishop of any
see; for, being an apostle, he could exercise episcopal func
tions wherever he went. In the epistles said to have been
written from Rome, Peter does not call himself the bishop.
The Fathers say that he was Bishop of Antioch, and they
censure all bishops who leave one see for another. 4. { That
St. Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation,
and was so at his decease/ Barrow quotes ecclesiastical
writers who say that St. Peter appointed bishops of Rome,
which he could not have done had he been Bishop of Rome
himself. This would have been contrary to the ancient rites
of discipline. The most ancient writers do not call Peter
Bishop of Rome. They only say that he was one of the
founders of the Church of Rome. 5. ' That the bishops of
Rome, according to God's institution, and by original right
derived thence, should have universal supremacy and juris
diction, containing the privileges and prerogatives formerly
described, over the Christian Church/ This ' supposition '
is founded on those which precede it, which being uncer
tain or false, this must be so too. The link is wanting which
should connect what belonged to St. Peter with the Roman
See. The universal jurisdiction may have gone into another
channel. There were other churches founded by apostles, as
those of Jerusalem and Antioch. The plea is that St. Peter,
by will, made over his jurisdiction to Rome. Barrow asks
St. Peter left where his will is. St. Peter died intestate. ' There is,' Bar-
no will. r()w savg^ < a strange enchantment in words. This claim to
be Catholic has always been a strong argument with weak
people. Divers prevalent factions did assume to themselves
the name Catholic, and the Roman Church particularly hath
appropriated that word to itself, even so as to commit a bull
implying Rome and the universe to be the same place, and
this perpetual canting of the term hath been a most effective
charm to weak people, I am a Catholic, that is, an Universal
and fJiti.x far all f Jiold is true.' This is the great argument.
6. ' That in fact the Roman bishops from St. Peter's time,
have enjoyed and exercised the sovereign power.' Barrow
points to the fact attested by all ecclesiastical historians,
that the bishops of Rome never exercised this power,
ARCFTBTSHOP LETGHTON. 95
Synods and Councils wore never convoked by Popes, but CHAP. VII.
always by princes or emperors. The Popes now pretend
that a synod can decide nothing without their authority.
But this is not said in the divine law, in any old canon, nor
is it found in primitive custom. 7. ' That the Papal supre
macy is indefectible and unalterable/ Barrow does not
find that this is promised in Scripture. A supremacy
given to the Popes might have been conditional and
subject to change. Civil government, which is 'from
God/ and ' ordained of God/ is liable to various altera
tions, and it is reasonable that the Church, in its external
form and political administration, should be suited to
the state of the world and the constitution of worldly
government.
Eobert Leighton was the son of Alexander Leighton, the Archbishop
violent Presbyterian, who was severely punished " by the LeiShton-
High Commission,, for writing 'Zion's Plea against Pre
lacy/ The son was altogether unlike his father. He never
entered into the spirit of any party, nor did he reckon eccle
siastical government a matter of sufficient importance to be
made the cause of a division in the Church. In 1641, at
the age of thirty, he was ordained minister of Newbattle,
in Mid Lothian. He took the Covenant, but opposed its
enforcement on others against their conscience. His piety
at least is discernible in the answer which he made to the
Presbytery, when they rebuked him for not preaching up to
the times. flf/ he said, c you all preach up to the times,
you might surely allow one poor brother to preach Christ
and eternity/ After ministering for eleven years in New-
battle, he resigned his charge, and was soon after appointed
Principal of the University of Edinburgh. About the time
of the Restoration, he was made Bishop of Dunblane, an office
which he accepted reluctantly, and which he resigned at
the end of three years. He was afterwards induced to take
the Archbishopric of Glasgow, which he did only on condi
tion that under a scheme of modified Episcopacy, he might
include the Presbyterians who had not yet conformed. He
had but little encouragement from the Government and the
other bishops. He failed to make peace, and at his own
earnest request was again permitted i<> resign his office.
96
KELiaiOUS HOUGffiT IN ENGLAND.
A Calvinist.
CHAP. VII. There is nothing in Leighton's theology to distinguish
him from an ordinary divine of the school of Calvin. He
speaks of the ' decrees ' with awful reverence. He adduces
in support of believing them, the usual arguments from the
divine foreknowledge, from providence and necessity, even
charitably interpreting the fate of the Pagans as equivalent
to Christian predestination. The ( decrees ' are to be be
lieved, but we are not to reason about them, nor indeed to
think about them more than we are obliged. All Calvinists
have been anxious to fix narrow limits to the reason of man
in the sphere of religion. We cannot, they say, know God
as just and good. We can only cry out, ' 0 the depth ! '
The theology of Calvin underlies all Leighton's sermons.
It rarely however appears in the form of dogmas. His
mind turns instinctively to practical piety. He is decided
in his opposition to the peculiar doctrines of the Church of
Home, yet his favourite authors are St. Bernard, St. Thomas
a Kempis, St. Francis de Sales, and the Port Koyalists.
His views of the sacraments are in no way different from
the ordinary stereotyped views of the Presbyterians of
Scotland. There is nothing to determine clearly that he
really differed from what is generally supposed to be the
doctrine of Zwingle. He speaks of ( illumination ' being
ascribed to baptism, because this illumination is the full
purification of the soul ; but he does not seem ever to call
baptism even by the ordinary name of regeneration. In an
exposition of the Creed, the Catholic Church is defined as
the whole body of the elect, while 'elect' is explained in the
sense of Calvin, as the Church universal and invisible, the
finally saved.
Though Leighton did not progress beyond the theology
of Calvin, it is yet evident that he did not go back to any
of the superstitions which that theology had rejected. In
other respects, he was in advance of his contemporaries.
There is no Scotch theologian of that age that can for a
moment stand beside Leighton. He condemned the whole
system of oaths, impositions and covenants. He advocated
in the Scotch Parliament that the Covenanters should be
allowed to take the oath of supremacy to Charles II., with
the qualifications suggested by thoir longer, the Earl of
Opposed to
oaths and
impositions.
AKCHBISHOP LEIG1LTON. 97
Cassilis. When the other bishops pleaded the hard CHAP. VII.
measures of the Covenanters against those who refused the
Covenant, Leighton answered that gentleness would be a
better revenge then severity. His countrymen have na
turally blamed him for taking the side of Episcopacy at all.
But he certainly expected by so doing to secure the peace
and unity of the Church. He failed, and yet his failure is
neither to be attributed to want of foresight, nor to mere
belief in the improbable. Two-thirds of the ministers of
the Kirk had already conformed to Episcopacy, and there
were reasonable hopes that with indulgent treatment the
other third would in time have followed. But the Church
of England was governed by violent men. They were de
termined to convert Scotland in the same lofty spirit in
which they had triumphed over the Puritans at the Savoy
Conference. The policy of the prelates, bad in England, was
self-destructive in Scotland.
Leighton has been blamed for submitting to ordination as And to re-
deacon and presbyter, before he was consecrated a bishop. °r(lination.
The Bishop of London told him that this was necessary, as
the Church of Scotland, being in schism, could not give
orders. Leighton did not admit the argument, but he sub
mitted to re-ordination on what must at least be admitted a
rational principle, that he was simply conforming to the
rules of the Church established by law. James Sharp,
who was consecrated at the same time, was greatly opposed
to this re-ordination, and could not be satisfied with the
reasons which satisfied Leighton. Both, however, submitted.
The consecrating bishops meant one thing, and the conse
crated another. A sad history followed. After the Revo
lution the bishops were expelled and Presbyterianism esta
blished. The battle ended in a permanent separation of
tho two Churches. Such were the results of the policy of
; Gilbert Sheldon.* f
* ' This was the incendiary ! This f An edition of Leighton' s Works
Sheldon, the most virulent enemy and has recently been published by the
poisoner of the English Church. Alas! Rev. William West, Incumbent of
she still feels the taint in her very St. Columba's, Nairn. Mr. West has
bones. I look on Gardiner as canoni- spent many years in his work, and
/able compared with Sheldon.' — seems to have done it carefully and
•S'. T. Coleridge, ' Notes on English Di- in a liberal spirit. It is only in this
ci/ti's,' vol. ii. p. 22. spirit that Leighton can be treated.
VOL. II. H
98
CHAPTEE VIII.
AECHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS IN THE TIME OP WILLIAM AND MARY.
— TILLOTSON'S SEEMONS. — SHARP'S SERMONS. — KIDDER'S ' DE
MONSTRATION OF THE MESSIAS/ - BISHOP PATRICK. - BISHOP
FOWLER. - BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. - ARCHBISHOP TENISON. —
BISHOP BURNET. — BISHOP MOORE. — BISHOP GROVE. - BISHOP
WILLIAMS7 BOYLE LECTURES. - DR. JOHN SCOTT ON f THE
CHRISTIAN LIFE/ - DR. WHITBY ON THE EVIDENCES, ORIGINAL
SIN, AND THE USE OF REASON.— DR. WILLIAM OUTRAM ON
SATISFACTION. - JOSEPH GLANVILL. — BISHOP SPRAT^S f HISTORY
OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY/ - THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS OF THE
HON. ROBERT BOYLE, JOHN LOCKE, AND SIR ISAAC NEWTON.
The Church
of England
divine ri^-ht
of kings.
accession of William and Mary marks the beginning
of a new era in the history of the Church of England.
As the great body of the clergy took the oaths, the divine
right of kings was openly renounced. The doctrine as held
by the Nonjurors had refuted itself, and by the same argu
ments as the divine right of the Pope had come to an end
at the Eeformation. The Church had outlived the king-
worship of the Stuart bishops. Hitherto it had been impos
sible for the clergy to separate the cause of the Church of
England from that of the King, but now the separation is
made for them. The connection of the Church with the
hereditary monarch had grown naturally out of the circum
stances of the Keformation. The Keformers looked to the
King as their protector from the usurpations of the Bishop
of Rome. He was to them the symbol or reprcsenta-i
tive of the life of the nation. To confound the symbol with!
that which is symbolized is a common error. The clergy j
AKCHBISIIOP TILLOTSON. 99
had done this till the great teacher, experience, taught CHAP. VIII.
them that it was the nation, and not the King, that was
really divine. The Nonjurors remained ignorant, in spite
of this teacher, and in due time met their inevitable fate.
It was not long before the leaders of the London clergy
were made bishops. Tillotson was preferred to Canterbury,
Sharp to York, Kidder to Bath and Wells, Patrick to Chi-
chester, Fowler to Gloucester, Stillingfleet to Worcester,
Tenison to Lincoln, and Burnet to Salisbury.* It is not often
that an archbishop is a leader in anything, except by virtue
of his office. But John Tillotson was the prince of preachers, Archbishop
a great master of the English language, as well as the wisest Tillotson.
and best man that ever sat in the priinatial chair of Canterbury.
For the first time since the Reformation the voice of reason
was now clearly heard in the high places of the Church.
Tillotson was the product of the best influences that
were at work in his day ; the son of Puritan parents
of honest and upright life, he might, have said with
Schleiermacher that piety was the maternal bosom on
which he had been nursed. In 1647, he entered Cambridge,
in entire sympathy with everything that was Puritan. He
heard four sermons every Sunday, and during the week
he studied Supralapsarian Theology, as expounded by Dr.
William Twisse. Before he left Cambridge, he had read
Chillingworth. This prepared him to enter into the spirit
of the Platonists, who had just arisen at Cambridge. He
removed to London, where he had the acquaintance of
Bishop Brown rig, Dr. Hacket, and other judicious men on
the Episcopal side. He received orders from the Bishop of
Galloway, but continued to identify himself with the Pres
byterians till the Act of Uniformity. He passed rapidly
through several preferments, till he was made Dean of Can-
* Cumberland was promoted to Pe- Watson, of St. David's, was after-
terborough, and Stafford to Chester, wards deprived for simony. Wood,
Of those who were bishops under of Lichfield, obtained his bishopric
Jsunrs the best known are Compton through the Duchess of Cleveland.
of London, Trelawney of Bristol, Hall, an obscure clergyman, was pvo-
Mew of Winchester, Croft of Here- moted to Oxford by James, for read inir
ford, Barlow of Lincoln, Ward of the Declaration of Indulgence; and
S.disLury, Lloyd of St. Asaph, and Crew, of Durham, obtained that rich
Sprat of Rochester. The rest are bishopric by a large bribe to one of
unknown, or not known for any good, the mistresses of James II.
H 2
100 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. terbury, afterwards of St. Paul's, and finally, by command of
the King, he accepted the primacy.
Importance of An acquaintance with Tillotson's theology is necessary to
n acquaint- a r|ght understanding of the great controversies of this and
Tillotson's the following age. It is difficult to believe that his sermons
theology. were written by one who lived and died in the course
of the seventeenth century. The spirit of that century in
everything but its intense earnestness has disappeared.
Miracles such as those recorded by Richard Baxter and
Henry More have ceased to be performed. The sacraments
have lost their power of incantation. They are no longer
channels of supernatural grace, and the witches are all
Decline of sa- dead. Tillotson, indeed, defends the words of the Bap-
-. , i . s '
wicncra?™' tismal Service, but he explains them as signifying simply
and Calvinism, that the baptized enter into a covenant, by which ' they are
put into a state of capacity of all the blessings of the Gos
pel/* The doctrines of Calvin disappear at the same time.
They were protected by the same veil which made a mys
tery of the sacraments and which forbade the exercise of
reason. They are opposed to that of which we are most
certain — our sense of right and wrong. They are subversive
of the very faculty by which we know that there is a God,
and by which we have an assurance that God has revealed
Himself to us. Concerning the ' eternal decree/ Tillotson
says, ' I am as certain that this doctrine cannot be of God
as I am sure that God is good and just, because this grates
upon the notion that mankind have of goodness and justice.
This is that which no good man would do, and therefore it
cannot be believed of infinite goodness. If an Apostle, or
an angel from heaven, teach any doctrine which plainly
overthrows the goodness and justice of God, let him be
accursed. For every man hath greater assurance that God
is good and just than he can have of any subtle speculations
about predestination and the decrees of God.'f
Tillotson's theology, if we except his rejection of Cal
vin's decrees and the sacramental superstitions, was for the
most part what would be reckoned orthodox. His explana
tions of grace were Arminian. He denied it to be irre
sistible, and he insisted on the necessity of good works.
* Vol. x. p. 3o8. Ralph Barker's edition. t Vol. vi. p. 46.
AECIIBISHOP TILLOTSON. IOI
The faitli by which a man is saved he always explained as CHAP. VIII.
implying obedience. He doubted the validity of a death
bed repentance, because there was no evidence of works,
nor any test of sincerity which would be a pledge of its
producing good works. This led to the identification of
justification with sanctification. ' According to the terms
of the Gospel/ he says, ' the great condition of our justifi
cation and acceptance with God is the real renovation of our
hearts and lives/* This, doubtless, differs widely from
that doctrine which represents the elect as righteous be
cause Christ is righteous. Yet Tillotson lays great import
ance on the doctrine of substitution. He uses the strongest
possible language on this subject, and takes literally all the
sacrificial passages and allusions in the Holy Scriptures. Tillotson on
Christ, he says, died to deliver us from wrath. By His death the atonement.
God was reconciled to us.f He made satisfaction to Divine
justice. He paid the price of redemption. If He had not
died we had perished eternally. J The satisfaction was of
infinite value, because the sufferings were those of an infi
nite Person. It was equal to the offences which were
against an infinite God.§ After quoting several pages of
sacrificial passages from the New Testament, Tillotson says
that it was impossible for God to have used words more
plain or more express to declare this doctrine. The Soci-
nians can only explain them by evasions that would over
throw every principle of religion taught in the Scriptures.
In another place, however, || he explains the satisfaction of
Christ in a way that evidently abates from the idea of a
literal price. ' God/ he says, ' was not angry with His Son,
for He was always well pleased with Him/ It is added,
that Christ did not suffer the same which the sinner would
have suffered, — that is, ' the proper pains and torments of
the damned/ His perfect obedience and voluntary sacrifice
in our stead were acceptable to His Father, and on account
of them the Father entered into a covenant of grace and
mercy with mankind. The argument is repeated in many
places, that it was impossible for God to forgive without His
* Vol. iv. p. 248. § Vol. vi. p. 286.
f Vol. xii. p. 278. jj Vol. v. p. 214.
t Vol. v. p. 214.
102 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. justice being satisfied. To have done this would have been
to make light of sin. It was necessary that the Divine
hatred of sin should be manifest before the universe. The
Cross of Christ tells us what a terrible thing it is. It was
sin which crucified the Son of God. But by His death
eternal justice is vindicated, and now we may crucify sin.
Though Tillotson is orthodox on the atonement, he rarely
makes it the subject of his sermons. Even then he does not
so much preach it, as preach about it. The Puritans said
that he did not preach Christ.* He answered that ho
preached what Christ preached. He taught the necessity
and the blessedness of being righteous. He took his stand
On the moral on the moral constitution of man. We have indestructible
no^ons °f g°°d and evil, virtue and vice. Experience proves
to us that well-doing is our interest, and wrong-doing our
ruin. The sense of right is clearly declared by Tillotson to be
an inward intuition, and yet he does not say that virtue should
be followed for its own sake. On this subject there is the
same confusion which we have seen in Barrow. Two ele
ments had been contributed from two different sources. The
Scriptures had spoken in popular language of rewards and
punishments. Reason and experience had added their
testimony that the rewards and punishments are inseparably
connected with virtue and vice. Tillotson believed the testi
monies both of Scripture and experience, but without being
able to. effect a reconciliation between the elements which
each contributed. The visible rewards of virtue were not
thought sufficient to make men virtuous, and therefore
heaven was added as something in reversion. Without the
hope of such a reward in another life, Tillotson says expressly
that human nature, as it is now constituted, is incapable of
following virtue for its own sake. He grants that there is a
satisfaction and a delight in being righteous, and yet he
says that their foundation is in the hope of a reward to come.
Without this reward virtue would be a deceiver. This is
illustrated by the case of the first Christians, of whom St.
Paul says, that if in this life only they had hope, they were
* When he left Keddington, in been preached among them since Til-
Suffolk, the people universally com- lotson had been settled in the parish,
plained that Jesus Christ had not — Birch's Life of TilfatsoH, p. 28.
AECHBISHOP T1LLOTSON. 103
of all men most miserable. In one sermon* he tells a story CHAP. VIII.
of a woman who went about with a pitcher in one hand and
a pan of coals in the other, and being asked what she meant
to do with them, she answered ( With the one to burn
heaven, and with the other to quench hell, that men might
love God and virtue for their own sakes, without hope of
reward or fear of punishment/ This woman, he says, may
have been devout, but he does not think that she was
over- wise. Without rewards and punishments, virtue would
be a dry speculation, and men would give up the pursuit of
religion.
Tillotson was no mystic. In this he had departed from
the Platonists as well as from the Puritans. He ridiculed
all discourses about c super-essential life,' self-annihilation,
or the union of ' the nothing with the nothing/ He could
only see man as a being influenced by motives which affected
his interests. The most frequent subjects of his sermons
are those which promise man some gain. Virtue being con
ducive to health, and to peace of mind, we should be vir
tuous. God having promised heaven to the devout, we
shall have profit if we pray to Him. In preaching virtue,
Tillotson performs the function of a moral philosopher. • On
this subject he repeats all that was said by Plato, and he
anticipates much that was written on it in the following cen
tury. This appeal to interest is carried into religion,
which is scarcely separated from the performance of moral
duties. Tillotson is careful to show the worthlessness of
all religious acts which are independent of doing justly and
loving mercy. The observance of moral duties religiously,
that is with reference to God and a future life, seems to be
regarded as the chief part of religion. It is God who is un
selfish. He gives laws to men for their benefit, not for His
own. The religious man is a wise or prudent man, because
he has laid up treasure for the time to come. The fear of On the influ-
future punishment is supposed to be a powerful motive in wardg an(j^
deterring men from sin. It is described as an argument punishments.
which Hakes the fastest and surest hold upon human nature,
and will many times move and affect, when no other con
siderations will work upon us/t When the love of God
* Vol. ix. p. 49. t Vol. xi. j>. 124.
104 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. and goodness fails, men will be frightened by the fear of
hell and the awe of a judgment to conie. The thought of
eternal ages in misery is reckoned sufficient to induce men
to forego all present pleasures, and to endure all present
sufferings that they may escape the suffering which is eter
nal. Even the barest probability that such a thing may be,
is said to be a sufficient reason for our striving to flee from it.
It might have been supposed, that though Tillotson said
so much of the rewards of virtue, he really meant after all
only the natural rewards which must follow men into the
fu^ure ^G- But his appeals to self-interest, and his earnest
counsels to act on probability forbid this supposition. We
are to be virtuous and good, not because we feel that
virtue and goodness are eternal if anything be eternal,
but because perhaps heaven is suspended on them. Reli
gion is to become as it were a game of chance. One argu
ment urged against Atheism is that it is ' unsafe/* The
Atheist says that there is no God, and so he loses all ; but
the believer wisely secures ' the main chance.' In another
sermou,f Tillotson uses the same arguments and remon
strates with men for not preparing for the life to come, when
they have more certainty of it than of many things for which
they risk much in this life. When men are sick they take
physic on probability, trusting to the skill of physicians.
Merchants venture their ships laden with treasures to places
which they have never seen. In the business of the world no
labours are reckoned too great where there are probabilities
of gain. Tillotson seems to have been unconscious of the
difference between the natural results of well-doing and an
everlasting kingdom which depended on a probability. In
religion, the poorest of all motives is that of keeping to the
1 safe side/ Its very essence is a boundless trust, forgetful
of self and sure only of the triumph of righteousness. J
Theoldthco- Irt Tillotson' s mind the old leaven was still struggling
logy struggles ^{^ ^}ie new> But this was only one phase of a conflict of
With the new. . J . r
principles not yet reconciled. Kevelation had been received
* Vol. i. p. 61, ed. 1741 ; the edi- theology chiefly from posthumous
tion which consists of the sermons sermons which were preached at dif-
published in Tillotson's lifetime. ferent periods of his life. Had he
f Vol. i. p. 324. revised them for publication, itispos-
| We are not to forget that we sihlo that the discordant elements
derive our knowledge of Tillotson's -would have been reduced to harmony.
ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON. 105
as something distinct from what was called natural religion. CHAP. VIII.
Tillotson still received ' revelation ' in the old sense, but he
received natural religion too. Revelation was a kind of re-
publication of natural religion. In fact it was natural re
ligion enforced by rewards. It made the doctrines con
cerning God more certain,* and it promised assistance in
performing good works. But as the natural notions were
certain, and as nothing could be received as revelation which
contradicted them, it is evident that the old view of reve
lation was in danger of a change. This subject had been
already discussed by Lord Herbert, whose main principles
were now adopted by all rational theologians, to whom they
did not appear as subversive of Christianity, but rather, as
Richard Baxter said, of singular use in establishing it.
Lord Herbert never rejected the Christian revelation. He
only said that we are more sure of that which we know by
our internal sense than of that which comes to us on the
testimony of another. Tillotsoii's principle is really the
same ; but instead of dwelling, as Herbert had done, on the
clearness and certainty which the Pagans had of religious
and moral duties, he dwells rather on the greater light of
Christianity. Natural religion is admitted to be a revelation
as well as Christianity, and both to be grounded on reason.
This was illustrated by the case of Abraham being asked to
sacrifice his son. Here an outward revelation commanded
him to do what was forbidden by the revelation within.
Tillotson's explanation of this case is, that Abraham must
have been as certain that this was a revelation from God, as
he was of the testimony of his conscience that he ought not
to slay his son. In other words the revelation was direct.
Abraham's faith, therefore, was not credulity. ' He reasoned
with himself/ And the subject of his reasoning was the om
nipotence of God. He who had been able to give him a son
in his old age, was also able to raise that son from the dead.
He was not required to believe something impossible, but
only something not probable. And his faith had value only
because ' he reasoned ' before ho came to a decision. Un
belief, it is said, is never condemned in the Scripture, but
where sufficient reason has been given for belief. Our
* Vol. v. pp. 53 and 54.
106 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. reason may be imperfect, but ' we must make use of it as it
is, and make the best of it/ * f
Reason and This view of faith, which was necessarily connected with
Tillotson's view of revelation, led him to depart from the scho
lastic definition retained by Bishop Pearson, that it is the
belief of something on the word of another. ' The Scripture/
ho says, ' useth the word faith more largely for a real persua
sion of anything, whether grounded upon sense or reason, or
divine revelation/ f According to this definition a heathen
may have faith, The first act of faith must from its nature be
independent of revelation. Before we can believe in revela
tion we must believe in God. He that cometh to God must
believe that He is. Faith implies conviction, and that can
only be based on rational evidence. Some men may be
lieve right without inquiry, but such men are right only by
accident. They might have been wrong for all that was
due to them. Men may sin by credulity as well as by un
belief. The prophet in the Book of Kings, who was com
manded by God not to eat or drink at Bethel, was torn to
pieces by a lion, because he believed the pretended revela
tion of another prophet. The merit of faith clearly becomes,
on Tillot son's principles, the merit of sincere and honest
examination. Progress in religious knowledge keeps pace
with progress in goodness. Earnest striving after the reali
zation of what we know to be good is the real walk of faith.
Whoever is found in this path is led by the Spirit of God
into all necessary truth. He has an inward conviction,
which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen.
The discussion of faith involved that of the evidence of
Christianity. Tillotson did not enter on this subject as
against the Deists. He was pressed to it by the Roman
Catholics. They boasted an absolute certainty in the in
fallible Church, and demanded of him how he knew that
Christianity was not a cunningly devised fable. His de-
* Vol. i. p. 68. and reasons of our religion, and a
f ' That men should not take the thorough trial and examination of
liberty to examine their religion and them, is one of the best means to con-
to inquire into the grounds and firm and establish us in the profes-
reasons of it — this, I think, is so far sion of it.' — Vol. i. p. 116.
from being forbidden, that a free and t Vol. iv. p. 308. •
impartial inquiry into the grounds
ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON. 1 07
fences of Christianity may not be invulnerable, but lie had CHAP. VIII.
made great progress since Richard Baxter discussed the
same subject against ' the generation of seekers/ Tillotson
is faithful to his master, Chillingworth. He calmly and
freely admits that the evidence for the Christian revelation
does not amount to absolute certainty.* He refuses to in- Moral cer-
vent ways for God. We may have what is called ( an un- JailSy °/ the
doubted ' certainty ; that is, we may be morally certain, and Christianity.
with the kind of certainty which it has pleased God to give
us our wisdom is to be content. It is the pretence to absolute
certainty which is the cause of unbelief. ' If,' Tillotson says,
f men would be contented to speak justly of things, and pre
tend to no greater assurance than they can bring evidence
for, considerate men would be more apt to believe them/f
The main argument is from miracles. The doctrine of Argument
course must not contradict natural notions. It must be
credible and possible. The authority both of Mcses and
Jesus is resolved into miracles. Many passages are quoted
from the Scriptures to show that the whole weight of the
authority, both of the law and the gospel, is laid on mira
cles. The chief of these is the resurrection of Jesus. The
Jews saw the miracles of the gospel. They had the evi
dence of their senses, and therefore they were inexcusable.
We have the credible report of eye-witnesses, which ought
to be sufficient for our belief. This is said to have been the
judgment of St. John, who says, ' These things were
written that ye might believe/ These miracles being
wrought in confirmation of the Christian doctrine, it must
be divine. But the part of the argument which needs de
fence is the credibility of the report. Tillotson was not
prepared for Hume's famous objection, that the report or
testimony was more likely to be false than the miracles true.
* ' Here it will be proper to inquire just and reasonable cause why a pru-
what is the highest degree of assur- dent and considerate man should
ance which we can have concerning a doubt. And the reason why I make
Divine revelation made to another, this inquiry, is in order to be satisfied
that it is such, whether it be an in- of a clear and firm way for the reso-
falliblo assurance or only an un- lution of OTrffeuth against the Papists,
doubted certainty ? The difference who say it is impossible for us to give
between them is this ; an infallible any satisfactory account of our faith,
assurance as such excludes all possi- because we do finally resolve it into
bility of error and mistake ; an un- fallible grounds.' — Vol. xii. p. 106.
doubted certainty doth not exclude f Vol. xii. p. 116.
all possibility of mistake, but only all
io8
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. It is altogether out of his reckoning. He does not know with
certainty that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or St. Matthew the
gospel that bears his name, but he has a credible and un con
tradicted tradition that they were the authors. There is no
reason, he says, for doubting that they were, and therefore no
necessity for proving it. To believe that St. Matthew wrote
a history of the gospel is not necessary to salvation. It is
only necessary to believe what he wrote.* That the authors
of the books of the Bible were inspired is proved by the
miracles, which were testimonies from heaven that they were
divine persons. Most of the writers of the New Testament
were Apostles, and therefore endued with miraculous power.
But even ' if some of them were not inspired/ Tillotson. says
that it is of no dangerous consequence/ f so long as their
writings contain nothing contrary to those which are un
questionably inspired.J For the Canon of Scripture no
ing in what is necessary, is guilty of
doing what is superfluous. And if
any man is of opinion that Moses
might write the history of those
actions which he himself did, or was
present at, without an immediate re
velation of them, or that Solomon by
his natural and acquired wisdom
might speak those wise sayings which
are in his Proverbs, or the Evange
lists might write what they heard and
saw, or what they had good assurance
of from others, as St. Luke tells us he
did : or that St. Paul might write
for his cloak and parchments at
Troas, and salute by name his friends
and brethren, or that he might advise
Timothy to drink a little wine, etc.,
without the immediate dictate of the
Spirit of God, he seems to have
reason on his side. * * * The Evan
gelists in relating the discourses of
Christ, are very far from agreeing in
the particular expressions and words,
though they do agree in the substance
of the discourses ; but if the words had
been dictated by the Spirit of God,
they must have agreed in them. For
when St. Luke differs from St. Mat
thew, in relating what our Saviour s;iid
it is impossible that they should both
relate it right as to His very words
and forms of expression, but they both
ivlatr the substance of what He said.
And if it had been of concernment,
that everything that they wrote
* Vol. xii. p. 100.
f Vol. xii. p. 101.
% On inspiration Tillotson says, ' If
any one inquire further, how far the
penmen of Scripture were inspired in
the writing of these books, whether
only so far as to be secured from mis
take in the delivery of any message or
doctrine from God, or in the relation
of any history or matter of fact, yet so
as they were left every man to his
©wn style and manner of expression,
or that everything they wrote was
immediately dictated to them, and
that not only the sense of it, but the
very words and phrases by which
they express things, and that they are
merely instruments or penmen, I
shall not take upon me to determine.
I shall only say this in general, that
considering the end of this inspiration,
which was to inform the world cer
tainly of the mind and will of God,
it is necessary for every man to be
lieve that the inspired penmen of
Scripture were so far assisted as was
necessary to this end, and he that
thinks upon good grounds that this
end cannot be secured unless every
word and syllable were immediately
dictated, he hath reason to believe
it was so ; but if any man upon good
grounds thinks the end of writing the
Scripture may be sufficiently secured
without that, he hath no reason to
conclude that God, who is not want-
ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON. IOQ
cvidcnco is adduced but the authority of the Jewish Church CHAP. VIII.
for the Old Testament, and the tradition of the Christian
Church for the New. A miracle is denned as a substantial
work, * such an effect, as exceeds any natural power that we
know of to produce it.* It must also be evident to sense.
This condition excludes transubstantiation from the category
of miracles. It is admitted that the devil or his instru
ments may work real miracles, but their miracles are not
equal to those wrought in the confirmation of truth. The
magicians of Pharaoh could not work such miracles as were
performed by Moses and Aaron. God has often permitted
miracles to be wrought to countenance error. False Christs
were to come. The man of sin was to come with c power
and signs/ But Tillotson says that there are always marks
by which the miracles of false teachers may be known.
Either their doctrine is such as no miracle can confirm,
or it is contrary to what has been already confirmed, or the
workers of the miracles are confuted on the spot, like
Pharaoh's magicians, Simon Magus, and Elymas the sorcerer.
Miracles are made the main evidence of Christianity. Yet
Tillotson adds that it does not rest on one argument alone.
Perhaps no single argument would be sufficient. ' The full
demonstration rests on the union of them all when put to
gether/
The principle assumed as the foundation of all this reason- The veracity
ing is the veracity of God. He is a God of truth. He ^dation of
does not deceive us. Could we believe it possible for Him faith,
to deceive us, we might doubt of everything, even of those
things which seem most certain. To suppose that God is
the author of errors and delusions would be to deny His
existence. Our faculties, our natural notions, our reason
ings must be worthy of trust, and these lead to a convic
tion or moral certainty of the truth of the great principles
of natural and revealed religion. It could not be denied
that, on Tillotson' s principles, natural religion must have a
greater certainty than revealed. Yet he often reasons as
should be dictated ad apiccm, to a tittle, Scriptures since, to a tittle from the
by the Spirit of God, it is of the same least alteration.' (Vol. xii. pp. 102-34.)
concernment still, that the Providence * Vol. xii. p. '315.
of God should have secured the
110 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. if the contrary were true. He speaks of the Christian reve
lation as ' clear and undoubted/ He contrasts the cer
tainty it gives over that which was possessed by the wisest
of the Pagans. But this clearness and this certainty have
their foundation in natural religion, and yet are regarded as
additions to it. They are condemned who undermine the
certainty of natural religion to make way for revealed, and
it is denied that any revealed religion can overthrow natural.
Consistently with this, Tillotson continually asserts the
greater obligation of natural precepts over any institutions
of positive or instituted religions.* Mercy is preferred to
sacrifice, and a new creature to either circumcision or un-
circumcision. Keeping the commandments of God is
Natural reli- reckoned of more importance than any doctrines, even than
gion more cer- those taught by apostles and prophets, much more than
tain than re- J
vealed. those which are merely the opinions of men. ' I do not/
he says, ' intend to plead for any error, but I would not
have Christianity chiefly measured by matters of opinion.
I know no such error and heresy as a wicked life. That
man believes the gospel best who lives most according to it.
Though no man can have a worse opinion of the Socinian
doctrine than I have, yet I had rather a man should deny
the satisfaction of Christ, than believe it and abuse it to
the encouragement of sin. Of the two, I have more hopes
of him that denies the divinity of Christ, and lives otherwise
soberly and righteously and godly in the world, than of the
man who owns Christ to be the Son of God, and lives like
a child of the devil/ f
In a sermon on the resurrection of the body, Tillotson
has apprehended St. Paul's meaning better than the
Fathers and theologians, who insisted on the literal resur
rection of the ' flesh/ It is not the material vile body which
* This is even carried so far as to and to be so faithful as to tell them
place the duty of mothers nursing that this is a natural duty, and be-
their own children above that of keep- cause it is so, of a more necessary and
ing the laws of revealed religion, indispensable obligation than any posi-
' This I foresee will seem a very hard tive precept of revealed religion, and
saying to nice and delicate mothers, that the general neglect of it is one
who prefer their own ease and plea- of the great and crying sins of this
sure to the fruit of their own bodies, age and nation.' — Vol. iv. p. 453,
but whether they will hear or whether cd. 1741.
they will forbear, I think myself f Vol. xii. p. 294.
obliged to deal plainly in this matter,
ARCHBISHOP SHARP. Ill
has been buried that rises again, but a glorious body alto- CHAP. VIII.
gether spiritual ; that is, such a body as shall not impede the
operations of the spirit. ' We shall then be, as it were, all
spirit/* In another sermon, on the immortality of the
soul, the objection that the arguments from immateriality
are equally valid for the immortality of brutes, is answered
precisely as it was afterwards answered by Bishop Butler.
' There is no inconvenience/ Tillotson says, f in attributing
this sort of immortality to the brute creatures/f The con
tinuance of it depends on the will of God. The probability,
however, is that they do not continue after the dissolution
of their bodies. And this is founded on the principle which
was largely explained by Lord Herbert, that the soul of
man was of a higher nature ; that it has a sense of things
spiritual and divine. It has a capacity to know God.J
Archbishop Sharp passed for a more orthodox theologian Archbishop
than Tillotson. He had more of the old leaven, but he was SharP-
no stranger to the new. He entered Cambridge in 1660,
and came under the influence of Cudworth and the Latitu-
dinarians. When Vicar of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, he gained
a great reputation as a preacher, while his Protestant zeal
brought him under the displeasure of King James. He
went heartily with the Revolution, but it was some time
before he could overcome his belief in the doctrine of non-
resistance ; and though he regarded the sees of the non-
juring bishops as legally vacant, he yet refused to accept
any of them, through respect for the men who had made
such great sacrifices for the sake of conscience. On the
questions of Protestantism, conformity, and the relations of
faith and reason, Sharp agreed essentially with Tillotson.
The prevailing reason for conformity in Sharp's time was the
* Vol. ix. p. 344. miracles.' Charles slept most of the
f Vol. ix. p. 78. time, but after the sermon a noble-
% Tillotson was charged with So- man said to him, 'It's pity your
•cinianism, Hobbism, denying the Majesty slept, for we have had the
eternity of hell punishments, and rarest piece of Hobbism that ever
many other heresies; but they were you heard in your life.' ' Oddslish,'
chiefly the inventions of Hickee, said the king, ' he shall print it then.'
Leslie, and other Nonjurors. He once The sermon was printed, and John
said, in a sermon preached before Howe expostulated with Tillotson,
King Charles, that ' no man is who is said to have been convinced
obliged to preach against the religion that he was wrong. See Calnmy's
of a country, though a false one, un- 'Nonconformists' Memorial,' under
ho has the power of working Howe.
112 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. nationality of the Church. It was urged on all English
men to conform to the Church because it was the Church
of England. Every Christian was regarded as a member of
the National Church, and therefore it was said he ought to
be of the communion of the Church. Sharp pleads all
these reasons, but he had a background of belief, that the
Church of England claimed allegiance not merely as the
State Church, but in virtue of its ecclesiastical constitution.
He believed in a divinely appointed ministry through which
the divine favour was specially to come. ' The privileges of
the gospel/ he says, ' such as pardon of sin, and the grace
of the Holy Spirit, are not conveyed to us so immediately
by God, but there must intervene the necessity of men.
God's word and sacraments are the channels in which they
are delivered to us, and those to whom He hath committed
the ministry of reconciliation and the power of the keys are
the hands that must dispense them. We have no promise
of spiritual graces but by these means. So that, in order
to the partaking of them, there is an absolute necessity laid
upon us of joining and communicating with the Church/*
On the This doctrine of the Church was evidently a substratum
Church. Qf ^e argument^ and yet it cannot be said that Sharp took
the illiberal side. * The articles of the faith/ he adds, ' are
but few, and so clearly set down in the Scripture, that it is
impossible for any sincere man to miss their meaning.
The questions on which men differ are not the essentials.
They do not concern the Christian life, but only notions and
speculations. A man may go to heaven though he holds
the wrong side on such questions. God will look more to
the sincerity of men's hearts than to the accuracy of their
notions on subjects purely speculative. Our differences are
not so wide as they are represented, but they might be
easily made up with a little allowance to men's words and
phrases. 't
* Archbishop Sharp's Works, vol. f Sharp shared in the general dis-
i. p. 6. Thomas Wadsworth, one of like of liberal theologians to the
the ejected ministers, wrote an answer damnatory clauses of the Athanasian
to this sermon, maintaining that the Creed. There is a story that he was
Nonconformists were not in schism ; once going to church with a clergy -
though separated from the Conform- man, and on the way the clergyman
ists, they were still members of one said to the Archbishop that he had
Church. alm(..st forgotten that it was a day on
ARCHBISHOr SIIABT. 113
Sharp's arguments for the truths of Christianity arc akin CHAP. VIII.
to Tillotson's. The favourite text of both was the words of n ,r~T ,,
Un the truth
Abraham in the parable, concerning the rich man's five of Chris-
brethren, ' If they believe not Moses and the prophets, nei- 1!
ther will they believe though one rose from the dead/ The
general ground on which the argument rests, though not
always clearly expressed either by Sharp or Tillotson, is
that the real root of unbelief is an error of the heart. Sharp
applies it in this way, but connects it with arguments which
can have to do only with the faculty of reasoning. The
Christian revelation, he says, is so well attested, that it is of
more force to persuade men than the continuance of agen
cies from the unseen world. Those, therefore, who reject
Christianity on its present evidence, would also reject a
miracle which they saw with their own eyes, or a messenger
from heaven. They would still plead the want of absolute
certainty. The miracle might be a deception, and the mes
senger might be a deceiver. Those who lived in Christ's
time, and who saw His works, had greater evidence than if a
special miracle had been wrought for their conversion. Now
we have an exact account of these works, made by honest
men, never questioned by the first adversaries of the Chris
tian religion, and therefore Sharp concludes that the evi
dence to us is as good as it was to the first Christians, and
thus greater than if one rose from the dead. To this argu
ment several others are added which were unknown to the
first Christians. These are called standing proofs. Among
them are enumerated the rapid success of Christianity in
the world, the peace of mind which it brings to the true
Christian, and the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning
the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the
Jews. One is also derived from the analogy between a
standing revelation, attested once for all, and the ordinary
works of Providence. All nature proceeds according to
settled and natural causes. It has nothing special. Tho
only exceptions are when a necessity emerges for the inter
ference of Divine Omnipotence. To these correspond the occa
sional exceptions of interference with the standing revelation.
which the Athanasian Creed was to ' Why didn't you forget ?'
be read. The Archbishop answered
VOL. II. I
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
On predesti
nation.
CHAP. VIII. This conception was a step of progress beyond Baxter's con
tinuous miracles, but only in the direction that miracles are
less frequent and Christianity more independent of them.
On predestination the Archbishop took the middle way
between Arminius and Calvin. Ho denied reprobation, and
so opened the way for the rejection of the whole of Calvin's
scheme. He said a great deal about the necessity of
church-membership for salvation, and yet he did not limit
the number of the saved even to those who were within the
pale of Christianity. Nor did he believe that the saved
would be a small number, not even small in comparison
with the whole of the human race. He would rather be
lieve with the psalmist that the tender mercies of God are
over all His works. 'I should think/ he says, ' that man
both immodest and rash that should pass a sentence of
damnation upon all Jews, Turks, or heathens, much more
upon all his fellow Christians, though they be not so good
as he, or though they may have the misfortune to be of a
different persuasion or communion from him.'*
Sharp's views of faith and reason are but the echo of Til-
lotson's. No man indeed can consistently adopt any other
views who with all his heart renounces the Church of Rome.
Faith and reason, Sharp says, can never be in opposition.
No article of religion is to be believed unless it is sufficiently
evident to produce conviction. He says expressly ' that we
have no other way to judge or to be convinced of the truth
of any matter of faith or article of religion but the agree-
ableness of it with the principles of our natural reason.' t
There may be things in revelation not discoverable by rea
son, or even when revealed not fully comprehended. But
they are never unintelligible. They never, like the doctrine
of transubstantiation, contradict the testimony of sense. The
Incarnation and the Trinity must from their nature bo be
yond the understanding of finite minds, yet we can form ' a
consistent notion of them/ The necessity of using reason
is proved against the Roman Catholic. He too must reason
till he finds the true Church. The difference is that the
Protestant seeks for the doctrines which Christ has revealed,
and by them he judges concerning the Church.
* Vol. iii. p. 102. t Vol. vii. p. 4.
Faith and
reason.
ARCHBISHOP SHAEP. 115
On the Sabbath question Archbishop Sharp was essen- CHAP. VIII.
tially Puritan. According to his account the word Sabbath The Sabbath
was then in common use, yet ho preferred the name Sunday.
Ho returns, however, to defend its use on the ground of its
meaning. We are not to keep a Jewish Sabbath, yet we are
to keep a Sabbath or day of rest. The obligation dates from
creation. All nations reckon time by weeks of seven days.
The Jews were commanded by the law of Moses to keep
the seventh day, not merely in memory of tho rest of crea
tion but of the deliverance from Egypt. This is the reason
given in the Book of Deuteronomy, where the creation is
not mentioned. God appointed for all nations one day in
seven, in memory of creation. To the Jews the one day was
the seventh, ' because that on that day He delivered His
people from the bondage of Egypt with a mighty hand and
an outstretched arm/* As the law of the Sabbath is in tho
decalogue, it must be, Sharp says, in a sense a moral law.
Christ never repealed it. The first Christians changed the
day, but still recognised the obligation of one in seven. By
the laws of the land and of the Church tho first day of tho
week is to bo kept holy, and our reverence for these laws
ought to bind us to keep that day.
Tho same moderation is discernible in Sharp's views ofThoEucha-
the Eucharist. He was quite disposed to connect super
stition with the Sacraments. But his Protestantism saved
him. Tho discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gos
pel he interpreted as independent of tho Lord's Supper,
and the eating there spoken of as believing. Had it been
eating the real body of Christ in the supper, then those
who heard that discourse could have had 110 life in them,
for the supper was not instituted till a year after. The
same is also true of children and all persons dying before
they receive the communion. The Church of England,
Sharp says, holds a freal presence.' But it is altogether
unlike the Roman doctrine. Partaking of tho body of
Christ is a spiritual benefit. To the worthy receivers the
thing signified accompanies tho sign, but there is no real
presence of a natural body, and so no absurdity, as in tho
Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. For this view of thu
* Vol. iv. p. 220.
i2
Il6 EELiaiOUS THOUaHT IN ENGLAND. '
CHAP. VIII. real presence, Sharp quotes tlie old Saxon Homilies and
endorses Cranmer's reply to Gardiner that Christ is fnot
corporally in the outward signs nor corporally in the per
sons that duly receive' the sacraments. In the true spirit
of the English Church the benefit of the Eucharist is finally
explained as the same in kind with the spiritual benefit
which accompanies any other act of worship sincerely per-
formed.
Bishop Bichard Kidder, who was made Bishop of Bath and Wells,
Kidder. jjad, ifae Tillotson, been educated among the Puritans. In
1662 he was ejected by the Act of Uniformity from the
living of Stangrouiid, in Huntingdonshire. He afterwards
conformed, and for some years held the Rectory of St. Mar
tin's Outwich, in the city of London. He was then promoted
to the deanery of Peterborough, and from thence to the see
of Bath and Wells. Kidder was a zealous Protestant, a
judicious churchman, and an ardent promoter of all mea
sures for toleration and comprehension. He was a friend
of Dr. Cudworth, and he confesses to an agreement on many
points with the great Platonist. But Kidder' s theology is
remarkably orthodox. He had no genius for religious spe
culation. Destitute of the angularities of a Puritan theo
logian, ho yet retained the substance of Puritan theology.
His studies were chiefly confined to the Scriptures, and his
reputation rested mainly on his acquaintance with Hebrew
and Rabbinical learning.
The 'Demon- His great work is his ' Demonstration of the Messias.' It
stration of ^ was written chiefly with a view to the conversion of the Jews,
but with a hope that it might also be useful against the
Deists. Part of it was delivered as the Boyle Lectures for
1693. The Jewish objections were contained in the Nitz-
chon, the Chirzuck Emunah of Rabbi Isaac, and a Portuguese
MS., which had been given to Dr. Cudworth, by Menasseh
Ben Israel. The Deists to whom Kidder refers are Hobbes,
Spinoza, and the author of a book called ' Proe-Adamitge.'
These are the only authors mentioned, and Kiddor shares
the popular belief that Hobbes and Spinoza were mere scof
fing Deists. He speaks of Atheism and contempt of all
revealed religion as having been prevalent for several years.
' We have lived/ he says, ' to see Moses derided, his history
BISHOP KIDDER. 117
ridiculed find exposed, and the writings of the New Testa- CHAP. VIII.
ment made the matter of drollery and profane contempt.
We have those among us who are forward to carp at and
find flaws in the sacred volumes, and that industriously
make it their business to run down the inspiration, and over
throw the credit, of those holy oracles.'* If this refers to
Hobbes and Spinoza it is not true. They neither deal in
drollery nor ridicule. It looks like a prophecy of the Deists
that were to come. Kidder says that in his answers he has
used no artifice, and laid hold of no pretexts. This impar
tiality and fairness will be granted by all critics. He adds, ' I
think a Christian ought, in these matters, to be scrupulously
just, and to use all imaginable simplicity. Our holy religion
needs no arts or shifts. It is built upon sure grounds, and
needs not fear the strongest reasoning, and the greatest wits,
that make head against it/
We are not to forget that the { Demonstration of the Mes- Against the
sias ' is addressed to Jews. It contains arguments valid, GV>S'
when addressed to them, but often of no weight against
Deists, who did not admit the same premises. Kidder wishes
this to be remembered. The title indicates the theme,
which is to prove that ' our Jesus is the Christ/ It is ad
mitted by Jews that a Messias was promised in the Old
Testament writings. About the time of Christ's coming, the
Jews generally expected that the time of their Messias was
at hand. It is also a fact in history that about this time
there was a general expectation throughout the world that a
great person was to appear, with whom was to begin a new
era. Kidder goes through the well-known Messianic pro- Prophecies of
phecies, as the < Woman's seed/ the 'Seed of Abraham/ thc Messias-
the 'Shiloh/ the < Star out of Jacob/ the 'King of the
House of David;' also the prophecies quoted in the New
Testament, which were understood to refer to the birth, life,
character, and death of Jesus, as the promised Messias.
As to His lineage and kindred, He was to be of the house
and family of David, a root of Jesse, and a righteous branch
raised up to David. He was, therefore, to be of the tribe of
Judah, David's seed that was to endure for ever, and His
throne as the days of heaven. He was to be born in Beth-
* Preface to Part II.
Il8 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. leheni, according to the prophet Micah, the Chaldee para-
phrast, and Jonathan the Targumist. He was to be born
of a virgin, according to the prophet Isaiah, and the time of
His coming was to be towards the end of the Jewish polity,
before the sceptre departed from Judah. This is made to
synchronize with the end of the seventy weeks of Daniel,
and the coming of the ' Messenger of the Covenant ' to the
second temple. Though born in Bethlehem, He was to make
glorious the land of Zebulon and the land of Nephthalim, by
the way of the sea beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
As the desire of nations, He was to give, by His presence,
greater glory to the second temple than had ever belonged
to the first. He was to be meek and lowly, not to strive
nor cry in the streets. He was to open the eyes of the
blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, and make the dumb to
speak.
Maimonidcs said that the Messias was not to work
miracles, nor to make any innovations on the law of Moses.
In answer to this, Bishop Kidder enters at some length on
the question of miracles. On this subject he says nothing
different from what had been said by Tillotson. A miracle
is defined as a supernatural work evident to the senses. It
Was the Mcs- is, therefore, frequently called a sign. Jesus, in His first
Bias to work miracles, manifested His glory, and His disciples believed on
Him. Abravenel was not of the opinion of Maimonides con
cerning the Messias and miracles. He rather says that the
miracles of the Messias will be so great that the Israelites
shall forget the miracles which were wrought for them by
the hand of Moses. The Jews in Christ's time expected
the Messias to work miracles. The apostle says the ( Jews
require a sign/ and the Scribes and Pharisees said, ( Master,
we would see a sign from thee.' Their own testimony was,
When Christ cometh will He do more miracles than this
man hath done ? Maimonides said also that the Israelites
did not believe Moses because of the miracles, and that
miracles cannot be a proof of doctrine, because of the danger
of deception. Against this it was easy to quote the testi
mony of other Jews, and many passages from Old Testa
ment history, where God is said to work miracles for the
purpose of producing belief. The plague of frogs was re-
BISHOP KIDDER, 1 19
moved tliat Pharaoh might know there was f none like unto CHAP. VIII.
the Lord our God/ The widow whose son Elijah raised
from the dead, knew by this miracle that the prophet was a
man of God. The Jews were not ( condemned by Jesus for
seeking a sign, but because they did it tempting Him/
Kidder' s conclusion is that miracles are a good testimony, Miracles
provided we can distinguish between true miracles and those t
that are false. It is admitted that this is a matter of some
difficulty, and the difficulty is greater on the principle laid
down both by Kidder and Tillotson, that the works of evil
spirits are really miracles, though wrought for an evil object.
In testing the miracles of Jesus, we are recommended to
consider several things, both separately and together. Jesus
was a man of innocent life. His doctrines were like Him
self, holy, just, and good. They were destructive of the
devil's kingdom, for He cast the devil out of the bodies and
the souls of men. They were great miracles, raising the
dead, curing long and inveterate diseases, opening the eyes of
the blind with a touch, and feeding thousands with a few
loaves and fishes. They were miracles of mercy. They were
done publicly, and they were all perfect and complete. The
persons healed were made every whit whole. They surpassed
the miracles of Moses, which the Jews always held sufficient
to confirm the mission of their lawgiver. Moses was but
an instrument, while Jesus worked miracles at will. His
miracles were unlike those pretended by the Church of
Rome. They were not ridiculous nor trifling, like the story of
the Virgin Mary's house travelling about till it settled at
Loretto, of sheep and asses running to hear St. Francis
preaching, of St. Dominic forcing the devil to hold the candle
till he said his devotions, or of St. Denys, after he was be
headed, carrying his head under his arm. The miracles of
Jesus were unlike Pagan miracles. Vespasian and Adrian
may have cured the blind. Kidder says that what is recorded
of Vespasian cannot fairly be denied, since it is affirmed by
good authors. It is, besides, probable that God may have
wrought miracles by one who was to be the instrument of
punishing the Jews for their rejection of the Messias. But
the miracles of Vespasian were far short of those of Jesus.
The miracles ascribed to Apollonius Tyansous are not to be
120 EELIGIOTJS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. mentioned. He is said to have cured a youth of dropsy by
inculcating temperance. Some of his miracles are impious,
encouraging idolatry and the worship of false gods. He
was, besides, a wicked man, proud, haughty, and vaunting
his knowledge, while in reality he was very ignorant.
Evidence that J^L-n objection is raised that we may not have sufficient
Jesus wrought assurance that Jesus really did the miracles ascribed to Him.
Kidder answers that we have such proof as the thing is
capable of, and that it is unreasonable to expect more. It is
called perversity to refuse here the same kind of arguments
that satisfy us in other things. Origen justly reasoned with
the Jews, that if they believed Moses, who was said to have
done supernatural works, they could have no ground for
rejecting Jesus. Pagan authors testify that there was such
a person as Jesus, and that He did mighty works. We can
have no just reason for questioning the truth of the gospel
history. The books are genuine. The writers were witnesses
of the things which they record. They all agree in the main
story, though there are some variations in detail, which,
however, are- easily reconciled.
The Messias It is proved against the Jews that the Messias was to
suffer. This suffering Bishop Kidder explains as a satisfac
tion lor sin. His resurrection and ascension prove Him to
have been the Son of God. The evidence of the resurrection
is estimated at nothing more nor less than we estimate the
evidence of any ordinary event. The human testimony is
unexceptionable. It comes from His disciples, who bear
witness to what they saw with their own eyes. It was pre
dicted that the Messias should rise from the dead and ascend
into heaven. This is proved by such passages in the Psalms as
' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee/ and ' Lift
up your heads, 0 ye gates ; be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors,
that the King of glory may come in/ Kidder demonstrates
with great learning, classical, Rabbinical, and Chaldean,
that the earth is our mother, and therefore of the resurrec
tion of Jesus it was said ' This day have I begotten Thee/
Owing to an irregularity in the construction of his treatise,
Bishop Kidder repeats these arguments, adding explana
tions of difficulties and solving objections. For this work
he had great capacity. His answers generally are solid and
BISHOP KIDDER. 121
satisfactory. If the objection is ingenious, the answer is sure CHAP. VIII.
to equal it in ingenuity. The greatest difficulty is admitted
to be that which concerns the genealogies of Jesus. Yet
Kidder says it is unfair for the Jews to make much of this.
Jesus was allowed by the Jews of His own time to bo of the
house of David, which is all that the genealogies are in
tended to prove. They prove this, even if they are only the
genealogies of Joseph, who was not the father of Jesus.
Every man had to marry into his own tribe, and therefore
Mary must have been of the tribe of Judah. It would be
easy, Bishop Kidder says, to perplex any Jew with difficul
ties in the names and numbers of the Old Testament. The
books of the genealogies are now lost, and the difficulties Jewish gene-
connected with those of Matthew and Luke are the same in JCpf,Jin U
kind as are common to all Jewish genealogies. The quo
tations from the Old Testament in St. Matthew are vindi
cated from the objections made by the Jews. Yet Kidder
admits that some of them may be merely accommodations.
' That it might be fulfilled' may only mean that something
has happened similar to some former event.*
Bishop Kidder wrote, also, a ' Commentary on the Five
Books of Moses/ This was his portion of a joint work pro
posed to be executed by the London ministers for the bene
fit of families. But most of his fellow- workers were unable
to accomplish their parts, because of the necessity of en
gaging in the great controversy in defence of the Protestant
religion in the time of James. Kidder had assigned to
* Bishop Kidder ventured an in- Europe begins to enjoy a general
terprctation of unfulfilled prophecy, peace, following the destruction of
which he threw out for the consi- Antichrist. In 1768, the Jews, now
deration of the reader. In 1729, the settled in Canaan, were to place the
Waldcnses and Alhigcnses were to several tribes in their order, rebuild
ascend up into heaven. (Rev. xi. 12.) the city of Jerusalem, and erect a
This year is the end of Daniel's ' time, famous church for the worship of the
and times, and half a time.' There true God. In 1804, the Turks were
were to be terrible battles. Popery, to be conquered by the Jews, and their
the antichristian hierarchy, was to empire torn to pieces. This was to
receive the fatal blow. In 1730 Gcr- be the pouring out of the seventh vial,
many was to be reformed. In 1731 There was to be a groat increase of
Spain was to be reformed. In 1732 the Gospel. E/clcid'-s waters are
Savoy, and the adjacent parts of Italy, risen so high, that there is water to
In 1733 was to come the end of the swim in. (Ez. xlvii. 5.) In 2014,
Papal hierarchy, and Rome was to be the Millennium begins ; all the world
levelled to the ground. In 1736 all is of one religion, and all nations at
the potentates of Europe were to peace with each other,
throw off the Popish yoke. In 1735,
122
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
On the
Pentateuch.
CHAP. VIII. him the Books of Moses. He prefixed a Dissertation con
cerning the author, in which he answered the usual objec
tions brought against their having been written by Moses.
The objections are chiefly those with which we are still
familiar, and the answers are as good as any that have been
made since that time.* The bishop rejects the theory of
emendations or additions by the hand of Ezra, or any other
supposed editor of the Scriptures. To admit this, he says,
would be to make them uncertain, — to leave us without any
knowledge who wrote them, and without the means of deter
mining which parts are to be received and which rejected.
The account of the death and burialof Moses, however, is ex
plained as a postscript by another hand, like the postscripts
at the end of the Epistles, or the conclusion of the seventy-
second Psalm : ' The prayers of Jesse, the son of David, are
ended/
* Kiddcr's answers to the objec
tions against the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch arc of some interest
and value. It was objected that Moses
could not have written Dent. i. 1.
He never entered Canaan, and yet he
is introduced here as recording what
he said to Israel in the wilderness
'on the other side Jordan.' The
bishop answers, that the Hebrew here
translated as ' the other side,' is as
frequently translated ' on this side,'
and that Joscphus translates the text
'near Jordan.' The next objection
concerns the kings of Edom, who arc
said to have reigned before ' any king
reigned in Israel.' (Gen. xxxvi. 3.)
How could Moses write this ? He
was dead before any king reigned in
Israel. In this chapter eight kings
arc mentioned as succeeding each
other in Edom, precisely the number
of generations from Jacob to Obcd,
the grandfather of David. Kidder
answers, that from the marriage of
Esau to the death of Moses there were
three hundred and forty-four years,
ample time for eight successive kings,
and Moses must have known that
there were to be kings in Israel, for
he delivers laws concerning them in
Deut. xvii. Moreover, Moses was
himself a king. He was 'king in
Jeshurun,' and this was not a new
title, for it is evident from the history
that he was really a king. It is added
as a thing possible, that these eight
kings may have been Horites, de
scended from Hoii in the land of Seir.
They reigned in Edom, but it is not
said that they were the children of Esau.
Another objection is, from the names
of places. For instance, Hebron and
Dan did not bear these names in the
time of Moses. In Joshua xiv. 15,
it is said, 'The name of Hebron was
Kirjath-arba ;' and the origin of the
name of Dan is recorded in Judges
xviii. 29. Kidder answers, that it is
not certain that Kirjath-arba was not
called Hebron in the time of Moses.
It is so called by Joshua (xv. 13),
who was contemporary with Moses.
It is only an assumption, that the Dan
of Gen. xiv. 14 is the Dan of Judges.
Moreover, Dan was a very ancient
name. It is traced as part of the word
Jordan. Josephus says, that Abraham
fell upon the Assyrians 'about Dan,
for so the other fountain, or spring
head, of Jordan was called.' In Gen.
xii. 6, it is said ' The Canaanitc was then
in the land.' Hobbes and Spinoza
had both remarked that the Canaanitc
was in the land for four hundred years
after Moses, which makes the state
ment impertinent coming from Moses.
It must have been added after the de
struction of the Canaanitcs. Kidder' s
answer is, that the words mean simply
that the land promised to Abraham
was then in the possession of the Ca-
BISHOP PATRICK. 123
Simon Patrick was appointed to the bishopric of Chi- CHAR VIII.
Chester, on the death of Bishop Lake. In 1691 he was Bishop
translated to Ely. Tillotson and Kidder succeeded to Patrick,
bishoprics held by Nonjurors, but it is probable that Patrick
would have refused to take any of their sees. He was, how
ever, an ardent supporter of the Revolution, and had no
sympathy with the Nonjurors in their attachment to James
II. Patrick is sometimes classed with the Cambridge Pla-
tonists, but what ho has in common with them is duo more
to the accident of education than to any original individu
ality. His writings are mostly practical, exhibiting some
times an ecstatic piety, but with no trace of capacity for
metaphysics, or the higher philosophy.* Indeed, through
out Patrick's life, as well as his writings, his greatest and
most manifest quality is practical wisdom. This was his
guide from his early youth, when, resisting temptations of
success in business, he made his way to Cambridge without
money, determined to be a scholar. He was more opposed
to the Puritans than was becoming in a Latitudinarian. In
his autobiography he is at some pains to show that his father
was not a Puritan. He had been reckoned a Puritan by his
neighbours because of his pious life, his strictness in ob
serving the Sabbath, and arranging his household so that
naanitcs. It is merely a statement that ' unto this day ' docs not ncces-
that the Canaanitcs possessed the land, sarily refer to the lapse of a great
and has no reference to their final ex- period of time. St. Matthew speaks
tirpation. Again, the land may mean of a saying as commonly reported
the land of Sichcm, in which the among the Jews, ' unto this day,'
Canaanites were destroyed by the which concerned an event that had
children of Jacob before the Israelites taken place in his own time. In
went into Egypt. There is also the Exodus xvi. 35, the children of Israel
mention of the bedstead of Og, the are said to have eaten manna forty
King of Bashan, in Dcut. iii. 11, years till they came to the land of
where it is unlikely that Moses should Canaan, which could not have been
speak of the bedstead as a relic pro- written by Moses, as he did not live
served in Rabboth, when he was him- till the end of the forty years, and
self contemporary with the King of never entered Canaan. This is an-
Bashan ; and in verse 14 it is said swercd, by the uncertainty of tho
that Jair, the son of Manasseh, called tense of the verb translated ' did eat/
the coasts of Gcshuri and Maachathi It might with equal propriety bo ren-
after his own name ' unto this day.' dcrcd ' shall eat.' It is so rendered
This expression implies that they had in Psalm xxii., ' All they that be fat
this name for a long time when these upon earth shall eat and worship.'
words were written, and therefore * The only collected edition of his
they could not have been written by works is by the Rev. Alexander
Moses. To the first objection Kidder Taylor, in nine volumes, without tho
answers, that Moses wrote for pos- Commentaries. It was published in
terity ; and to the second he answered, 1858.
I24
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. every one could go to church. But Patrick vindicates his
father from this as an undeserved reproach, testifying that
he never objected to the Book of Common Prayer, and that
the sermons which he read in his family were those of the
( famous Dr. Sanderson/
At Cam- Bishop Patrick went to Cambridge with reconirnenda-
bndgc. tions to Whichcot and Cudworth, expecting a sizarship at
King's or Emanuel. These colleges were full, but he was
recommended to Queen's, where he was soon noticed and
assisted by the Master, Herbert Palmer, one of the leaders
in the Westminster Assembly.* Here he met John Smith,
who was then a fellow of Queen's, the marvel of the Univer
sity, and giving fair promise to be the wonder of that age.
' His memory,' Patrick says, ' is most blessed. He died
August 7, 1652, much lamented. But blessed be God
for the good I got by him while he lived.'f At this time
Patrick was much troubled about the doctrine of absolute
predestination. He was forbidden to exercise ' carnal
reason' upon it. He told Smith his difficulties, who as
sured him that his reasons against it were sound, and made
such a representation of the nature of God, and His good
will to men in Christ Jesus, that Patrick was ever after
established in the belief 'that God would really have all
men to be saved.' J In giving up predestination, Patrick
* Patrick says, ' Herbert Palmer
took some notice of me, and sent for
me to transcribe some things he in
tended for the press, and soon after
made me the college scribe, which
brought me in a great deal of money,
many leases being to be renewed. It
was not long before I had one of the
best scholarships in the College be
stowed upon me, so that I was advanced
to a higher rank, being made a pen
sioner. But before I was Bachelor of
Arts that good man died, who was of an
excellent spirit, and was unwearied in
doing good. Though he was a little
crooked man, yet he had such an au
thority, that the Fellows reverenced
him as much aa we do them, going
bare when he passed through the
Court, which, after his death was dis
used.' — Vol. ix. p. 416.
t Vol. ix. p. 418.
+ More than half a century after
Smith's death, Bishop Patrick, refer
ring to his funeral sermon, said, ' I
could only declare how much I was
transported in my admiration of him,
who spoke of God and religion so as I
never heard man speak. Once I re
member, speaking of the being of
God, he told me that perhaps he had
reason to believe there was a God,
above most, if not all other men. I
have often since blamed myself that I
was not so bold as to inquire what ho
meant, but modesty becomes young
men, especially to their superiors, and
a profound reverence for him as vastly
above me, though not in years, for he
was but thirty-two years old when he
died. Lord! what a man he would
have been if he had lived so long as I
have done, when he had attained to
such a pitch of perfection at those
years.' — Vol. ix. p. 423.
Patrick's tutor was John Wells, who
BISHOP PATRICK. 125
had taken an important step towards separation from the CHAP. VIII.
Puritans. He had been ordained by a Presbytery, but
on reading Hammond and Thorndiko he was convinced of
the necessity of ordination by a bishop. He was ordained
privately by Bishop Hall, but continued to officiate as a
Presbyterian. He submitted to Cromwell's triers before he
was inducted to the Vicarage of Battersea. At the Bestora-
tion he was ready for the return of the Prayer-book. But
with characteristic prudence he did not introduce it sud
denly. He prepared his people for it by sermons on the
lawfulness and the utility of forms of prayer in public wor
ship. Unity and peace, he said, without the Prayer-book,
were better than discord with it.
Patrick's sympathies were all on the side of conformity. Becomes a
He was not forgetful of what he owed to individual Puritans,
but he was never one in spirit with the Puritan party. He
had never believed the divine decrees. He had repudiated
ordination by the classes. With the approbation of the
Platonists, he had preached in St. Mary's against the
Phariseeism of Cromwell's government, which appointed
fast days, and yet unjustly imposed on peaceable royalists
the burden of supporting a national militia. It was then no
marvel that he hailed both the return of the king and the
restoration of the bishops.
The earliest of Patrick's writings are on the Sacraments On the Sacra-
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. To both of these mcnts-
Sacraments he attaches great importance. The first trea
tise is in the form of a sermon preached at the baptism of
the infant son of ( a Minister in Lombard Street.' It was
published at the urgent request of this minister, and other
friends. This sermon is sometimes quoted to mark the
progress among the Puritans of a return to sounder views
on the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. But the
was afterwards Vicar of St. Ives, in to take the Covenant, and were ejected.
Huntingdonshire, where ho continued Those who came in their places were
till 1665, having- conformed at the chiefly from Emanuel, where Cud-
Restoration. Patrick says, ' I thank worth was Master, and Whichcot, un-
God for having- given me such a kind til this year, one of the tutors, when
loving tutor, of extraordinary aft'ec- he was made Provost of King's. Among
tion to me, which he expressed sundry the new fellows of Queen's were John
ways, exceeding my account.' In Wells and John Smith.
1644 all the fellows of Queen's refused
126 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VJTI. criticism is groundless. It is made in ignorance of tlio
The riiritan I>nr^an doctrine of the Sacraments. During the time of
doctrine of the Commonwealth there was the same diversity of senti-
1 s< mcnt concerning tlie efficacy of sacraments that has always
existed in the Church of England.* The genuine Calvinist
never denied baptismal regeneration. He simply confined
it to elect infants. This is the proper interpretation of the
strong language of such writers as Cranmer, Jewel, and
Hooker on the grace of baptism. This language was con
tinued by the Puritans of the Commonwealth. They be
lieved in the baptismal regeneration of elect children. Mo
dern Nonconformists are perplexed with the sentiments on
this subject which are found in such decided Puritans as
Thomas Jacomb and Thomas Goodwin. f Patrick, not being
a Calvinist in theology, could not speak so strongly of the
efficacy of baptism as some of the Puritans. Whatever the
baptismal grace might be, it was, he said, the same to all
baptized children. He gave sublime illustrations from Plato,
Philo, and the Old Testament, concerning the relation of
the invisible substance to the earthly patterns, and the in
visible grace to the visible signs. But when the whole of
his doctrine is analysed his view of baptism turns out in
reality to bo a very low view. It is built entirely on the
supposition of a covenant, to which we are admitted by this
ordinance. There is, he says, at least a relative change.
Henceforth ' we stand upon rather better terms than mere
nature did instate us in/ We are made God's children, and
have a title to an inheritance, which wo receive on our
being faithful to our part of the covenant. { Some secret
and manifold operations besides this relative change are
supposed to be probable, yet, as we know nothing about
Baptism ox- them, Patrick rests his argument for the great importance of
plained as baptism on the view of its being admission to the covenant.
admission to a
covenant. But this covenant at last becomes a myth. Patrick admits
that men may bo saved without being in this covenant.
He quotes with approbation from the book of Nitzchon
that ' he- that doth believe aright is a Jew, though he bo
* See Vol. I. pp. 209 and 231 of the the Restoration,' vol. ii. p. 432.
present work. J Vol. i. pp. 31-2.
f See Dr. Stoughton's ' Church of
BISHOP PATRICK. 127
not circumcised/* TTo says, indeed, that without the CHAP. VI II.
covenant of baptism no man can l)c saved. But then fol
lows an explanation that by covenant ofbaptism is meant a
Christian life. In the same spirit Patrick adds arguments
for the value of Confirmation. The benefits are in words
ascribed to the rite, yet they are meant only of the utility of
the rite. It is a renewal of the baptismal engagement, and
an opportunity for instruction at an important period of life.
The Holy Ghost is said to be given in baptism as a ' sanc-
tifier/ and in confirmation as a ' strengthened Yet the
sanctification and strengthening depend on our fulfilling the
terms of the covenant. And these terms are not mere com
pliance with the rites, but living the life which by the rites
we are enaed to live.
The treatise on the Lord's Supper called ' Mensa Mystica,' '
., . • . , . . 'Mvstica.'
is written on tne same principles. All the superstitions ot
the Church of Home, and everything like an effect ' ex
opere operate ' are renounced. Eoman Catholics called the
Communion of the Church of England ' John Calvin's Sup
per/ and made charges freely of heresy and schism, which
Patrick says are mere ' bugbear words,' to frighten weak
and credulous people. He argues on the clearest principles
of reason that salvation cannot be suspended on the acci
dent of receiving certain rites, or of belonging to a certain
party. The claim of the Roman Catholic is treated as
Diogenes treated the invitation of the Pagan priest, who
asked Diogenes to be of his order, that he might be happy
in the other world. ' Wouldst thou have me believe,' said
the philosopher, ( that Epaminondas and other bravo men
are miserable, and thou, who art but an ass, and dost
nothing worthy, shalt bo happy, because thou art a priest ? '
They whoso hearts are full of God, and have His imago
shining in their souls, cannot be excluded from heaven.
Neither can they enter there whose lives are evil, how
ever orthodox their creed. Patrick maintains in the Sacra
ment a ' real ' presence, which he immediately explains
after the fashion of those who do not really believe a real
presence. The elements exhibit 'our Lord Himself unto
believing minds, and put them into a surer possession of
* Vol. i. p. 20,
128 BELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. Him/ The ' real presence is not to be sought in the bread
and wine, but only in those that receive them, according as
learned Hooker speaks. For Christ saith first, Take and
eat, and then after that, Tliis is my body. Before we take
and eat it is not the body of Christ unto us, but when we
take and eat as we ought, then He gives us His whole self,
and puts us into possession of all such saving graces as His
sacrificed body can yield, and our souls do then need/*
Patrick adds to the same effect that the change is in our
souls, and not in the sacrament. We are ' metamorphosed
and transformed by this sacrament/ Yet, in order to have
this change, the sacrament must be received worthily. For
then only is it the body and blood of Christ, otherwise it is
but bare bread and wine.
On the l real This view of the ( real presence ' is made the occasion for
presence. using language quite as strong as can be found in any
Eoman Catholic writers. All the delights of religion are
spoken of as coming by participation in this sacrament. It
is here we are to taste and see that God is good, and to be
satisfied with the goodness of His house, even of His holy
temple. Here we are to see the most glorious thing in
heaven, even the body of the great King. Here we are to
be feasted at a royal table, filled with the Holy Ghost,
and take into our hands ( the only begotten Son of God/*
Dryden, describing what was supposed to be the Anglican
theory of the sacrament of the Supper, says, —
1 A real presence all her sons allow,
And yet 'tis flat idolatry to bow,
Because the Godhead's there they know not how.'
He concludes the verse with the famous line : —
4 Nonsense never can be understood.'
Patrick's ' Mensa Mystica ' was written in Puritan times,
and was received by the Puritans as not disagreeing with their
view of this sacrament. It was dedicated to Sir Walter and
Lady St. John, in whose house Patrick was domestic chap-
The sacrifice lain previous to his undertaking the charge of Battersea. A
of the Supper. grea^ ^ea^ of learning is employed in comparing this sacrifice
with the different kinds of sacrifice among the Jews. The
* Vol. i. p. 151. t Vol. i. p. 287.
BISHOP PATRICK. 129
legal sacrifices were remembrances of sin, but our sacrifice CHAP. VIII.
is a remembrance of the remission of sin. The Jews did
not eat of the expiatory sacrifice, but we eat of the sacrifice
of expiation. A parallel or a contrast is equally acceptable
and equally conclusive so far as argument is concerned.
But here, as in the sacrament of baptism, everything is
referred to the covenant. It is a covenant right. We do
not make ' a bare remembrance ' of Christ's death, but a lively
and affectionate commemoration of what Christ has done for
us. The communion or participation of Christ's body is ex
plained as declaring our faith in Christ.* The condition of
the covenant comes at last to be simply faith. This itself is
to eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood. For this interpre
tation of these words in St. John's gospel Patrick quotes
St. Basil, and refers to the testimony of other ancient Fathers.
By eating bread and drinking wine in the Eucharist we do
something more than Jesus meant in that discourse. Our
eating and drinking is not merelv an act of faith, it is also
an open profession of our faith and membership in the
Church. With Bishop Patrick the Lord's Supper, apart
from his undefined theory of a covenant, is really after all
nothing more than a simple memorial of Christ's death.
And lest his frequent use of the word sacrifice should lead
to any idea of a proper priesthood, he says that every Chris
tian is a priest when he comes to the table of the Lord.f
Patrick wrote a long treatise on ' The Witnesses of Chris- 'The Wit-
tianity; or the Certainty of our Faith and Hope.' It is
addressed to believers. ' Surely,' he says ' there are no
infidels among us.' It is only with believers that the argu
ments could have any weight. The treatise is of no value
on the great question of evidences, which had now begun to
be discussed. Patrick appears never to have had a doubt.
The truth of Christianity is as much a starting-point with
him as the fact of existence. This treatise is founded on
the text of the three witnesses. The testimony of the
Father was made to Jesus — ' This is my beloved Son.' The
testimony of the Son is what Jesus testified of Himself.
That of the Holy Ghost is the evidence of miracles. Then
follow the three witnesses on earth. The text is received
* Vol. i, p. 120. t Vol. i. p. 102.
VOL. IJ. K
130 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. as genuine, though Patrick knew that in many MSS. it was
not found. The first witness on earth corresponds to the
third in heaven. The second witness is the water, which
may be baptism, or a pure life, or a great many other
things. The third witness is the blood, or tho testimony
of suffering.
Bishop Edward Fowler had been educated at Oxford, but ho
Fowler. entirely agreed with the most advanced Cambridge theolo
gians.* He wrote a defence of the Platonists, which he
called ' A Free Discourse between Two Intimate Friends/
It took the form of a dialogue, and professed to give a true
representation of 'the principles and practices of certain
moderate divines of the Church of England greatly misun
derstood.'' They are spoken of in the dialogue as ' the per
sons with the long name/ That name was Latitudinarian.
It was given in reproach, and popularly conveyed the
meaning that the divines of that school were not too strict
cither in the belief of Christianity or in the practice of
morality. Before the dialogue closes, it is shown that they
adhere firmly to all the essentials of Christianity, but that
on minor questions of speculative doctrine, Church govern
ment, and modes of worship, they ' persuade men to peace
and moderation/
The ( two friends' in the dialogue are Philalethes and
Theophilus. They are introduced as mutually deploring Ilio
sad state of the Church, the ' prodigious heights ' to which
* In the account of tho meeting of throw no new light upon it, and can
the London clergy to deliberate about only beget heat. Let every man say
reading King James's Declaration Yes or No. But I cannot consent to
of Indulgence, Macaulay says : ' The be bound by tho vote of the majority,
general feeling of the assembly seemed I shall be sorry to cause a breach of
to bo that it was on the whole ad- unity. But this Declaration I can-
visable to obey the Order in Council, not in conscience read." Tillotson,
The dispute began to wax warm, and Patrick, Sherlock, and Stillingflcet,
might have produced fatal conse- declared that they were of tho' sanm
quences, if it had not been brought to mind. Tho majority yielded to tho
a close by tho firmness and wisdom authority of a minority so respectable,
of Dr. Edward Fowler, Vicar of St. A resolution by which all present
Giles', Cripplegate, one of a small but pledged themselves to one another
remarkable class of divines, who united not to read the declaration was thru
that lovo of civil liberty which be- drawn up ; Patrick was tho first
longed to the school of Calvin with who set his hand to it ; Fowler was
the theology of tho school of Armi- tho second. Tho paper was sent
nius. Standing up, Fowler spoko round the city, and was speedily sub-
thus : "I must be plain. The qucs- scribed by eighty-four incumbents.'
tion is so simple that argument can — History of •Bnyl»nd} vol. ii. p. 349.
BISHOP FOWLED. 131
' our feuds have grown in matters of religion/ and tlio avor- CHAP. VIII.
sion of all parties to entertain thoughts of 'peace and ac
commodation.' The moderate men arc described as beaten
on both sides. They laboured for peace, but High Church
men and Puritans made themselves ready for battle. Thco-
philus wonders that any who profess Christianity should
judge hardly of those who are called Latitudinarians. They OntheLati-
had established, with unequalled success, the great principle tudinamns-
which is the foundation of all religion — the principle that
moral good and evil arc so in themselves eternally and un
alterably. They had overthrown the doctrine of Hobbes,
which made moral righteousness to have its foundation in
the laws of the magistrate, and they had shown that the
great design of the Gospel is ( to make men good, not to
intoxicate their brains with notions, or to furnish their
minds with a system of opinions/ ' I have myself been,'
Theophilus again says, ' as constant a hearer of them as any
man, but never was my judgment more convinced, my will
persuaded, nor my affections wrought upon by any sermons
than by theirs. I found that in their discourses generally
they handled those subjects that were weightiest and of most
necessary importance. I mean such as have the greatest
respect unto reformation of men's lives and purification of
their souls. Nor had I ever so lively an idea of the Divine
nature, which is the most powerful incentive to obedience
to the Divine will, nor so clear a sense of the excellency of
the Christian religion, the reasonableness of its precepts,
the nobleness and generosity of its design, and its admirable
fitness for the accomplishment of it, as, through the blessing
of God, I have gained by the hearing of these men.'
Christianity is described as summed up by Jesus in the The Chris-
love of God and the love of man. That these arc rational Ol
precepts is granted by all rational creatures. The first is
evident, as soon as we know that God is a Being of abso
lute perfection, and the second is a self-evident principle in
morals. It was recognized by the Pagans, as expressed
negatively by Severus: — ' Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne
feceris.' It is found again in the form which Jesus most
commended, love even to the unthankful and the evil. That
we ought to love our enemies every schoolboy knows who
132 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. has read Cicero f Do Officiis.' Plato introduces Socrates
saying, that ' An injury by no means is to be done, nor may
it be repaid to him that hath done an injury/ Cato says,
1 If an ass kick me, shall I kick him again ?' which certainly
means that on one class of people at least we are not to seek
revenge. Origen says that a man who had destroyed one of
Lycurgus' eyes was delivered up to him, but Lycurgus was
so far from seeking to revenge the injury, that he never
ceased to give the man good advice till he also became a
philosopher. It is mentioned by Origen that an enemy
once said to Zeno, ' Let me perish if I do thee not a mis
chief/ to which Zeno answered, ' And let me perish if I do
not reconcile thee to me/
Christianity The whole spirit of Christianity, as well as its precepts,
is declared to be rational. It is in perfect harmony with
the spirit of the wise men of the Pagan world. They have
always set a higher value on good deeds than on mere
external worship, estimating the love of God or good
men more than a multitude of burnt-offerings. Hierocles,
speaking of the love of God, says, ' With this everything
is pleasing to God, but without this nothing/ He intro
duces Apollo saying to a wicked man who had offered a
. hecatomb, ( More agreeable to me is the barley-cake of poor
Hermion/ Philalethes asks if what has been said does not
tend to disparage the Gospel, to make it, except in one or
two precepts, the same with mere natural religion. Theo-
philus answers, ' I would rather impose an eternal silence
upon my tongue, and pluck it out by the roots too, than
once utter a syllable to such a mischievous purpose. But
I am so far from being conscious to myself that what
hath been said doth tend to the debasing of religion, that
I know it highly conduceth to its commendation/ Tho
Gospel is said to differ from natural religion. It has things
to be known as well as things to be done. And it has
points of mere belief which yet have an influence on prac
tice. To revelation we owe many promises and many de
clarations of God's love to men. The Gospel contains all
the duties of natural religion. It presents clearly and in a
definite form all the excellent precepts that lie thinly scat
tered in the Pagan books. We have placed before our eyes
BISHOP FOWLER, 133
the duties which those who lived without the Gospel could CHAP. VIII.
only discover by long* labour and great exercise of the
reasoning faculty. The Gospel, moreover, gives helps to
the performance of duty. It presents strong motives and
persuasive arguments, as the inconceivable love of God and
the gift of His Son, who took our nature, and made an expia
tory sacrifice for lost sinners. It gives us the example of
Christ's life, His declarations of pardon, and His proffers
of grace to assist us in well-doing. All that is required is
suitable to our rational faculties, and this is to the com
mendation of the Gospel more than if its precepts were
perfectly new and the reasonableness of them not evident
to all.
Theophilus admits that there are in Christianity certain The Latitudi-
doctrines to be believed. Philalethes says he has heard
that the Latitudinarian divines endeavour to bring down
even the most mysterious of these to the shallow capa
cities of men. Theophilus answers, that this is partly
true and partly false. They have proved that all points of
mere belief are reasonable, that is, consistent with reason.
We have 110 temptation to disbelieve any of them, because
of their contrariety to the innate and natural notions of our
minds. Our assent is not required to contradictions. The
Gospel reveals things which reason could not have dis
covered, but in these things there is nothing opposed to
reason. In the same way there are many things in nature
which we know to exist, but do not know how they exist.
Theophilus at first denies that the Latitudinariaiis ever said
that the mysteries of faith are consistent with reason.
But Philalethes quotes some passages which declare the spe
culative doctrines of Christianity to be not only consistent with
reason, but very suitable to its dictates. Theophilus then
admits this to be true as to some of the most important
questions. The heathen, he says, had some idea of immor
tality. Justin Martyr thought it probable that Plato be
lieved in the resurrection of the body. It was, however,
the Gospel which brought life and immortality to light,
that is, which gave mankind a full satisfaction in that article
of faith. Even the doctrine of the Trinity, ' as to the sub
stance of it, was embraced by the Pythagoreans and Pla-
134 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. tonists/ From the sacrifices of the heathen it is inferred
that they must have had some idea of the doctrine of recon
ciliation to God, through the sacrifice of Christ. At its first
institution Christianity, according to Theophilus, had only
few mysteries ; but after two or three centuries, it was all
mystery together. Erasmus says, that in the time of the
Nicene Council it was f a matter of great wit and cunning
to be a Christian/ But in the Apostolic times Christianity
was so plain that St. Paul said, ' If our Gospel be hid, it
is hid to them that are lost/ The practical conclusion of
the dialogue is, that the doors of the Church should be set
1 wider open/ — that 'all disputed and uncertain doctrines'
be removed from our formularies, — and 'that there be
nothing in our ecclesiastical constitution that may give any
plausible pretence for separation or nonconformity.'' This,
Thcophilus says, was the spirit of Jesus, who, were He now
on earth, would certainly be called a Latitudinarian.
The ' Design Fowler also wrote a treatise on ' The Design of Chris
tianity^" tianity/ which was answered by John Bunyan,* who found
it made up of three ingredients, — c Popery, Sociniaiiism,
and Quakerism/ He wrote another, called ' A Discourse
of the Descent of the Man Christ Jesus from Heaven/ In
this he said that the man Jesus was the Logos who had
been eternally with the Father, who appeared to Lot and
Abraham, afterwards to Moses, and last of all came forth from
the Father to dwell with men ; and when He had finished
His work He ascended again to His Father. The eternal
Logos was the human soul of Christ. Another tract was
published after Fowler's death, called ' Certain Propositions
by which the Doctrine of the Trinity is so explained in the
Ancient Fathers as to speak it not contradictory to Natural
Eeason/ The Bishop says that the Father is the only self-
existent One. The Son and Holy Ghost are from the
Father, as the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds both declare.
It is, therefore, a contradiction to say that the second and
third persons are self-existent. The Father alone is the
only true God, the first Original of all things, the only
Good. In this highest sense the Godhead is one numeri
cally. It is, however, no contradiction to say that from the
* Fowler was at this time vicar of Northill, in Bedfordshire.
BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. 135
first Original proceeded other beings with all perfections CHAP. VIII
except self- existence. The Son and the Holy Ghost have a
right to the name of God in a sense next to that in which it
is appropriated to the Father. They were not created;
they emanated, as light emanates from the sun, and this
emanation was eternal. This is shown to be contrary to
Arianism, for the Arians say that there was a time when
the Word was not. It is also contrary to Socinianism, for
Socinians say that the Word was created. The unity of
the Trinity is an inseparable union in nature and in will.
This view of the Trinity is said to be that of the Nicene
Creed, but older than the Council of Nice. It is said to
have the ' fewest difficulties, and to be incomparably most
agreeable to the Holy Scripture/
Edward Stillingfleet had also been educated at Cam- Bishop Stil-
bridgc. In 10 18 he was admitted a scholar of St. John's, lingflcct.
We have 110 record of his mental history. But it was im
possible that he could have escaped the influence of the
Platonists. His mind developed early, but it soon reached
maturity and ceased to make progress. In 1659 Stilling-
fieet was appointed to the Rectory of Sutton, in Cambridge
shire. He did not scruple to accept a living at a time when
Episcopacy was proscribed; but, unlike Tillotson, Patrick,
and some other eminent Churchmen of the Restoration, he
had never been in any sense a Presbyterian. Before en
tering on the duties of his parish, he received ordination
from Dr. Brownrig, the ejected Bishop of Exeter.
Stillingfleet's life was spent in controversy. The bio
graphy prefixed to the collected edition of his works con
sists of little more than an account of the books he wrote,
and the circumstances of his writing them. At the^age of
twenty- three he published his ' Irenicum, A Weapon Salve « The Ireni-
for the Church's Wounds.' In this work he professed, as cum''
the rest of the title says, to discuss and examine the di
vine right of particular forms of church government. He
was to examine them ' according to the principles of the
law uf nature, the positive laws of God, the practice of the
Apostles, the primitive Church, and the Reformed divines.1
The object of this work was to unite all parties in one
national Church, on the principle that there was no system
136 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. of church government in the New Testament. In the pre
face Stillingfleet says that it had become the custom of all
parties to give the outward form of the Church glorious
names. They called it ' the undoubted practice of the
Apostles, the discipline of Christ, the order of the Gospel/
and each party spoke as if none could be saved but those
who had embarked in their ship. He had no doubt of the
antiquity and the conveniency of the Episcopal form, but
he did not hold it necessary to the constitution of a church.
His argument was chiefly addressed to those of the Presby
terians who supposed the Presbyterian discipline of divine
origin. He wished the constitution of the Church to de
pend entirely on holding the essential doctrines and per
forming the necessary duties of Christianity. These were,
he said, the sole conditions of }. communion that had been
made by Christ. The bond of unity was to be love and
affection, and not a bare conformity of practice and opinion.
It is maintained that the early Church showed great tolera
tion towards different parties within its communion. It
The primitive was broad and comprehensive, admitting diverse rites and
broaTchurch. various opinions among its ministers and members. This
latitude was first opposed by the sects. The Church con
tinued moderate and catholic till Arians, Donatists, and
Circumcelliones declared that they alone were the Church.
The catholicity of the primitive Church was to be a basis
for the reconstruction of the Church of England. Its foun
dation was not to be laid on any supposed form of divinely
appointed government, but in such a rational constitution
as circumstances required.
To prepare the minds of all parties for union in a broad
Churcl^, Stillingfleet had to establish some general principles.
The fact that a divine origin was claimed for widely different
forms of church government was held a sufficient proof
that Christ had never intended one uniform government for
No church all times and places. We do not know with any certainty
NcwVesta-6 what form of government prevailed in the primitive Church,
merit. and if we did, it would not follow that the same form
should be adopted by us. Matters of polity are left to the
ordinary reason of the Christian community. Different forms
of church government were said to be of divine origin, in
BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. 137
the sense that they tire derived from the light of reason and CHAP. VIII.
the general principles of the word of God. The reason of
government is divine, and therefore a rational form may be
called divine. ' Two tilings/ says Stillingfleet, ' I con
ceive are of an unalterable divine right. First, that there
be a society and joining together of men for the worship
of God. Secondly, that this society be governed, pre
served, and maintained in a most convenient manner.'* A
society for worship is shown to be a dictate of reason,
arising from the social nature of man being capable of im
provement by religion. Reason, teaches that in this society
there must be governors. But as the unity of the Church
depends on communion, and not on opinions, the gover
nors should regard as liable to censure those only who break
the peace of the Church. 'We should tolerate those who
differ from us, so long as their differences are not funda
mental. On the same principle we should conform to the
Church of the nation, so long as conformity is not really
sinful. We separated from the Church of Rome because of
her idolatry and superstition. To remain in communion
with her was found to be impossible, without partaking of
her sins. We were commanded not only to profess that
all the doctrines of that Church were not erroneous, but
that they were certain and necessary truths.
In the first ages of the Church, when believers were Origin and
few, it is admitted that a congregation may have had no Of cn\irchCn
rulers except its pastor and deacons. But when the Church government,
enlarged, and became co-extensive with a whole nation, a
different form of government may have been not only lawful,
but necessary. The ecclesiastical polity of the Jews was
copied from their civil government. If in this sense,
Christ is to be faithful over His house as Moses was,
then the government of every national Church should be
a copy of the civil government of that nation. All the
standing rules of polity, as, for instance, the charges to
Timothy and Titus, are declared to be equally applicable
to different forms of government. Hooker is quoted as
having made it his great argument against the Puritans, that
there was no church polity in the New Testament. The
* P. 27, ed. 1662.
I3& RELI&tOtJS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. superiority of the twelve Apostles over the seventy dis
ciples is called a myth, and the testimony of the first ages
concerning government is pronounced very uncertain. It is
supposed to have been a custom that where a church was
founded by an Apostle or an Evangelist, tradition made
the founder the bishop of that place. It is doubted if the
Apostles always established the same government in every
church. Ircnoous calls presbyters bishops. On the other
hand, there is no evidence of any presbyters besides those
who were ordained presbyters of cities. The presbyters of
whom St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to Timothy were also
bishops in the Scriptural sense, and cannot by any kind of
reasoning be identified with lay elders. Augustine speaks
of hundreds of bishops flocking to one council. Sozomeii
says that the very villages had bishops. Cranmer and
other bishops of his time, both Protestant and Catholic,
maintained that bishops and presbyters were but one order.
To the same effect many other divines of the Church of
England are quoted in the l Irenicum,' and among them
Francis Mason, the great advocate of the validity of English
orders, who also made f an excellent defence of the ordina
tion of ministers beyond the seas.'*
The ' Origines Stillingfleet's ' Irenicum ' was followed not long after by
the ' Origines Sacrae/ which is generally reckoned his great
est work. It is called i A Rational Account of the Grounds
of the Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority
of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained/ In
the beginning of this work we have some traces of the
influence of Stillingfleet's Cambridge education. He is full
of Plato, and full of reason. He fortifies the foundation
of his arguments by the precedents of the Alexandrian
* The * Ircnicum ' is latitudina- ever be set at variance, much less one
rian, but with a leaning sometimes to so preferred before the other that the
the Puritan side. Speaking of the one must be esteemed as Sarah and
early Church, Stillingfloct says, ' Pub- the other almost undergo the hardship
lie prayers were not then looked on of Hagar, to be looked on as the
as the more principal end of Christum bondwoman of the synagogue, and to
assemblies than preaching, nor conse- be turned out of doors ? Praying and
quentlythat it was the more principal preaching be the Jachin and Boax of
ollicc of stewards of the mysteries of the temple, like Rachel and Le;ih,
Clod to read the public prayers of the both which built up the house of
Church than to preach in season and Israel ; but though Rachel be fair and
out of season. And is it not a great beautiful, yet Leah is the more fruit-
pity two such excellent duties should ful' (p. 333).
BISHOP STILttNGFLEET. 139
Fathers. They believed in the capacity of man to know CHAP. VIII.
truth. They believed that there was truth in philosophy ;
and that all truth to be received must commend itself to the
inner faculty by which truth is discerned. Plato's saying is
endorsed, that all knowledge is remembrance. In its primi
tive state, the mind of man had conceptions or notions of
things which were lost in the shipwreck of human nature.
The knowledge which we now acquire is but ' the gathering
of some scattered fragments of what was once one entire
fabric, and the recovery of some precious jewels/ The ori
ginal perfection of knowledge is found in the fact recorded
of Adam, that he gave names to all beasts of the field.
Plato says that ' the imposition of names on things belongs
not to every one, but only to him that hath a fair prospect
into their several natures.'* These conceptions or notions
were the inward senses of the soul. When revelation came,
'it brought nothing/ Stillingfleet says, ' contrary to the
principles of human nature, but did only rectify the depra
vations of it, and clearly shew more that way which they
had long been ignorantly seeking after.'f This was recog
nized by St. Paul when he preached to the Athenians con
cerning the altar to the Unknown God. The primitive
Christians made use of what the heathen writers had said
concerning the divine nature and the immortality of the
soul. They showed that Christianity did not overturn the
great principles that were received by all that had a name
for reason.
But the chief object of the ( Origines Sacrse ' was to defend Scripture
the credibility of the Scripture histories. These were said fendcd.
not to be in harmony with the records of profane history.
But Stillingfleet maintained that the pagan histories were
not to be trusted. The Greeks had no letters before Cad
mus, and he with his company are supposed to be the
Canaanites that fled from Joshua. All the Greek histories
are reckoned fabulous till long after the first Olympiad.
Philo Byblius, who translated Sanchoniathon, says that the
Phoenicians were the most ancient of all the barbarians, and
that other nations derived their theology from them. Por
phyry made great use of Sauchoniathon against Christianity ;
* ' Origines Sacra,' ed. 1GGG, p. 4. t Ib. p. 9.
140 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. but lie was obliged to admit that Sanclioiiiathon was younger
than Moses, though he had supposed him older than the
Trajan war. Among the Chaldeans, Manetho and Berosus
were not older than Ptolemy Philadelphia, in whose time
the Old Testament was translated into Greek. The Greeks
are often supposed to have had a better account of ancient
history than other nations ; but the Greeks had no histories
till but a little time before Cyrus and Cambyses. Many
Greek historians are to us merely names : we know nothing
of their books. The epochs of heathen chronology are pro
nounced uncertain, and the histories full of contradictions,
the same historians even contradicting themselves. The
contrary is affirmed of the histories in the Scriptures. It is
maintained that for their genuineness and authenticity wo
have as much certainty as we can have for things that hap
pened so many centuries ago. This certainty is supposed
to be sufficient, and on it Stillingfleet erects his arguments
for the divine mission of Moses and Jesus.
We shall best learn Stillingfleet's position as to the evi
dences from the ground he occupied in the Eoman Catholic
controversy. To this controversy we can trace historically
The genesis the genesis of Deism. But the seeds were sown long before
Stillingfleet undertook the refutation of Papal doctrine. In
Laud's conference with Fisher the Jesuit, the Archbishop
was pressed to answer the question how he knew the Scrip
tures to be the word of God without the authority of an
infallible Church. Laud expressed his unwillingness to
enter on this question, because fof the danger of men's
being disputed into infidelity by the circle between Scrip
ture and tradition/ He said that it was not a question
which should be raised among Christians ; yet, rather than
have the worst of the argument, he entered upon it, to show
that the Protestant ground of faith was at least as good as
the Catholic. Laud's arguments we have already recorded.*
They were the ordinary Protestant arguments, accompanied
by some peculiar views of tradition, which neither made
them stronger nor weaker. Roman Catholic controver
sialists have always seen that Protestants, who reject the
infallible authority of the present Church, have a difficulty
* Sec Vol. I. p. 170.
BISIIOr STILLTNGFLEET.
in maintaining infallible Scriptures, that is, in proving that CHAP. VIII.
they are the word of God. On both sides it was supposed
that Christianity eould not stand if both the Church and the
Bible were admitted to be fallible. The Roman Catholic,
consequently, has always been ready to reduce the Protestant
to the alternative of the Church or Deism. Laud mentioned
several ways by which we know the Scriptures to be the
word of God ; but he felt that each was insufficient by itself,
and so he rested his cause 011 the combination of them all
together. In 1663, long after Laud was dead, a Roman
Catholic author wrote a book called ' Labyrinthus Cantua- Dr. Laud's
riensis, or Dr. Laud's Labyrinth/* The Archbishop's book oSv do^vo
was severely dealt with. It was described as full of ' abstruse know the
turnings/ { ambiguous wanderings/ ' intricate meanders/ be divine
and like the ' pestiferous works of all heretical authors/ without the
The Bishop of London, Humphrey Henchman, asked Stil- church ':
lingfleet to answer the ' Labyrinthus/ which he did in a
treatise called ' A. Rational Account of the Grounds of the
Protestant Religion/ He pretends to no more than moral
certainty for the truth of Christianity, and he shows that
more than moral certainty the Roman Catholic cannot give
for his infallible Church. Now if we have Christianity on
moral certainty, it is surely, he argues, a ( labyrinth ' to seek
to come by it in the way of an infallible Church, for which
nothing more than moral certainty can be adduced. We
are, then, Protestants by the same reason that we are
Christians. If we have only a ' moral assurance/ we should
not pretend to more than we really have. It is in this way
Stillingfleet says that Roman Catholics take away the real
grounds of faith. They rest Christianity on an infallible
Church, which promises absolute certainty, while the infalli
bility of the Church itself is only a probability, for which
nothing more than a moral certainty can be alleged.
When Stillingfleet had in this way answered ' the Roman- Laud de
ist's way of resolving faith/ he went on to the question fendcd-
which had been discussed by Laud. He does not profess to
do more than vindicate the arguments of the Archbishop.
Protestants know the Scriptures to be the word of God in
various ways, and all these ways taken together amount to
* It professed to have "been published in Paris in 1559.
142 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. a moral certainty sufficient to justify the faith of rational
men. ' I doubt not/ Stillingfleet says to one of his adver
saries, ' but to make it evident that the way taken by the
most judicious and considerative Protestants is as satisfac
tory and reasonable as I have already made it appear that
yours is unreasonable and ridiculous/*
The question is, what evidence have we that the Christian
revelation really comes from God? The answer is, that the
evidence is a number of probabilities. Our belief does not
rest on an immediate divine testimony. It is a rational or
Faith resolved discursive act of the mind. Faith is sometimes resolved
t^wllic]1^11" into thc testimony of the Spirit, that is to say, the operation
amount to of the Spirit produces saving faith. But that, Stillingfleet
taTnty 'CC says, is not the question with which he has to deal. That
faith gives no account why anything is believed. It only
points to the efficient cause. When we speak of resolving
faith, we mean marking out the cause which is the ground
of our assent. For different acts of faith there must then
be different resolutions. We must give reasons why we
believe what is contained in the Scriptures to be true, why
we believe their doctrine divine, and the books themselves
a divine revelation. For these Stillingfleet brings forward
the usual arguments concerning the writers, the time when
they wrote, their means of knowing the truth of the events,
their suffering in attestation of what they said, and their
books being generally received as genuine and authentic
by their contemporaries, whether Jews, Christians, or Pa
gans. This is all the evidence of which the subject is
capable, and why, he says, should wo ask for more ? Ho
repeats the argument from miracles in the form in which it
was put by Tillotson. Because of the miracles which Jesus
wrought, we believe His doctrine to be divine. This evi
dence was sufficient to those who sa\v the miracles, and
therefore it ought to be sufficient to us. What their senses
testified to them tradition testifies to us. If it is said that
tradition is not absolute certainty, the answer is neither was
the evidence of the senses. They might have been de
ceived. In both cases there is simply credibility, which
is a sufficient foundation for assent. The grounds of all
* 'Works,' ed. 1709, vol. v. p. 195.
AKCHBISHOP TENISON. 143
religion are capable of no more assurance than that of CHAP. VIII.
moral certainty. We believe that there is a God ; we be
lieve that the soul is immortal; but absolute certainty for
either we have none. Credibility involves the obligation of
belief; and when there is an obligation to believe, we may
rest assured that the matter is infallibly true. If moral
certainty is not sufficient, then there is a strange want of a
provision for faith. This general conviction of the providence
of God is used also as an argument that the Scriptures
which convey to us the Christian revelation are essentially
true. Whether they were written by immediate suggestion
of the Spirit of God, or whether the writers were left in
many things to their natural knowledge is not regarded as
affecting the argument. Stillingfleet thinks that in mere
historical passages they did not require assistance; and
from such doubts as that in the sixth of St. John, whe
ther the rowing was twenty-five furlongs or thirty, he thinks
they did not receive it.
When Tillotson was on his death-bed, he recommended Archbishop
to the queen Thomas Tenison as his successor in the See of Temson>
Canterbury. Tenison had been made Bishop of Lincoln in
1691. We have already spoken of his reply to Hobbes,
which was founded on the principles of eternal morality,
which he had learned from Cudworth, at Cambridge. This
was his first and best effort in literature. As Vicar of
St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, he had become a great preacher
and an earnest worker in the ordinary duties of a parish
minister. In the time of James he took an important part
in the great controversy with the Eoman Catholics. The
resoluteness with which the clergy mot the propagandists
of the king's creed must ever stamp the Church of England
as the most Protestant Church in the world. They were
not content with writing books, but they met the Jesuits
face to face both in public and private, never ceasing to
persuade every man that the Reformation in England was
the restoration of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.
We have accounts of many of these meetings or con
ferences, as they were called, but one which Tenison held
may indicate their general character. Andrew Pulton,
a Jesuit father at the Savoy, had converted a country
144 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. youth who was an apprentice in Tenison's parish. The
Jesuit had told the boy that Luther was persuaded by the
devil not to go to mass, and that this was the beginning of
the Reformation. After his conversion, the boy had be
come an ' intolerable liar/ and, to re-convert him, Tenison
Conference held a conference with Pulton. After various preliminaries,
with Pulton. fjienjson Objected to some persons present, especially a per
vert, who had expressed in a coffeehouse great pity for St.
Martin's parish being under one man when it was capable of
maintaining thirty friars, to which Tenison had answered
that he must not count his friars until they were hatched. Pul
ton asked Tenison to prove that the Protestants had a Bible.
Tenison asked for a Bible, and then he would prove it.
Pulton answered, that if he had a Bible he could not prove
that he had one. The Bible must be received on the autho
rity of the Church. That authority must be infallible,
otherwise we have no certainty that the Bible is what wo
believe it to be. After a long digression about the devil
appearing to Luther, Tenison said that whatever good
arguments Roman Catholics had for believing the Bible,
Protestants had the same. Then Pulton went on as to the
necessity of ' hearing the Church.' After several desultory
discussions on various points, the disputants landed in
some quotations from Ambrose, Cyril, and Justin Martyr.
To settle the genuineness, accuracy, and, if possible, the
meaning of these quotations, the conference was postponed.
Tenison gave Pulton a lecture for tampering with the reli
gion of Protestant children, and the Jesuit said that he was
anxious for their ' eternal salvation/ The boy was admo
nished to give up lying. He had never been a very good
youth, but since his secret visits to the Jesuits' chapel he had
evidently taken a turn for the worse. The controversy was
continued in writing, but Pulton being unable to write
English correctly, asked Tenison to write in Latin.
Tenison's theology is said to have been Latitudinarian,
and there is nothing in any of his few published writings
which shows the contrary. He was the son of a clergyman
who had sacrificed his living in the time of the Common
wealth, and he had himself hesitated to take orders until the
restoration of the bishops under Charles. But Tenison had
BISHOP BURNET. 145
as little of the bigoted Churchman as of the ardent Puritan. CHAP. VIII.
His sermons are full of practical religion, rarely touching
on disputed doctrines, and chiefly remarkable for clearness
and simplicity. His life was like his sermons. He was Tenison's
-i *j
zealous in all charitable works, providing for the poor, esta- c
blishing schools and libraries, and supporting societies for
the reformation of manners. The parish of Lambeth has
memorials of the goodness of Thomas Tcnison where no
trace can be found of any other occupant of the See of Can
terbury. He realized the doctrine of his own excellent
sermon, ' preached before their Majesties at "Whitehall/ on
1 Doing Good to Posterity/
Gilbert Burnet was the first bishop appointed by King Gilbert
William. A few days after his accession, the diocese ofBurnct-
Salisbury was vacant through the death of Seth Ward. The
elevation of Burnet to the episcopate was the occasion of
universal indignation. Bancroft refused to consecrate, till,
compelled by the civil power, he did it by means of his
suffragans. Burnet was never a favourite with the English
clergy. They hate his memory even to this day. His Lati-
tudinarianism is the reason usually assigned. But this in
itself was not the cause. He had been one of the most
ardent promoters of the Eevolution, and one of the most
determined enemies of James. This was enough for many
even of those who submitted to the oaths, but there was more
than even this. Burnet had a Scotchman's natural contempt
for the intellect of the English clergy, and he did not scruple
to let them know it.
There is nothing in Burnetts theology which entitles him
to be classed with the Latitudinarians. He is not a Cal-
vinist, but in all other respects he accepts the theology of
the Eeformers as set forth in the standards of the Church.
In his Exposition of the Articles he has the candour to admit
that Article XVII. was intended to express the doctrine of
Augustine, and that this doctrine pervades the rest of the
Articles. He is zealous beyond measure to defend the sacri
fice on the cross as a proper substitution or satisfaction for
the sins of men. Christ died, he says, in the place of On Christ's
humanity. He bore the punishment due to the whole human Jj
race. The universality of the substitution is clearly taught
VOL. IT. L
146 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHARVni. in Article XXXI., so that in tins, at least, Burnet liad tlio
authority of the Church. He sets aside, with great freedom
and decision, the scholastic ideas that God could not forgive
without satisfaction.* He rejects, too, the legal idea of
justification, identifying justification simply with a state of
acceptance. All the hard reasoning drawn from the divine
attributes about the necessity of substitution is set aside,
but the doctrine itself is received. It is a fact that Christ
( died to expiate sin/ In the same way Burnet rejects all
the rigid ideas of imputing righteousness on condition of
mere faith. He makes the forgiveness of sin to be dependent
on the obedience of the believer. On this ground he esti
mates at little value a death-bed repentance. The fruit of a
new life is supposed necessary to forgiveness. The objec
tions to this theology are simply the objections to the scheme
of Arminius, who wished to retain the system of Calvin
without its difficulties. It supposes that the Divine Being
was appeased in order that conditions of forgiveness might
be proposed to the human race. It supposes also that
after the penalty of the sins of the world had been borne
by Christ, the penalty of sin was again laid on the sinner if
he did not believe and repent.
On Episco- Burnet regarded Episcopacy as of divine origin. He urged
Pa°y- the usual arguments for conformity, and was not behind any
of the divines of his time in the warfare against the Church
of Rome. In a sermon on a fast-day appointed for imploring
the divine blessing on the war with France, he spoke of the
war as undertaken in the cause of Protestantism. Though
believing in the divine origin of Episcopacy, he did not,
however, unchurch the Reformed Churches which had no
bishops. He wrote a book to persuade the Presbyterians in
Scotland to embrace Episcopacy, but he condemned the
practice introduced after the Restoration of requiring the
Presbyterian ministers to be re-ordained. Before that time
he testifies that there was no such custom among the Scotch
bishops. He prayed for the success of the English arms in
the French war, because on it depended the union of the
foreign churches with the Church of England.
As to the sacraments, Burnet is clear for regeneration in
* Tour Discourses to the Clergy of Sarum,' p. 134.
BISHOr BURNET. 147
baptism, and a special divine favour communicated in the CHAP. VIII.
reception of the Lord's Supper. In baptism, he says, we
are made the children of God not merely in the sense of
adoption, but we are ' grafted into Christ and made mem
bers of His body ; we are born again, and have a new nature
formed in us/* The benefit of baptism is further described On baptism,
as our being reconciled to God, so that God loves us, pities
us, provides for us, and watches over us as a father. f This
is very strong, but, like many other strong things said
by writers of Burnetts school, it turns out in the end to
mean very little. The benefits of baptism are made to
depend on a supposed admission to a covenant by baptism,
and they are not really ours until our part of the covenant
has been performed. ' Baptism/ he says, ' is a covenant by
which the parties are equally bound to one another; and
unless we stand to and make good the vow of baptism, we
have no claim to the rights conveyed to us by it.'J It is
common in theology, though scarcely within the limits of
accurate speech, to call that a ' now nature ' which consists
only in benefits to be realized on the performance of certain
conditions. Burnetts words on the other sacrament arc
more guarded. His rejection of the real presence is decided.
The benefit in the eucharist he describes as resulting from On the eucha-
riglit preparation and obedience to the command of Jesus nstt
to celebrate this supper in remembrance of Him. Burnet
was so far a Latitudinarian as to wish the Athanasian Creed
out of the Liturgy ; but he was so far orthodox as to write
an answer to Bishop Croft on ' Naked Truth/ In this
answer he argues for the necessity of creeds. As new here
sies arise, it is necessary for the Church to give new defini
tions or statements of the orthodox faith. It is not admitted
that the Arian, as some said, differed from the Athanasiau
by n trifling iota. The question really was, if, in worshiping
Jesus Christ, we worship God the Creator of all things, or
merely one that was himself created. §
* 'Explanation of the Church Cate- not. But few bishops have done so
eh ism,' p. 7. much solid ordinary church work as
f Ibid. p. 10. he did. M;icaul:iy says, 'When he
% Ibid. p. 12 ; and ' Exposition of died, there was no corner of his dio-
XXXIX. Articles,' pp. 303-4. cese in which the people had not had
§ The Church of England has no seven or eight opportunities of re-
cause to be ashamed of Bishop Bur- ceiving his instructions and asking for
L 2
148
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. Among the liberal bishops we should not omit Jolm
Bishop Moore. M°ore; Rector of St. Andrew's, Holborn, who was appointed
to Norwich in 1691,* and afterwards transferred to Ely.
Moore published nothing, but after his death two volumes of
his sermons were edited by his chaplain, Dr. Samuel Clarke.
These sermons have the usual imperfections of sermons not
intended for publication, but they bear sufficient testimony
to the author's learning and his agreement with the rational
churchmen of his day. ' Godliness ' the Bishop describes ' as
a comprehension of all moral virtues. It takes in not only
acts of religion towards God, but of righteousness towards
our neighbours, and of sobriety with respect to ourselves/
He adds that ' it is a walking suitably to that nature and
that reason which God has given us, and for God's sake ;
which notion of godliness being admitted, it cannot possibly
be thought an arbitrary thing, but must be eternal and im
mutable, as the nature of mankind, or rather as God is, who
contrived that nature.' f J
his advice. The worst weather, the
worst roads did not prevent him from
discharging these duties. On one
occasion, when the floods were out,
he exposed his life to imminent risk,
rather than disappoint a rural con
gregation which was in expectation
of a discourse from the Bishop. The
poverty of the inferior clergy was a
constant cause of uneasiness to his
kind and generous heart. He was
indefatigable and at length successful
in his attempts to obtain for them
from the Crown that grant which is
known by the name of Queen Anne's
Bounty. He was specially careful
when ho travelled through his diocese
to lay no burden on them. Instead
of requiring them to entertain him,
he entertained them. Ho always
fixed his head-quarters at a market-
town, kept a table there, and, by his
decent hospitality and munificent
charities, tried to conciliate those who
were prejudiced against his doctrines.
When he bestowed a poor benefice,
and he had many such to bestow, his
practice was to add out of his own
purse twenty pounds a year to the
income. Ten promising young men,
to each of whom he allowed thirty
pounds a year, studied divinity under
his own eye in the close of Salisbury.
He had several children, but he did
not think of hoarding for them. Their
mother had brought them a good for
tune ; with that he always said they
must bo content. He would not for
their sakes be guilty of the crime of
raising an estate out of revenues
sacred to charity and piety. Such
merits as these will, in the judgment
of wise and candid men, appear fully
to atone for every offence which can
be justly imputed to him.' — History
of England, vol. iii. p. 79.
* Sharp, Moore, Cumberland, Fow
ler were consecrated together at Bow
Church, July 5, 1G91. Samuel Clarko
preached the consecration sermon.
f Vol. i. p. 17.
% Samuel Clarke says that the world
had reason to expect from Bishop
Moore 'many excellent and useful
works, had not his continued appli
cation to the duties of his episcopal
function, his perpetual} readiness to
collect, with much time and care, out
of his immense library, materials for
learned men who were writing upon
all sorts of useful subjects, and his
unwearied pains in relieving both the
temporal and spiritual wants of the
poor, who perpetually applied to him
from all parts, left him little, very
little time for his own private studies.'
BISHOP GEOVE. 149
When Patrick was translated to Ely in 1691, he was sue- CHAP. VIII.
ceeded at Chichcster by Dr. Eobert Grove, Prebendary of
St. Paul's. Grove had taken a part in the Roman Catholic
controversy, and had written the chief treatise in the volume
that was intended to restore Dissenters to Conformity. He
had also defended the position of the liberal divines of
the Church of England against William Jenkyn, one of the
ejected ministers of 1662. Jenkyn represented the old
high Presbyterians that came in with the Long Parliament.
He had been imprisoned under Cromwell for his share in
the Love Plot, and he had become celebrated as one of the
adversaries of John Goodwin. To the old Presbyterians
the liberal theology was as little agreeable as to Herbert
Thorndike and the rigid Churchmen, though the leaders
of the Nonconformists, as Baxter, Bates, and Howe, were
not far behind the leaders of the Conformists. Jenkyn
preached a funeral sermon for Dr. Lazarus Seaman. In
that sermon he charged the clergy of the Church of Eng
land with departing from the ' Articles of Religion,' and
bringing in a new gospel.* To this sermon Dr. Grove wrote
an answer. He vindicated the liberal clergy, denying that
they had departed from the doctrines of the Church, yet
maintaining that by subscription they were not bound to
every particular in the Articles. f Jenkyn ascribed to Dr.
Seaman the discovery that all changes of government were
due to divine Providence, and therefore all subjects ought
to obey the power that rules. Dr. Grove showed that this
was in substance the doctrine of Hobbes, the worship of
' Potentia Irresistibilis.' Jenkyn was vindicating submission
to Cromwell, and Grove afterwards, in giving allegiance to
William, adopted the doctrine which he now refutes.
In 1696 John Williams succeeded Dr. Grove as Bishop of Bishop
Chichcster. Two years before this he had been Boyle Williams'
lecturer, and had published discourses in defence of revela-
* Describing the new Arniiiiian be degraded to schoolboys, and to sit
clergy, Jenkyn says, ' What a com- at their feet to reach the blessings of
pany of oncatechized upstarts do we their heads, yea, as if to the doctrine
now behold, venting as confidently of the Church of England, Nt<Iirn-xi»i>
their heretical notions in opposition had been intended when, subscription
to our famous English divines, as if was performed.'— P. »o.
Je\\rl,Whitakcr, Davcnant, Downam, f P. 29.
Abbot, Usshcr, etc., were by them to
150 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. tion. His lectures formed the third series since the foundation
of the lectureship. Richard Bentley had written ' The Con
futation of Atheism/ and Bishop Kidder ' The Demonstra
tion of the Messias/ Williams begins with what seems a
very simple division of our knowledge of religion — the
natural and the supernatural. The insufficiency of the first
is the primary argument for the second. Inquiry and
observation within the spheres of reason and nature do not
give, Dr. Williams says, the satisfaction which we crave. But
God at sundry times and in divers manners has revealed
On revelation. Himself. Revelation is defined as making known that
which before was secret, and again as God making known
His will over and above what He has made known by the
light of nature and reason. Objects of religious knowledge
are divided into three classes. The first consists of things
knowable by the light of nature only, as the existence of
God ; the second, of things knowable only by revelation, as
redemption by Jesus Christ; and the third of things partly
known by nature and partly revealed, as the immortality of
the soul. The possibility of revelation is shown from the
capacity of one man to reveal his mind to another. If man
has this capacity, much more has God. The general belief
of antiquity in oracles and prophecies is an argument
that men have always believed revelation to be possible.
It is said to be given when some extraordinary occasion re
quires it. God inspired Adam, for being created at once he
would have been at first perfectly ignorant without imme
diate revelation. How God would have continued to reveal
Himself to Adam's posterity we do not know. If Adam
had not sinned, supernatural revelation might have been un
necessary. But after the fall it was indispensable for his
recovery. The promise of a Redeemer was made in Eden.
This was the beginning of the Christian revelation, which
was continued till the coining of Christ. Without super
natural inspiration, the human race would have degenerated to
savages. But the lamp of revelation has continued to burn.
We have every reason to believe that revelation has been
given. The Christian religion is the only one that is
worthy of God. If it is not true, there is no revelation
given to man.
BISHOP WILLIAMS. 151
In the second lecture Dr. Williams treats of ' The Cer- CHAP. VIII.
tainty of Divine Revelation/ From the evidence of its Tllo ,^^inty
necessity he concludes its probability. There is provision in of revelation,
nature for all the desires implanted in the creature. It is
surely not to be concluded that this desire for revelation is
that alone for which there is no provision. This is some
thing which God's goodness forbids us to suppose. With
out revelation we should want that certainty which is neces
sary to give the mind satisfaction. The objection is antici
pated from the Pagans having no revelation. It is shown
that the fault is their own. God had used ordinary means to
preserve among them the original revelation, but by their
negligence and wickedness they sit in darkness and the
shadow of death. As Adam and Eve were created in the
full possession of matured faculties,, they must have had the
gift of speech immediately from God. It was a divine infusion,
and so equivalent to revelation. Of the same kind as the
gift of speech to our first parents are the ' common notions'
or ' natural impressions ' which we have independently
of our reason. What Aristotle and Cicero called the natural
or unwritten law, not instituted externally but infused into
nature, Dr. Williams reckoned equivalent to revelation
and called a natural proof of revelation. He shows from
tradition that there have been inspired persons from the
beginning of the world, that in all nations traces of revela
tion are to be found, and he maintains that all rites and
customs not founded in reason are due to revelation. Such
is the division of time into weeks of seven days and
expiatory sacrifices. As these sacrifices could not have
been dictated by reason, they must have been of divine
institution. They were typical of the greater sacrifice.
Supernatural proofs of revelation are the fulfilment of
prophecy and the working of miracles. All these things,
taken together, are said to yield unquestionable evidence
that a revelation has been given. The consideration of
them is preparatory to the discussion that we have a written
revelation .
Several marks are set down by which the true revelation Marks of the
is distinguished from imitations. The subject matter must tTuo revela-
be something out of the road of nature and not discover*
Miracles not
necessary for
immediate
revelation.
152 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. able by mere reason. It must be worthy of God and it
must bear evidence that it is from God. It must be con
sonant to the principles of nature and to the ideas of man
kind concerning good and evil. These are necessary
characters, yet not in themselves sufficient to prove a reve
lation. It must have something peculiar to it and not in
common with anything else. That the revelation in. the
Scriptures has this evidence is shown by three considera
tions. The first is that the persons to whom it was made
had such evidence that they might as well have doubted the
testimony of sense as that it was God Himself who taught
them. We may not have had this experience ourselves, but
we can understand it to be perfectly possible for God so to
enlighten the understanding that the proof shall be as evi
dent as that light proceeds from the sun. Revelation may
be certain without a sign. Indeed the proper use of a sign
is for those who receive revelation at second-hand. They
must depend on the veracity, sincerity, and credibility of
the persons who pretend to inspiration. They must inquire
into the subject matter and the testimony. The persons
must be men of probity, prudence, good understanding,
and worthy of credit. Dr. Williams here refutes the doc
trine of Spinoza, that the prophets had not a more perfect
understanding than other men, but only a more vivid imagi
nation. The subject matter must be for the advantage and
happiness of mankind, such as teaches us what nature is in
sufficient to teach us, or such as assures us of the certainty
of a life to come. A revelation which did not do this would
be 110 revelation. When the course of nature is changed in
attestation of a revelation it is then plainly the finger of
God, But those who live in after ages, and receive this
evidence of miracles only on testimony, must be content with
the evidence suited to their circumstances. The evidence
is sufficient if it proves that there were persons inspired, that
miracles were wrought in confirmation of what they taught,
that these persons wrote books recording their revelations
and miracles, and that the books arc the same which now go
under their name. Of matters transacted so many centuries
ago we can have only testimony, or what is called moral
evidence.
BISHOP WILLIAMS.
153
Dr. Williams goes on to prove the truth of the Scriptures. CHAP. VIII.
Different kinds of things, he says, have different kinds of The truth of
evidence. That which is proper to facts is testimony. Scripture.
There may be collateral evidence, but history must be
treated as history. From all that we know of the writers
of the Scripture we may believe them to be even more
reliable than any ancient writers. They lived near the time
of the events which they record, and had the best means of
information. What they record is credible and has the
consent of mankind. Such is the account of the origin of
the world, the formation of man, and the dispersion of
nations. As to the objections of Spinoza concerning the
uncertainty of the books, the copies, and the various read
ings, Dr. Williams says that they would invalidate all
writings and, like the argument against motion, are not to
be answered but despised. We are to distinguish between
the matter and the books. They are capable of different
proofs. The matter was revealed before it was written.
The writing is only for its conveyance and preservation.
The matter was confirmed by miracles, but not the books.
It is shown to be divine by the application of the principles
already laid down. It is worthy of God, and, as Origen
said, l it turned men who were immersed in wickedness to a
life agreeable to reason/ The argument for the Scriptures
rests in the last analysis on the providence of God. The Eests on the
same Divine Being who made known His will to mankind ]^1(lence of
would take the best means for continuing and preserving it.
Scripture being the only means of that kind, becomes a rule
of faith, and is of sufficient authority to oblige us to receive
it. That the books of the Scripture were written by
inspired persons and received as such by the whole Church
is said to be as well proved as anything can be so far distant
from us as to time and space. But whether or not this evi
dence is sufficient is not further discussed. The several
( ways of revelation ' are considered in another lecture.
These are inspiration, visions, dreams, and voices. In
spiration is divided into natural, providential, and super
natural. The whole of revelation is regarded as a scheme of
progression corresponding to the order of nature. Dr.
Williams had not learned the distinction which marks off all
154
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. revelation as distinct from natural religion, either in the
orthodox sense or in the sense of Coleridge. He explains
revelation as a teaching according to the order of na
ture, and yet that order in some way embraces the super
natural.
The most eminent writers of the Church of England at
the close of the seventeenth century, who were not bishops,
are Sherlock, John Scott, William Outram, Daniel Whitby,
Sherlock. and Joseph Glanvill. William Sherlock was perhaps the
most popular theological writer of this era. Besides his
great controversy with South, he had a share, as we have
seen, in the Roman Catholic controversy, and he had taken
both sides as to the oath of allegiance under William. He
had defended Stillingfleet against the Nonconformists. He
had preached many sermons on public occasions and he had
written practical works on death and immortality. Macaulay
describes him as a Churchman without any taint of Latitudi-
nariaiiism, of Puritanism, or of Popery. This means that
he did not belong to any of the three parties which constitute
the Church of England.
We have spoken of the chief controversies in which Sher
lock was engaged with the exception of the first. This
His <Dis- began with his ' Discourse concerning the Knowledge of
ccmi'n-the Jesus Christ-' Sherlock had but little charity either for
Knowledge of Roman Catholics or Puritans, and in this sense was far
Jesus Christ.' removec[ from Latitudinariaiiism. But the theology of this
discourse was quite as Latitudinarian as anything to be found
in the pages of Tillotson or Fowler. The treatise was di
rected against the essential part of Puritan theology and
anything like a mystical or transcendent view of the union
and communion of Christ with believers. It is, in fact, but
another form of the question of faith and works. Sherlock
speaks of those against whom he writes as quitting Christ's
promise and covenant ' to rely and rowl upon His person/
He does not deny that we are redeemed by the blood of
Christ and saved by His merits, but he says that we have
this only by a covenant which has conditions to be performed
on our side. The only true knowledge of Christ is love,
reverence, and obedience. The union is explained as simply
the union of different persons into one society or assembly.
WILLIAM SHERLOCK. 155
Believers are said to be branches in Christ, but if this were CHAP. VIII.
true in a literal sense, there could be no fruitless branches.
Holiness docs not proceed from the union, but the measure
of holiness constitutes the union. ' We must not/ Sherlock
says, ' dream of fetching life from the person of Christ as
we draw water out of a fountain, but if we would live for
ever with Christ we must stedfastly believe and obey His
gospel/ *
The controversy was not limited to faith and works. It
extended to the whole question of the work of redemption.
John Owen had said that ' without Christ it would never
have entered into the heart of man to think of God's love
and mercy to sinners/ Sherlock answers that this is refuted
by the whole experience, both of Jews and Gentiles. Owen
said that it was impossible that justice could be averted
from transgressors without a propitiation. God is so just
that His justice must be satisfied before a pardon can be
given. Sherlock calls this a notion of justice perfectly new. Denies the
All men have reckoned free forgiveness to be entirely com- ^°°tl?n<r.of .
, ., , .,, . , . n , ° , .„ , ' J satisfaction to
patible with justice, (jroci required a sacrifice, not because divine justice.
without this He could not forgive, but because He chose
this method of granting forgiveness. He was full of love to
man before the sacrifice was offered. He did not first begin
to love after ' His justice had glutted itself with revenge/
The design of Christ's death was to eradicate sin, not to
save men notwithstanding their sins. It is unworthy of
God to suppose that He required satisfaction. ' The devil/
Sherlock says, 'is very good when he is pleased/ Owen
said that God ordained and appointed sin that the punish
ment of it might manifest divine justice, and the pardon of
it divine mercy. Sherlock pitied those who were left ' out
of the roll of election, and who have no way to satisfy the
divine justice but by their eternal torments/ He upbraided
the orthodox with their inconsistency in shaping religion
according to their own fancies, with introducing an infinite
number of propositions and school terms not to be found in
Scripture, and at the same time decrying reason as some
thing profane and carnal. ' God/ he says, ' hath sent His
Son into the world to make a plain and easy and perfect
* P. 162.
156
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. revelation of His will, to publish, such a religion as may ap
prove itself to our reason and captivate our affections by its
natural charms and beauties, and there cannot be a greater
injury to the Christian religion than to render it obscure
and unintelligible/ * t
John Scott. John Scott succeeded Sharp as vicar of St. Giles-in-the-
Fields. He was not a controversialist, if we except the
part imposed on him in the defence of Protestantism under
James II. He declined the bishopric of Chester, and
seems to have avoided politics as well as theological con
troversy. He tells us, indeed, in the preface to his great
work on the ' Christian Life/ that the troubles of his
country had made him sick of this world, and had driven
him to give his mind entirely to ' heavenly contemplations/
In one sense, this seems a poor conclusion for a theologian
who claimed to bo guided by reason. But Wisdom is justi
fied of all her children. Scott despaired of the triumph of
righteousness in this world, yet he believed that there was
another world where it would triumph.
This question of righteousness was an earnest question
with all the theologians of this age. Authority had be-
* P. 137.
f The two chief answers to this
' Discourse ' were by Robert Fergusson
and Edward Polhill. Fcrgusson was
u Presbyterian, and is well known in
history for his natural love of sedition.
He called his book ' The Interest of
Reason in Religion.' He vindicated
Dissenters from the charge of being
enemies to reason, and said that Sher
lock was thoroughly baptized into the
principles of Pelagianism and So-
cinianism. He defended the imputa
tion of righteousness, claiming the
formularies of the Church of England
as on his side. Fergusson's treatise
is remarkable as an extreme assertion
of the principle that revelation is to
be found only in the Bible. He shows
the necessity of supernatural revela
tion, and the expediency of its being
committed to writing as the only \\av
'not obnoxious to fallibility.' Ed
ward Polhill was a country gentleman
in Sussex. He defended the Puritan
doctrine of the imputation of right
eousness and the other tenets of de
cided Calvinism.
In a ' Defence and Continuation ' of
his 'Discourse,' Sherlock vindicated
himself from the charges of Pelagian-
ism and Socinianism. He said that
the Church of England, 'the best-
constituted Church in the world,' was
torn into a thousand factions by new
discoveries in theology. He accepted
willingly the reproach of his enemies
that he really taught that ' Christ is
able to save all those who repent and
believe and reform their lives, and
that He will save none but upon these
terms.' The Church of England, he
says, teaches that God forgives freely
without the thought of 'a legal right
eousness of works, and of the imputa
tion of Christ's perfect righteousness
and obedience to make iis righteous
before God' (p. 212). He explains
'works' in Art. XIII. as 'not good
works,' and he supposes that there
may have been many reasons unknown
to us why God sent His Son into the
world without having recourse to the
theory of satisfying a ' vindictive jus
tice.'
JOHN SCOTT. 157
come identified with superstition, and religious inspiration CHAP. VIII.
had degenerated into enthusiasm. These, Scott said,*
were the two thieves between which men sought to crucify
the Church of England, with its rational religion. The On rational
time had come when it was necessary to convince men that rc lglon'
religion had an everlasting foundation in immutable and
eternal reason. Its essence, Scott said, was not a law im
posed by an arbitrary will. Heaven and hell were not merely
places of reward or punishment reserved till a future time.
They were the necessary fruits of virtue and vice. As men
become virtuous they rise to heaven, and as they become
vicious, by a fatal tendency, they sink down to hell. ' There
is/ ho adds, ' as inseparable a connection between grace and
glory, vice and hell, as between fire and heat, frost and cold,
or any other necessary cause and its effcct/f When this is
established, he finds a fixed foundation for proving the truth
of Christianity.
The whole of Scott's treatise is pervaded by a melancholy On the
feeling of the inevitable wretchedness of this present life.
Even its pleasures are explained as only cessations of pain.
We eat, drink, and sleep, merely to be delivered for a time
from the burdens of existence. It is in the future life that
we are to reap the fruits of well-doing, and this well-doing
consists in the life of reason. God does not ask us to serve
Him for His glory, but for our own good. He requires
nothing from His creatures, ffor He is enough of stage and
theatre to Himself, and hath the same satisfying prospect of
His own glory in the midst of all the loud blasphemies of
hell, as among the perpetual hallelujahs of heaven/ The
good which the righteous shall enjoy, is the free and unfet
tered exercise of their rational faculties. They shall know
God and His works, and they shall live in accordance with
everlasting law. Man, at first, was intended for a lower
state, where his reason would have been more in harmony
than it is now with the earthly or animal nature. But since
the Ml, life in this world has been a ruin. Christianity
regards it as such, and proposes another life, higher than
that of the first earthly paradise. ' Now we are no longer to
* ' Christian Life,' dedication to f Preface to ' Christian Life.'
Bishop Compton.
158
KELTGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Natural re
ligion, the
foundation
of revealed.
CHAP. VIII. look upon this world as our native country, but as a foreign
land, and so we are to reckon ourselves strangers and pil
grims upon earth, and, accordingly, to use the conveniences
of this life as strangers do their inns, not to abide or take up
our habitations in them, but only to bait and away/*
Scott's theology is substantially orthodox. He accepts
the doctrine of substitution for sin as it was generally un
derstood in his time. He vindicates the claims of Episco
pacy to Divine institution, and he makes the kingdom of
Christ, in its proper sense, the visible Church. God has
revealed to us what is good in various ways. He has given
us natural law. By experience he has confirmed to us that
the keeping of this law is good. He has given us ' the great
Bible of Nature. 'f But He also gives us the gospel. In
the gospel we have a clear republication of the laws of
nature, with the revelation of a Mediator whose work is to
take away sin. Christianity has been successful in the
world because it was reasonable. J It was established by
miracles, which, as interruptions of nature, were proper
accompaniments for a new revelation. The being of God,
and natural religion, rest on ' a standing miracle/ which is
the existence of the world itself. § Christianity is valued
because its sole design is the complete restoration of the
whole man to the divine life. Its positive institutions have
this end, and when they fail to effect this the observance of
them is worthless.
Dr. William Outranks dissertation on the sacrifice of
Christ is described by Bishop Burnet as expressing the
view of the atonement generally received by the clergy in
his time. It was written with reference to the Socinian
controversy, and was intended for a refutation of the So
cinian doctrine of sacrifice. The first Socinians, indeed,
were not agreed in their views of the atonement. But Dr.
Outram had specially before him the opinions of Crellius,
who said that Christ delivered men from the punishment of
sin, but not by bearing the punishment Himself. The
atonement was not vicarious. In a preliminary dissertation
on the sacrifices of the Jews and Pagans, Dr. Outram finds
Dr. Outram
on the sacri
fice of Christ.
* P. 11.
t r. 202.
Sermon on Luke ix. 56.
P. 221.
WILLIAM OUTKAM.
159
that all sacrifice had respect to God. It was intended to CHAP. VIII.
obtain His favour. Ho finds also that the expiatory victims,
by their vicarious sufferings, expiated the sins of those for
whom they were offered. The question of the origin of
sacrifice was not determined. Dr. Outram felt that nothing
would contribute more to bring out the meaning of Christ's
sacrifice than the determination of the question if sacrifice
was instituted by God or devised by man. If the former,
it may have been absolutely necessary for the removal of
guilt, but if the latter, ifc may have been sanctioned by God
merely in condescension to human ideas. The sacrifice of
Christ might thus be nothing more than a Jewish mode of
expressing the divine forgiveness of sin. Those who advo
cate the divine origin say that so holy and innocent a man
as Abel could never have thought that the slaughter of in
nocent animals would be acceptable to God. They added
also the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Abel's
sacrifice was offered by faith, and that ' faith s can only
mean obedience to a divine command. Those who take the
other side say that on this principle Cain also must have
had faith, for he obeyed the command. But if the idea
arose spontaneously in the mind of so wicked a man as
Cain, much more might it have arisen in the mind of
righteous Abel. Chrysostom, Irena3us, Justin Martyr, and
other Fathers are quoted for the view that sacrifices were
not of divine origin, but were instituted by God among the
Jews because that people had become accustomed in Egypt
to that mode of worship. But all sacrifice was intended to
obtain the divine favour, and among the Jews the piacular
sacrifices, which were specially typical of Christ, were said
to bear the sins of those for whom they were offered. ( It
is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul/
Christ's work has respect to God. He is ' an advocate Christ an ex-
with the Father.' He makes intercession for us in the piatory vic-
presence of God. It is not enough that Christ be propitious.
God also must be propitious. Christ was the propitiation .
He presented Himself to God as an expiatory victim slain
for our sins. He suffered in our stead. On this subject
Dr. Outram uses the strongest language that can be used.
He takes literally all the Hebrew expressions of the New
tim.
i6o
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. Testament writers while lie is refuting the Socinians. But
he was not willing to abide by all the consequences which
followed from taking these expressions literally. He denied
that Christ made satisfaction to God with His life or blood.
This was done only by His sufferings and His obedience.
God appointed that Christ should suffer and He was satisfied
with the obedience of His Son. The victims under the
Jewish law suffered the same kind of punishment that was
due to the transgressor. But this cannot, Dr. Outram says,
be ' truly and properly affirmed concerning Jesus Christ.
He did not endure those eternal punishments and that
despair of salvation from which we are delivered/ His
sufferings were not in reality a literal price. They only
' obtained the pardon of our sins on condition of our being
disposed to yield obedience to God/ The punishment in
flicted on a transgressor, when equal to the guilt, is the
penalty, and frees from any further liability. But in a
vicarious punishment this is only effected through the favour
of him who has the right to punish. The death of Christ
avails only because of the will of God, and it avails only for
them that have faith and piety. These explanations of the
sacrifice of Christ, which are simply those of the Arminian
theology, have, in the judgment of many persons, placed
Dr. Outram on the side of those whom he promised to
refute.
Daniel Whitby's public life begins under the patronage of
Seth Ward, the High Church Bishop of Salisbury, and it
ends, for he lived to the great age of eighty-eight, in entire
agreement with Benjamin Hoadly, the heretical Bishop of
Bangor and Winchester. Whitby's ingenuous and earnest
mind had liberal tendencies from his youth, and during all
the days of his long life ho continued to learn. His first
writings were on the Roman Catholic controversy, and the
question of conformity, the great subjects of that day. His
last works are chiefly on the Trinity. These we shall meet
again. His great work on the ' Five Points ' we pass by,
as representing simply the theology of Arminius. For our
present object we have a treatise on the evidences of Chris
tianity, another on original sin, and a volume of rational
sermons.
DANIEL WHITE Y. l6l
The treatise on the evidences is one of Whitby's ear- CHAP. VIII.
liest works. It was published in 1671,* and like other Qn the ovi_
works of the same kind, it is full of lamentations over dences of
the prevalence of atheism and unbelief. The atheism, how
ever, does not appear to have been more than a misappre
hension of the doctrine of Hobbes ; and the unbelief was
chiefly the profligacy that prevailed in the reign of Charles.
Authors who openly denied the existence of the Deity, or
the truth of the Christian revelation, had not yet appeared,
and if they had, it is doubtful if they would have been con
vinced by the books that were then written on the evidences.
Whitby proves, first, that there must be a Providence. His
proof is, that if there are evil spirits, there must be a good
Spirit to control them ; and that there are evil spirits is evi
dent from the testimony of heathen oracles, from persons
being possessed by demons, and from the devil being wor
shipped in so many countries of the world. To this is added
the fact of miracles wrought in demonstration of religion,
whether that of Jew, Turk, or Pagan ; and the fact of visible
declarations of divine wrath — prodigies, dreams, apparitions,
or prophecies. To these all history bears testimony. Then
we have miraculous answers to prayer. Theodosius was able
to vanquish Eugenius and Maximus by praying to God.
Antoninus, by prayer, brought down rain and thunder on
his enemies. We have also evidence of the existence of
Providence from ghosts or spirits that come to instruct us
or to frighten us ; from miracles wrought by such heretics
as Gnostics, Carpocratians, or Saturnalians ; from Finland
witches, Chaldsean magi, and Egyptian sorcerers. All these,
if for good, are proofs of the existence of Deity ; if not for
good, they show that Satan is busy opposing some truth or
religion which God is establishing.
It is not meant that God permits miracles to be wrought Christian
indifferently for any religion, but evil spirits work mira- ™j[^,'lo"s !m(l
cles for false religions, and God works miracles for the miracles.
true. The evidence to us which is the true is found in the
higher character of the miracles wrought. They are more
* The title is 'AOFO2 TH2 FII2- in Particular.' In 1691, Whitby pub-
TEH2, or an Endeavour to Evince the lishcd another work on the evidences,
( lertainty of Christian Faith in Gene- the arguments of which were in sul>-
ral, and of the Resurrection of Christ stance the same as in the first.
VOL. II. M
1 62 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. convincing, more numerous, and more unquestionably true
miracles, than those wrought for other religions. To this
we have to add the fulfilment of prophecies, and the supe
rior excellence of the Christian religion. It is such as be
comes the wisdom, purity, and goodness of God. That un
questionable miracles had been wrought in the first ages of
Christianity is proved by many testimonies. The Apostles
appealed to well-known miracles. They asked their con
verts if they had not the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The power
of miracles was in the believers by the imposition of the
Apostles' hands, and they must have known that they pos
sessed this power. They could not be deceived when they
delivered up to Satan some false Christians, healed the sick
by prayer and unction, or spoke languages which they had
never learned. They could cast out the devil, who is a
spirit ; and a spirit, being invisible, could only be cast out by
an invisible power. Christ and His apostles would have
refused the assistance of evil angels, and it is impossible that
good ansrels could have helped them to deceive the world.
Christ had no temptation to deceive. He lived no indulgent
life, nor sought to gain anything by His religion being be
lieved. Whitby's reverence for antiquity did not allow him
to suppose that miracles ceased with the Apostles. For
centuries, he says, the Christians appealed ( to the gifts and
powerful operations of the Holy Ghost they daily exercised/*
The genuineness of the books of the New Testament is
proved from the existence, in the early ages, of autograph
copies which were well known to be genuine, and which
could not be corrupted, because there were copies in dif
ferent churches. Whitby adds that, between the texts
quoted by the Fathers and the same texts as they are now
read, there is no variation of importance.
The miracles Hitherto the ground has been only prepared for the main
Church/ ^ argument, which is, that the Christian faith is proved from
the gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, that is, the gifts
of prophecy and of tongues. That the first Christians had
these gifts is shown from the Acts of the Apostles, and the
testimonies of the Fathers. Irenseus, Justin Martyr, and
Euscbius, speak distinctly of visions, predictions, and rcve-
* P. 102.
DANIEL WHITBY.
163
laticms of things secret, being common in their day, and CHAP. VIII.
necessary for the Christian Church.* This was agreeable to
the promise made by Christ, that the Spirit would lead them
into all truth, and show them things to come. They could
also work miracles. Irenaeus says that they could still cure
the lame or the paralytic with a touch. Arnobius and
Origen challenge the Pagans to do miracles equal to these,
adding that even the simplest and most rustic Christians could
cast out devils either from beasts or men.f Other evidences
of the truth of Christianity are drawn from comets, earth
quakes, and miracles wrought at the graves of holy Chris
tians.
The object of the treatise on original sin is to deny the On original
imputation of Adam's sin to the human race. Whitby sup- sin>
poses that Adam was created with a body liable to death,
yet, if he had not sinned, that body would not have died.
Temporal death was properly the punishment of Adam's
transgression. And this temporal death, in virtue of Adam's
sin, passed upon all men. Without redemption, the pos
terity of Adam would have suffered eternal death, that is,
there would have been no resurrection from the dead. The
law had been broken, the devil had obtained power to inflict
death on mankind, but Christ bound him who had the power
of death, and took away the sting which it had from the law.
By Adam's transgression we also came under sin in the
sense of being liable to the assaults of irregular affections
and passions, so that it was almost impossible for us to live
without sin. This is the meaning of St. Paul's earnest long
ing to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. He
waited for ' the redemption of the body.' Whitby quotes
from many Fathers to show that this was the common view
of sin and redemption in the primitive Church. Ignatius
says, Christ died 'that mortality might be expiated.' Irenaeus
and Justin Martyr say that Christ was crucified because man
kind were fallen ' by death,' and almost all the Fathers teach
that Christ went to Hades to deliver the souls that were in
prison, or, as Hilary expresses it, ' to deliver those whom
death detained in the lower parts of the earth.'
The objection concerning the justice of God which Whitby
* r. 134.
t P. 173.
M ^
i64
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
God's justice
defended.
CHAP. VIII. wishes to obviate, is evidently the same on his theory as on
^e nyp°thesis which he refutes. The innocent are still
treated as guilty. The consequences of Adam's sin are visited
on his posterity. There may still be a question of the
nature and extent of these consequences, but the principle,
so far, has been admitted. Whitby's defence is that none
are punished everlastingly for the mere sin of Adam, and to
have deprived the race of existence because of the first trans
gression was no injustice, as God was under no obligation to
continue their existence.
Whitby's explanation of this mysterious question may not
be the true one. We do not for a moment suppose that it is.
Yet it is an effort to give an answer agreeable to reason. It
is an effort to vindicate eternal justice. The doctrine of im
putation, which he opposes, implies a direct act of the Deity
in visiting original sin upon the descendants of Adam. His
own theory is supposed to escape this by making the suffer
ing of Adam's posterity a natural result of Adam's sin.
Children suffer for the sins of their parents, and this being the
ordinary course of Providence, it is concluded that it must
be just. The innocent are involved with the guilty, and
lose what otherwise they would have had. But as God owed
them nothing, the objection of injustice is supposed to bo
removed. One of the illustrations which Whitby uses is
that of the leprosy clinging to the posterity of Joab and
Gehazi. Their posterity suffered, but ' by the very princi
ples of nature/ and so injustice is not to be charged on God.
The whole argument supposes an order or necessity in
nature, not only distinct from God, but independent of Him,
an order for which He is not responsible. It makes a con
venient temporary distinction between the works of God and
the works of nature.
On the supposition that what nature does is not done by
God, Whitby refutes the popular doctrine of the imputation
of Adam's sin, but he admits the pollution and corruption of
humanity as the natural result of that sin. Adam's posterity
are not charged with his sin, but in consequence of it they
suffer as sinners. The practice of infant baptism was sup
posed to be an acknowledgment of original sin, but Whitby
answers that Christ, who had no sin, was baptized. He quotes
Original sin
and infant
baptism.
DANIEL WHITBY.
many Fathers who denied original sin, and yet advocated CHAP. VIII.
baptizing infants. Clemens Alexandrinus says that David,
though born in sin, that is, descended from a sinful mother,
Eve, yet was not a sinner. Cyril of Jerusalem says that we
' are not sinners by birth/ but, ' coming into the world free
from evil, we sin by the choice of our mind/ Arnobius says
expressly that ' all who are born undergo the same sentence
with Adam, but are not guilty of Adam's sin/ Chrysostom
says that by Adam we became mortal, yet it would be ' a
dismal consequence ' if, for his disobedience, 'another should
be judged criminal/ Theodoret says that we are not sinners
by nature, but only as ' we give way to the violence of our
passions/ And Rufinus is very plain. He says, ' They rave
who condemn all the world as guilty of iniquity and wicked
ness only on account of one man Adam, for they who say
these things either pronounce God unjust, or at least esteem
the devil to be more powerful than God, in that the devil
was able to make that nature become evil which God created
good, through the transgression of Adam and Eve, if thereby
all men become guilty of sin/ Besides many quotations
from the Fathers, Whitby quotes the testimonies of such
learned writers as Petavius, Whitaker, Peter du Moulin,
and Sirmond, who unanimously declare that before Augus
tine the Fathers denied original sin, and that Augustine
himself was a Pelagian before his controversy with the
Pelagians. To these are added the testimonies of Jews
and Pagans, Solomon and Plato, Aristotle and Sirnplicius,
Cicero and Antoninus, with many others, whose principles of
nature and reason would be overthrown if it were true that
Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity.
Whitby' s sermons are more satisfactory than either of the whitby's
other two volumes.* But we are not to forget that half a
century had elapsed between the publication of the treatise
on the evidences and that of the sermons. That half cen
tury was an era of rapid change, in which the old theology
had given place to the new. In these sermons, Whitby
speaks with great decision, great clearness, and with argu
ments that cannot be overthrown. He stands everywhere
by Chill ingworth and reason. The Church of England is to
* ' Sermons on Several Occasions,' 1720.
sermon on
reason.
166 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. him the incarnation of the spirit of rational religion. He
repeats the often repeated simile of its being crucified be
tween two thieves. The malefactors, however, are not the
Papist and the Puritan, but the ' Profest Roman Catholic
and the Protestant Papist ; the first condemning it as here
tical and schismatical for departing from the Church of
Rome, the second, if he will be consistent with his prin
ciples, laying us under the necessity of returning to it/*
The first sermon is called ' Reason our Guide in Reli
gion/ The text is, ( And why even of yourselves judge
ye not what is right ? ' It is an old question, Whitby says,
and yet a very senseless question, — who shall be judge ? In
all cases in which men are concerned to pass any judgment,
they can only do it by the faculty of reason. Jesus, in the
text, ratifies the lessons of experience, that we have suffi
cient means of judging between right and wrong, just and
unjust. It is not to be supposed that our assent would be
required to any article of faith till we had a sufficient assur
ance that it was revealed by God, and the assurance can
only come through reason. We must be satisfied that Scrip
ture is God's word, and that the Scripture really says what
All parties we understand it to say. ' In this/ Whitby argues, ' all men
assume the seem agreed, seeing all commentators on the Holy Scriptures,
° ancient or modern, Protestant or Papist, endeavour to con
fute that sense of Scripture they reject from the supposed
absurdities which follow from it, that is from reason, and to
confirm that sense of Scripture they embrace by those
reasons they allege for the truth of it. And so both of them
do consent in this, that reason is to be judge of the true
sense of Scripture/ f f The certainty of our whole faith/
he adds, ' depends upon the certainty of that reason we have
to believe it true, and so must stand or fall with it. If we
reject the use of reason here, we level the best religion in
the world with the wildest and most absurd enthusiasm/
From this conclusion are drawn some inferences, and espe
cially this, ' that no man can believe what he doth not, or can
not, understand, for then he must believe he knows not what,
and so must do it without all ground or reason/ All articles
of faith must be within the comprehension of reason. An
* Ded. p. xxii. t P. 6.
DANIEL WHITE Y.
I67
lf reveae •
explanation, however, is added, that there are mysteries in CHAP. VIII.
religion as well as in nature. We cannot understand in
every case the mode of being, but every doctrine revealed to
us is comprehensible so far as it is revealed. To say that it
is incomprehensible, is to say that it is not revealed.
The second sermon is on ' Understanding the Attributes God knowable
of God/ This is an application of the principles of reason
to the doctrine of Deity. If God is revealed, we must know
Him. If we do not know Him, He is not revealed. This,
however, does not mean that our finite minds can compre
hend the Infinite. It only means that our knowledge of
God, so far as it goes, is real knowledge. He is good, just,
and true, in the sense that men understand goodness, justice,
and truth. It might be possible to convict Whitby of here
laying down two positions not logically reconcilable. His
previous argument supposes every article of faith to be so
far comprehensible that the comprehensibility entered into
the evidence of its truth. He now recommends 'the old
rule in revelations of this nature, that we ought not to in
quire how that can be which God hath assured us that it
is/ * This seems to imply an assurance from external evi
dence sufficient to authorize belief, whatever might be the
contents of the revelation. The two positions might pro
bably be reconciled by supposing Whitby's meaning to be
that things revealed are so far rational as to commend
themselves to reason; yet, being convinced that God has
spoken, it need not interfere with faith that things naturally
beyond our faculties are beyond them still.
The title of the third sermon is ' The Holy Scripture our The Scrip-
Kulu of Faith/ The Apostles used great plainness of speech.
They did not, like Moses, put a veil before their faces. They
did not speak in parables, or by types and shadows. If they
spoke plainly things that were not necessary, much more
may we expect that in things necessary they spoke with
equal plainness, and that their writings would not be less
clear than their sermons. At the Reformation all Protestant
Churches took their stand by the Scriptures as the only rule
of faith. The Church of England, Whitby says, was em
phatic on this point beyond all other Churches. Art. VI.
* r. 22.
1 68 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. says, c Scripture containetli all things necessary to salvation/
Bishops and priests are asked in the Ordination Service if
' they are persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain suffi
ciently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salva
tion/ The Homilies say ' that whatever is required to the
salvation of men is fully contained in the Scriptures of God/
This, Whitby adds, is the constant doctrine of the Church
of England, and therefore ' they who do require us to pray
for the dead, or to offer up to God the sacrament, as being
the tradition of the Church, or tell us that the best and
safest way for the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is
to repair to the primitive Fathers or the decrees of General
Councils, are not the genuine members of the Church of
England, nor do they act agreeably to their subscriptions or
to the profession made by them at their ordination/ * It
is not said that all things in the Scriptures are clear, but
only all things necessary to be believed and done. The very
expression ' clear ' means that they are clear to reason ; so
that the use of reason is implied in the appeal to Scripture.
If we go to Fathers, Councils, or Church traditions for the
meaning of Scripture, this implies that the Scriptures are
not clear in things necessary. It is ' to cast a vile imputa
tion upon that Spirit of wisdom by which the Scriptures
were indited/ f It is to suppose that the Author of the
Scriptures has ' acted as no wise lawgiver ever did, or
thought fit to do ; for do any of them make laws in matters
necessary to be observed by their subjects so obscurely as
that they cannot be obeyed till they are interpreted to them
by the judges, or cleared by some other means ?'J Whitby
doubts if by tradition we have the proper meaning of even
one text of Scripture, while, he says, it is certain that the
Fathers have perverted many texts, and their false interpre
tations have passed current for centuries.
Christians to The fourth sermon is on ' The Right of Christians to exa-
mine the Truth of all Things that are proposed to them as
Articles of Faith/ It is an apostolic law, binding equally
on clergy and laity, that they are ' to try all things, and
hold fast that which is good/ Laymen are to beware of
false prophets, which they can only do by trying the doc-
* P. 48. f P. ,57. T P. 61.
DANIEL W1IITUV.
169
trines of those who profess to be their teachers. ' Such CHAP. VIII.
hearers/ St. Basil says, ' as are instructed in the Scriptures
ought to try the things spoken by their teachers, and receive
those things which are consonant to the Scriptures, and
reject those which are alien from them, because St. Paul
hath said, Try all things, and hold fast that which is
good/ * Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyril are
quoted as exhorting all hearers to examine the doctrines
taught them, as money-changers test money, that they may
receive the good and reject the bad. Without this examina
tion, Whitby says, Christians can have no faith, for ' faith
is an act of reason' seated in 'the understanding faculty/
He argues that if faith be an act of reason, it is impossible
that any person should have faith without a reason of that
faith.. In the other sermons we have similar principles.
Sincerity in inquiring, even if a man misses the truth, is
maintained to be sufficient to procure the favour of God.f
In the last day the question will not be concerning what
a man has believed, but what he has done. If we have
our fruit unto holiness, the end shall be everlasting life.
{ Faith is no further necessary to salvation than it is neces
sary to this end, that we may lead a virtuous life/ J Jesus
said, ' Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command
you/ Heresy is a work cf the flesh, and therefore no good
man, whatever be his errors, can be a heretic. The arti
cles of faith must be very few, for, according to St. Jude,
they were all delivered in his time. This must free us from
any obligation to believe the decrees of Councils or any later
additions to the faith once delivered to the saints. The first
formal Creed is that which is called the Apostles'. Whatever
is not contained in it need not be regarded as a doctrine of
the primitive Church. We cannot suppose that its authors
would have omitted any fundamental doctrine or anything
necessary to be believed for eternal salvation. The Churches Later creeds
of later ages could not make ' the narrow way to life more more obscure
narrow than our Saviour and His Apostles made it/ § To Apastles'
the plea that the later Creeds were explanations of the
earlier, Whitby answers, "To say that the Creed which
passeth under the name of Athanasius is an explanation of
* P. 93. f P. 117. J P. 152. $ P. 175.
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Joseph
Glanvill.
CHAP. VIII. the sense of the Apostles' Creed is, in effect, to affirm that a
Creed which is intricate, and not intelligible by the wisest
of men, is an explanation of a Creed plain and easy to be
understood/* It is denied in one sermon that any external
government is essential to Christianity, or that a Church
cannot exist without a succession of bishops. j- In another
sermon it is shown that if simony, as both the Eastern and
Western Churches maintain, is sufficient to interrupt the
episcopal succession, no such succession has existed in the
Church without frequent interruptions.
The memory of Joseph Glanvill J would have perished long
since but for his famous treatise on f Witches and Appari
tions.' The ' Demon of Tedworth ' and the ' Witch of Shep-
ton Mallet ' now preserve his fame, as once they helped him
to prove the existence of God, of angels and spirits, or at
least of devils. .The most rational theologians seem, in Glan-
vilFs time, to have been the most zealous believers in appa
ritions, and in the power of old women to work wonders.
Bishop Fowler, Bishop Rust, Henry More, and Hezekiah
Burton were all associated with Glanvill as zealous students
of the science of witchcraft. It was founded, they said, on
testimony, even the sure testimony of sense. They found
the phenomena to establish and corroborate their specula
tions concerning the nature of immaterial beings. Joseph
Glanvill, however, is not to be estimated merely by his
book on witches. He was an earnest student of physical
science, one of the first and most zealous members of the
Eoyal Society, and a strenuous advocate of scepticism in the
sense of subjecting everything to free investigation. This
is indicated by the very titles of some of his works, as
' Scepsis Scientifica/ and the ' Vanity of Dogmatizing/ Nor
did he wish to confine inquiry merely to matters of science
and philosophy. He vindicated the freest use of reason in all
that concerned religion, making religion to consist mainly in
duty. He found it all in the Ten Commandments, and the Ten
Commandments he found to have their foundation in reason.
Some other things concerning the worship of God were in
the Apostle.s' Creed, and the two Sacraments were to bo
* P. 178. J Glanvill was Rector of Bath and
f P. 292. Chaplain to Charles II.
His scepti
cism.
JOSEPH GLANVILL. 171
observed as the only positive rites of Christianity. He would CHAP. VIII,
not, he said, ' undertake for all the opinions some men are
pleased to call orthodox/* Reason he pronounced to be the
word of God, and faith in it, faith in God's veracity. Reli
gion being simply duty, was no difficult thing to understand.
The Church of England has creeds and articles of faith, but
these, Glanvill says, are merely articles of communion or
fellowship, not ' doctrines absolutely necessary to salvation/f
On many other questions Glanvill was entirely at one with
the Cambridge divines. His opposition to the authority of
Aristotle, and, indeed, to all authority, either in science or
religion, except that of evidence, made him many adversaries.
By some of the clergy he was charged with being an atheist;
a curious charge, certainly, against the author of ( Saducismus
Triumphatus/ who regarded all as atheists that did not
believe in witches.
The only work of GlanvilFs which requires special notice On the pro-
is ' Lux Orientalis/ a treatise on the pre-existence of souls.
As this doctrine had ceased to be generally believed by the
Christian world, the author dwells, in the preface, on the free
dom which the Church of England allows in all matters of
mere speculation. On a few questions, he says, a general
consent is required, for the sake of ' peace and order/ but
the Church does not impose difficult and disputable matters
under the notion of confessions of faith and fundamentals
of religion. No church has ever determined against the
pre-existence of souls. It had been revived in England by
Henry More, and the author of a ' Treatise on Origen/J
Glanvill advocates it, among other reasons, that he may
clear the Divine Being from any imputation of injustice to
man. This, he thought, was not done by the popular doc
trine of our inheriting Adam's sin ; but if we existed before,
and if our existence here be a punishment for our sins in a
previous state of being, the justice of God is vindicated for
our present suffering.
There were two theories concerning the soul which
divided both the Fathers and the Schoolmen. The first sup-
* Thilosophia Pia, or a Discourse f Ib. p. 159.
of the Experimental Philosophy,' p. J This treatise is reprinted in the
160. Phoenix, 1707.
172
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
The theories
of creation
and propaga
tion of souls
refuted.
CHAP. VIII. posed that God created souls daily as they are required for
generated bodies. But this theory was liable to many
objections, and not the least of these was that it supposed
the Divine Being to create pure and innocent souls to be
united to feeble, if not sinful bodies. It had been refuted
by Origen, who showed that it made God accessory to viola
tions of the seventh commandment,, in providing souls for
all bodies that were generated. Glanvill also brings argu
ments against it, drawn from such phenomena as the monster
born at Emmaus, mentioned by Sennertus, with two hearts
and two heads. Could it be supposed, he asks, that God
created two souls for this monstrous body ? Yet ' the diver
sity of its appetites, perceptions, and affections, testified it
had two souls within that bi-partite habitation/ The other
theory is that of traduction or propagation of souls. This
embraced two parties, those who say that the soul. is matter,
and those who made the soul spirit. The first was repre
sented in modern times by Hobbes, who derived all percep
tions from external sense. Glanvill refutes Hobbes, by show
ing that we have logical, moral, and metaphysical ideas from
within, independent of sense. The second party supposed
that, by the Divine benediction on the primitive parents, the
souls were endowed with a capacity of propagation corre
sponding to that of bodies. But either, Glanvill says, the soul
is produced from nothing, or from something pre-existent.
If from nothing, it is an absolute creation, impossible for a
creature, and therefore open to all the objections against the
theory of immediate or daily creation. If from something
pre-existent, it must be from the souls of the parents, but
this is against the nature of an immaterial body, which is
indiscerptible. The justice of God, according to Glanvill,
cannot consist either with the theory of immediate creation
or with that of seminal propagation. There remains, then,
only the hypothesis of pre-exist-once. Scripture is silent on
the subject, but, as the case stands, this silence is regarded
as an argument for pre-existence. It might be objected
that, as Adam was created innocent, there could be no reason
for supposing that his soul had existed before. To this
Glanvill answers, that the supposition in Adam's particular
case is not necessary. It may have been that some spirits
JOSEPH GLANVILL.
173
foil vvitli the angels, and the creation of Adam with a pure CHAP. VIII.
soul and a perfect body, may have been a merciful provision
of the Creator. By means of Adam, bodies were provided
suitable for the spirits who had rendered themselves inca
pable of existing in more refined bodies. Or supposing
Adam to have been one of these fallen spirits, it is quite in
accordance with the wisdom and goodness of God to have
begun in him the restoration of the race.
The silence of Scripture had been the main argument
against the pre-existence of souls. Glanvill answers, that
Scripture is equally silent concerning immediate creation, or
seminal propagation. He then uses this very silence to sup- Pre-existence
port his own hypothesis. It was, he says, the common of souls proved
doctrine of the Jews in the time of Christ. Rabbi Ben Israel ture.
is quoted, bearing testimony to this, and the author of the
1 Book of Wisdom/ probably Philo, says ' I was a witty child,
and had a good spirit, wherefore the rather being good, I
came unto a body undefiled.' The same meaning is found
in the answer which Jesus made to His disciples concerning
the man that was born blind. The question was f senseless
and impertinent but on the supposition that the blind man's
soul existed before he was born/ The same doctrine was
implied in the answer to the question ' Whom do men say that
I am ? ' Some said John the Baptist, some Elias, and others
Jeremias, or one of the old prophets. If the popular belief
was a wrong one, Jesus had opportunities of correcting it,
but He was silent. Origen, and some of fthe ancients, affirm
that pre-existence was a cabbala which was handed down
from the Apostolic ages to their times.' It was lost in the
middle ages, when Aristotle's authority prevailed, and Plato
was almost forgotten. Glanvill adds arguments from Job
and Jeremiah. The sons of God, or the spirits of men,
shouted for joy at the creation, and God said to Jeremiah,
' Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before
thou earnest out of the womb I gave thee wisdom/ Jesus
also speaks of the glory which He had with His Father before
the world was, which is understood to mean the pre-exis
tence of His humanity.
When Lord Bacon advocated the method of induction from
observation and experience in the study of the natural world,
174 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. he was careful to say that his method was not applicable in
Lord Bacon religion. Articles of faith were to be sought in revelation,
and induction, and not in the study of nature. This distinction in the
abstract is generally received, but practically it disappears.
All science has a direct influence on theology. The heavens,
Bacon said, declare God's glory, but the Scriptures reveal
His will. Bacon's disciples, however, soon learned to read
the will of God in the works of nature.
The Royal The Royal Society, which was established by Charles II.,
Society. began at Oxford. Its first members met at Dr. Wilkins'
lodgings in Wadham College. It was patronized by liberal
churchmen, and opposed by the old theologians, who had a
true instinct that theology and natural science could not be
separated as Lord Bacon had wished to separate them. The
Society had also among its most earnest members many
High Churchmen, who, in the simplicity of their hearts,
believed that natural knowledge was independent of religion.
Its history by The first historian of the Society was Thomas Sprat, after-
Bishop Sprat waras Bishop of Rochester. Sprat was a bishop at the
advent of William of Orange. He has been omitted in his
proper place that we might speak of him only in connection
with the Royal Society. In the dedication of his work to the
King, he remarks that the gods whom the pagans ' wor
shipped with temples and altars were those who instructed
the world to plow, to sow, to plant, to spin, to build houses,
and to found new countries/ He adds that the true God
also has not ' omitted to show the value of vulgar arts/ In
all the history of the first monarchs of the world, from Adam
to Noah, there is no mention of their wars or their victories.
We only read that they e taught their posterity to keep
sheep, to till the ground, to plant vineyards, to dwell in
tents, to build cities, to play on the harp and organ, and to
work in brass and iron/ The dedication is followed by
Cowley's well-known poem ' To the Royal Society/ in which
* Philosophy ' is described as the heir of all human know
ledge,
' Unforfeited by man's rebellious sin ;'
while Bacon is said to have chased away —
' Authority, which did a body boast,
Though 'twas but air condensed, and stalked about,
Like some old giant's more gigantic ghost.'
BISHOP SPRAT.
175
The early Christians, according to Bishop Sprat, learned
philosophy that they might refute the pagans. But after
vanquishing the heathen philosophers by weapons of philo
sophy, instead of laying these weapons aside, they f unfor
tunately fell to manage them one against another.' The
result was that the religion of Jesus Christ, ( which con
sisted in the plain and direct rules of good life and charity,
and the belief in a redemption by our Saviour, was miserably
divided into a thousand intricate questions, which neither
advance true piety nor good manners/ * From these dis-
putings arose many heresies, which the Church, by argu
ment, and where that failed by the help of the civil magis
trate, succeeded in extirpating. All learning after this, till
the Reformation, was confined to the Church, and consisted
mainly in matters that concerned religion and worship.
The schoolmen reasoned from general definitions without
regard to the facts of nature. They are welcome, Bishop
Sprat says, to their own domain. They may still preside in
the schools over controversies in theology. But the realm of
nature must be explored. After warding off the scholastic
theologians from the territory of nature, the Bishop intimates
that religion also would be better without them. It does
not require their help ; while the time and talent wasted in
disputes about religion might be profitably used in the study
of nature.
The Bishop, however, is cautious, perhaps undecided, it
may be contradictory, when he speaks of the gains of religion
from the study of natural science. He proves that experi
ments are not dangerous to Christianity, and to go thus far
seemed to be going a long way. The position is guarded
by a distinct profession of faith in Christianity; and the
alternative is chosen, that if the results of natural studies
were to deprive men of the hopes of a future life, they were
to be abandoned. Prudence and policy, it is said, as well as
devotion, would forbid an enterprise so full of hazard and
mischief. This would be to destroy the most prevailing argu
ment for virtue, and to bring on men the punishment which
the ancients fabled of those who contended with the gods, to
be immediately changed into beasts. The Royal Society had
* P. 12.
CHAP. VIII.
Christianity
and philoso
phy-
Supposed
danger to re
ligion from
natural
studies.
176
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. expressly declared that f things spiritual ' were beyond their
province. It was objected that the question was not a pre
sent one. The results of these studies would affect Chris
tianity in the future. It is this supposition which Bishop
Sprat answers. He relegates the special teaching of Chris
tianity to the authority of revelation. That which it has
in common with natural religion he shows to be confirmed
rather than weakened by natural science. The student of
science is, indeed, employed about visible things, but that
very study leads him to the verge of the invisible. ' In
every work of nature that he handles, he knows that there
is not only a gross substance, which presents itself to all
men's eyes, but an infinite subtilty of parts which come not
unto the sharpest sense. So that what the Scripture relates
of the purity of God, of the spirituality of His nature, and
that of angels and the souls of men, cannot seem incredible
to him, when he perceives the numberless particles that
move in every man's blood, and the prodigious streams that
continually flow unseen from every body. Having found
that his own senses have been so far assisted by the instru
ments of art, he may sooner admit that his mind ought to
be raised higher by a heavenly light in those things wherein
his senses do fall short. If, as the Apostle says, the invisible
things of God are manifested by the visible, then how much
stronger arguments has he for his belief in the eternal
power and Godhead from the vast number of creatures that
are invisible to others, but are exposed to his view by the
help of his experiments/*
Christianity The main doctrine of Christianity is the revelation of sal-
the^nductiv^ vation by Jesus Cnrist- This> according to Bishop Sprat,
method. has been proved by the natural philosopher's method of
experience. The argument is that Christ demonstrated His
divine authority by miracles. These miracles were unde
niable signs of almighty power, f divine experiments of His
Godhead.' What, it is asked, can an impartial inquirer into
nature wish more than a testimony from heaven ? Christ's
miracles were ( philosophical works performed by an almighty
hand.' The fact that they were not seen by the experi
mental philosophers who were to believe them is not a part
* P. 349.
BISHOP SPRAT.
177
of tlio Bishop's argument. The authority of the Revenlcr CHAP. VIII.
being thus supposed to be established by experience, it is
argued that whatever is revealed must be received, however
it may transcend reason. In that part of Christianity which
is plain, there is no need of philosophy, and that which is
supernatural is beyond philosophy's reach. Religion and
philosophy must agree to a divorce for their mutual peace
and well-being. The opponents of the Royal Society ex
pressed fears that researches into nature would destroy the
belief in supernatural works and explain unusual phenomena
by natural causes. Bishop Sprat answers that this would
be a desirable issue. We ought, he says, to be on our guard
against regarding prodigies in nature as immediate signs
from heaven. We should rather learn to see God's miracu
lous providence in the ordinary course of nature. Chris
tianity, having been once established by miracles, does not,
it is argued, require a continuance of signs and wonders ;
and by taking care that no false miracles are believed, we
help to confirm those that are true.
Bishop Sprat shows that not only is experimental philo
sophy not dangerous to Christianity, but that the objects of
the Royal Society are in special harmony with the spirit of
the Church of England. That Church stands solely by the
word of God. It avoids the extremes of ' implicit faith and
enthusiasm/ It stands apart from the Church of Rome, but
not on the principles of the ' Separatists •' and it opposes
the t Separatists/ but not on the principles of the Church of
Rome. It rests on ' the rights of the civil power, the imita
tion of the first uncorrupt Churches, and the Scripture
expounded by reason/ We cannot, then, the Bishop adds, The Church
' make war against reason without undermining our own t
strength, seeing it is the constant weapon we ought to science,
employ/* The parallel is continued between the Church
of England and the Royal Society, showing that the
Church must be safe in a ' rational age,' amid the improve
ments of knowledge and the subversion of old opinions
about nature. The Church of England and the Royal
Society lay equal claim to Reformation. The one has done
P. 362.
VOL. II.
i78
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. in religion what the other intends to do in philosophy.
They both pass by ' corrupt copies/ and turn for instruction
to c perfect originals ;' the ' one to Scripture, the other to
the volume of creation/ They are both unjustly accused by
their enemies of the same crimes, forsaking the ancient
traditions and venturing on novelties. They both suppose
that their ancestors might err. They both follow the great
apostle's precept, of trying all things. ( It cannot therefore
be suspected that the Church of England, which arose on
the same method, though in different works, that heroically
passed through the same difficulties, that relies on the same
sovereign's authority, should look with jealous eyes on
this attempt, which makes no change in the principles of
men's consciences, but chiefly aims at the increase of in
ventions about the works of their hands/ * The Church of
England e would not be fit for the present genius of this
nation' if it were an enemy fto commerce, intelligence,
discovery, navigation, or any sort of mechanics.' The seeds
of the Royal Society were sown in ' King Edward VI. 's and
Queen Elizabeth's reign.' Liberty of judging, searching,
and reasoning, began with the Reformation. ( The Church
of England, therefore, may be justly styled the mother of
this sort of knowledge, and so the care of its nourishment
and prosperity peculiarly lies upon it.' t The other Re
formed Churches have been unable to do much for science,
because they wanted the encouragement of the civil magis
trate. The Church of Rome has been moved from its old
position. It no longer condemns those who believe in the
Antipodes, and it permits the Jesuits to make observations
on nature. All these things, Bishop Sprat says, are in
favour of reason, on which the Church of England rests,
against implicit faith and enthusiasm. ' It is now,' he adds,
' impossible to spread the same clouds over the world again.
The universal disposition of this age is bent upon a rational
religion. And therefore I renew my affectionate request, that
the Church of England would prepare to have the chief
share in its first adventure ; that it would persist, as it has
begun, to encourage experiments, which will be to our
Represents
the com
mercial and
enterprising-
genius of the
nation.
* T. 371.
f P. 372.
HON. ROBERT BOYLE.
179
Church as the British oak is to our empire, an ornament CHAP. VIII.
and defence to the soil where it is planted/ * f
The spirit in which religious men supported the Royal The Hon.
Society we may learn further from the theological writings
of one of its most eminent members, the Hon. Robert Boyle.
The theology of an ingenuous layman is generally the best
index to the religious spirit of an age. Both the interests
and the education of the clergy dispose them to isolate re
ligion from nature and human life. A layman is not neces
sarily under the same restraints, and is less likely to be
influenced by mere authority. Robert Boyle's love of natural
studies was great, but he made no abrupt separation between
the study of nature and the study of God. To vindicate
the study of nature, and to determine its relations to religion,
is the object of several of his tracts, as ' The Excellency of
Theology Compared with Natural Philosophy/ ' The Chris
tian Virtuoso/ and ' The Discourse of Things above Reason/
In the first of these, the study of theology is said to be His ' Excol-
excellent because of its object. The study of nature only
' derives its dignity from its connection with that invisible
power which pervades nature/ Theology, on the other hand,
goes at once to the contemplation of God and the invisible.
Boyle says that many persons have put themselves under
the power of demons that they might be instructed in the
unseen mysteries. They have been successful, but their
example is not to be followed. In the natural world we can
learn much of God, but revelation is to the natural reason
what a telescope is to the naked eye. This illustration, in
troduced in the very beginning of the book, seems as if
Boyle meant the comparison to be between natural theology
and revelation. We conclude from it, that by ' theology/
in the title, he means revelation, and by ' natural philo-
of 1 ho~
* P. 374.
f The origin of Sprat's ' History of
the Royal Society' is ascribed "by Birch
in his ' Life of Boyle ' to the opposition
of the ' admirers of the old philosophy,
who affected to represent the views of
many of its members to be the de
struction not only of true learning
but of religion itself.' The most ac
tive of these was Henry Stubbe, with
whom Joseph Glanvill had many con
troversies. It was also opposed by
South in an oration before the Uni
versity of Oxford, and by old scholastic
divines like Gunning, Bishop of Ely,
and Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln.
Samuel Butler wrote against it ' The
Elephant in the Moon ' and ' A Satire
on the Royal Society,' but these were
merely in ridicule of studying such
things as the ordinary operations of
nature.
N 2
iSo
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CIIAr. VIII.
By 'theology'
he means
' revelation '
as distin
guished from
natural theo
logy-
sophy/ natural theology, or what we can learn of God apart
from the Scriptures. He shows immediately after that the
New Testament conceptions of God arc purer and more sub
lime than those of the Pagan philosophers. Then he adds
Lord Bacon's distinction, that by reason we may know
something of the nature of God, but by revelation we know
His will.
The rest of the argument clearly determines that by reve
lation, or theology, Boyle means what is contained in the
books of the Bible. We learn from them that there are
angels. To the knowledge of this fact we could never have
come by mere reason. The ancient philosophers made the
world eternal, and the ' fabulous ' Chaldseans supposed it to
have been in existence for forty or fifty thousand years.
But ' theology ' teaches us with certainty that its age is
under six thousand, and that it shall be finally destroyed by
fire. Boyle refuses to regard the first chapter of Genesis as
an allegory, or to condemn those who find in it ' divers par
ticulars in reference to the origin of the world, which, though
not unwarily or alone to be urged in physics, may yet afford
considerable hints/ * From mere reason we have no cer
tainty of the immortality of the soul. And even could we
prove its immortality, we should still be uncertain if, after
the dissolution of the present body, it might not be united
to a less perfect organization. But ' theology' reveals what
reason could not discover. Sometimes Boyle clearly makes
the distinction between revelation and natural theology. At
other times they seem to approach each other, and to be
only different degrees of the same thing. From his view of
revelation we might have concluded that nothing in religion
could be known beyond what was already known. Yet he
says that by philosophy, the study of Scripture, ( free ratio
cination, and dependence on God's Spirit, a far higher know
ledge of divine things may be reached than that to which
any man has yet attained.' f Reason is to be freely used
as the interpreter, both of nature and of revelation. In
both of these we may learn something of God. The Old
Testament saints did not exclude the study of nature from
religion. In the ( Book of Praises,' the psalmist frequently
* r. 22. t P. 51.
HON. ROBERT BOYLE.
iSl
calls upon all nature to unite in praise of its great Creator. CHAP. VIII.
The study of God in nature and revelation is the beginning
of the blessedness of heaven, where the angels continually
behold the face of our heavenly Father. It is by this con
templation of God that we become like Him. According to
the saying of Aristotle, we grow to resemble the object of
our meditations, or, as St. John says, ' We shall be like Him,
for we shall see Him as He is/
In ( The Christian Virtuoso/ Boyle undertakes to show 'The Christian
' that, being addicted to experimental philosophy, a man is Virtuoso-'
rather assisted than indisposed to be a good Christian/ But
important as physical studies are, the knowledge of incor
poreal and rational beings is incomparably more noble. By
experimental philosophy we have a clear discovery of ' the
divine excellencies displayed in the fabric and conduct of
the universe/ By it we may learn the existence of Deity.
Lord Bacon said that God never wrought a miracle to refute
atheism. His visible works are sufficient for that. When a
man is convinced of the existence of God, he has then, Boyle
says, ' received the first principle of that natural religion
which itself is pre-required to revealed religion/ * The
student of nature may also see that rational souls are
not subject to the law of dissolution which governs bodies.
He may know that there is a Providence, and by this pre
paration of natural religion, he will be ' strongly inclined
to wish for a supernatural discovery of what God would have
him believe and do/ f When a man, by the study of
nature, is thus prepared to receive Christianity, and when
he has considered the excellency of its doctrines, the miracles
wrought in its behalf, and its effects in the world, he will
then, Boyle says, be convinced of its truth. The testimony
of miracles is proved to be the testimony of experience, by
the same arguments as were used by Bishop Sprat. The
experience is admitted to be ' vicarious/ but on that account
is said to be not less certain. Boyle manages this part of
the argument with such surpassing ingenuity, that he
proves we are certain, by ' theological experience/ that f the
stars were made on the fourth day of creation/
The ' Discourse of Things above Reason/ is in the form of
* P. H. t P. 40.
182 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. a dialogue. The different speakers discuss the question
' Discourse of w^n apparent impartiality, sometimes in doubt which side
Thing-s above to take, and sometimes at a loss to determine what may be
precisely the meaning of the words ' above reason/ Euge-
nius says that if nothing more is meant than that there are
things which reason cannot discover without revelation, he
would take the side that many things are above reason.
But he adds, that if by ' things above reason ' be meant such
1 as though delivered in words free from darkness and am
biguity, are not to be conceived and comprehended by our
rational faculty, I shall freely confess that I scarce know
what to say upon so unusual and sublime a subject/ *
Sophronius divides things above reason into three kinds,
' the incomprehensible/ l the inexplicable/ arid ' the unsoci
able/ The first consists of beings whose nature is not ade
quately comprehensible to us, as angels, and above all, God
Himself. We know God by His works, but we cannot frame
a ' full and adequate idea of Him/ We know ' that He is/
but not 'what He is/ In the latter sense, he is 'supra-
intellectual/ The second includes such things as we know
to exist, but cannot explain how they exist. Of this kind
is the infinite divisibility of matter. The third class consists
of those things which have attributes irreconcilable with
some known facts. One example of this kind is the coexis
tence of free will in man and foreknowledge in God. Euge-
nius interprets Sophronius' meaning to be that we do not
' perceive things above reason/ but that we ' perceive them
to be above reason/ He illustrates this by our looking into
deep sea. The eye perceives a little way, but discovers no
thing more than something dark and indistinct. We con
clude that there may be many things concealed, but that
our sight is unable to reach them. Pyrocles says that if
things are above our reason, there can be no ground for our
discoursing about them. If our words are not accompanied
by clear and distinct perceptions, we only talk like parrots,
and if they are accompanied by clear and distinct percep
tions, the things cannot be incomprehensible. Sophronius
had already anticipated this objection, but he answers it
more in detail, from the consideration of distinctions ade-
* P. 4.
JOHN LOCKE.
quate and inadequate,, negative and positive. Our concep- CHAP. VIII.
tions of things above reason may be only indistinct, and yet
they may be sufficient for discourse about these things. This
is illustrated by the ' admirably ingenious speculations of
mathematicians about the affections of surd numbers, and
about incommensurable magnitudes/* We have not an
adequate idea of God, and yet we have an idea that repre
sents Him as existing, and as more perfect than any other
being.
The ' Discourse of Things above Reason ' is continued in The ' Dis-
what seems to be a second part of the dialogue. This is '
called ' Advices in Judging of Things said to transcend
Reason.' A new speaker, called Arnobius, is introduced,
who is to explain how we are to avoid deceiving ourselves
or being deceived by others when the discourse is of things
above reason. We are to be sure that the proof is sufficient,
whether it depends on argument or on revelation. We are
not to be hasty in rejecting propositions, as if they were
absurd or impossible, or because we cannot explain the
manner how a thing is. The practice of rejecting things
unintelligible is not to be censured, yet it must be done with
caution when the things are such as we know to transcend
our reason. The advice of Arnobius is summed up by
another speaker to the effect that when two propositions are
laid down, one of which is evident by experience or reason,
and the other proved by mathematics or attested by revela
tion, we are to reject neither of the propositions because we
do not know how to reconcile them. A superior intellect
that knows the things above our reason may be able to
reconcile what is irreconcilable by us.f
The best representative of the theological spirit of this John Locke,
age was John Locke. It has become common to regard
Locke as the founder of rational theology in England. But
* P. 83.
f Two of Boyle's religious dis
courses are interesting as showing the
pious spirit of the author, but they
throw no further light on his theo
logy. ( )no is ' Of the High Venera
tion M.m's Intellect owes to God,' and
the other 'Sonic Motives and Ineen-
tativcs to the Love of God.' Linda-
mor, to whom it is addressed, and
who is supposed to represent the
author himself, had an unrequited
passion for Hermione. He is exhorted
to transfer his affection to a nobler
object and cultivate seraphic love.
The love of God brings no disappoint
ment, and in loving Him wo are sure
that we love one who loves us.
184
EELIG10US THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Cn grounds
of cortainty.
CHAP. VIII. this is scarcely correct. Locke said nothing in theology
which had not been said by the most orthodox theologians
of the reign of William and Mary. He surpassed them all
only by being more thorough. So far as he went with
reason he went equally. He was not rational on one subject
and irrational on another. He did not advocate the claims
of reason with the reservation of a background for tradi
tional superstition. His reasoning is often so complete that
it carries him logically beyond the position which he wishes
to maintain. He applied to the science of mind Bacon's
method of observation and experience, and, like Bacon,
he professed to regard theology as outside of his method.
Yet Locke did what he professed not to do. He approached
theology in the spirit of philosophy, and has given us the
clearest evidence of the impossibility of their ultimate sepa
ration.
In the beginning of the ( Essay on the Human Under
standing/ Locke says that his object is ' to inquire into the
origin, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together
with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion, and assent.'
This design necessarily compelled him to treat of natural
theology, and to say something concerning the grounds on
which we receive revelation. It was, he said, an inquiry
from which we were to learn both the extent of our capa
cities and of our knowledge. The result of the inquiry is
that God has given ' whatsoever is necessary for the conve
niences of life and information of virtue, and He has put
within the reach of our discovery the comfortable provision
for this life, and the way that leads to a better.'* This know
ledge is admitted to be far short of ' a perfect comprehen
sion/ yet it is declared sufficient for our present necessities,
and it is all that it has pleased the Divine Being to give us.
We have already seenf that Locke's denial of innate
ideas was only a denial of the words, and not of the thing
intended. He admitted a natural law, but denied that the
knowledge of it was ( innate/ Absolute and independent
morality existed, Locke said, but it was not evident at first
sight. It has to be learned by experience. God has con
nected virtue with happiness. It is found to be beneficial to
* Works, p. 4, cd. 1824. f Vol. I. p. 452.
Morality
eternal.
JOHN LOCKK.
135
society, and therefore it receives the general approbation of CHAP. VIII.
mankind. This is illustrated by the eternal truth that three
angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. This is
eternally true, but it is not self-evident. It is not like the
axiom that the whole is greater than a part. Yet it can be
demonstrated, and so can moral rules. They are not evi
dent at first sight, but we become certain of them by expe
rience. Our bodies come into the world without clothes,
and our minds without ideas ; but we have faculties which
enable us to provide both. By the use of these faculties
we may be as certain of the existence of God as that the
opposite angles made by the intersection of two straight
lines are equal. It was objected that we have the idea of
substance, which did not come by sensation or reflection.
Locke answers that this is a general idea, and that general
ideas are the creatures or inventions of the understanding.
The idea of substance is said to be only a supposition of an
unknown support of accidents.
On Locke's system the being of God and the duties of
natural religion are as clearly within the reach of man as if
the mind were furnished with innate ideas. But the articles Revelation
of the Christian religion belong to another sphere. They Jistmct from
come by revelation. They are received by faith, and have natural re-
nothing to do with the certainty of knowledge. Revelation
depends on the veracity of God. When Locke said on one
occasion that the immateriality of the soul could not be
proved, it was objected that by this he lessened the credi
bility of its immortality. The objection implied that what
is revealed is only to be believed in proportion as it accords
with reason. This principle Locke repudiated with emphatic
indignation. ' As if/ he exclaimed, * God were not to be
believed on His own word unless what He reveals be in itself
credible, and might be believed without Him/ He adds,
' If this be the way to promote religion, the Christian reli
gion, I am not sorry that it is not a way to be found in any
of my writings/ * Of the future life nature had some
glimmerings, but ' it is established and made certain only
by revelation/ f In the chapter on Probability, Locke
shows the different value of the grounds on which different
* Vol. ii. p. 92. f Vol. ii. p. 100.
ligion.
186 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. kinds of probability rest. Things unusual are not so credi
ble as things that are common. When the Dutch ambas
sador told the King of Siam that in winter in Holland men
walked on the water, he answered, 'Now I am sure you
lie/ The exception for things extraordinary is 'when su
pernatural events are suitable to the ends aimed at by
Him who has the power to change the course of nature/
When God speaks, we are to believe what He says, whether
it agrees or disagrees with our experience and the ordinary
course of the world. Revelation cannot deceive us. Our
assent to it is faith, which properly excludes all doubt.
Faith is defined as an assent to a proposition on the credit
of the proposer. *
Yet not to be So far Locke is clear in his adherence to Bacon's principle,
onTridlcts11 ^at revela^on *s beyond the province of science and inde-
natural know- pendent of it. But there is a chasm to be bridged between
this abstract revelation and the actual revelation in Chris
tianity. God's veracity is not to be doubted, but we must
be certain that it is God who speaks. It is the province of
reason to discover the certainty or probability of what is
proposed. Christianity is not an immediate revelation. It
is only traditional, and proposed to us through the testimony
of others. Locke says that those to whom revelation is
immediate may have a certainty equal to that of knowledge,
but not those who have it through testimony. Noah, who
saw the flood, had a greater certainty of it than those who
did not see it. If a revelation which is not immediate con
tradicts our natural knowledge, we are not compelled to
yield assent to it. This seems to be a contradiction to wluif.
Locke has already said concerning reason and its relations
to revelation. But it is repeated in distinct and decided
words. ' The natural way of knowledge/ he says, ' is the
surest evidence we can have of anything, unless where God
immediately reveals it to us; and then too our assurance
can be no greater than our knowledge is that it is a reve
lation from God/f Again he says, ' We can never receive
for truth anything that is directly contrary to our clear and
distinct knowledge. We can never assent to a proposition
that affirms the same body to be in two distinct places at
* Vol. ii. p. 263. t Vol. ii. p. 266.
JOHN LOCKE. 187
once, however it should pretend to the authority of a divine CHAP. VIII.
revelation.'' * In another place Locke says that though the
Scripture be infallible, yet ' the reader may be — nay, cannot
but be — very fallible in the understanding of it/ f The
will of God clothed in words is subject to all the uncer
tainty connected with human language and the human un
derstanding. Even the Son of God Himself when ' clothed
in human flesh was liable to all the frailties and inconve
niences of human nature/ J
The inference that natural knowledge is more certain than Locke denies
revelation was clearly made by Locke himself. He was
reproached with it by his opponents. He did not like the clearer than
reproach in the form in which it came, and tried to remove
it. To do this, he endeavoured to raise what he called the
assurance of faith as near as possible to what he called the
certainty of knowledge. Indeed, he sometimes speaks of
faith having ' as much certainty as our knowledge/ defining
faith as a ' settled and sure principle of assent and assurance,
which leaves no manner of room for doubt or hesitation/
The certainty, however, is evidently of a different kind from
that of knowledge. In a letter to Stillingfleet, Locke says
that ' to talk of the certainty of faith seems all one to me as
to talk of the knowledge of believing — a way of speaking
not easy to me to understand. Bring faith to certainty and
it ceases to be faith. When it is brought to certainty, faith
is destroyed; it is knowledge then, and faith no longer/
This subject was discussed by Hooker and Chillingworth in
the same connection in which it was forced on Locke.
Hooker distinguished between a certainty of evidence and a
certainty of adherence. The latter certainty, according to
Hooker, was greater than the other. Chillingworth said
that, concerning the articles of revealed religion, we can
have nothing more than moral certainty. But he added that
' the spirit of obsignation and confirmation ' would work in
believers fa certainty of adhesion beyond that certainty of
evidence/ and would make them 'as fully and resolutely
assured of the Gospel of Christ as those who heard it from
Christ Himself with their ears, which saw it with their eyes,
which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the Word
* Vol. ii. p. 266. f Vol. ii. p. 21. t Ib.
iSS
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
The ' Reason-
al)lencss of
Christianity.'
CHAP. VIII. of Life/ Locke endorses the words both of Hooker and
Chill ing worth. By what he calls ' assurance' or persuasion
he makes up for what faith wants in absolute certainty.
The sum of the whole seems to be that the truth or certainty
of Christianity is not capable of demonstration. The pro
babilities of its truth are so great as to amount to moral cer
tainty. And if we sincerely and earnestly seek the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, we shall have ' the assurance of faith/
This is substantially the answer which Laud gave to Fisher,
and which has been tacitly, but not always consciously,
admitted by all Protestant theologians.
Of the ' Reasonableness of Christianity ' we have already
spoken.* It was an effort to construct Christianity out of
the Scriptures alone, independently of the creeds. No
sincere man ever attempted this without coming under the
charge of heresy. But, notwithstanding all that has been
said against Locke, no man that ever began afresh the
entire study of Christianity departed less than he did from
received doctrines. The charge of Socinianism or Unita-
rianism he did not condescend to answer. When asked to
clear himself by avowing the Trinity as it was received in
the Christian Church, he answered that he liad never been
charged with denying the Trinity, and that he did not know
how it had been always received in the Christian Church.
He did not deny that the doctrine of the Trinity might be
inferred from the Scriptures. He only said that he could not
find in the Bible the precise terms, ' There are three persons
in one nature, or there are two natures and one person/
We have already seen that Locke did not deny the atone
ment in the sense that Christ made satisfaction for the sins
of men. f In his notes on St. Paul's Epistles he is satisfied
with using the sacrificial language of the Apostle, putting
no further meaning upon it than is required by the context.
He avoids all theories of the atonement, but takes the death
of Christ as a literal price by which men are redeemed, in
the same sense as captives are redeemed from slavery. The
price is the precious blood of Christ. It was by His death
that reconciliation was made. In the ' Reasonableness of
Christianity ' Locke speaks of Christ having laid down His
* Vol. I. p. 453. t Vol. I. p. 455.
Locke ortho
dox on the
atonement.
JOHN LOCKE.
189
life fur us in a sense which cuuld not be done by one 'who CHAP. VIII.
had incurred death by his own transgressions/ In the
1 Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity '
he speaks frequently of Christ having been offered up for
our redemption. He does not say ' satisfaction/ because he
wishes to keep to Scripture language. But he does not deny
that what is understood by satisfaction is fairly inferred
from the sacrificial language of the Epistles.* To make
Christ nothing more than the restorer and preacher of pure
natural religion was, Locke said, to do violence to the whole
tenor of the New Testament .f
There are some other points in Locke's theology which
we need not do more than mention here, as they were held
also by some of his contemporaries. Such was the explana
tion of Adam's sin, by which he forfeited his right to the
tree of life, and so became mortal. This mortality was inhe
rited by all the posterity of Adam, whose existence would
have ceased at death if Christ had not brought life and
immortality to light. Temporal death, or cessation of being,
was the chief result of Adam's transgression. It did not
make him and his posterity subject to ' endless torments in
hell-fire/ or place them under the necessity of committing
sin in every action of their lives. We are restored to immor
tality by faith in Christ. We are justified 'by believing.'
This expression is not in Scripture, and did not escape the
censure of Locke's critics. He said that salvation or perdi
tion depends upon believing or rejecting this one propo
sition — ' that Jesus is the Messiah.' This was the sum of
what the Apostles preached. But these statements, as
Locke made them, must be taken in connection with his
explanations. The belief of this one article was supposed
to be necessarily followed by the belief of other articles.
Belief is further explained as including works, so that in the
end it is really those who do good that are saved or become
immortal, and those who do evil cease to exist. Locke Cessation of
leaves us after raising many questions which we should like natSal rerott
that he had tried to answer. He remained avowedly within of Adam's bin.
the pale of the orthodox form of Christianity, but on many
subjects he was carried unconsciously beyond the appointed
* Vol. vi. p. 418. f Vol. vi. p. 5.
I go RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. boundaries. The position was reached which made any
further step impossible without either falling into simple
Deism or adopting a new interpretation of the meaning of
Christianity.
Locke's Locke's opponents, with the exception of Stillingfleet,
were all unknown to fame. Their books are forgotten, and
their names found only, if found at all, in Locke's answers.
He treated them with severity, and they had the satisfaction
of stinging him into wrath. The best known is John
Edwards, who wrote ' Some Thoughts concerning the several
Causes and Occasions of Atheism,' and afterwards, ' Soci-
nianism Unmasked/ In answer to these, Locke wrote his
' Vindication of the Keasonableness of Christianity ' and his
' Second Vindication/ Samuel Bolde, Eector of Steeple, in
Dorsetshire, also wrote against Edwards in defence of Locke.
The author of a ' Brief Vindication of the Fundamental
Articles of the Christian Faith ' against Locke and Bolde,
found Locke's doctrine of one article of faith in Hobbes'
' De Give/ ( Locke,' he says, ' though infinitely short of
Hobbes, furbishes up his old ideas. When framing a new
Christianity, he took Hobbes' Leviathan for the New Tes
tament.' William Carrol convicted Locke of Atheism. In
the tenth chapter of the fourth book of the ' Essay on the
Human Understanding,' Locke had demonstrated the
existence of God. Carrol maintains that Locke has proved
nothing, except ' the eternal existence of one cogitative,
and extended material substance,' which is simply the
Deity of Spinoza, from whom the whole of Locke's hypo
thesis is said to have been borrowed. The reason of man,
being a modification of this Deity, is itself divine, and the
church ' a society of reasonable men.' The ablest of Locke's
adversaries, with the exception of Stillingfleet, was the
author of a book called ' An Account of Mr. Locke's Religion
out of his own writings and in his own words.'*
* John Norria, Rector of Bemerton, preached hefore the University of
wrote ' Cursory Reflections' on Locke's Oxford against Locke's view of the
Kssuy. He refuted Locke's argu- resurrection of the body. Holds-worth
ments against innate ideas, adopting maintained that the same body would
as his own hypothesis that of Male- rise again. This sermon was followed,
tranche, that we ' see all things in a few years later, by a ' Defence,' in
God.' which many heresies were charged on
In 1719 the Locke controversy Locke, as the denial of an innate no-
broke out again. Winch Holdsworth tion of God, having taught that the
STK ISAAC NEWTON.
IQI
Sir David Brewster says that if Sir Isaac Newton had not CHAP. VIII.
been distinguished as a mathematician and natural philo- Sir Igaac
sopher, he would have enjoyed a high reputation as a theo- Newton,
logian. This judgment is founded on Newton's natural
taste for theology. He began in his youth to write theolo
gical works, to which he returned at intervals in his busy
life, but which he never found time to bring to perfection.
His ' Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and St. John '
were published a few years after his death. Voltaire spoke
of this work with a sneer, saying that Newton had only
explained the Revelation as others had done before him.
Sir David Brewster, on the other hand, calls the ( Observa
tions ' an ingenious work, ' characterized by great learning,
and marked with the sagacity of its distinguished author.'
These judgments are the results of the different estimates
which Voltaire and Sir David Brewster made of the inter
pretation of prophecy. The learning displayed in Newton's
work is not greater than appears in many a similar work of
which the author has been long forgotten. The ' sagacity '
is nothing more than the often-repeated commonplace con
cerning Scripture prophecies, that they were not given to
make men prophets, or to acquaint them with events before
they came to pass. The truth of a prophecy is manifest by
its fulfilment. Newton said that the interpreters of the
previous age had made such great discoveries in this study
that he was encouraged to do something in the same way.
It seemed, he adds, that God's time was come for opening
the mysteries of the prophetic Scriptures. The ' little horn ' His interpre-
in Daniel was the Pope, and so was the Apocalyptic beast, tation of
His name was AATEINOS, which, is the number of a man, Prophecy<
six hundred and sixty-six ; and the mark which he caused
soul sleeps between death and the
resurrection, that there is no original
corruption of our nature, that Jesus
Christ did not make satisfaction for
sin, that the wicked do not suffer
eternal death, and that at the resur
rection the same bodies shall not rise
again. Holdsworth was answered with
great ability by Catherine Cockburn,
a well-known writer of that day. She
reproached Holdsworth with a want
of prudence in classing Locke among
heretics and funnies of our religion.
Mrs. Cockburn vindicated Locke's
views on all the subjects mentioned,
especially on the resurrection of the
body. The old creeds, she said, teach
that the body will rise again, but they
never enter into details as to the na
ture of that body. St. Paul said it
was to be ' spiritual,' and Locke had
said nothing more. Mrs. Cockburn,
in noticing Stillingfleet's controversy
with Locke, said that 'the Bishop was
afraid where no fear was.'
IQ2 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. VIII. all men to receive in their foreheads was 'the sign of the
cross/ It is to be feared that the world generally will agree
with Voltaire, that Sir Isaac Newton ' explained the Revela
tion in the same manner as those that went before him/
On the Another theological treatise by Sir Isaac Newton was
' An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of
Scripture/ The first of these concerned the three witnesses,
in the First Epistle of St. John, and the other, the words of
St. Paul to Timothy, ' God manifest in the flesh/ where the
Greek word for ' which ' had been changed into the word for
' God/ On the ground of this treatise, Sir Isaac Newton is
supposed not to have been a believer in the doctrine of the
Trinity. But this inference is not warranted. He wrote
solely in the interests of criticism. The faith, he said, had
long subsisted without this text interpolated in St. John's
Epistle. The question at issue was not an article of faith.
Sir Isaac afterwards showed great anxiety to have this trea
tise suppressed, but whether because he believed that it
contained heresy, or because he feared the terrors of the law
against blasphemers of the Trinity, is not easily determined."*
Sir David Brewster published several of Newton's theo
logical manuscripts which help to shed further light on his
religious opinions. They are sufficient to strengthen the
suspicions that Newton did not receive the doctrine of the
Trinity as it is generally explained, but they do not show
clearly what his own views were. Whiston says Newton
On the Arian inclined to the Baptists and Arians, even supposing them to
roversy. ^ ^ ^WQ w^negses m ^e Apocalypse. The manuscripts
are mostly historical, and Newton everywhere shows himself
on the side of Arius. He finds Athanasius a persecutor,
seditious, and an inventor of evil things. He protests, after
the fashion of the authors of ' The Naked Truth/ and ' The
Naked Gospel/ against the use of metaphysical terms in
Christianity. He doubts if ' Homoousion ' was in any creed
before the Nicene. He asks if it was not pressed into that
creed against the will of the majority of the Council. He
supposes that it may have meant nothing more than that
* There is nothing in this treatise Master of the Mint, and even the sus-
which might not have been written picion of being unsound on this doc-
by a Trinitarian, but Sir Isaac was trine might have been against him.
SIR ISAAC NEWTON.
193
Christ was the express image of the Father, and he inti- CHAP. VIII.
mates that some of the bishops added the explanation after
their subscriptions, that by Homoousion they meant Homoi-
ousion. All these things are expressed in the form of ques
tions. Orp-i is, whether Hosius, or whoever translated that
creed into Latin, did not impose upon the Western Churches
in translating opoovo-ios by the words unius substantial in
stead of consul) stantialis ? and whether by that translation
the Latin churches were not drawn into an opinion that the
Father and Son had one common substance, called by the
Greeks hypostasis ? The Greeks are supposed to have re
belled against this as Sabellianism, and in opposition to
have adopted the three hypostases, and thereby subjected
themselves to the charge of Arianism. The schoolmen
changed the meaning of the word hypostasis, and brought in
the notion of three persons in one single substance. From
the manuscripts published by Sir David Brewster, it is Himself an
scarcely to be doubted that Newton's views were Arian.
Arian.
VOL. II.
CHAPTER IX.
DR. BUSY'S f NAKED GOSPEL/ VINDICATION BY LE CLERC.
ANSWER BY NICHOLLS. — THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY. DR.
SHERLOCK. DR. WALLIS. — DR. JANE. — THOMAS FIRMIN. DR.
SOUTH. JOHN HOWE. BURNETTS ^THEORY OP THE EARTH.'
BLOUNT'S c ORACLES OF REASON.' LESLIE'S ' SHORT AND EASY
METHOD WJTH THE DEISTS/ — GILDON^S ' DEISTS* MANUAL/
JOHN TOLAND. CHRISTIANITY NOT MYSTERIOUS. CONTROVERSY
ON THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. SOUTH. BULL. BEVERIDGE.
— JOHN NORRIS. JOHN RAY.
The supre- TREASON was the watchword of all English theologians in
macy of JLi) the last two decades of the seventeenth century. This
was true of Sharp, Patrick, and Scott, who were reckoned
the High Churchmen of their day, as well as of Tillotson and
Stillingfleet, Tenison and Burnet. They were not all agreed
how far they were to go with reason. No limits were fixed,
nor did any of them suppose that the doctrines which they
received were unable to stand the test of reason. They had
all abandoned the theology of Calvin, which was now taught
only in obscure conventicles.* The efficacy of sacraments,
and kindred beliefs, were relegated to the uneducated
country clergy, or left as the last solace of the unreasoning
Jacobite.
The object generally proposed by this use of reason was
the reconstruction of Christianity on its original basis. The
* There were some exceptions, as Hig-h Churchman. South, too, was
in the case of Dr. William Jano, who a Calvinist in doctrine,
was hoth a High Calvinist and a
'THE NAKED GOSPEL/ 195
cry of the age was for the Christianity of Christ and His CHAP. IX.
Apostles. In the work of restoration many errors were
made, which had afterwards to be rectified. The conviction
was universal that Christianity in itself was something very
simple and very reasonable. But how it was to be separated
from traditional theology was not so evident. To do this
was the object of Locke's ' Reasonableness of Christianity/
Bishop Croft had the same object in his ' Naked Truth/
He could not find in Christianity any of the impositions
which kept Conformists and Nonconformists in eternal strife.
He wished the metaphysical creeds to be removed from the
Liturgy. They might have been of service in the age that
produced them, and even now they may have great historical
interest. But Christianity, he said, must be something alto
gether different from abstract definitions concerning sub
stances that are inconceivable and essences that are incompre
hensible. Another book of the same class was ' The Naked <The Naked
Gospel/ by ' A True Son of the Church of England/ This GosPe1-'
was published anonymously in 1 690, but it was known to be
the work of Dr. Arthur Bury, the Master of Lincoln. ' The
Naked Gospel ' proposed to inquire into the Gospel in its
first simplicity, then into the additions and corruptions of
the Gospel, and lastly into the ' advantages and damages ' of
these additions and corruptions.
The chief feature of the Gospel, as delivered by Christ, The gospel is
was found to be love to God and love to man. This was ^God and°
also the sum of natural religion. God has loved us, and man.
the manifestation of that love in Christ is a perpetual obli
gation on us to love mankind. It was also found that
Christianity corrected the errors of natural religion. It
inculcated a more rational worship. It proposed, as the end
of religious service, not banquets and feasts, but inward joy
and peace. The doctrines of the Gospel, Dr. Bury says, are
summed up in two precepts — believe and repent. Some
times they are included under the one article of faith in
Christ. In the sermon on the mount there is no mention of
repentance. In Christ's last sermon He said that the object
of His death and resurrection was that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name among all
nations. The virtue of repentance is sometimes in Scripture
o 2
1 96 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. ascribed to faith. It is said that whosoever believeth shall
not perish but have everlasting life. So far,, Dr. Bury says,
is our Lord from thinking His Gospel honoured by multi
plication of articles, that, rather than keep up that least of
numbers, He is willing to dismiss either of the two. These
are described as the two tables of the new covenant. * When
joined they appear two, but when closed they are only one.
The positive rites of Christianity are excluded from any
place as parts of the new covenant. They are badges of
Christ's disciples and acknowledgments of their homage to
His person.
Faith means This faith which includes repentance is called justifying
obedience. faith. To them that believed Christ promised eternal life.
Dr. Bury adds that in all such promises there were many
things implied, though not always expressed. Christ always
meant by faith such a faith as led to a new life. The law of
nature intimates as much as this, and the Gospel was not
given to obscure the law of nature, but to make it rrfore
legible. St. Paul promised safety in the shipwreck, but
only on condition that the sailors abide in the ship. Faith
is not to be confounded with credulity. There is no merit
in mere believing without a sufficient cause for faith. It is
said of the simple that he ' believeth every word, but the
wise man looketh well to his goings/ Faith is an act of
reason. It is not a doctrine peculiar to the Gospel, but was
taught and commended previous to the institution of posi
tive religion. The faith of Abraham is set forth in Scrip
ture as a pattern to Christians. This, Dr. Bury says, was
founded on reason, which is itself the voice of God. Abra
ham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, because he knew that
God was infinite in wisdom, power, and truth, and therefore
able to raise Isaac again from the dead. The command to
Abraham was contrary to what his natural conscience told
him was right, but he knew by immediate revelation that it
was the command of God, and therefore his obedience was
rational. Faith is explained to be a natural duty, and many
reasons are given why in Christianity it took the form of
faith in Christ. It was loyalty to the King of the spiritual
kingdom. To have faith in Him was difficult, because He
came in lowliness and not as the Jews expected Him. To
'THE NAKED GOSPEL/ 197
profess faith in Christ was dangerous, but it was necessary CHAP. IX.
for the triumph of His cause. To be a Christian is simply
to follow Christ, to take Him for our guide, as the sun in
the heavens is a guide to the traveller.
With this illustration we come at once to the main idea of
' The Naked Gospel/ It was a protest against speculation
concerning the person of Christ, that subject being beyond
our capacities. It might have been enough to have pro
tested against imposing the results of speculation as articles
of faith, but the protest really is against the speculation Speculation
itself. The mode of the incarnation, Dr. Bury says, is not a ^ek^tm-
part of the Christian faith. The traveller finds the sun a tion not ne-
sufficient guide without knowing the origin and nature of ce
solar light. In the same way Christ is a sufficient guide to
the Christian without the knowledge of the mystery of His
being. From the history of the contentions concerning the
manner in which Christ was God, it is maintained that the
speculation is positively injurious to Christianity. Constan-
tine wisely sent to the chiefs of the contending parties in
his day a gracious letter persuading them to peace. He told
them that it was fa silly question, more fit for fools and
children than for wise men/ Dr. Bury says it is a question
' impertinent to the design of Christianity, fruitless and
dangerous/ The sun does not seek the praise of the philo- and danger-
sopher, neither does Christ. He arose with healing in His ous'
wings, to give life and health to a dying world. Those to
whom His Gospel was chiefly to be preached were unable to
have faith in the deep things of His Godhead. The first
converts were asked simply to believe that Jesus Christ was
the Son of God, the long-expected Messiah. The curiosity
of the learned increased in the next age, and they made
considerable progress in explaining the mysteries. Yet
Justin Martyr testifies that in his day all Christians did not
believe in the Godhead of Christ. This article of faith was
not then imposed on the Church. Leonas, who was sent by
Constantius to moderate in the Council of Seleucia, found
the bishops ( very free ' on this subject, and he told them to
( go and play the fool at home/
Dr. Bury, continuing his illustration from the sun, says
that if we gaze on it with too steady a view, it will show
198 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. nothing but the weakness of our eyes. He argues as if care
had been taken in the Scriptures to conceal from us the
real nature of Christ's incarnation. Even His human gene
ration is concealed. The two genealogies cannot be recon
ciled. The Scribes said truly, when Christ cometh no man
knoweth whence He is. The prophet of old asked, who
shall declare His generation, and the Bishop of Alexandria
answered, 'I will/ He expounded the eternal generation
of the Son with such deep learning and refined subtleties
that Arius was confounded. The heretic cavilled, and was
banished by the Council of Nice. At last the Emperor
was convinced that there was really no difference between
the creed of Arius and the creed of the Council which
sent him into exile. Theodosius tried to settle the dispute
by forbidding any one to contradict the Bishops of Rome
and Alexandria. Afterwards the question of the Godhead
of the Son was decided in a sense opposed to that of the
Council of Nice. Athanasius made the divine nature com
mon to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the human nature
is common to Peter, James, and John. It was concluded
that the three were one, because they had but one mind.
They were of the same substance in the sense that a bishop,
a priest, and a deacon are of the same substance. Against
this the schoolmen rebelled. They tried to distinguish
between a person and a fsuppositum rationale/ But they
could not do this, even to their own satisfaction, and so they
took refuge in the impregnable castle of mystery. Like
traiisubstantiation, it was all a mystery, and if it is, Dr. Bury
asks, why do we still go on disputing about it ?
The Gospel The Gospel is described as independent of all these deep
erf tS s cot all(^ distracting questions. What it requires for salvation is
lations. within the reach of the meanest capacity. It was instituted
to elevate man's life, to give him fellowship with God, and
to make him a partaker of the divine nature. But all this
has been reversed by the learned doctors of the Church.
Faith, which at best is but a retainer of holiness, is placed
on an absolute throne. The Gospel has given place to meta
physics. St. Paul said that what he preached was so plain
that it could not be hid except to those whose eyes were
blinded by the god of this world. Of the Gospel which is
'THE NAKED GOSPEL/ 199
preached now it may be said, as Aristotle said of the science CHAP. IX.
in which it is moulded, ' it is so published as not to be pub
lished.' Some modern doctrines which pass as essentials of
Christianity Dr. Bury describes as more absurd than the
heathen follies exposed by the ancient Fathers. The effect
of this on the world is not love, peace, and joy, but hatred,
tribulation, and strife.
' An Historical Vindication of The Naked Gospel/ as- Le Clerc vin-
cribcd to Le Clerc, and recommended to the University of ^^ed QOI
Oxford, was published the same year. The corruptions of pel.'
Christianity are here traced to Paganism. The doctrine of
the Trinity was borrowed from. Plato, who speaks of God
under the three phases of Being, Eeason, and Spirit. The
different modifications of this Trinity are found among the
later Platonists. The double meaning of the world hypo-
stasis is found in Plotinus. Sometimes it means a person,
and at other times a substance. The same ambiguity
troubled the orthodox Christians, some of whom spoke of
three hypostases in the Divine Being, while others admitted
only one. This difference among the Platonists about the
meaning of hypostasis is noticed by Cyril of Alexandria.
Le Clerc says that they certainly handled the subject with
great subtlety. Augustine expressed his conviction that if
the Platonists were to rise again, they would freely embrace
Christianity, only changing a few words and opinions.
Justin Martyr says that the opinion of Plato was not much
different from that of Christ; and Clemens of Alexandria
mentions Plato as an advocate of the Trinity. These Fathers
reckoned it to the praise of Christianity that it was so much
in agreement with the wisdom of the Greeks. But Le Clerc
says they would have done better had they kept to the
language of the New Testament. The subject of the Trinity
was so obscure that Arius could cite as many authorities
from the ancient philosophers as Athanasius. 'This/ Le
Clerc adds, 'is the effect of equivocal terms, which were
introduced into Christianity without well defining them, and
the bad custom of most of the ancients, who never spoke
calmly of these matters, and who thought of nothing less
than of explaining themselves clearly/
'The Naked GospeP Was burned by a decree of the Univer*
200
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
William
Nicholls re
futes 4 The
Naked Gos
pel.'
CHAP. IX. sity of Oxford. It was then answered by William Nicholls,
a fellow of Merton College.* It consisted, Nicholls said, of
two heads : *' that the disputes about the Trinity have been
the decaying of Christianity ; and that this doctrine is con
trary to the simplicity of the gospel/ Dr. Bury had cer
tainly opposed the ecclesiastical Trinity, which professed
to be a mystery and a contradiction. This Trinity Nicholls
maintained to be consistent with the simplicity of the Chris
tian religion. It could, he said, be understood as far as
was necessary for faith, by a man of the humblest capacity.
In revelation we expect mysteries, which are to be received
and not questioned. Reason was insufficient, and therefore
revelation was given. To show that the highest reason
could never reach the teaching of the New Testament,
Nicholls quoted many ancient writers. Aristotle said that
it was only becoming a slave to bear injury without seeking
revenge. Cicero regarded revenge as one of the rights of
nature. To Atticus he says, ' I hate the man, and will hate
him, and wish I could be revenged of him/ Concerning
faith, Nicholls says that Dr. Bury is in this dilemma — either
we believe what is reasonable and so we cannot help it, or
we believe without reason and so we are fools. A faith that
can justify must be an orthodox faith. It is justifying,
simply because it is such a faith as God requires. It has
no merit, and means grace in opposition to works. It is
outside the sphere of reason. The schoolmen properly
called it an ' infused habit/ an inspiration from God. The
faith of Abraham was an ( inspired virtue excited in him by
the preventing and co-operating grace of God/ It was a
formal Christian faith. The patriarchs believed in Christ ;
without this they could not have been saved. Belief in
Christ's divinity is a necessary part of saving faith. Nicholls
adds that the decisions of General Councils are not to be de
spised. They are the expressions of the judgment of great
and good men. The ground of this argument is that God
* ' An Answer to an Heretical
book called "The Naked Gospel,"
which was condemned and ordered to
be publicly burnt by the Convocation
of the University of Oxford, August
19, 1690. With some Reflections on
Dr. Bury's New Edition of that book.
To which is added a Short History of
Socinianism. By William Nicholls,
M.A., Fellow of Merton College, in
Oxford, 1690.' It was also answered
by Thomas Long.
THOMAS FIRMIN.
201
con""
will not suffer the representatives of His Church to err in CHAP. IX
any important matter of faith.
The great Trinitarian controversy, which absorbed the Beginning of
theological mind during the last ten years of the seven-
teenth century, began about the time of the publication of trovcrsy
'The Naked Gospel/ Its beginnings were in obscuri
with anonymous pamplets, but contemporary history con
nects them with the name of Thomas Firmin, a wealthy
London merchant. Firmin was a friend of Tillotson's, in
deed a friend and helper of all the clergy in the city of Lon
don, equally famous for his extensive benevolence and his
zeal in the propagation of Unitarian opinions. He was born.
at Ipswich, and had been educated by his parents in the
strictest principles of Puritanism. In the time of the Com
monwealth he came to London as an apprentice. His mas
ter was a worshipper at John Goodwin's church in Colemim
Street. Firmin went to church with his master every Sun
day, and under the influence of Goodwin's arguments he ex
changed the theology of Calvin for that of Arininius. After
a few years Firmin was in business for himself. His means
at first were small, but he opened his house to all ministers
of religion and encouraged them in works of benevolence.
Among his visitors was John Bidle, who resided with him
for some time before Bidle was banished by Cromwell to
the Isle of Scilly. Bidle convinced Firmin that the unity of
God is a unity of person as well as of nature, that the Holy
Ghost is indeed a person but not God. By the time of the
Restoration, Firmin had prospered in business. In 16GO
he married a citizen's daughter with what seems to have
been considered a large dowry, even five hundred pounds.
After the restoration of the Episcopal Government, he con
tinued to conform to the Established Church on the prin
ciple that ceremonies and forms of Church government are
merely the circumstantials of religion, and in themselves in
different. The leading Conformist clergy, who at this time
filled the pulpits of the city churches, had been educated
among the Puritans and had conformed on the same principle.
Such were Whichcot, Wilkins, Worthington, Tillotson,
and Firmin's own minister in Lombard Street, William
Outram.
202
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Thomas Fir-
inin's tracts,
CHAP. IX. The tracts 011 the Unitarian side during tlie whole of this
controversy are said to have been published at Firmiii's
expense. The first two were called ' A Brief History of the
Unitarians' and ' Brief Notes on the Athanasiau Creed/
The ' Brief History' explained the chief doctrines of the
Unitarians. Jesus was called ' the Messenger, Minister,
and Creature of God/ He was ( the Son of God/ because
He had been conceived by the Holy Ghost. Many texts
were quoted to prove the inferiority of the Son to the Father.
The Holy Ghost was not a person, as Bidle had maintained,
but the power and inspiration of God. The tract recounted
in a style much favoured by Unitarians the great names
that had been on their side. Erasmus is said to have been
an Arian and Grotius a Socinian. Petavius is quoted as
pronouncing all the ante-Nicene Fathers to have been Uni
tarians. Sandius was not an Arian, yet he wrote an eccle
siastical history to show that all antiquity was Arian.
The chief point in the other tract was the advocacy of the
principle that a good life and not a right opinion as to con
troverted doctrines is necessary to salvation. He that uses
reasonable diligence to find the truth is not, it is said, to be
blamed if he errs. The creed condemns those who do not
keep the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation ' whole
and undefiled/ This, the author says, condemns the Greek
Church, which rejects the ' Filioque/ The Greeks laugh at
the creed of St. Athanasius, and say that the saint was drunk
when he made it. As the Trinity, in the sense of this creed,
is not the doctrine of the whole Church, it is asked how it
can be the Catholic faith ? It certainly was not so in the
time of Athanasius. He was condemned as a heretic by
three hundred bishops in the Council of Milan, and again
by five hundred and forty bishops in the Council of Arimi-
num. For the history of the doctrine before and after these
councils, the writer refers to the works of Sandius. He
denies that one God can be three persons, any more than a
man can be three persons. When the creed says, 'So there
is one Father/ it ought logically to have said, ' So there are
three Fathers/ and when it says ' None is afore or after
other/ it is contradicted by the Nicene Creed, which calls
the Son ' God of God/ If the Father gave godhead to the
The Athana-
Catholic^ n
DR. SHERLOCK. 203
Son, He must have been before the Son. The writer ac- CHAP. IX.
cepts John Bidle's doctrine, that Jesus was the Son of God
in virtue of the miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost.
He is also decided in maintaining the infallibility of the
Scriptures. Whatever the Scriptures say is to be believed,
however much it may contradict reason.
These two tracts were answered by Dr. Sherlock in f A Sherlock on
Vindication of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity and the ihe Trinit^
Incarnation of the Son of God/ Sherlock, like all the
divines of his time, contended earnestly for the supremacy
of reason, and on this ground he fought the Unitarians.
The Trinity he maintained to be a rational doctrine. It was
no contradiction, but as for Socinianism it was ' the most
stupid senseless heresy that ever infested the Christian
Church/ The doctrine of the Trinity, Sherlock said, was
altogether unlike the favourite dogma of the Church of
Eome. It does not say that at the same time a thing is and
is not. It does not say that a body is in heaven and also
on earth ; or that a crumb of bread can cover a body of or
dinary dimensions. It is impossible, according to Sher
lock, for us to determine what is contrary to the nature of
spirit. We do not know what a spirit is, much less an in
finite Spirit like God. We do not perfectly understand any
thing that is. We know properties but not essences. As
to the common divine nature, the Son is equal to the Father;
but as to relation and order, inferior to the Father. This,
it is said, is no contradiction, and this is the distinction
clearly maintained in the Athanasian creed.
Dr. Sherlock declared, even with vehemence, that the Makes saving
Catholic faith is necessary to salvation, and that the doc- t^e ^thana™
trine of the Athanasian creed is the Catholic faith, With- sian creed,
out this a virtuous and godly life can be of no avail. Good
men ' may be damned for heresy/ Scripture tells us that
without faith justification is impossible ; and what, Sher
lock asks, can that faith be but the faith of the Catholic
Church? No faith can be necessary to salvation if the
Catholic faith is not necessary. We are not saved by works
but by the Catholic faith. Baptism, by which we are incor
porated into the body of Christ, is only administered to
adult persons on condition of faith, and without this faith
204 KELIGUOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. there can be no salvation. With Sherlock these words did
not mean nothing. He accepted the legitimate inference
from them that ' neither Jews, Turks, nor heathens, none
but believing Christians are in a state of salvation, however
morally virtuous their lives may be/ To maintain the con
trary was but, he said, to make the Christian religion a new
and more perfect sect of philosophy than had existed before.
Faith in the Trinity is necessary to baptism, and baptism is
necessary to salvation ; therefore the inference of the creed
is just, ' He that does not thus think of the Trinity without
doubt shall everlastingly perish/
How we are to think of the Trinity Dr. Sherlock explains
in harmony, as he supposes, with the Athanasian creed. The
Three persons three persons are not in ' one numerical substance ' but in
stance G ' ' one undivided substance/ nor ' three divided persons in
this one undivided substance, but three persons which may
be three and yet not divided, but intimately united to each
other in one undivided substance/ The Divine essence or
substance is ' numerically one ' as there is but one God. The
difficulty is how three distinct substantive persons can sub
sist in one undivided essence. fl will not/ Sherlock says,
' pretend to fathom such a mystery as this, but only to show
that there is nothing absurd in it/ What is it which con
stitutes the numerical oneness of a finite created spirit,
which has no parts or dimensions ? The answer is ' self-
consciousness/ One spirit is not conscious of the thoughts
and passions of another spirit. But if three spirits were
conscious of each other's thoughts and passions as each is of
its own, they might then be said to be numerically one. In
that case each spirit would be as much one with the other as
it is with itself. This, it is suggested, may help us to un
derstand ( the great and venerable mystery of a Trinity in
Unity/ The three divine persons are three infinite minds,
really distinct from each other. The Father is not the Son,
nor is the Son the Holy Ghost, yet Jesus said, ' I and my
Father are one/ John wrote his gospel to prove that Jesus
was the eternal Son of God, — His Logos, Wisdom, or Reason.
In the same gospel there is a prayer in which Jesus asks
that all His disciples might be one with Him as He is one
with the Father. This unity, according to Dr. Sherlock,
DK, WALLIS. 205
is not the same as the other. "Between the Father and the CHAP. IX.
Son there is a perfect harmony, ' resulting from their being
in one another.' But such a union being supposed impos
sible between God and man, it is concluded that the union
of the disciples is only a moral union. It resembles the
unity of the Godhead, but it is not the same. Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost are three distinct infinite persons or minds.
They are not mere powers or faculties of the same Being,
but three intelligent Beings. Homoousion, according to
Patavius, did not mean with the old Fathers a numerical
oneness, but a oneness of specific nature. To the same
effect Gregory of Nyssa is quoted, saying that it is improper
to call three persons as Peter, James, and John three men.
They have but one humanity, one specific nature. As there is
one humanity in Peter, James, and John, so there is, Sher
lock says, one { Godhead in the three persons, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost/ The difficulty is no difficulty to those who
can contemplate God as a simple act or energy.
In the same year, 1690, Dr. John Wallis published the Dr. Wallis on
first of his ' Letters on the Trinity/ Wallis had been edu- the Trinity>
cated at Cambridge under Whichcot, and was suspected of
Latitudinarianism, but he had devoted his life to mathematics
rather than to theology. In a ' Letter to a Friend ' he briefly
explained the doctrine of ' the Ever Blessed Trinity in
opposition to Arians, Socinians, and all anti-Trinitarians/
He showed that the doctrine of the Trinity was no contra
diction, but a doctrine explicable to reason. Taking the
words of Scripture he found three persons distinctly men
tioned, distinguished from each other, and to each of whom
Divinity was ascribed. And yet he said it is agreed on all
sides that there is but one God. The three persons were
the Father, who was said to beget, the Son, who was said to
be begotten, and the Holy Ghost, who was said to e pro
ceed/ It is admitted that we do not understand the dis
tinctions of the three persons, nor even what is meant by
the things predicated of each person ; that, in fact, person
when applied to Deity is not the same as when applied to
man. The Socinians, Dr. Wallis says, refuse to believe the
Trinity because it is supposed to be inconsistent with na
tural reason. They do not openly reject the authority of
206 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. the Scriptures, but they put "a forced meaning on the words
which changes the sense. Our business is to inquire if the
doctrine be possible,, and then if it be true. It is shown
that it is not impossible. There are three ' somewhats/
commonly called 'persons/ and these are one God. The
word f person ' is applied to God only once in the Scrip
tures,* and that plainly not in the same sense in which we
speak of a man as a person. ' It is enough for us if these
may be so distinguished as that one be not the other and
yet all but one God/ This is illustrated by a cubical body
which has three dimensions, length, breadth, and height, and
yet the body is but one. To be, to know, and to do, are
three things distinct from each other, and yet it is the same
soul which is, which knows, and which acts. Dr. Wallis
defended the doctrine of the Trinity as explained in the
Athanasian creed, but he did not think the damnatory
clauses had regard to every particular in the explication.
Dr. Jane an- Dr. William Jane addressed, through a mutual friend, a
' letter to Dr . Wallis concerning this explanation of the
Trinity. He expressed fears that the school Trinitarians
would not be satisfied with his definition of personality as
simply that by which the three persons were distinguished.
He mentioned that Dr. Sherlock had called them ' three
separate minds or beings/ and had pronounced all theories
opposed to his to be heresy and nonsense. Dr. Jane ap
proved in the main of Dr. Wallis's illustrations and com
parisons, but he showed that it was never said of one dimen
sion of a cube that it is a cube, whereas it is said of each
person in the Trinity that He is God. He concluded with
an exhortation not to spin cobwebs out of our own bowels,
but to be content with what is revealed to us in Scripture
concerning these mysteries.
Dr. Wallis answered that this really was his design. He
did not determine what a person or a personality is. He
simply used the words to express a difference which ho
could not define. In a third letter he explained and vindi
cated the Athanasian creed, adding a postscript concerning
an answer to his first letter. This answer was one of
Firmin's tracts. It professed to be an answer by Dr.
* Heh. i. 3.
DR. YTALLIS. 207
Wallis's friend. He had shown Dr. Wallis's letter to a gen- CHAR IX.
tleman, reputed a Unitarian or Socinian, in the expecta- j)r ^allig
tion that it would convert him, but it had no such, effect, answered by i
Dr. Wallis, he said, had entirely misrepresented their doc
trines. In the first place they did not reject the plain testi
mony of the Scriptures when it seemed inconsistent with na
tural reason. This was shown from Socinus, Schlichtingius,
and Smalcius, who all declare expressly that reason being
fallible Scripture is the only sure guide. Dr. Wallis, the
writer said, had only quoted two texts for the Trinity, and
one of them was that in John concerning the three wit
nesses, which had been rejected by the most learned Trini
tarians. The other was the formula of baptism in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But it was said of the
Israelites that they were baptized into Moses, yet from this
it was not to be inferred that Moses was a person of the
Godhead. It was maintained against Dr. Wallis, that the
Trinity in the time of the Council of Nice was not merely
numerical, but really meant three persons united in one
Deity. The illustration from the cube was unfairly ridi
culed. It was only an illustration, and not meant for more
than to show the possibility of three things being one in
some other respect than that in which they are three. To this
answer was added a postscript animadverting on Dr. Wallis's
answer to Dr. Jane, and showing that between the person
of God and the person of Christ Scripture did make a
marked distinction. The one is called the only true God the
Father, and the other Jesus Christ whom the Father hath
sent.
Dr. Wallis's ' Third Letter ' was answered in a pamphlet
called ' An Answer to Dr. Wallis's Three Letters concern
ing the Doctrine of the Trinity.' This was written by an By an Arian.
Arian, who dwelt chiefly on the impossibility of three being
one. Dr. Wallis answered it in a ' Fourth Letter/ which was
followed by ' Observations on the Four Letters of John Wallis,'
in Firmin's series, professedly by the author of the former
tracts. He denies that the Socinians ever refused to admit
that what is but one in one respect may be three in another.
Their objection to the Trinity is that it is not in the Scrip
tures. It is not said one is three or that three is one. Dr.
208 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. Wallis's ' somewhats ' are again ridiculed, and lie is rallied
with teaching that for salvation it is necessary to believe
' nobody knows what/ Dr. Sherlock's explanation is ex
amined, and his three ' infinite rninds ' placed over against
Dr. WalhVs three 'nothings/ The persons are not persons,
the distinctions are only names, and in this sense the writer
says the Socinians are as much Trinitarians as Dr. Wallis
professes to be. The Unitarians are again defended by
numerous quotations from the charge of denying the autho
rity of Scripture, or in any way seeking to make it bend to
natural reason.
The ' Arian ' vindicated himself against Dr. Wallis's
1 Fourth Letter/ and was answered in a Fifth. These were
both very short, and contained nothing of any interest.
In a ' Sixth Letter' Dr. Wallis answered the ' Observations '
Dr. Wallis de- on the first four letters. He defended his illustrations, still
e maintaining that the Trinity was no contradiction, but a
principle of reason admitted by Socinians as well as by
Trinitarians. The favourite Socinian argument was that
the Father alone is God, on the ground of the text, fto
know Thee the only true God/ To this Dr. Wallis answers,
that to say the Son or the Holy Ghost is not God, because
the Father is the only true God, is like saying that because
the God of Abraham is the true God, therefore the God of
Isaac or Jacob is not the true God. It is shown, moreover,
that of all men the Socinians have the least ground for
calling the Father the only true God. He was not the
Father on their theory till Christ was born into the world.
The name God therefore does not belong to Him as Father
but as God.
Dr. Jane re- j)r< Jane wrote a second letter to Dr. Wallis, in which
lock's view "of he professed to receive the Trinity as Sherlock meant it,
the Trinity but not the terms by which Sherlock explained it. Three
but rejects his . ... . ' . , . , . / .
explanations, beings really distinct, were, he said, in the plain language
of reason, three essences. If they are distinct, as Peter,
James, and John are distinct, then they can only be one, as
Peter, James, and John are one. If they are three substan
tial beings, they must be three substances. Sherlock calls
them spirits, and a spirit is a substance in the sense of the
creeds and of Heb. i. 3. That three substances should be
DR. SOUTH. 20Q
distinct, each of them God, and yet but one God, is contrary CHAP. IX.
to our ideas of number. They may be in union, but that is
not unity. The soul and the body are united. The human
soul of Christ was in personal or hypostatical union with
the Logos, but this union did not make them one substance.
To affirm ' three infinite minds' to be only one God, seems
to be saying and unsaying the same thing with the same
breath. The Athanasian Creed is very guarded. It gives
the number ' three ' only to the persons, not three ' Eternals/
nor three ' Incomprehensibles/ nor three ' Almightys.' Dr.
Jane says that all this is the evident conclusion of our facul
ties. What there may be in the infinite nature which is
beyond us, he will not undertake to determine ; but where
our faculties are at a loss we should keep to the words of
Scripture. The nexus of self-consciousness by which Dr.
Sherlock makes the three one. Dr. Jane thinks insufficient.
If a good and bad angel were made mutually conscious of
one another's thoughts, they would not thereby become one.
If the hypothesis were pressed to its logical conclusion, it
would come, Dr. Jane says, to three gods or a hypostatical
union of three divine spirits. Dr. Jane recommended care
not to impose our inferences with the same rigour as we
ought to do revealed truth. ' The angels/ he added, 'it
may be, think us as foolish and ridiculous for pursuing these
notions, as we think ourselves wise and learned in such
pursuits/ Dr. Wallis replied in a seventh letter, express
ing his entire agreement with Dr. Jane. He did not like
Sherlock's expressions, but, instead of writing against them,
he preferred explaining the Trinity as it seemed explicable
to himself. The distinction between the persons, he said,
was more than notional, or that of different attributes ; but
it is not a distinction of three Gods. Dr. Jane wrote a third
letter, in which he explained that by keeping to the Scrip
tures he did not mean not exercising our judgment, but
recognizing the necessary limits of our faculties.
Sherlock was specially answered by Dr. South, who wrote South answers
' Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book entitled " A Vin-
dication of the Ever Blessed Trinity." He promised in the
title-page to vindicate this article of the Christian faith from
Sherlock's ' new notions and false explications.' South
VOL. II. P
210 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. dedicated his book fto Sherlock's admirers/ and in what
was supposed to be commendable wit in an orthodox divine,
' to himself the chief of them !' South hated Sherlock for
many things. He hated him for taking the oaths, though
South himself did not cast in his lot with the Jacobites, and
he hated him for writing against Calvinism in the treatise
on f The Knowledge of Christ/ That treatise, South said,
was so ' fraught with vile and scandalous reflections upon
God's justice with reference to Christ's satisfaction that it
might pass for a blasphemous libel on both.' Sherlock, in
his zeal for natural religion, had said that without revela
tion men would have concluded the divine forgiveness.
South, who was as orthodox as he was scurrilous, called this
' a gross paradox and a scurvy blow at all revealed religion.'
He pronounces the doctrine of satisfaction in its grossest
form to be the doctrine of the Church — the form in which
Sherlock called it ' God's truckling and bartering with sin
and the devil for His glory.' At these words the pious soul
of the orthodox John Owen was horrified, and the facetious
Dr. South rejoicingly participated in the Puritan's horror.
Mystery dc- In the preface, South gives a definition of mystery. He
calls it ' a truth revealed by God, above the power of natural
reason to discover.' This definition is said to exclude every
thing which might be called an absurdity or a contradiction.
The revelation of a mystery is described as the announce
ment of something that is mysterious, but not as the expla
nation of it. The Trinity, therefore, though a revealed doc
trine, is not explicable to reason. Sherlock's argument was
that unless we comprehend the thing of which we speak, it
is impossible for us to say what is or what is not a contra
diction. This word ' comprehend ' probably meant more than
Sherlock intended. He had already said that there was
nothing which we could perfectly understand, and yet he
had argued against transubstantiation, on the ground that
we know the nature of body. He seems to have meant the
same thing by knowing as by comprehending, and to have re
garded them as different from understanding perfectly. South
made a distinction between knowing and comprehending.
We can know God, he said, but we cannot comprehend
Him, that is we cannot know him in every respect. Slier-
DR. SOUTH. 211
lock was not a Latitudinarian, yet by occasional bounds he CHAP. IX.
went beyond the most pronounced of the Latitudinarians.
His Trinity was explicable to reason, yet it came, he said,
from the Scriptures and not from the schools. He preached
against philosophy and the corruptions it had introduced
into Christianity. Like the author of ' The Naked Gospel/
he pleaded for Scripture terms only. On this subject we
cannot reconcile Sherlock with himself. He denounced
philosophy, and yet he advocated the rights of reason. He
even said that he would not believe the gospel if it contra
dicted reason. He renounced philosophical explanations of
the Trinity, but only that he might give a philosophical ex
planation of the Trinity. "South maintained that reason had
the same difficulties with Scripture terms as with the terms
borrowed from philosophy. Truth and wisdom in their
ultimate or absolute ground were as incomprehensible as
essence and substance. The use, therefore, of philosophical
terms may help us to understand the Trinity so far as it is
knowable to the human mind.
]3eing, South defines as that^which is ; essence, that by
which_a_thing is what it is; existence, that mode of being
by which a thing jtands actually^roduced ; and subsistence,
asa mode of being by which^a thing existsjbv^ itself. Each
person in the Trinity has the same individual existence as
well as one and the same essence, and yet its own proper
distinct subsistence. In a created person subsistence and
BareTessence make a_composition, but in the divine nature
there is unity by an incomprehensible conjunction. Here,
then, we may have three persons or subsistences with one
essence. South' s Trinity is identical with that of Dr. Wallis.
Sherlock said that all we could know of the divine essence
is that God is an infinite mind. South answered that if this
be all, then God is not a substance, and if not a substance
He is nothing. Sherlock said that self- consciousness con- Person de
stituted personality. South answered that it presupposed finei1-
personality. The human nature of Christ, he said, is per
fectly conscious of all its internal acts and yet it is not a
person. The soul of man, separate from the body, is self-
conscious; but without the body it is not a person. It
requires the whole man to constitute a person. ' The rea-
p 2
212 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. sonable soul and human flesh is one man/ Now, if self-
consciousness is not the formal reason of personality in man,
it cannot be the formal reason of the personality of the
divine persons. Sherlock's hypothesis, according to South,
was unknown to the Fathers and the schoolmen. If it were
true, it would be as valid for proving three thousand persons
as three. To this Sherlock could only answer that three
was the number of persons mentioned in the Scriptures, and
his object was to show how the three might be one.
While this controversy was going on between Sherlock
and South, Thomas Firmin and his friends published ' A
Second Collection of Tracts, disproving the Doctrine of
Three Almighty and Equal Persons, Spirits, Modes, Sub
stances, or Somewhats in God; and of the Incarnation/*
Different The most important tract in this collection was called ' Con-
Trinity, siderations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity
by Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. South, Dr. Cudworth, and
Mr. Hooker ; as also on the account given by those that say
the Trinity is an unconceivable and inexplicable mystery/
This tract was written by the author of the ' Observations on
Dr. Wallis's Four Letters/ He repeats what he had said
before, that Dr. Wallis really was a Socinian without knowing
it, and that the Socinians were willing to accept the Trinity
as explained by him. And yet Dr. Wallis abuses Socinus,
with ' his dear and close friends, the Unitarians/ as heretics.
The University of Oxford, and many learned Trinitarians,
had approved his doctrine. But a Trinity of attributes
cannot be a Trinity of persons. God in three relations is
but one person, not three. The writer, taking Dr. Wallis's
words, that God is three persons in the different offices of
Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, maintains that this is not
the old orthodox Trinity. That Trinity was from all eter
nity. The Athanasian Creed said 'co-eternal;' the Nicene,
' before all worlds/ But the works of creation, redemption,
and sanctification fall within the bounds of time. Sher
lock's Trinity, the writer says, is taken from Descartes, and
consists of three infinite minds. Cudworth's is that of
Plato, three divine co-eternal persons, of whom the second
* It is probable that these tracts were collected into volumes,
were published separately before they
JOHN HOWE. 213
and third are inferior to the first. South' s Trinity was that CHAP. IX.
of Aristotle, which attributed to the divine persons the same
numerical substance. It was revived by Peter Lombard, South' s view
accepted by the Fourth Lateran Council, and has been schoolmen,
received as Catholic by all Popes since Innocent III.
Hooker's Trinity was one of ' properties.' The substance of
God, with the property 'to be of none/ was the Father.
With the property ' to be of the Father/ the same substance
was the Son. And with the property of ' proceeding from
other two/ it was the Holy Ghost. To these is added the
'mystical Trinity/ or that which refuses explication under
the name of mystery. The writer again sums them up in
this fashion. Dr. South's explication is 'an absurd Soci-
nianism.' Dr. Wallis's 'an ingenious Sabellianism/ which
differs from Unitarianism only in words. Dr. Sherlock's is
' a flat Tritheism.' Dr. Cudworth's ' a modified Arianism.'
Hooker's ' a Trinity, not of persons, but of contradictions/
The last is the Trinity of the vulgar. For want of another
name, it is called Samaritanism. They worship they know
not what.
The ' Considerations ' were answered by John Howe in John Howe
'A Calm and Sober Inquiry concerning the Possibility of a ontheTrinity
Trinity in the Godhead.' Howe avoids many questions
raised in the ' Considerations,' keeping close to the thesis of
the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead. He declines
also all discussion about the indefinite word 'person.' It -is
regarded as defensible, but, as it is not found in Scripture,
its use is not imperative. The Scriptures speak of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost in the Godhead. A true distinction
must be admitted, otherwise they cannot be three. We
cannot determine what may be contained in the divine
nature consistently with its unity and simplicity. That
nature in its fulness is beyond our faculties. But in the
creature we have ' prints and characters ' of the all-perfect
Creator. We find in ourselves three natures, ( the vegetative,
sensitive, and the intellective,' and yet we ' have but one
human nature/ Again, we have a mind and a body, a
somewhat that thinks l and a somewhat that cannot think.'
These two are sufficiently distinct, and yet they are one
man. If God can unite a body and a soul into one man,
214
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. why may not two spirits be united? And if two, why not
three? Spinoza had shown that the unification of spirits
was easier than that of bodies and minds. Howe does not
care for Spinoza. The theological pantheist had no diffi
culty with the Trinity in the Godhead, but his argument
was dangerous. The Scriptures authorize us to think of a
threefold distinction in the Deity, and this is to be limited
only by the unity of the Godhead. This trinal conception
of Deity is as much revealed as the divine unity or simplicity.
Howe objects to Sherlock's hypothesis that it leaves out the
nexus, or ' natural eternal union,' by which the three are
one. Mutual consciousness is the result, not the cause of
the union. It would not constitute three spirits one, for
they might have a mutual insight into each other's thoughts
without a substantial unity. There must be such a union
as that of body and soul to make a real unity. This is
supposed to be the best representation of the union with
distinction of the Trinity in the Godhead. Howe adds that
God speaks to us as men, and will not blame us for con
ceiving of things so infinitely above us according to the
capacity of our natures, so long as we do not make ourselves
the measure of Him. Between God and us there is a like
ness, but with an ' infinite unlikeness.'
To the ' Calm and Sober Enquiry ' Howe added some
letters which he had written to Dr. Wallis. He suggested
the possibility of a wider distinction than that of modes.
He objected to the use of the word ' person' in Dr. Wallis's
sense. Hypostasis in Heb. i. 3, the authority which Dr.
Wallis quoted, was not to be identified with the Latin ' per
sona ' in the sense that one might act the parts of different
characters or persons. On Dr. Wallis' s hypothesis, there
seemed to be but one real hypostasis in the Godhead, and if
but one, then the incarnation of the Son was impossible
without also the incarnation of the Father and the Holy
Ghost. To make the persons only modes, Howe said, was
nothing more than Uiiitarianism. By three persons the or
thodox have always understood three intelligent hypostases.
Sherlock dealt with Howe in a postscript to his ' Defence '
in answer to South. He was scarcely less indignant that n
Person not
the same as
substance.
Nonconformist should almost
with him than that
UNITARIAN TRACTS. 215
the virulent South should abuse him for a heretic and CHAP. IX.
an idolater. He was satisfied that Howe had successfully
defended him from the charge of Tritheism. But he would
shrink from the responsibility of saying what Howe had
said concerning the persons of the Trinity. Howe had sup
posed three spirits, united eternally but never identified,
each having its individual essence, so that the three were
never one, except by such union as unites a body to a soul.
Sherlock held up Howe as a genuine Tritheist. But for
himself and his own theory, Tritheism was a charge which
could only be made ' by the malice of implacable enemies/
In 1695 Thomas Firming friends issued ' A Third Collec- Firmin's
tion of Tracts/ The first was by the chief writer in the two icction of
former series, who undertook to refute every Trinitarian of Tracts.'
every kind that had appeared in that age. In the list were
included Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Burnet, Fowler, and Howe,
as well as South and Sherlock. He begins with Stilling-
fleet's sermon in ' Vindication of the Mysteries of the Chris
tian Faith/ Stillingfleet's first position is that ' God may
require justly of us to believe on His word what we cannot
comprehend/ This is admitted to be true, but not to the
purpose. We converse every day with things that we can
not comprehend. All the works of God have upon them the
signature of incomprehensibility. We do not comprehend
the least spire of grass. All the chemists in the world, and
all the members of the Royal Society, are not able to make a
barleycorn or a grain of wheat. These are mysteries which
we cannot comprehend. But the articles of the Athanasian
Creed, the writer says, are not denied because they are mys
teries, or because we do not comprehend them. They are
denied because we can comprehend them. We have a clear
and distinct perception that they are not mysteries, but
1 contradictions, impossibilities, and pure nonsense/ Our
reason would be given us in vain, all science and certainty
would be destroyed, if we could not distinguish between
mysteries and impossibilities. The Bishop's first point is
granted, as not touching the Unitarians.
The second is that ' there is no greater difficulty in the
conception of a Trinity, or the Incarnation, than there is in
the conception of eternity/ This is admitted to be to the
2l6 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CIIAr. IX. purpose, but denied to be true. In previous tracts it had
been shown that in the orthodox Trinity and Incarnation
there were many contradictions. Stillingfleet says that ' if
God was for ever, He must be from Himself/ which implies
that God was before He was. The writer of the tract
answers he is sorry that an eternal God must be a con
tradiction. Stillingfleet adopted the Platonic definition of
eternity, as expressed by Boethius, that it is ' a perfect and
complete possession of eternal life all at once/ The incom
patibility of this with the idea of duration Stillingfleet called
a difficulty not to be explained, and the Unitarian called it
a contradiction. Stillingfleet's third proposition is that
' the way or manner of saving sinners by the Lord Jesus
Christ, which is taught by the Church, is more for the
benefit and advantage of mankind than the other way is.'
This the writer of the tract says is not to the purpose. The
question is not which way is the more advantageous, but
which is true. It is, however, denied to be more advan
tageous. The conditions required from us are the same on
both schemes. On the side of God the only difference is
that the Trinitarian says Christ satisfied the justice of God
on our behalf, and the Unitarian that Christ ' prevailed on
the mercy of God for us/ Stillingfleet is charged with mis
representing the Unitarian doctrine of the atonement. Uni-
Unitarians tarians never, the writer says, 'denied that Jesus Christ
A * 1 4- A
the expiatSy mac^e Himself a voluntary sacrifice for the expiation of the
sacrifice of sins of mankind. They ever acknowledged that the Lord
Christ was an expiatory sacrifice for our sins, as may be seen
in the Racovian Catechism, in the Epistles of Schlichtingius
and of the excellent Ruarus, as also in our late prints in the
English tongue. What we deny is this, that this sacrifice
was by way of true and proper satisfaction, or full and
adequate payment to the justice of God. We say this sacri
fice, as all other sacrifice, was only an oblation or application
to the mercy of God. A sacrifice it was, which it pleased
God to accept for us, though He might have refused it.
And for this reason it is said all along in Holy Scripture
that God forgives to us our sins, and not that He received a
satisfaction or an equivalent for them/
Bishop Burnet's sermon was on the divinity and death of
UNITARIAN TRACTS. 217
Christ. It is the second of the four sermons addressed to CHAP. IX.
the clergy of his diocese. The Bishop does not approve of Bishop~Bur-
any of the explanations of the Trinity that had been made net on the
either by Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, or John Howe. He
speaks of the ancients — that is, the~ old philosophers and
Church Fathers — as inclining to views nearly identical with
those of Sherlock, but the schoolmen to the views of Wallis
or South ; and he intimates that the latter were the ' dregs
either of the ^Eones, of the Yalentinian heretics, or of Pla
tonic notions/ This being the case, the Unitarian answers
that Trinitarians should ' not lay so great a stress as they
do on the doctrine of the Trinity/ Burnet prefers to speak
of the Trinity as simply 'the Blessed Three/ He would
not object to the word ' persons/ provided he could be sure
that it would be understood as he intended it. The principlo
is accepted that there are things which we must confess to
exist, and yet there may be such difficulties as amount to a
demonstration against them. We believe in bodies and in
motion, 'yet their nature is encumbered with insuperable
difficulties/ The Unitarian answers that we have not such
evidence for the existence of the Trinity as for that of bodies
and motion. We have neither the testimony of sense nor
reason. We have not the authority of one genuine text of
Scripture. Sandius is referred to for quotations from many
learned Trinitarians who say that without the authority of
the Church the Trinity cannot be proved from Scripture.
The Bishop argued for the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ
from the worship which was commanded to be paid to Him,
and which was paid to Him, in the New Testament. The
tract-writer admits the worship, but denies the validity of
the inference. In 1 Chron. xxix. 20, we read that all the
congregation worshipped the Lord and the King. To God
they gave the worship that was due to Him as God, and to
the King that reverence which was due to him as King.
We must bow to the Saviour. The very angels of God must
worship Him. But, the Unitarian says. He is to be wor- Unitarians
shipped not as God, but as the Intercessor, the Head over
all things to His Church, the Teacher and Lawgiver. Bur-
net, like Stillingfleet, had misunderstood the Unitarian view
of the atonement. He supposed it to be a denial of Christ's
218
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT
ENGLAND.
Till ot son
on the
Trinity.
CHAP. IX. ' expiatory or propitiatory sacrifice/ The writer of this tract
shows that it is really identical with that adopted by Burnet
in this sermon. f In giving his opinion concerning the
satisfaction by the Lord Christ, he doth not say, with others
of his party, that it was a strict or plenary satisfaction) but
only that God accepted it. This is to say, the satisfaction of
Christ was not rendered to the justice of God as an equiva
lent amends or satisfaction, but to His mercy as a supplica
tion, and as such accepted, and this the Socinians not only
grant but contend for/
After proving that Dr. Sherlock is as much a Socinian as
Dr. Wallis, and that Bishop Fowler and John Howe are
simple Tritheists," the writer comes at last to Archbishop
Tillotson. The sermons criticized were Four Sermons on
the Death of Christ, preached in St. Lawrence Jewry in
1679 and 1680. They were not published till 1693. The
reason of their being published is prefixed in an ' advertise
ment/ It was ' the importunate clamours and malicious
calumnies ' of those who said that the Archbishop was not
sound on the doctrine of the Trinity. When the Archbishop
published his sermons, he gave one of the first copies to
Thomas Firmin. And when the tract we are now exa
mining was published, Firmin went to Lambeth and pre
sented a copy to the Archbishop, who told him that he had
a great respect for many Socinians because of their learning,
their sincerity, and their exemplary lives, but that he alto
gether disapproved of their doctrines. Afterwards, when
he had read the ' Explications/ he said to Firmin, ' My Lord
of Sarum shall humble your writers/
Tillotson's Four Sermons were on the text, fThe Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us/ Taking these words
with the context, he urged them as a clear declaration of
Christ's divinity. The interpretation usually put on them
by Socinians was as applicable, he said, to the first chapter
of Genesis, or any other chapter, as to the first verses of
St. John. Wit and fancy may allegorize anything, and put
a meaning into a passage different from its real one, but the
true meaning of this text is too obvious to be overlooked.
The Unitarian writer never fails so thoroughly as in his
effort to answer this argument. He says that the opening
The Word
made flesh.
UNITARIAN TRACTS. 2 19
verses of the fourth. Gospel prove only Arianism at most. CKAP. IX.
He disputes what Tillotson said of the object of the writer
of the Gospel, and he ends with casting doubts on its genu
ineness. It was not received, he says,, by the ancient Uni
tarians, who usually ascribed it to the heretic Cerinthus.
The ' Considerations on the Explications ' were answered Dr. Williams
by John Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester. He jj^8 Til-
defended the genuineness of St. John's Gospel and the
Archbishop's interpretation of the first verses. The old
Unitarians, he said, had tried to prove that this Gospel was
not genuine, because it overthrew their opinions. When
this failed, they invented interpretations which changed
St. John's meaning.
To this vindication by Dr. Williams was added a letter Bishop Bur-
from Bishop Burnet, defending his sermon. The chief point faction ^
of interest in this letter is Burnet's explanation of his view
of the atonement. He expresses surprise that any one
should say that the Socinians from the beginning regarded
the sacrifice of Christ as expiatory. Socinus, he says, did
not, and the Racovian Catechism is express against it.
Grotius asserted it, without insisting on the metaphysical
notions connected with it. But Crellius answered him,
advocating the first notions of Socinus. Burnet charges the
author of the ' Considerations ' with omitting some of his
words which affected the sense. His doctrine was that
Christ died not only for our good, but in our stead. Sub
stantially, however, Burnet' s sense was given. He says that
he avoided the niceties introduced by Auselni and the
schoolmen about the antecedent necessity of a satisfaction
or an equivalent. They are not in the Scriptures and are
no part of the doctrine of the Church of England. He
referred to the ( learned performance ' of Dr. Outram as
expressing the views generally received by the clergy. Our
Articles, he adds, determine nothing on the subject, but rest
in the general notion of expiation and of reconciling us to
God.
The only one of the Firmin tracts which requires further ' The Agree-
notice is called ' The Agreement of the Unitarians with the Un^tarian^
Catholic Church/ It contained a reply to Edwards against with the
Locke on the ' Reasonableness of Christianity/ to Bishop church°'
220
RELIGIOUS TU OUGHT IN ENGLAND.
No real dif
ference be
tween Uni
tarians and
Trinitarians.
CHAP. IX. Williams, Bishop Burnet, and some other advocates of the
doctrine of the Trinity. The greater part of this tract is
printed at the end of the Life of Thomas Firmin, under the
title of ' An Account of Mr. Firmin's Religion/ The prin
ciple underlying it is that there is really no difference,
except in words, between Unitarian and Trinitarian. Ed
wards charged the Socinians with admitting that there were
errors in the Bible, which is indignantly denied. A series
of propositions laid down by Edwards, containing popular
charges against the Unitarians, are examined- in order, and
answered in a way that would surprise many persons who
are unacquainted with the beginnings of Unitarianism. The
charges are crude enough, but the answers alone are of any
interest to us. The writer says that the Unitarians do not
deny three persons in the Godhead. What they deny is that
these three are eternal minds, spirits, or infinite subsistences.
The doctrine of the Nominals — that is, of Dr. South and Dr.
Wallis — ' is and ever was the belief of the Unitarians as well
as of the Catholic Church/ Christ is God in respect of a
hypostatical union with the Deity. The divinity was and is
always in Christ. ( More than this is the heresy of Eutyches,
and less we never held/ The Trinity of the schools and of
Augustine is accepted in the form of ' unbegotten wisdom or
mind, reflex or begotten wisdom, called in Scripture the
Logos, and the eternal spiration of divine love/ Propitia
tion by Christ's death, original sin in the sense of inherent
guilt, and revelation as distinguished from natural religion,
are distinctly advocated with as much fulness and clearness
as by many theologians whose orthodoxy was never sus
pected. There were some doctrines peculiar to Socinus
and the foreign Socinians, that were never received by the
English Unitarians. The answer to Burnet on the question
of satisfaction has some interest. It is re-asserted that the
Kacovian Catechism does teach that Christ's death was an
expiation or propitiation for sins.* It is maintained that
Dr. Outranks doctrine is in substance the same as has always
been taught by Socinians, and the writer is glad to learn
* This is correct. The Catechism underwent a bloody death as an ex-
says that 'Christ, by the divine will piatory sacrifice.' (P. 297, translation
and purpose, suffered for our sins and by Thomas Rees, 1818.)
SHERLOCK AGAINST REASON. 221
that it is generally received by the clergy of the Church of CHAP. IX.
England.
While the bishops were defending the Trinity against the Sherlock's
' Considerations ' of Thomas Firmin's friends, Dr. South had demne(i by
called to his aid the heads of the University of Oxford the
against the heresies of Dr. Sherlock. By a decree dated 8iy°
November 25th, 1695, Dr. Sherlock's doctrine of three
infinite minds was f judged, declared, and decreed false,
impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the
Catholic Church and the publicly received doctrine of the
Church of England/ On the previous Sunday Dr. South
preached before the University. His spirit being stirred
within him because of the prevailing idolatry, he called
upon the authorities to come forward to the condemnation
of ' Deism, Socinianism, and Tritheism, lest they should fall
from ecclesiastical grace and the door of preferment should
be shut against them/ Dr. Sherlock found the decree
written in Latin which defied the rules of syntax. He called
it ' a mere sham/ and wondered that anybody could imagine
that ' the heads of colleges and halls ' were the University of
Oxford.
The decree was refuted, and so was the refutation of the
decree. The whole world was against Sherlock, from the
Catholic Church to the Oxford doctors, from the schoolmen
to Dr. South. He was universally condemned as a setter-
forth of three gods. But the irrepressible Dean was valiant
against all his enemies. On Sunday, April 25th, 1697, in
the Guildhall chapel, before the ' Lord Mayor and Court of Sherlock
Aldermen/ he convicted his adversaries of ' corrupting the
faith by philosophy/ To denounce reason before
of Aldermen ' may have been fitting as to time and place,
bub it was scarcely becoming in a divine who had given the men.
most metaphysical explication of the Trinity ever announced
to the world. ' Beware/ said Dr. Sherlock, abusing the
words of St. Paul, flest any man spoil you through philo
sophy and vain deceit/ He adopted the specious argument
that we are to distinguish between philosophy and the faith
of Christ, as if this could be done without the exercise of
reason, which is the foundation of all philosophy. The Bible
Sherlock denned as revelation. The oldest parts are the
222
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX.
Declares that
what Scrip
ture says
is to be
received,
though con
trary to rea
son.
books of Moses. If they contain any tiling contrary to
reason and philosophy, then that which is contrary to reason
and philosophy is to be received. This principle is applied
to all the doctrines of Christianity, yet with the provision
that we must understand what the Scriptures really teach
concerning these doctrines. Revelation — that is, the Bible
— reveals the supernatural, as sense and reason reveal the
natural. Revelation does not tell us how anything exists,
but only makes known that it does exist. This sermon did
not escape criticism. Its ' dangerous heterodoxies ' were set
forth in a treatise on ' The Doctrine of the Catholic Church
and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed
Trinity/ Whatever is against reason, the writer said, is
folly and falsehood. If the articles of faith are against
reason and philosophy, so much the worse for them. Sher
lock is reminded of a passage from his ' Vindication of the
Trinity/ where he says he would not believe Scripture if it
contradicted the plain dictates of reason. He is told that
the doctrine of the Catholic Trinity is not a mystery, that it
is not incomprehensible, and that all the mysteriousness and
incomprehensibility belong only to his own heresy, which
has been condemned by the universal consent of councils
and universities, philosophy and reason.
Dr. Thomas Burnet, Master of the Charterhouse, was con
nected with Sherlock and South in a popular satire.* He
* Tune, l^L Soldier and a Sailor*
A Dean and Prebendary
Had once a new vagary,
And were at doubtful strife, sir,
Who led the better life, sir,
And was the better man,
And was the better man.
The Dean he said that truly,
Since Bluff was so unruly,
He'd prove it to his face, sir,
That he had the most grace, sir,
And so the fight began, etc.
When Preb replied like thunder,
And roared out 'twas no wonder,
Since gods the Dean had three, sir,
And more by two than he, sir,
For he had got but one, etc.
Now while these two were raging,
And in dispute engaging,
The Master of the Charter
Said both had caught a Tartar,
For gods, sir, there were none, etc.
That all the books of
Were nothing but supposes ;
That he deserved rebuke, sir,
Who wrote the Pentateuch, sir ;
'Twas nothing but a sham, etc.
That as for Father Adam,
With Mrs. Eve, his madam,
And what the serpent spoke, sir,
'Twas nothing but a joke, sir,
And well-invented flam, etc.
Thus in the battle royal,
As none would take denial,
The dame for which thev strove, sir,
Could neither of them love, sir,
Since all had given offence, etc.
She therefore, slily waiting,
Left all these fools a-prating,
And being in a fright, sir,
Keligion took her night, sir,
And ne'er was heard of since,
And ne'er \sas heard of since.
DK. THOMAS BURNET. 223
took no part in the Trinitarian controversy, but his ' Archaeo- CHAP. IX.
logiae Philosophical was published in 1692, soon after South' s Dr -fhoT^as
' Animadversions/ In this work Burnet treated the Mosaic Bumet's « Ar-
accounts of Adam and Paradise as Eastern fables or myths, ph7ios°ophi-
which, though not literally true, represent some moral truths, cae.'
To the multitude of people at that time this seemed a far
greater heresy than denying the Trinity or dispensing with
the ancient Creeds.
Several years before the publication of the ' Archaeologise
Philosophic^/ Dr. Burnet had published his celebrated
work on ' The Theory of the Earth/ This work was mainly His ' Theory
founded on Scripture, but under the guidance of the avowed of the Earth-'
principle that the authority of Scripture was not to be em
ployed in questions concerning the natural world in oppo
sition to reason. This did not mean that the Scriptures
had not authority, but only that our interpretation of them
might be wrong, and it might be dangerous to that autho
rity to oppose it to evident natural facts. Augustine had
clearly laid down this rule, and yet he violated it in main
taining from Scripture the impossibility of Antipodes. Bur-
net says that no truth concerning the natural world can be
an enemy to religion, for truth cannot be an enemy to truth,
and God cannot be divided against Himself. Religion is
not to be afraid of new theories in science, and when their
truth is established it must be acknowledged. The present
theory is to support the Scriptural doctrines of 'the uni
versal deluge' and 'a paradisiacal state/ The sacred histories
are to be confirmed by the light of nature and philosophy.
The paradisiacal state of the earth is supposed to have
existed until the Flood. There were then no mountains nor No sens nor
oceans. The great abyss was in the heart of the earth.
The surface was nearly level and covered with blooming
fields and placid winding rivers. There was no distinction
of seasons but a perpetual equinox. The few changes in
the atmosphere were the cause of the longevity of the first
inhabitants of the world. It was truly the golden age,
which was no mere fable of the poets, but the actual state
of the world before the Flood, the world as God made it
when He pronounced it good.
If the earth had been in the, same state as it is now, a
224 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. universal deluge would have been impossible. All the
water in all the oceans put together would have been
insufficient to cover the tops of the mountains, and if water
sufficient had been found it could not have been removed in
the four or five months mentioned in Genesis. The account
of the water given by Moses, is that the abyss of the great
deep was broken up. The earth was rent and the waters
under the earth burst forth and overflowed the world. In
How the this cataclysm, according to Burnet. the mountains were
mountains J
were formed, formed. The abysses were the valleys, and the parts of
earth that did not break were the mountains. This is illus
trated by an arch of a bridge falling into a river. The
pillars of the arch remain far above the waters, but sloping
downwards to the bottom of the river are stones rolled upon
each other in the same kind of confusion as we now see in
the bosom of the earth, which everywhere bears marks of
a ruin. The crags and cliffs, the seashore and the moun
tain-sides, all speak of a disruption. The order of nature
has been broken. The very rocks are recumbent or pro
strate, showing some kind of dislocation from their natural
position.
St. Peter on This theory of the paradisiacal earth is thought to be
fore the Flood, sanctioned by St. Peter, who speaks of the world before
the Flood as ' the earth standing out of the water and in the
water / or, as Burnet translates the words, ' consisting of
water and by water/ It was in the condition of being
easily destroyed by a deluge. ]t is now in the condition
of being easily destroyed by fire. This last purification
will be its restoration. Then shall come the new ' heavens
and the new earth/ that is the present earth restored to its
primal condition. Paradise shall be restored. The re
newed earth shall have an eternal spring. The mountains
shall flee away and ( there shall be no more sea/
Dr. Burnet did not escape the suspicion of heresy, even
for this very orthodox theory of the earth. The old Bishop
Dr. Burnet' s of Hereford, Herbert Croft, who in other days had himself
fated by** been outlawed for a heretic, wondered where were all the
Biahop Croft, learned men of the universities, and what ( the governors of
the Church were doing that they suffered such perversions
of Scripture to pass unnoticed/ The Bishop believed that
CHARLES BLOUNT. 225
Burnet had been in the moon, and under the influence of CHAP. IX.
that wandering planet had ceased to be quite sane. Ho
wrote ( Animadversions on the Theory of the Earth/ in
which he found Burnet wresting the Scripture to support
his theories. Burnet supposed that the inhabitants of
America who had got there before the Flood, were preserved,
as Noah was, only in some other ark. But Bishop Croft held
to the words of Scripture, that by the family of Noah the
whole earth was overspread. In the ' Archaeologies Phi
losophise ' Burnet takes greater licence with the literal
meaning of the Scriptures. He doubts if the serpent ever
had the power of speech. He does not regard the six days1
work as creation out of nothing, but only as formation. He The M<>saic
T . , . T . , i . , creation a
is not disposed to regard even the six days as literal, myth.
and he lays down broadly the principle that Moses, after
the Eastern custom, spoke of physical subjects in veiled or
figurative language. He ' passed by, for the most part,
physical truth/ and followed ' moral, or rather theological,
reasons in his narration of the world's original/ Burnet
also wrote a book concerning the state of the dead, in which
he maintained the sleep of the soul, and the resurrection,,
not of the body, but of a spiritual body which was properly
a new creation. Sleep, however, he explained not as un
consciousness, but as an imperfect state of existence be
tween death and the rehabilitation of the soul with a
glorified body.
Burnetts interpretations of Genesis were of some service Charles
to Charles Blounfc, one of the first who accepted the name and
of Deist. He connected them with the theological system of
Lord Herbert, showing the certainty of natural religion in
contrast with the uncertainty of what was called revelation.
The small volume of tracts that was published by Charles
Gildon after Blount' s death was one of the earliest avowals of
open Deism, and yet it was a Deism which meant little more
than doubts about the literal truth of Bible histories. The
volume was preceded by a memoir of Blount, and a vindi
cation of his committing suicide because he was unable to
marry the sister of his deceased wife. The act itself, with
Gildon's sentimental defence of it, approach very closely to
things which are generally labelled as silly. In the < Vindi-
VOL. u. o
226
EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. cation of Dr. Burnet/ Blount does not go beyond Burnet in
his view of the Scriptures. He docs not dispute tlie truth
of what they record, but he disputes the sense of many
things as they are usually understood. He gives them,
as Burnet sometimes did, a new sense. He says that Moses
makes Adam the father of the Jews only, but other Bible
writers make him, by hyperbole, the father of all men.
It is supposed to be improbable that the very day men were
made they should fall into sin. The benevolent Father of
all, the writer says, would not surely have placed His
creatures in such a dangerous state, that as soon as His
hand had finished His work they fell headlong to destruc
tion, ending in everlasting torment. Moses is supposed to
have followed the example of the lawgivers of antiquity, who
usually began with a cosmogony. Blount calls himself a
Deist, but by Deism he means natural religion, without
implying any necessary negation of Christianity. He argues,
as Lord Herbert had done, from natural reason, for the
existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the cer
tainty of rewards and punishments in the life to come.
Natural religion is said to be universal ; but revealed, from
its nature, must be only partial. The Scripture histories
are not taken in their literal sense, yet their divinity is
declared to be evident when compared with the scriptures
of other religions. Blount published a translation of Phi-
His ' Life of lostratus' ' Life of Apollonius/ which was supposed to be
intended to set forth the miracles of Apollonius as counter
parts to those of Jesus. But this is a mere inference.
There is no trace of any such design. On the contrary,
Blount advocated the probability of miracles, supposing them
necessary for establishing the truth of religion.
Nathaniel The ' Oracles of Reason ' were answered by Nathaniel
' The°Onu?les Taylor, minister at Pinners' Hall. In a facetious ' Epistle
of Reason.' to the Reader,' he says that the Deists who set up for
reason have ' no greater stock ' of it than their neighbours.
' The poison/ he adds, ' has been recommended to the world
by the alluring name of the Oracles of Reason, and there
can be no doubt, unless it be because of the weakness
and folly of them, by whom, they who have vented them,
were inspired. But the devil cannot always speak through
NATHANIEL TAYLOR.
227
the serpent. Sometimes he must use a duller animal.' CHAP. IX
Venomous creatures weave cobwebs, that are, however,
strong enough to hold some ' little insects/ Taylor is to
show the ' great advantage of revelation above reason/
He takes for illustration two points, the pardon of sin and
a future state of happiness. Preparatory to the argument
he recommends piety, humility, and knowledge. A pious
man has the witness in himself. He cannot doubt of
heaven when he finds that his soul is fitted for it. Like the
man in the Gospel he says, ' Why, herein is a marvellous
thing, that ye know not from whence He is, and yet He
hath opened mine eyes/ As a good constitution throws
off poison so the soul of a truly pious man is able to over
come doubts and difficulties. The new creature has a ' su
pernatural instinct/ It is this, and not ' dry reason/ which
makes Christians steadfast in the faith.
Humility is recommended, that we may not stumble at
mysteries, which should not be a prejudice against faith, but
an argument for it. We find mysteries in natural religion,
and should, therefore, expect them in revealed. The practical
part of Christianity, like the brighter colours of a picture,
is clear. The articles to be believed are the ' dark shades/
and ' must of necessity be obscure/ The foundation of so
great a building is laid ' underground, and out of sight/
By knowledge we are able to give reasons for faith. Chris
tianity is a religion worthy of God. We cannot but approve
of it as soon as it is proposed. It is suited to our wants.
It explains the great mystery of evil, which no human
wisdom could ever explain. The rapid progress of the
Gospel demonstrates its truth. God could never have
blessed and furthered a lie. After these arguments follow
those from the dispersion of the Jews, the frustration of
Julian's efforts to rebuild the temple by balls of fire from
heaven, the fulfilment of the prophecies of Daniel and
Isaiah, the ( Acts of Pilate/ and the awful death of Maxi-
mus, who forged new ( Acts of Pilate/ full of blasphemy
against Christ. The main argument is, that revelation Revelation
gives a certainty concerning the pardon of sin which reason
could never have done. Repentance, Taylor says, is not doctrine of
enough. There must be satisfaction, and we could only
Q2
be-
satisfaction.
228 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. know of the satisfaction through the Scriptures. This
argument is directed, finally, not merely against Blount,
but against Lord Herbert, Benjamin Whichcot, John Locke,
and all who supposed that God could forgive sin without
satisfaction to justice. To suppose this is to make reve
lation unnecessary. It is therefore Deism.
Charles Les- Charles Leslie's t Short and Easy Method with the
andEagr^Me- -Deists ' was another answer to the ' Oracles of Reason *
thod with the and Blount's ' Life of Apollonius.' It was in the form
of a letter to one whose 'unhappy circumstances' placed
him in company where all ' revealed religion was turned
into ridicule/* Leslie had been requested to give, if pos
sible, one clear ground of reason which would demonstrate
the truth of Christianity without the necessity of ' running
to authorities and the intricate mazes of learning/ The
method he laid down was first to establish the matters of
fact which are recorded of Jesus in the Gospels. These
being connected with miracles prove the truth of what He
taught. If, for instance, Moses really led the Israelites out
of Egypt in the miraculous manner recorded in Exodus, he
must have been sent from God. Several things are men
tioned which, coming together, place any event recorded
in history beyond the possibility of doubt. These are
shown to meet in the matters of fact recorded of Moses and
Jesus, while they are wanting to those recorded of Mahomet
and of heathen deities. They cannot in fact all be present
in any imposture whatever. Leslie calls them ' rules' or
criteria. They are, that the matters in question be such as
can be judged of by man's external senses ; that not only
public monuments exist in memory of them, but that some
outward actions be performed, and that the monuments,
actions, or observances date from the time of the events
commemorated. If Moses had not brought six thousand
men out of Egypt, after a sojourn of forty years, it is impos
sible that he could have persuaded the people to believe
what he records in the Pentateuch. He addressed his
history to those who had been witnesses of the events of
* The British Critic says that this thority, that the letter was addressed
person was the first Duke of Leeds, to a ' gentlewoman,' though begin-
Leslie's editor says, on Leslie's au- ning with 'sir.'
LESLIE'S ' SHORT AND EASY METHOD.3 22Q
which he speaks. Leslie argues that it is impossible any CHAP. IX.
one in a later age could have imposed on the Jewish nation The ^^ssi_
books of laws, persuading them that they had been acknow- bility of the
ledged by the nation since the time of Moses. The books MOSCS being
contain the histories of national observances which were forgeries.
held in commemoration of the events recorded. If they were
forgeries of a later age it must have been necessary to per
suade the people, contrary to what they knew, that they had
practised these observances from the time of Moses. Or if
they practised them before the books were forged, then the
people must have been persuaded to ascribe to them an
origin different from the true one. Leslie illustrates the
impossibility of this by supposing that he were to write a
book which explained the origin of Stonehenge as stones
set up in memory of the labours of Hercules, pretending
that his book was written in the time of Hercules. At
Gilgal stones were set up in memory of the passage
through the Bed Sea. The people were to teach their
children that they were the memorial of a great miracle
wrought in the days of their forefathers. To have per
suaded the people in a later age, by a forged history, that
this was not the origin of these stones would, according to
Leslie, have been as difficult as the accomplishment of the
object by the supposed book concerning Stonehenge. The
case of Moses being established, that of Jesus stands by the
same argument. The works of Jesus were done publicly.
They are commemorated by ordinances or memorials.
Since the time of their institution they have been cele
brated without interruption. As Moses instituted an order
of priests to continue in an unbroken succession, so Jesus
ordained apostles and other ministers to preach His gospel,
administer His sacraments, and govern His Church always
to the end of the world.
This is Leslie's short and easy method, but he adds some Arguments
other considerations which tend to establish the truth of Of christia-
Christianity. Some of these are the fulfilment of prophecy, nity-
the testimony of hostile writers, as Josephus and Tacitus,
to the fact of Christ's historical existence, and the impro
bability that ten or twelve illiterate men should convert the
world, without the help of arms, oratory, or any external
230
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. advantage. Leslie challenges the Deists to bring forward
Apollonius, or any other impostor, and try him by the rules
which have been laid down for testing the facts of the lives
of Moses or Jesus. We did not see the works of Jesus with
our own eyes, but we have ( a demonstration from history,
witnessed to by memorials, and certified and attested by an
uninterrupted succession of clergy appointed to continue to
the end of the world/*
Charles Gil- The ' Short and Easy Method ' had a signal victory. It
^YcX^ was the means of converting Charles Gildon, the editor of
* Short and the ' Oracles of Reason/ to whom Leslie wrote a further ex
position of the doctrines of Christianity. He obviated the
objection against satisfaction for sin, by showing that God
was not merely just, but justice itself, and that this justice
by its very nature must exact to the uttermost farthing.
God's infinite justice could not co-exist with His infinite
mercy, but for the economy of redemption. This absolute
satisfaction is shown, however, not to be satisfying unless
our good works are added. It was the error of the Dis
senters to make good works of no effect to salvation, and
Christ's death to avail only for the elect. The ' gentleman '
was also exhorted to take care not to confound the Church
with any sect. A sect was defined as a company of people
believing certain tenets, like a sect of heathen philosophers.
The Church, on the other hand, was a society under gover
nors appointed by Christ, with power to admit or exclude
members, and authority to govern the affairs of the body.
The governors were the bishops, the successors of the
apostles. There is scarcely an error, Leslie says, that has
come into the Church, which has not come by ' infraction of
episcopal authority/ He concludes with ' an infallible
demonstration of Episcopacy/ in which he shows that
Episcopacy is infallibly established by the same short and
esay method which establishes Christianity. f
* Tho suicide of Blount, which was was published in 10%.
defended by some of the Deists, Les- no answer to it till 1710.
There was
In reply to
lie regarded as a judgment to which this Leslie wrote ' The Truth of
they were delivered, ' a visible mark Christianity Demonstrated ' in a dia-
set upon them to show how far God
has forsaken them.'
t Tho 'Short i,nd Easy Method'
logue between a Christian and a
Deist.
CHARLES GILDON.
231
Gildon wrote as a retractation ' The Deist's Manual/ It CHAP. IX,
was dedicated to Archbishop Tenison. In the true spirit of Writes ' The
that time, he ascribed his conversion solely to reason. He Deist's
started with the conviction that if Christianity be true the
means of arriving at its truth must be very simple. The
method, therefore, of defending it by arguments which could
not be understood without great learning could not be the
right one. It was in fact this which led Gildon to Deism.
He now tried to divest himself of all prejudice, and by pure
and simple reasoning was convinced of the truth of revela
tion. The Manual is written in the tedious form of a dia
logue between a Deist and a Christian. Both are willing to
follow reason. The Deist will not go a step beyond it, and
the Christian agrees to this, only with the addition that
reason be unbiassed by prejudice or passion. When the
Deist cpmes to a mystery, or something beyond his compre
hension, he stops. The Christian, on the other hand, finds
a point where reason itself dictates submission. This
position is illustrated by a quotation from Augustine, who
says that ' it is but just that reason submit when it judges
that it ought to do so ;' and by another from Pascal, who
says that ' if reason never submitted there would be nothing
supernatural or mysterious in religion/ Even in the
mysteries reason is never forsaken. It fixes and justifies
our belief in things which we do not comprehend. A great
part of the book is taken up with the refutation of what is
supposed to be the doctrine of Hobbes.
After Leslie had confounded the Deists, he returned to Leslie refutes
the Unitarians, adding the congenial work of convicting
Tillotson and Burnet of the Socinian heresy which they pro
fessed to refute. Thomas Firmin, though a decided Church
man, had often wished that the Unitarians could hold sepa
rate meetings, where they could preach their doctrines more
freely than the laws of the Church permitted. This was
accomplished soon after Firmin's death, not, however, by the
Unitarians, who where Churchmen, but by some ministers
who had been expelled by the Presbyterians for embracing
Unitarian doctrines. It was bad enough for Leslie that
some members of the Church of England had fallen into the
Unitarian heresy, but even that heresy became darker when
232 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. combined with the Presbyterian schism. He published a
curious document, which the London Unitarians were said
to have addressed to the ambassador of the Emperor of
Morocco,* in whom they recognized a brother Unitarian.
The ambassador was congratulated as a champion for the truth
of the divine unity, which Mahomet, the great prophet of
his people, had defended against the idolatry of the Trini
tarian Christians. Leslie proved that the English Unitarians
were improperly called Christians at all, that 'they were
more Mahometans than Christians, and greater enemies to
Christianity than the Mahometans/f A Christian is defined
as one who worships Christ as God. It is not enough, he
says, to make a Christian that a man believes in Christ as
the Messiah, or Word of God. The Koran teaches all this,
but Mahometans are not thereby Christians. English Uni
tarians do not worship Christ, and for this they are disowned
Denies that and denied to be Christians by all other Socinians or Uni-
Christians tarians in Christendom. Leslie's own explanation of the
Trinity is that adopted by South, that there are three per
sons in one nature, just as in one humanity there are many
men. We do not say three gods, because this might lead
us into the danger of Polytheism ; but we say three persons,
because they all partake of the divine nature. The three are
one in the same sense as every spirit has understanding,
memory, and will, and yet is but one spirit. J Notwithstand
ing this rational explanation of the Trinity, Leslie uses many
ingenious arguments to obviate the objection, supposing it
admitted, that the Trinity is a contradiction. The most
excellent of these is a demonstration that if the Trinity is a
contradiction it must be divine. Nobody, he says, would
invent a contradiction ; whatever is invented is always plau
sible^ Leslie's knowledge of the Fathers was sufficient to
assure him that they really believed some Pagans, as Plato
and Pythagoras, had penetrated into the mystery of the
Trinity.
rHie Socinianism of Tillotson, that ' unhappy man/ was
mainly confined to his denying satisfaction for sin in the
* Amrth I'm Anioth, Ambassador f "Works, vol. ii. p. 34.
of th<> mighty Emperor of Fez and J Vol. ii. p. 72.
Morof'o, to Charles II., King of Great § Vol. ii. p. 73.
Britain.
LESLIE ON UNITARIANISM.
233
sense of a literal and necessary price. He had published CHAP. IX.
the sermons against Socinianism, preached at St. Lawrence Proves Tiiiot-
Jewry, expressly to refute the slander of the Nonjurors that son to be a
he was a Socinian. But Leslie saw in the publication only
a scheme ' to clear his reputation, now that he is got into an
higher station/ and who knows if the sermons were not
changed since they were preached ? He had never been at
the trouble to clear himself before, though he had ' long lain
under the imputation of having been neither christened, nor
a Christian in his principles/ But even now he avoids the
1 Shibboleth/ He says not a word of the consubstantiality
of the Son with the Father. He quotes part of the very
sentence in the Nicene Creed where it is mentioned, and
yet he omits it. To Leslie this was a strong confirmation
that he did not believe the Son to be of the same substance
with the Father. On the doctrine of ' satisfaction/ Tillotson
continues ( a rank Socinian,' not even trying to clear himself.
He even said that God might, for anything we know, have
forgiven men without the death of Christ. He was supposed
to have intimated that it was really possible for the Divine
Being not to make hell eternal, on the ground that God
might forgive without His justice being avenged. Leslie
calls Tillotson's whole conception of the Christian religion
' barbarous, absurd, and blasphemous/ saying that if his
name had not been prefixed to the sermons he would have
pronounced them the work of Lodowick Muggleton. Tillot-
son left it doubtful whether- sacrifice had originally been
instituted by God or invented by man. He inclined to the
latter opinion, supposing that God had given it His sanction
in condescension to human weakness, and in due time caused
it to be superseded by a more rational worship. Leslie
calls this a blasphemous scheme of divinity which makes
God the devil's ape.* He proved that Tillotsou had de- A blasphemer,
rived his theology from Hobbes, that he was the head of the and^ Deist.
Atheists and the Deists, and that his sermons were in the
pockets of every sceptic and libertine, to be read in every
coffee-house, that men might no longer be disturbed with
fears of the eternity of hell. Burnet, ' called the Bishop of
Salisbury/ was a proper suffragan for such a primate. With
* Vol. ii. p. 569.
234 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN EKGLAND.
CHAP. IX. Blount and the Deists, they were carrying on the work of
Hobbes, preaching up natural duties, and setting aside
revealed religion.
All the theological writers of this age unite in lamenta
tions over the progress of Deism. Some allowance is, in
deed, to be made for the natural failing of religious people
to call all who differ from them Deists and infidels. There
seems, however, to have been prevalent a great indifference
to religion. Open or avowed unbelief of Christianity is
scarcely to be found in any author, yet a tone of scepticism
appears to have pervaded society, and to have found its ex
pression chiefly among the clever but not profound dis
putants in clubs and coffee-houses. Different parties
assigned different reasons for the origin and progress of
unbelief. Some ascribed it to the toleration under William,
and others to the want of toleration under Charles and
James. The Nonconformists charged it on the Church of
England, and the Conformists on the Dissenters. The
' Growth of author of a popular tract on the ' Growth of Deism ' de-
Deism.' scribed the Deists whom he knew as ( persons of loose and
sensual lives/ They read Hobbes and Spinoza, and learned
to laugh at Balaam's ass and Samson's locks, then to ridi
cule all revelation. There were, however, graver causes
than the reading of Hobbes and Spinoza. In the time of
Charles I. young gentlemen went abroad, and saw the im
postures of the Church of Eome. They came back to Eng
land, and found a deadly feud between Laud arid the Pres
byterians. Doubts and probably prejudices arose, which
were confirmed when they found themselves compelled by
law to conform to the Established Church. For a man to
hold a civil office under the Stuarts, it was necessary to be
of the bishops' church, however loyal he may have been to
the king. Under William there were great changes, yet
the bishops managed to fill the livings, if not with Jacobites,
yet with men recommended by Jacobites. The conduct of
the clergy in taking the oaths after long inculcating passive
obedience is also said to have been the cause of great preju
dices against religion. Dr. Sherlock, a Jacobite, but not a
Nonjuror, held the deanery of St. Paul's, while honest
Samuel Johnson, who had fought the battle for William
against James, was ' starving on charity.'
1 1CIIABOD/
2J5
1 Ichabod, or the Five Groans of the Church/ which had CHAP. IX.
been originally published in 1663, was republished in 1690. lThe Five
This tract was written by a zealous Churchman. The bur- Groans of the
den of it was the misgovernment of the Church and the
selfishness of the clergy, which, to the great injury of
religion, had continued during all these years. The five
groans were the negligence of the bishops as to the persons
whom they ordained, the profanen,ess of the clergy, the pre
valence of simony, pluralities, and non-residence. The tract
had for a frontispiece an afflicted woman with a church in
her hands, uttering the significant lamentation, 'all seek
their own/ During the years that had passed since the
Restoration, she had been in sorrow for the miscarriages of
her sons. Her patience had only made them ' more obsti
nate and untractable/ Though excellent in worship, in doc
trine, and in adherence to the word of God, she had yet
to lift up her voice, and exclaim, < Hear, olr-ye that pass by,
was ever sorrow like to my sorrow V The charges against
the general character of the clergy are very serious. The
bishops are said to have ordained men that were very young,
some without learning, and some of evil character. The
non-resident clergy make the defence that they had curates
in their parishes, and the Church asks, what new generation
of men is this ? The command is ' Go preach the Gospel/
and not ' send your curates/*
The selfishness and inconsistency of the clergy, or the
quarrels of religious parties, may have been the cause of
the popular indifference to religion, but these had nothing
to do directly with the progress either of Unitarianism or
of Deism. The origin and cause of systems that are purely
speculative are generally to be found in the region of spe
culation. The author of a tract on * The Growth of Error/ l The Growth
written from the standpoint of Calvinism, traced the origin
of Atheism and Deism to the rejection of the dogmas of
Calvin. Armiiiianism was the first departure from Calvin.
* Many tracts of this age ascribe
the contempt into which religion had
fallen to the condition of the clergy.
In one called ' Mrs. Abigail ; or an
Account of a Female Skirmish be-
bctwuen the Wife of a Country Squire
and the Wife of a Doctor of Divinity,'
it is said that all the clergy are from
the lower orders, that they only marry
chambermaids, and yet they set them
selves up as equal to the Squire and
his wife.
236 KELIG1OUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. To it succeeded Socinianism. Then followed Deism and
Atheism. The steps in this gradation, as set forth by this
author, do not necessarily follow each other. But the first
step is, in a speculative sense, the greatest of all. Calvinism
proper took the Scriptures in their literal sense, without
using reason to inquire what they really meant. Armi-
nianism said at once that Scripture is nothing but as we
understand it. Arminianism rejected the f inscrutable de
crees' as unbecoming God, and therefore unreasonable to
man. Socinianism rejected the Trinity as a contradiction
to reason. Both objected simply to the ( mysterious/ not
that they refused to subject reason to the authority of
Scripture, but from a conviction that whatever is really taught
in Scripture must be according to reason. To the writer of
this tract it appeared that Socinianism denied the nature of
God to be unsearchable, and Arminianism denied that His
ways are past finding out. The first departure of Armi
nianism from Calvinism is, apparently, very small. It
affects to maintain the doctrines of grace, but when its
real character is manifest, it is seen to deny them. So
cinianism, in the same way, professed in its first beginnings
to believe in a Trinity, in the worship of Christ, and in
satisfaction for sin ; but when Socinianism was developed
according to its essential* principles^ all these things were
denied at first in reality, and at last openly and explicitly.
John Tpland'a In 1695 the main interest of all these controversies
not M8yste-ty Passed into another channel. Locke's treatise on * The
rious.' Reasonableness of Christianity ' was followed by ' Chris
tianity not Mysterious/ This was published anonymously,
but it was soon known to be the work of John Toland,
a young Irishman of a capacious intellect, but with
an unusual share of the vanity and indiscretion of his
countrymen. Toland's proper Christian name was Janus
Junius. His parents, if he ever had any, were possessed of
so feeble a sense of their duty that they suffered his god
fathers and godmothers in mockery to give him this name.
When the schoolmaster called the school-roll in the morning,
the other boys laughed at the odd cognomen, and to pre
serve the gravity of his scholars, the master changed it into
John. In his lifetime Toland had more sermons preached
JOHN TOLAND.
237
against him than any other man since the days of Simon CHAP. IX.
Magus or Alexander the coppersmith. He was educated in
the Roman Catholic religion, which he renounced at the
age of sixteen, never failing, during the rest of his life, to
speak of it as one of the vilest superstitions. He began his
studies at the University of Glasgow, and as a sturdy
Presbyterian, joined the inhabitants against the soldiers in
the persecutions under the second James, for which the
magistrates rewarded him with a testimonial, certifying that
' he had behaved himself like ane trew Protestant and loyal
subject/ He took his master's degree at the University of
Edinburgh, and with the assistance of some Dissenters in
England, who looked upon him as the future champion of
their cause, he proceeded to Leyden, and studied under the
learned Spanheim. His career of universities — for so we
must speak — was completed at Oxford, where he profited
chiefly by the time spent in the Bodleian library.
The avowed object of Toland's book was to defend Its object to
Christianity. He prayed that God would give him grace
to enable him to vindicate revealed religion. And the
greatest vindication which he supposed it to require was
that it be freed from the charges of contradiction and ob
scurity. He laid it down as an axiom that the true religion
must be reasonable and intelligible. He promised another
book, in which he was to show that in Christianity these
conditions are found. In a third treatise he was to prove
that Christianity was a religion divinely revealed from
heaven, and not owing its origin to mere human intelligence.
The last two books were never written. The second,
however, is virtually anticipated in ' Christianity not Mys
terious/
The peculiarity of Toland's mind was his want of faith in Toland ap-^
external evidence. He did not believe all that people told method to the
him, especially if what was said did not bear its own credi- Scriptures,
bility on the face of it. He regarded history as a story
teller, and tradition as of less value than an old woman's
fable. Divines, he said, inverted the order of nature. They
discoursed first of the authority of the Scriptures, and after
that they proceeded to consider their contents ; instead of
which we should begin with the contents, for only in this
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. way can we know that the Scriptures are of divine authority.
Bacon began with natural phenomena as the foundation of
physical science. Locke had done the same for meta
physics. Toland wished to begin with an examination of
the Scriptures themselves, which he regarded as standing
in the same relation to the theologian as natural phenomena
to the physical investigator.
Reason is But this supposed in man the capacity of knowing truth.
above j^. wag an appeal to reason as the ultimate arbiter of right
and wrong, truth and falsehood. The Christian world, both
Catholic and Protestant, had generally refused to admit
reason as the sole judge and discerner of truth. The Scrip
tures, they said, contain doctrines above reason ; and where
we cannot comprehend we ought to adore. The Church of
Rome had carried this principle to its utmost bounds; main
taining that there were doctrines in the Scriptures not only
above reason, but contrary to it, which were not on that
account to be rejected, but rather the more devoutly to be
received. I believe because it is impossible, was an axiom of
the Catholic doctors. Some escaped the necessity of using
their reason, by supposing that what they themselves did
not understand the ancient Fathers understood for them.
But Toland showed that the Fathers were not agreed about
the meaning of the Scriptures; that they had cautioned
their readers not to trust to them, but to use their own
reason. And, moreover, it was more difficult to know what
the Fathers meant than what the Scriptures meant. The
Fathers and doctors of old time had no privilege over us,
except priority of birth, if that be a privilege. They were
men of like passions with ourselves ; and if human reason
be defective with us, it was no less defective with them.
and Councils. Others appealed to General Councils, or the Bishop of
Rome, as the visible head of the Church, but they succeeded
no better than those who bow to the Fathers. Popes and
Councils have refuted their own claims to infallibility by
teaching and decreeing doctrines which contradict each
other, and by the evidence they have given of being subject
to the failings of ordinary men. The true Protestant says
that we should keep to the Scriptures alone. They contain
all that is necessary to salvation. But as the Protestant
JOHN TO LAND.
239
has no infallible external authority on whose word he can CHAP. IX.
take the Scriptures, he must read them for himself to know
what they teach. To this principle Protestantism, Tolaud
says, has not been faithful. It has often made the Bible speak
the language of a sect. Some system of divinity has been
substituted in its place, and often, forgetful of its own first
principle, that the Scriptures come to us with their own
authority, and not on that of Fathers or councils, Protest
antism has been unfaithful in the full and free exercise of
reason as the interpreter of Scripture. Some say we should
abide by the literal sense, and when that teaches, or seems
to teach, anything contradictory, we should receive it by
faith. Others say we should use reason as the instrument,
but not as the rule of our belief, so that what we do not
understand should be received as a mystery ; that is, some
thing above our reason. Toland, as opposed to all these,
said the only foundation of all certitude is reason. Every
thing revealed is, in virtue of that revelation, within the
province of reason, in the same way as the phenomena of
the natural world, ' so that there is nothing in the Gospel
contrary to reason, nor above it, and no Christian doctrine
can be properly called a mystery/ There was a boldness in
this statement sufficient to startle the generally sensitive
religious world. But it was greatly mitigated by the ad
mission that after all there are mysteries in the Bible ; that
is, doctrines stretching beyond our faculties in the same
way, but not otherwise than as the natural world has wonders
or mysteries which surpass our comprehension. The con
troversy depends on how much is included in the definition
of the word mystery. There are mysteries in nature ; that
is, things which we cannot explain. There are none in
revelation, because revelation explains them. Beyond what
is explained there are mysteries, doubtless, but we are not,
Toland says, called upon to believe them. In fact, there is
nothing for us to believe except that we cannot understand,
and therefore cannot believe.
We have, according to Toland, four means of information :
the experience of the senses, the experience of the mind,
human authority, and Divine authority. The first two are Toland builds
the sensation and reflection of Locke's philosophy ; the philosophy.
240 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. latter two are human testimony and Divine revelation.
Unman testimony is also called moral certitude, as when
a friend relates anything credible, or when we are told that
there was such a city as Carthage, or such a man as Luther.
Divine revelation is the manifestation of truth by truth
itself. If a proposition is evident, we have not the power
to refuse assent to it ; and if we are deceived where our
conceptions are clear and distinct, we may be deceived in
everything, even as to the existence of God and conscience.
If reason is to be trusted at all, — if the common notions
which we all have and daily act upon are grounded on truth,
then the Gospel, if it really be the word of God, will not
contradict them. There can be no contradiction between
the written revelation and our sense of right. If there is,
one or other must be given up ; and as we only know the
truth of revelation by its internal evidence, it is evident
where the sacrifice must be made.
Revelation Toland savs, that as it is bv reason we arrive at the cer-
must agree . * ** t* • T • •
with our tainty of (rod s existence, so must we discern His revelations
natural ideas. ^v their conformity with our natural notions of Him. They
must agree with reason ; they must be rational and intel
ligible. If the evidence be internal it is only by reason that
it can be known, and the discovery of it begets faith or per
suasion. A man, from various motives, such as fear and
superstition, may give his assent to what he does not under
stand, but he never has any solid satisfaction in his belief.
He never really acquiesces in it until he understands it.
Scripture appeals to reason. We are commanded to try
the spirits, and as wise men to judge concerning what the
Apostles delivered to us. St. Paul, indeed, speaks of the
vanity of the wisdom of this world, and says that he did not
come with excellency of speech or man's wisdom, which
Toland, following St. Augustine, interpreted of the sophists
and rhetoricians. If the writers of the Bible never seek to
confound or mislead, but to convince the mind, it follows
that the best way to get to their meaning is honestly to use
our intellects, following the same rules of interpretation
which we should apply to any other book. Reason being in
this way the channel through which we receive revelation,
it is impossible that we can receive as Divine what is con
trary to reason.
JOEN TOLAND. 241 f
But is there nothing in the Gospel above reason ? In CHAP. IX.
this, too, Toland took the negative. A thing may be above ^ thT~^~'
reason in two senses. It may be veiled by figurative words, the Gospel
types, or ceremonies, and reason may be unable to penetrate a
the meaning till the veil is removed ; or a thing may be in
conceivable — not to be judged of by our ordinary ideas. In
both senses it is a mystery ; that is, above reason. The
word mystery, Toland says, was generally understood in the
first sense by the Pagans. To the uninitiated, religion had
mysteries, but to the purified or regenerate the veil was
removed. In this sense, too, the word is always understood
in the New Testament. The Christian doctrines were mys
teries till they were unveiled by special revelation.* Some
Christians maintain that the doctrines of revelation are still
mysterious in the second sense of the word ; that is, incon
ceivable, however clearly revealed. Against these Christians,
Toland says that it is not necessary that a thing be a mys
tery because we have not an adequate idea of it, or a distinct
view of all its perfections at once, for then everything would
be a mystery. To comprehend anything is to know its
chief properties. What is not knowable is nothing to us,
for we can have no idea of it. We may not have an ade
quate or complete idea of every Christian doctrine, but it is
not on that account a mystery, any more than the ordinary
works of nature are mysteries. What is revealed in religion
is known to us, just as we know wood or stone, air or water.
Eternity, for instance, is not above reason because it cannot
be imagined, any more than a circle is not above reason
because it can be imagined. Infinity is as little mysterious
as finity, or that two and three make five. It is only trifling
with words to call anything a mystery because we do not
know its essence. We do not know the real essence of
anything in the world ; we only know the nominal essence.
The soul is no more a mystery than the body, nor the
Divine Being than a spire of grass or the meanest flower of
the field.
*<Mr. Pattison, in the 'Essays and though now it is revealed it is no
Eeviews,' vsays, " The word nvcrrypiov, longer so. "VVhately, who elsewhere
as Archbishop Whately points out, speaks so contemptuously of the cast-
always means in the New Testament off clothes of the Deists, is here but
not that which is incomprehensible, adopting the argument of Toland in
but that which was once a secret, his ' Christianity not Mysterious.' "
VOL. II. R
242 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. Having thus explained mystery, Toland undertakes to
No mystery in Prove fr°m the Scriptures that there are no mysteries in
Christianity. Christianity. The Christian doctrines were mysteries before
they were revealed, but now they are unveiled. The most
enlightened philosophers could not discover them, but God
hath revealed them to us by His Spirit. ' We speak/ says
St. Paul, 'the wisdom of God hid in a mystery/ It was
hidden from the Gentiles, but it is revealed to us. The law
had a shadow of good things to come, but in New Testament
times they are fully revealed. Moses put a veil on his face,
but that veil is done away in Christ. The mystery was
kept secret since the world began, but now it is made
manifest. The ministers of Christ are called stewards of
the mysteries of God ; that is, revealers of what before was
secret. The mystery was made known to St. Paul, which
in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as
it is now revealed unto us. It had been hid for ages and
generations, but now is made manifest to the saints. ' Be
hold, I show you a mystery/ said St. Paul to the Corinthians.
He was to reveal to them a secret ; he was to tell them that
those who were alive at the sounding of the last trumpet
would put off their mortality to be clothed with immortality,
as well as those who were then to rise from the dead. The
union of man and wife, as a type of the indissoluble union of
Christ and His Church, is called a mystery, but now that we
are told of it the figure is intelligible. Jesus said, ' To you
it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,
but to them that are without it is not given/ These things
were parables to them.
The Fathers The judgment of the Fathers is not of much value in
Toland's e7es ; 7et> as M- de Fontenelle says, < What these
honest men could not make good themselves by sufficient
reasons is now proved by their sole authority/ and so Toland
thinks it worth the trouble to show that they were on his
side in this interpretation of mystery. Clemens Alexandrinus
tells us that the Christian discipline was called illumination,
because it brought hidden things to light, the Master alone
removing the cover of the ark. Justin Martyr says that the
name Joshua was a mystery representing the name of Jesus,
and the holding up of Moses' hands a type or mystery of
JOHN TOLAND.
243
Christ's cross, whereby He overcame death, as the Israelites CHAR IX
did their enemies. He also calls the predictions of the
prophets mysteries, symbols, or parables. Tertullian says
that all mysteries are under an oath of secrecy, and Origen
makes the encampments of the Israelites symbols or mys
teries setting forth the Christian's heavenly progress. He
was so far from calling Christian doctrines mysteries that
he expressly affirms them all to agree with our common
notions. The mysteries supposed to exist in Christianity
Toland divided into two kinds. First, the incomprehensible
dogmas which he said were introduced into the Christian
religion by the metaphysicians, and which he likened to the
occult qualities of the ancient philosophers. The second
kind were the mysteries introduced into Christianity from Mysteries in-
Pagan worship. The only ceremonies originally in the christianiT*0
Christian religion were Baptism and the Lord's Supper, from the
They were both of the simplest character, but by the second agan8t
or third century they were strangely disguised and trans
formed by the addition of rites borrowed from the heathen.
They were then called tremendous and unutterable mys
teries. The Pagan worship indeed was largely adopted by
the Christian Church when the Koman world was converted
to Christianity. The emperors gave the heathen temples
for the use of the Christians. The clergy had the benefices
of the priests, flamens and augurs ; yea, they wore their
very vestments as surplices, stoles, mitres, albs, copes, and
chasubles. They took the same titles as the Pagan priest
hood, and discoursed mysteriously of initiations, lustrations,
and baptismal regenerations. The Lord's Supper was
similarly transformed till it no longer served the object
of its institution. ' By endeavouring,' says Toland, ' to
make the plainest things in the world mysterious, their very
nature and use were absolutely perverted and destroyed,
and are not yet fully restored by the purest reformation in
Christendom.'
' Christianity not Mysterious' had not been long pub- 'Christianity
lished before it was presented by the grand jury of Mid- Sous,' pro6-"
dlesex. But in his own country Toland had the greatest sented by the
honours. He paid a visit to Dublin, and the first Sunday
after his arrival he heard an Irish bishop preaching against
E2
244
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Burned "by
order of the
CHAP. IX. ' Christianity not Mysterious/ He found the clergy in Ire
land so much against him that a discourse concerning his
errors was fas much expected as if it had been prescribed
in the rubric/ An Irish peer gave it as a reason why he
had ceased to attend church that once he heard something
there about his Saviour Jesus Christ, but now all the dis
course was about one John Toland. The grand jury was
solicited to present his book, and the presentation of the
Middlesex jury was reprinted and cried about the streets
of Dublin. It was duly presented in the Court of King's
Bench. The jurors quoted sundry passages from it. Some of
them said they had never read it, and those who did said
they could not understand it. His enemies called him a
Jesuit, a Socinian, a Nonconformist ; adding that they had
never read his book, and by the grace of God they never
would read it. At length it was brought before Parliament.
Toland wished to be present to defend himself, but this was
not granted. The House agreed that the book was here
tical, and condemned it to be burned by the common hang-
ment Parlia- man, commanding that its author be taken into custody for
further prosecution. One member proposed that Toland
himself should be burnt ; another that he should be made to
burn his book with his own hands ; a third added that it
should be done at the door of the House, that he might have
the pleasure of treading the ashes of it under his feet. The
last wish was complied with, and ' Christianity not Myste
rious ' was burned before the gate of the House of Parlia
ment, in the august presence of the sheriffs and constables of
the city of Dublin. Toland escaped from Ireland, and did
not give his countrymen the opportunity of taking him into
custody. At a later date his book was condemned as here
tical and impious by the Lower House of Convocation, who
blamed the Upper House for failing in their duty by not
confirming the sentence. This time Toland was in good
company. The inquisitors of Convocation began with
( Christianity not Mysterious/ and ended with a condem
nation of Bishop Burnet's ' Exposition of the Thirty-nine
Articles.7
The replies to Toland' s book were of various degrees of
merit. Some of them, in the judgment of the writers, were
AKSWERS TO JOUN TOLAND.
245
unanswerable. Oliver Hill wrote ' A Rod for the Back of
Fools/ He said that he had silenced Keith, the renegade
Quaker, and Harvey with his new fanglement about the
circulation of the blood. He had settled the matter with
Gresham College in the case of their pressure and gravita
tion of air. And as he had served them, so would he serve
Toland.
Thomas Beconsall, a clergyman, wrote ' The Christian
Belief/ in which he maintained that many of the Christian
doctrines were still mysterious, quoting numerous passages
from the Fathers to show that they took this view of the
mysteries. No. III. of ' The Occasional Papers ' was devoted
entirely to reflections on ( Christianity not Mysterious/ The
writer said that Toland's object was chiefly to oppose the
Trinity, maintaining that to this doctrine we cannot apply
reason. It is properly a mystery.
' The Socinian Heresy Refuted/ by John Gailhard, had
appended to it some animadversions on ' Christianity nob
Mysterious/ The author identified Toland with the Soci-
nians, and spoke of the presumption of those who expected
to understand mysteries. He concluded with a prayer that
God would give him understanding according to His word,
and not according to reason.
Thomas Beverley, a Presbyterian minister, wrote ' Chris
tianity the Great Mystery/ He wished to prove that Chris
tianity is above created reason in its best condition, and
contrary to human reason fallen and corrupt, and so in a
proper sense a mystery. Man's reason is like the ass's colt,
silly and wild. It naturally refuses divine truth. The word
of God is a two-edged sword, which cuts reason in pieces.
The reason of God is absolute ; to it nothing is mystery.
His declaration is, therefore, infallible, and to us mysterious.
But God gives the renewed soul an inward experimental
sense, by which it can set its seal to truth. The renr\v'<l
man has a spirituality as much above rationality as ratio
nality is above sense. Beverley admitted that Revelation
had changed the mysteriousness of the Gospel, yet he
thought there was mystery in it still. He was anxious to
retain the word, lest some of the doctrines which he believed
to be in the Scriptures should be denied under the pretence
CHAP. IX.
]{« -filled by
Oliver Hill.
By Thomas
Bcconsall.
By John
Gailhard.
By Thomas
Brvrrlcy.
246 RELIGIOUS TIIOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. of denying mysteries. How far Toland would have agreed
with Beverley concerning the inward sense given to the
regenerate we cannot well determine. Beverley had stated
his doctrine in the usual language of orthodox theology, but
he added a sentence which brought him near to Toland.
' There is not/ he says, ' an idea rightly formed, nor one
true ratiocination, not one -witty invention for good use, not
one righteous law or wise decree, but it is by grace through
the Mediator, and from Him as the Saviour thus far of all
men/
' An Account of Reason and Faith in Relation to the Mys-
By John teries of Christianity ' was the work of John Norris, Rector
Noms. Qf Bemerton. Norris was a Churchman, who used to call
himself ' a, priest of the Church of England/ and as such
was devoted to the mysteries. Their cause was with him
the cause of Christianity. Toland' s book he declared to be
' one of the most bold, daring, and irreverent pieces of defi
ance to the mysteries of the Christian religion that even that
licentious age had produced. But/ he added, 'we learn
from prophecy that in the last days many would renounce
their faith and turn infidels/ Things above reason Norris
defined not such as reason cannot discover, but such as
when proposed it cannot comprehend. God has revealed
the Christian mysteries, and therefore our assent is not
grounded on any internal evidence from their being rational
or intelligible, but on the fact that God has given His word
and authority for them. Whatever God reveals is true.
Here is something revealed by God; therefore it is true.
Our whole business is simply to ask, Does this come from
God ? Internal evidence for or against a matter of faith
Norris reckoned worth nothing. Hobbes and Bishop Pearson
had agreed that, after all, faith in the Bible was only faith in
man ; but Norris thought he could prove that, independent
of internal evidence, it was faith in God. He quoted, in the
way of endorsing, a French Catholic writer, who drew an
argument for the divinity of the mysteries from their being
universally received, notwithstanding that they were so
repugnant to reason.
While Toland was in Ireland, the cause of the mysteries
was taken up with some ardour by Peter Browne, a senior
BISHOP BROWNE.
247
fellow of Trinity, afterwards Bishop of Cork. It was in the CHAP. IX.
character of an opponent to Toland that Browne pushed B r~^
himself into notice, which gave Toland occasion to say that Browne, after-
he had made Browne a bishop. His reply was in the form oTcork *
of a ' Letter ' in answer to ' Christianity not Mysterious/ and
' to all those who set up for reason and evidence in oppo
sition to revelation and mysteries/ Browne promised to
show the weakness and folly of Toland' s ' arguings, and to
lay open his cheats and fallacies/ He reduced his leading
eiTors to these two : that evidence is the only ground of
persuasion, and that now, under the Gospel, the veil is per
fectly removed. It is admitted that in Christianity there is
nothing contrary to reason, and, in a sense, nothing above
reason. And had Toland said this for any good, that is, for
any orthodox object, Browne would not have been disposed
to dispute with him, but he professed to see that Toland' s
' main drift was to set up natural religion in opposition to
revealed/ He said also that Toland, by talking about the
reasonableness of religion, could only mean that the Chris
tian world denied it. Evidence, Browne maintained, is not
the only ground of persuasion, for God requires our assent
to many things not intelligible in themselves, such as the
equality of the Son with the Father, His eternal generation,
the tripersonality of the Godhead, and the nature of the life
to come. Under the Gospel the veil is not perfectly re
moved. Some Christian doctrines are still mysterious.
There is something in them which we do not understand,
and something of which we are wholly ignorant. The mys
tery of the future life which St. Paul showed to the Corin
thians could never have been known without divine revela
tion, and now that it is revealed we know it but in part. It
doth not yet appear what we shall be. Now we see through
a glass darkly. The Divine Being is more mysterious than
a spire of grass or a flower, for of these wo have an image in
the mind, but we have no similitude of God. We have no
idea of a spirit, of infinity, or of omnipresence, much less
can we understand the divine foreknowledge, for how can it
enter into our heads how God can know what has no being ?
Yet all these things we must believe on another authority
than that of reason.
248
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX.
By Edward
Synge, Arch
bishop of
Tuain.
Toland the
cause of the
controversy
lit 'tween
Locke and
Stillingfleet.
Edward Synge, Archbishop of Tuam, added an appendix
to his essay on ' A Gentleman's Religion/ in which he made
some reference to Toland. Synge wrote and reasoned with
great calmness and clearness. The few remarks he made
showed that he understood the whole question better than
many who wrote larger books. He denied that external
revelation or testimony is only a means of information, for if
a proposition be made to us which is reconcilable with rea
son, and the truth of it attested by persons whose veracity
is beyond exception, it cannot but be believed. So that
testimony is also a motive to persuasion. This did not prove
much against Toland, for reason is still left in its office of
judge. He undertook to demonstrate this proposition : ' A
man may have most sufficient and cogent arguments to give
his assent to such propositions as are not only in part but
wholly and altogether above his reason/ He proved it by a
blind man believing in light and colours. This was bringing
the question to the proper issue, which is, the value of the
external testimony. Synge said that the contention about
mysteries was only a contention about a word. Toland had
said that the essence of God was no more a mystery than
the essence of any material object ; that if we choose to call
all things beyond our reason mysteries, the world was full of
them; 'and surely/ added Synge, fif the world is full of
them, may not religion be full of them too '(' This was well
said, only Toland objected to the word mystery being used
in this sense at all.
Toland delighted in the fire which he had kindled. His
ambition was gratified when ' Christianity not Mysterious '
became the occasion of an intellectual warfare between John
Locke and Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester. This
controversy did not do much credit to either of the comba
tants. It is certainly a dull, weary, and tedious wrangle.
Locke the controversialist is no longer Locke the philo
sopher, and Stillingfleet loses his reputation for good rea
soning. The whole matter between them might have been
settled in a page and a half for each side, instead of which,
Locke's portion alone fills a volume. In his ' Vindication of
the Trinity' Stillingfleet maintained that the Unitarians
served the Deists in their method of overthrowing revealed
LOCKE AND ST1LLLNGFLEET.
249
religioD. He quoted Toland as saying that we must have CHAP. IX.
clear and distinct ideas of a thing before we can have any
certainty of it. Under this cover the Unitarians reject the
Trinity. By the same argument, he said, we are left in
uncertainty about the existence of substance, as Toland
limits our ideas to those of sensation and reflection. Locke
is introduced with Toland and the Unitarians as ' the gentle
men of the new way of reasoning/ who discarded substance
out of the reasonable part of the world. It was an uncertain
supposition of we know not what. Locke's illustration was
that of the earth supported by the tortoise, and the tortoise
supported by the elephant. Stillingfleet said we had a
general idea of substance as the support of accidents. And
he concluded from Locke's arguments that to be certain of
the existence of a spiritual substance it was not necessary
that we have a clear and distinct idea of it, nor that we be
able to comprehend the mode of its operations. From this
he drew the inference that we are not justified in rejecting a
doctrine proposed to us as of divine revelation because of
our inability to comprehend the manner of it, and especially
when it relates to the divine essence. Certainty, he argued,
does not always come from clear and distinct ideas. We
have a clear and distinct idea of God, but that does not
prove His existence.
Locke was indignant at being introduced with Toland Locke repu-
and the Unitarians as ' the gentlemen of the new way of -;liatf;8 To: .
J land a princi-
reasonmg. He denied that he had anywhere placed cer- pies,
tainty only in clear and distinct ideas, and he called upon
Stillingfleet to show him the place where he had said that
a doctrine proposed as of divine revelation was to be re
jected because we did not comprehend the manner of it.
What Locke did say was simply that ( certainty of know
ledge is to perceive the agreement or disagreement of ideas
as expressed in any proposition/ He renounced all con
nection with Toland's doctrine as quoted by Stilliugfleet.
He showed that Stillingfleet' s own head was not clear on
the subject, that he had maintained the very thing which he
undertook to oppose — the necessity of clear and distinct
ideas — for he had said that it was necessary to understand
person and nature before we could discourse of the Trinity.
250 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. Locke was able to fall back on some passages in his ' Essay
on the Human Understanding/ in which he had made a wide
distinction between ' certainty of knowledge ' and ' assurance
of faith/ The first was connected with clear and distinct
ideas, but the second depended on divine revelation. He
took the authority of the Scriptures as the voice of God, in
the same sense as the orthodox world took them. Stilling-
fleet made a mistake in not distinguishing between Locke
and Toland, and Locke resented it even more than measure
for measure. But for Stillingfleet's mistake there was some
excuse. Toland professed to bow to the authority of the
Bible as well as Locke, only he maintained that there was
nothing in the Bible which we are required to believe that
did not agree with our reason. And Locke sometimes really
said almost, if not altogether, the same thing.
Some years later, under the title of ' Letters to Serena/
Toland published a volume of essays on various subjects.
Serena was supposed to be Sophia, Princess of Hanover.
One of them is on the ' History of the Soul's Immortality
among the Heathen/ The doctrine itself has been revealed
in Christianity, so that we have there the best and clearest
demonstration of it. God Himself has revealed it. It may
not in everything fall under our comprehension, yet it is true
and absolutely certain. Toland goes on to say that, though
the believer be equally ignorant with others about the nature
of a thing, yet he may have the greatest conviction of its
existence. This seems to contradict the main doctrine of
' Christianity not Mysterious/ It certainly contradicts it as
his opponents understood it. Another of these essays was
on the ' Origin of Idolatry/ Toland draws attention to an
important distinction between the sound notions and moral
practices of the ancients, which he ascribes to the light of
reason, and the corrupt practices of the heathen world.
Overlooking this distinction, some have said that heathenism
was a better ' foundation for works than Christianity. They
should only have said at the most that the law of nature
was sometimes better fulfilled by the heathen than by Chris
tians/ Others think that all who lived in the heathen world
were idolaters, an error which ought to be corrected.
Arnobius says that if the works of Cicero were read, the
TOLAND'S "LIFE OF MILTON.'
251
Christians need not trouble themselves with writings. At CHAP. IX.
the end of the ' Letters to Serena ' was added ' A Confu
tation of Spinoza/ and another paper as a defence of the
' Confutation/ Toland maintained the distinct existences of
matter and spirit. Matter, however, he considered to be
infinite, and necessarily endowed with motion. Descartes
supposed that in the beginning God gave ' a shake to the
lazy lump/ Spinoza, like many of the old philosophers,
supposed the divine essence to be identical with the essence
of the universe ; so that, in virtue of the divine presence, all
matter was animate. Toland thought there was no need for
this supposition when it could be proved that motion was
essential to matter. Dr. Samuel Clarke wrote a tract in
refutation of this theory, and William Wotton, B.D., wrote
a ' Letter to Eusebia/ occasioned by the ' Letters to Serena/
He did not find fault so much with what was said in the
' Letters to Serena ' as with what he supposed to be implied,
but left unsaid.
Toland is usually classed with the Deists, but his Deism Toland gene-
is only inferred. He never openly ceased to believe in the [^belTS!
authority of the Scriptures. It is certain, however, that he
never explained the nature of that authority, or satisfactorily
adjusted its relations to reason. The same is true of Locke,
but Toland, either from circumstances or from the natural
bent of his mind, was chiefly occupied in raising questions
that were hostile to received opinions. The storm raised by
' Christianity not Mysterious ' was scarcely allayed when
he engaged the learned world in a controversy concern
ing the canon of Scripture. He did this without intention.
An accidental spark fell upon combustible materials, and a
great fire was kindled. Toland wrote a ' Life of Milton/ writes the
As Milton had written ' Iconoclastes ' in reference to ' Eikon <Li^e of Mil-
Basilike/ which was ascribed to Charles I., it fell within
Toland' s province to give the history of the latter book. It
was written by Dr. Gauden, Bishop of Exeter. This was
known to Anthony Walker and Brian Duppa, Bishop of
Salisbury. It was revealed to the world by Dr. Gauden' s
widow. It was also attested by Lord Anglesey, who had it
on the authority of the second Charles and the Duke of
York. For writing it Gauden was promised the bishopric
252
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX.
Ascribes
'• Eikon Ba-
silike ' to
Bishop
Gauden.
Dr. Blackball
preaches
iigainst him
l>efore the
House of
Commons.
Toland de-
!• -i i. Is the 'Life
of Milton,'
of Winchester, but ' he was put off with that of Worcester.'
After a full account of the ' Eikon Basilike/ Toland said, in
conclusion : — ' When I seriously consider how all this hap
pened among ourselves within the compass of forty years,
in a time of great learning and politeness, when both parties
so narrowly watched over one another's actions, and what a
great revolution in civil and religious affairs was partly oc
casioned by the credit of that book, I cease to wonder any
longer how so many supposititious pieces, under the name of
Christ, His Apostles, and other great persons, should be
published and approved in those primitive times, when it
was of so much importance to have them believed ; when the
cheats were too many on all sides for them to reproach one
another, which yet they often did ; when commerce was not
so general as now, and the whole earth overshadowed with
the darkness of superstition. I doubt rather the spuriousness
of several more such books is yet undiscovered through the
remoteness of those ages, the death of the persons concerned,
and the decay of other monuments which might give us true
information, especially when we consider how dangerous it
was always for the weaker side to lay open the tricks of
their adversaries, and that the prevailing party did strictly
order all those books which offended them to be burnt or
otherwise suppressed/
On the thirtieth of January, soon after the publication of
the ( Life of Milton/ Offspring Blackball, afterwards Bishop
of Exeter, was preaching before the House of Commons in
his capacity of Chaplain to the King. After abusing Toland,
and vindicating the genuineness of ' Eikon Basilike/ he
exclaimed : — ' We may cease to wonder that he should have
the boldness, without proof and against proof, to deny the
authority of this book, who is such an infidel as to doubt,
and is shameless and impudent enough even in print, and, in
a Christian country, publicly to affront our holy religion by
declaring his doubt that several pieces under the name of
Christ and His Apostles, he must mean those now received
by the whole Christian Church, for I know of no other, are
supposititious/
Toland wrote in reply ' Amyntor ; or, A Defence of Mil
ton's Life/ Using Blackballs words, he said the charge
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
253
was f{iu impudent and a shameless one.' He did not mean CHAP. IX.
the books of the New Testament. He wondered how any and ~^B a
one who had been so long at the University had never heard controversy
of spurious writings in the name of Christ and His Apostles, canon of6
He drew up a catalogue of apocryphal books, adding that a Scripture,
great part of these were the spurious writings to which he
referred. He intimated, however, that the whole question
of the New Testament canon required a fuller and more
impartial treatment than it had yet received. A matter of
so great importance should not be taken on trust. Its
history ought to be investigated. There was not a book of
the New Testament which had not been rejected by some of
the ancients. The various sects in those days, like the
various sects now, condemned each other for damnable
heretics. The Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the
second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the
Revelation, were long doubted by that part of the Church
which we reckon to have been soundest. Toland added a
quotation from Dodwell, who says that 'the canonical
writings lay concealed in the coffers of private churches or
persons till the latter times of Trajan, or rather, perhaps, of
Adrian ; so that they could not corne to the knowledge of
the Church. For if they had been published, they would
have been overwhelmed under such a multitude as were then
of apocryphal and supposititious books, that a new exami
nation and a new testimony would have been necessary to
distinguish them from false ones/
Dr. Samuel Clarke, in a letter to a friend, made some SamuelClarke
remarks on ' Amyntor.' He chiefly objected to Toland that, ™^* ^™e
in denying the genuineness of the Epistles of Clemens, Milton.'
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Barnabas, he made too little of the
judgment of the Church, both ancient and modern. Euse-
bius testifies that the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians
was generally read in the churches as Scripture. These
Epistles were not of canonical authority, yet some reverence
should be paid to them.
Stephen Nye wrote a ' Historical Account of the New Stephen Nye
Testament.' He would not admit the truth of what Dod- c^^n sof
well said about the sacred books being so long concealed in Scripture,
private chests. He maintained that the Fathers made a
254 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. marked distinction between the canonical books and the
Epistles of Clemens, Ignatius, and Barnabas, or any of
those mentioned in Toland's catalogue. He admitted that
they are often quoted as Scripture. Toland said that the
writers of the canon were strangers to each other, and
that the clergy were unacquainted with the books of the
New Testament till a hundred and thirty years after Christ.
Nye would not admit this, for the Fathers of the first cen
tury had quoted from them ; and as to the writers being
strangers, it was evident that Mark had abridged Matthew,
that Luke had read other Gospels, and that John approved
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Toland said that the Ebio-
nites had a Gospel of Matthew, and the Marcionites a Gos
pel of Luke, different from the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke as we have them ; that considerable sects of Christians
ascribed the apostolic writings to heretics, and that Celsus
had complained of the Christians that they had altered the
Gospels three or four times. Nye answered that the Eoio-
nites had probably Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew ; that Mar-
cion had retracted his vicious copies of Luke ; that John's
Gospel was rejected only by the Alogians, who afterwards
saw their errors ; and as to Celsus, it was the copies of
Marcion and the Valentinians that were changed, not those
that were read in the churches.
The canon Another reply to the ' Amyntor ' was ' The Canon of the
New Testament Vindicated/ by John Richardson, late Fel-
low of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He began by con
troverting some statements made by Basnage ; that for
three centuries after Christ there was no certain canon,
when both private persons and also whole Churches partly
admitted supposititious books for sacred, and partly despised
the genuine as profane ; that Origen believed Hernias'
Pastor to be divinely inspired ; that Theodorus of Mopsues-
tia calls the book of Job a fable borrowed from Paganism,
the books of Chronicles and Esdras a vain rhapsody, and
the Song of Solomon a love song ; that Eusebius says of the
Second Epistle of Peter that it was no part of the New
Testament, and that in the time of Gregory Nazianzen
some of the orthodox received it and others rejected it.
Richardson answers that the Second Epistle of Peter and
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 255
the Epistle to the Hebrews were both reckoned canonical CHAP. IX.
by the Council of Laodicea ; that Theodorus is not to be
taken as representing the Catholic Church — in fact, he was
condemned by the fifth General Council ; and as to Origen,
he speaks of the Pastor of Hernias as divinely inspired, but
not as canonical. Richardson distinguished between Scrip
ture, inspired Scripture, and canonical Scripture. Origen,
he says, reckoned the books of the Apocrypha uncanonical ;
and yet he calls the books of Wisdom and Maccabees Scrip
ture in the same way as the Homilies of the Church of Eng
land call the books of Tobit and Ecclesiasticus by the same
name. Divinely-inspired Scripture includes all books which
teach truth. Such Origen reckoned the Pastor of Hennas,
and among these Clemens Alexandrinus included the
writings of the ancient philosophers. The canonical books
are those which were written by Apostles, or at least had
apostolic authority. These alone were absolutely infallible.
Richardson said that Toland had an excellent talent for
detecting forgeries. If he could believe that ' Eikon Basi-
like ' was not written by King Charles, it was no wonder
that he doubted the genuineness of the Epistles of Barnabas,
Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clemens Romanus. He maintained
that spurious writings under the names of the Apostles
were soon detected. The Church was cautious in receiving
books as canonical. In different places the canon was
different until all the books were universally known by the
Church Catholic. This was about the time of the death of
St. John, the beginning of the second century.
A work of much greater pretension than Richardson's, By Jeremiah
called ' A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Jones'
Authority of the New Testament/ was written by Jeremiah
Jones. He admitted that the subject had great difficulties.
Casaubon and Spanheim affirmed that the Fathers quoted
apocryphal books promiscuously with the canonical as Scrip
ture. Archbishop Wake said that the Apostolic Fathers
were inspired, and therefore incapable of mistaking the
mind of the Apostles ; and that their writings contained
the ' true and pure faith of Christ without the least error
intermixed with it/ Whiston reckoned their works as
authentic books of the New Testament, and also many
256 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAR IX. books not now extant. Toland thought, and Jones said
justly, that if the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were
genuine, they were as much entitled to be in the canon as a
Gospel of Mark or Luke. Jones bestowed great labour on
his work, but he does not seem to have had a clear idea in
his own mind what he meant by the canon. At one time
he says it is simply a question concerning the genuineness
of certain books ; at another time he says that those books
only are canonical which the first Christian writers have
cited as Scripture, and all others are not. He admits that
there was no certain agreement about the canon till the
fourth century, but he denies that in the writings of the
first ages of Christianity the canonical and apocryphal
books are promiscuously cited as Scripture. He quoted
from Catholic and Protestant writers the grounds on which
they respectively receive the Scriptures. The Catholics
receive them simply on the authority of the Church. With
out this authority they are of no more value than ^Esop's
fables, and St. Matthew is no more to be credited than
Livy. The Reformers received the Scriptures on their
internal evidence, or from the Spirit witnessing in them
that they were the word of God. Some English divines
took an intermediary view, allowing full weight to the in
ternal evidence, yet receiving the canon on the authority of
the universal Church. Jones, as we have seen, was disposed
to rest it on the genuineness of the books. Toland raised a
great question which we cannot pursue further. It is per
haps correct to say that it is not yet settled.
Toland pub- After a visit to Holland, Toland published ' Nazarenus ;
or> Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity/ This
book consisted of three parts. One was an account of a
gospel which Toland had discovered in Amsterdam. He
maintained that it was the Gospel received by the Mahome
tans, and he thought it identical with the ancient Gospel of
St. Barnabas. He followed an opinion, which had been
maintained by Peter Martyr and others, that Mahometanism
was originally a Christian heresy. Its canonical books were
the Pentateuch, the Psalms, a Gospel of Jesus, and the
Koran. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Mahomet was named as
the promised Paraclete. Mahometan writings have many
ANSWERS TO 'NAZARENUS.'
257
}>;issnges out of our Gospels, and some out of the apocryphal ; CHAP. IX.
but they have also many passages which are found in neither.
Toland's knowledge of Mahometan writings was derived
from second-hand sources, and on this subject he was vul
nerable. But the real object of 'Nazarenus' was to set
forth a peculiar doctrine about the original of Christianity,
to vindicate some of the early heretics, and to show that the
floods of corruption came in with the dominant sect which
arrogated to itself the title of the Catholic Church. The
Gospel which he discovered he supposed to be the same as
the Gospel of the Ebionites, or Nazarenes. He maintained Maintains
that they were the first Christians — a theory which has njtes were th~
been ardently supported by M. Renan in his ' Life of Jesus/ Nazarenes.
It is grounded on some passages in Epiphanius, who says
that the first Christians took to themselves the name of
Nazarenes, and by this name they were called till at Antioch
they got the name of Christians. They were -also called
Ebionites, from a Hebrew word signifying 'poor/ because
the first disciples of Jesus were poor Galileans. When the
Christian Church went beyond Judea, they were treated as
heretics. Toland argues that the Mosaic economy was
binding on all believing Jews. The Gentiles alone were
free from it. Jews and Gentiles were to be united into one
Church, but it was to be a union without uniformity. This,
he says, reconciles the differences between Paul and Peter
ahout ceremonies, and Paul and James about justification.
Peter and James write to the Jews, the scattered tribes,
but Paul writes to the Gentiles. The severance between
the two parties was brought about by the Gentiles, when
such ' hot-headed raving monks as St. Jerome ' were per
mitted to say that whoever kept the Jewish law ' was plunged
into the gulf of the devil/ The Gentiles were the subverters
of Christianity. They clung to their native superstitions,
and would neither fast nor pray at the same time as the
Jews.
Thomas Mangey, a clergyman in Guildford, afterwards Thomas
Rector of St. Mildred's, Bread Street, replied to ' Nazarenus' j^^?^.
at some length, and controverted all that Toland had said renus.'
concerning the Mahometan Gospel, the Nazarenes, and the
Jewish law. Man gey 's friends thought that ' so weak and
VOL. II. S
258 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. wicked a book should be treated with contemptuous silence/
He himself did not think the book should be unnoticed,
but as to ( the religion or learning of Mr. Toland, he knew
no subject so little worthy of the world's notice or his exa
mination/ Mangey says that Toland blunders on his very
title-page. The heretical sect were not Nazarenes, but
Nazaraeans. They had their name not from Nazareth, but
from a word signifying ' separate ' or ' holy/ equivalent to
Puritan. They professed both the law and the Gospel. He
denies that the first followers of Jesus took to themselves
the name of Nazarenes. It was given to them by the Jews
in contempt, as when Tertullus called Paul a ringleader of
the sect of the Nazarenes. The Ebionites, or Nazaraeans,
erred in supposing the Mosaic institutions necessary to
salvation. They were not called Ebionites from their
poverty, but from their founder, Ebion. ' I do not know,'
says Mangey, ' any fact of antiquity better proved than that
there was such a person, and that he gave the name to the
sect.' They mistook the whole spirit of the Gospel, which
was an entire abrogation of the Jewish law. God Himself
had begun to teach this to the Jews by the later prophets.
They were to pay less attention to ceremonies. He had
given them statutes ' which were not good/ Our Lord not
only rescued the law from the narrow and false interpreta
tions of the Jewish doctors, but He entirely repealed it,
telling His disciples that the flaw and the prophets were
until John/ The charge against Stephen implied that the
Jews expected the Christians were to destroy their law.
Mangey had many texts in his favour, but he was perplexed
with the command to abstain from blood. He interpreted
it as meaning effusion of blood, that is, murder; supposing
the words c things strangled/ which follow, was a gloss upon
Hood. The reading, he says, was unknown to the ancients.
Defends the The Gentile Christians are defended, and the corruptions
Christians charged on the Judaizers. The early Church is set forth as
a pattern of purity. ' In this/ he says, ' I do. defend our
own most excellent Church/ As to the Mahometans, they
have no canonical Scriptures except the Koran. They have
apocryphal writings, and one of these is a Gospel sent to
Jesus. They knew nothing of a Gospel of Barnabas, nor
TOLAND'S CHARACTER.
259
did the ancients know of such a Gospel any more than the CHAT. IX.
Mahometans. Among the many spurious writings forged
by the heretics there is no such Gospel named, except in the
disputed canon of Pope Gelasius, and this declared that it
was not genuine. There is a legend of a copy of St. Mat
thew's Gospel having existed in St. Barnabas' handwriting,
which Mangey supposes to have been the origin of a Gospel
being ascribed to Barnabas. Toland' s candle is extinguished,
his 'folly/ 'weakness/ and 'ignorance' exhibited, though
concerning this Gospel he erred, if he did err, in company
with Ludovico Vives.
Dr. Thomas Brett wrote a book called ' Tradition necessary Thomas Brett
to Explain and Interpret the Holy Scripture/ It was pre-
ceded by a preface which was chiefly devoted to Toland' s
'Nazarenus.' It was confined, however, to some remarks
which Toland had made on the canonical books of Scripture,
and the scarcely perceptible difference which the Fathers
made between them and the apocryphal. Toland' s difficulty,
said Brett, could only be solved by tradition, which had
always distinguished between the books received into the
canon and those rejected as supposititious. For proof of
this he appealed to the Fathers.
( Anti-Nazarenus, by way of answer to Mr. Toland, and ' Anti-Naza-
alao against a late pamphlet entitled The Difficulties and re
Discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures/
was written by James Paterson. The pamphlet was the
work of Francis Hare, Bishop of Chichester. Paterson's
argument was that the Scriptures are the word of God;
that this is proved both by the excellency of the doctrine
and the power and wisdom of God manifested in them, also
by miracles and the fulfilment of prophecy. Finally, the
Church is built upon a rock ; that is, a never-failing succes
sion of bishops and priests.
Of the character of Toland we know but little. He seems Toland's cha-
to have been one of those men who have always more
enemies than friends. If we except Lucilius Vanini, per
haps no man in history has been more universally abused.
D' Israeli says that ' he had all the shiftings of the double-
faced Janus, and all the revolutionary politics of the ancient
Junius.' Toland's politics consisted chiefly in an ardent
s2
racter.
260 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. attachment to the Prince of Orange. In religion he pro
fessed to conform to the Church of England. A Scotch
schoolmaster, of the name of Huddleston, who wrote an ac
count of his life, says that he remained steadily attached to
Presbyterianism till the hour of his death. After praising
Toland for his attachment to the Revolution, he adds •
' Real and unaffected piety, and the Church of Scotland,
which he thought bore the greatest resemblance to the
primitive simplicity of the apostolic times, always found in
him an able and inflexible advocate/ All his adversaries
united in setting but little value on his talents or acquire
ments; but this was surely unjust. Leibnitz, who knew
Toland personally, says that he is ' glad to believe that the
design of this author, a man of no common ability, and, as
I think, a well-disposed person, was to withdraw men from
speculative theology to the practice of its precepts.' * His
learning was extensive, and his abilities far beyond the
average lot of even eminent men. As the work of a young
man in his twenty-fifth year, ' Christianity not Mysterious '
was a marvel of intellectual strength. He had, indeed, a
high estimate of his own powers, and this apparent vanity
repelled some who would have been his friends. With the
His excessive failing natural to his countrymen, he gave out that he was
descended of an ancient and noble family. D'Israeli says :
' When in after-life he was reproached with native obscurity,
he ostentatiously produced a testimonial of his birth and
family, hatched up in a convent of Irish Franciscans in
Germany, where the good fathers subscribed, with their ink
tinged with their Rhenish, to his most ancient descent, re
ferring- to the Irish history, which they considered as a
parish register fit for the suspected son of an Irish priest/
With the Irish tendency to exaggeration, Toland boasted of
having enjoyed in Holland the friendship of Limborch and
Le Clerc. Limborch doubted if he had ever seen him, and
Le Clerc believed that he had once met him. In Ireland
he spoke of John Locke as if he were the bosom friend of
the philosopher. Nothing could have given greater offence.
Locke, who had a high opinion of Toland's abilities, dis
owned him for ever. The world has but little toleration
* Quoted by Mr. Puttison in : Essays and Reviews.'
'PANTHEISTICON/
261
for men who show a consciousness of their own greatness. CHAP. IX.
And yet what is the difference between them and others,
but that they have not learned to affect humility like those
who have more worldly wisdom ? All great men know that
they are great. And for those who by the force of their
own talents have risen from humble positions, it is almost
impossible to conceal the sense of their greatness. When
Theodore Parker was dying, he said to his friends : ' I have
had great powers committed to me, and I have but half
used them.' When Robert Burns lay on his death-bed,
overwhelmed with poverty and wretchedness, among his last
words to his wife were these : ' Ah, Jean ! the world will
think mair o' me a hundred years after this/ They may
call this vanity who wish to sneer, but it is the overpowering
sense of greatness, and a better evidence of a true man than
the atfectation of humility.
Toland published some time before his death a book
called ' Panthsdsticon/ which did not add to his fame. A His ' Panthe-
subject so deep and mysterious as the relation of the Divine isticon-'
Being to the universe should never have been treated with
the levity of the f Pautheisticon/ Toland' s failings were
evidently great. They cannot be entirely excused, though
much may be said in extenuation. He was, says D'Israeli,
' a seed cast out to take root wherever it could/ The seed
was good, but it fell on stony ground. His whole life was
troubled and restless. He had a hard struggle with poverty
from the beginning to the end of his days. No one knew
how he got the means of subsistence.* He made frequent
visits to the Continent, and it was insinuated that he was a
' monitor of princes and diplomatists/ He wrote a Latin
epitaph for himself, in which he mentioned the place of his
birth, his knowledge of ten languages, and his love o
* 'In examining the original pa
pers of Toland which arc preserved, I
found some of his agreements with
booksellers. For his description of
Epsom he was to received only four
guineas in case 1,000 were sold. He
received ten guineas for his pamphlet
on naturalizing the Jews, and ten
guineas more in case Bernard Lin-
tott sold 2,000. The words of this
agreement run thus : " Whenever
Mr. Toland calls for ten guineas, after
the 1st of February next, I promise
to pay them if / cftm/ot show that 200
of the copies remain unsold." What
a sublime person is an author ! The
great philosopher who creates sys
tems that are to alter the face of his
country must stand at the counter
to count out 200 unsold copies !'-
I >' ISKAKM'S ( V/A/y/////V.v »f
262 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAR IX. liberty. It ended thus : ' His soul is reunited to his
His epitaph Heavenly Father, from whom it formerly proceeded ; his
for himself, body, yielding to nature, is also replaced in the bosom of
mother earth. He himself will undoubtedly arise to eternal
life, but he will never again be the same Toland.'* This has
always been taken for Pantheistic heresy. He did not ex
pect to be, he did not wish to be, the same man that he
had been. None of us do wish to be what we are here ;
our hope rather is in what we shall be. Toland died sud
denly, at the age of fifty-two, in his lodging at Putney, and
was buried in Putney churchyard.f A hundred and fifty
summer suns have set since then. No tombstone ever
marked the place where his ashes repose. He may have
been vain, perhaps he was impolitic, certainly he was unfor
tunate ; but he was one of the world's great men. Every
man who thinks and feels, whether he be a sceptic or a
believer, will drop a tear of sympathy by the grave of poor
John Toland. D'lsraeli says that ' he was accused of an in
tention to found a sect, as South calls them ' of " Mahometan-
Christians.-" Many were stigmatized as Tolandixts ; but the
disciples of a man who never procured for their prophet a
bit of dinner or a new wig — for he was frequently wanting
both — were not to be feared as enthusiasts/
Dr. South lived through the reign of Queen Anne, but
the active period of his life was ended before the close of
the seventeenth century. He may be regarded as one of the
characteristic specimens of the unyielding churchmen, who
H.S.E. In materno gremio reponitur.
Joannes Tolandus, Ipse vero {sternum est resurrecturus,
Qui in Hibernia prope Deriam natus, At idem futurus Tolandus nunquam.
In Scotia ot Hibernia studuit, Natus Nov. 30,
Quod Oxonii quoque fecit adolescens, C?etera ex scriptis pete.
Atque Germania plus semet petita, f D' Israeli says that, ' Toland died
"Virilem circa Londinum transegit in an obscure lodging at a count ry
tutatem, carpenter's, in great distress.' His
Omnium litorarum excultor only patron was Lord Molcsworth,
Ac lingtiarum plus decem sciens, himself poor. He promised Toland
Veritatis propugnator, at least bmr Kecuwrie* if he lived.
Libertatis assertor. His lordship says : ''Tisan ungrate-
Nullius autem sectator aut cliens, 1'ul age, and we must bear with it
Nee minis, ncc mails est . inflcxus the he<t we may till we can mend it!'
Quin ({iiani i 'git, vitam perageivt The entry of Toland' s burial in the
Utili hones turn anteferens. register of Putney Church, in 1722,
Spiritus cum a^thereo patre runs thus: ' Mr. John Toland, from
A quo prodiit olirn eonjimgitur, Edward Hinton's, buried March 13.'
Corpus item natura.1 cedens,
DE. SOUTH.
263
were the product of the era of the Restoration. His theology CHAP. IX.
consisted of eclectic incongruities, selected by passion or
prejudice, and often in defiance of reason, though, like most
of the theologians of his time, he professed to be one of
reason's worshippers. Like Sherlock, he preached passive
obedience till William was in possession, and then he con
tinued to practise it. Though a High Churchman, whose
chief object of hatred was the Puritan Dissenter, he yet South's
embraced the theological system of Calvin. He believed in
predestination, reprobation, and a literal satisfaction for sin ;
and he honestly maintained that these were truly and pro
perly important parts of the doctrinal teaching of the Church
of England. ' This doctrine/ he says, ' passed for good
divinity in St. Austin's time, and within less than an hun
dred years since in our church too, till Pelagianism and So-
cinianism, Deism and Tritheism, and a spirit of innovation,
the root of all, and worse than all broke in upon us/* The
' spirit of innovation ' was the spirit which tormented South.
He could bear with Puritan doctrine, but he must have
no innovation either in the Church or the State ; a rubric or
a surplice, a collect or an amen, was of more value to
South than all the Nonconformists, though they believed
the doctrines of the Church, which the multitude of Confor
mists had ceased to believe. The Dissenters were ' vipers '
who if admitted to conformity, by the relaxation of any of
the ceremonies, ' would eat through their adopted, not natural
mother's bowels.' And yet they were in a fatal schism, ' a
schism,' he Says, ' that, unrepented of and continued in, will
as infallibly ruin their souls as theft, whoredom, murder, or
any other of the most crying, damning sins whatsoever.' f
Yet, to save their souls from ' ruin,' South would not yield
the smallest letter in a rubric.
On such questions as conscience and the light of nature, Yet his theo-
South is often rational. He repeats what had been
said by Locke, that those who use their reason honestly,
will not be left ifi darkness. He cannot believe that the
heathen who never heard the gospel, must on that account
of necessity be lost, yet he finds no evidence that they can
be saved in the ordinary way as revealed to us. They
* Sermons, vol. iii. Dcd. t Sermons, vol. ii. 419.
264 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. could know nothing of the satisfaction of Christ, and with
out faith in that, there is no salvation so far as we know.
St. Paul quotes a psalm to prove that the whole world had
heard the Gospel. Some men have concluded that by this
the apostle meant, that all things which declare the wisdom
of God, and speak of God to men, do really preach the Gos
pel. South says of these men that they are ' sottish enough
to imagine that the Gospel is preached by the sun and
moon/ yet all men are allowed to have a moral sense. The
heathen have entrusted to them six grand truths. These
are, the existence of God, that He is the maker of all things,
that He is to be worshipped with virtue and piety, that the
soul is immortal, that we ought to repent of our sins, and
that deviation from duty makes men obnoxious to punish
ment.
His 'moral' Neither South's Calvinism nor his High Churchism
preac g. saved him from the ' moral ' preaching which is generally
regarded as the reproach of that age. Like Barrow, Til-
lotson, and the Latitudinarian divines, his favourite theme is
the reasonableness of religion. It is pleasant and profitable,
the surest way to have peace and prosperity. South's fa
vourite text was the pleasantness of wisdom's ways. He
chose this text for one of his famous sermons, which was
preached at Court. The argument was the usual one, that
in following sin, men lose greater pleasures than those which
they pursue. The pleasures of sin are deceitful, but those
of religion are real. They are pure, rational, angelical, and
1 embased with no attendant sting/ The life of philosophy
or wisdom is identified with the life of religion. In opposi
tion to all orthodox theology, especially that which South
himself professed to defend, he calls the rational life fa
state of grace/ This is illustrated by the case of Socrates.
When the Athenians laughed at Socrates, and called him
( crabbed, lustful, proud, ill-natured/ he said they were
right, but that he had conquered all by philosophy. Adam
in innocence is called a perfect philosopher. His reason
was then unclouded by sin. Those who follow reason and
wisdom are so far in the likeness of his innocence, but are
far short of his perfection. An ( Aristotle ' is but ' the rub
bish of an Adam/
BISHOP BULL.
265
The profitableness of religion is evidenced by experience. CHAP. IX.
The divine sanctions given to virtue are manifest to natural Reli^iT pro-
reason, and enforced by revelation. It is profitable for the iitablo and
life that now is, and for that which is to come. In the 6
process of the argument, South, like most of the moral
divines, virtually despairs of the pleasures of virtue ever
being preferred to those of vice if the present life only is to
be taken into account. For this reason he dwells on the
additional motives derived from revelation. These are
unbounded bliss hereafter as the reward of well-doing, and
untold punishment for them that do evil. The gains of
righteousness are mostly in reversion, and the disadvantages
of a sinful life are far off in the world to come. It is sup
posed that men who do not fear ' the laws, the assizes, or
the gallows/ may be deterred from evil by the thought of
the ' vengeance of God ' and the threatened punishment of
never-ending pains. To the objection that we really have no
certainty of a life to come either for happiness or misery,
South answers, after the fashion of his time, that the life to
come was probable. The stake, he said is great, and where
there is a probability, we should act upon it and be ' safe/
The active part of the life of Bishop Bull belongs also to Bishop Bull,
the seventeenth century. He was made Bishop of St. David's
by Queen Anne, but he had been ordained by Bishop Skin
ner in the time of the Commonwealth. Bull was a High
Churchman of the ordinary type, without anything peculiar
or eccentric. From his youth he was devoted to the Church
and the king, hating heartily every form of Puritanism or
anarchy. His theology was Arminian. He connected Cal
vin's doctrine with Calvin's discipline, and maintained them
both to be incompatible with the spirit of the Church of
England. His first work was on justification. It was writ
ten in his youth, and arose out of the great Antinomiaii
controversy which began in the time of the Commonwealth,
and ended among the Nonconformists in the time of William.
The controversy on justification is intricate and difficult
to follow. The word is borrowed by the New Testament
writers from courts of law, without any intimation how far
the divine judicature is to be interpreted by the human. The
definitions and distinctions of schoolmen and theologians
266 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. have only added obscurity to what at first was probably
On justifi- simple enough. To understand the different positions of
cation. Bishop Bull and his opponents on this subject, it is neces
sary to know the standpoint or theological system from
which they write. It is only in this way that we can learn
the meaning which they attached to the terms they used.
When a thorough Calvinist takes justification literally, there
is no doubt about his meaning. The sins of men in his
scheme are a debt, Christ paid the debt for the elect, and
because of this payment God accounts them righteous. They
are not just in themselves ; it is not necessary that they
should be. They are just in another, Christ's justice or
righteousness is imputed to them. The means of this justi
fication is faith, which is not a condition performed by the
elect, but something wrought in them. The other scheme,
in its broad outlines, is that they who believe are forgiven,
which is the same as justified or acquitted. Faith is neces
sary, but the difficulty begins with the question what faith
is, or how much it includes. This question need never
trouble the consistent Calvinist. Whatever is necessary
for the salvation of the elect is secured for them. It only
concerns the anti-Calvinist to inquire what faith means. He
may make it merely believing some doctrine or history. He
may make it trust, and in order to make that trust saving,
he may include the necessity of repentance and a new life.
This in a sense is salvation by works.
The ' Harmo- The rigid Calvinists of the time of the Commonwealth
Lica/ P< were charged with Antinomiaiiisrn. They were supposed
to make void the law through faith. They did not require
any effort from men, because God did the whole work for
them. In mere reasoning, the inference was just, but in
reality it was unjust. The most rigid Calvinist never be
lieved that after men were saved they would continue in sin.
An actual righteousness or sanctification was the final link
in the chain of election. The supposed tendency of this doc
trine was the cause of Bull writing his ' Harmonia Aposto-
lica,' in which he reconciled St. PauFs justification by faith
with St. James's justification by works. We are said to be
justified by faith, because the meritorious cause of justifica
tion is the work of Christ, and we are said to be justified by
BISHOP BULL.
267
works to maintain the necessity of a righteous life. Bull, CHAP. IX.
like the Calvinists, took the word justification in the sense
of righteousness imputed, carrying into the New Testament
the refined definitions of modern theology. In this way he
was able to ascribe the merit of redemption to the death of
Christ, while holding the necessity of good works to justifi
cation.
The answers to the ' Harmonia Apostolica ' were all by Answers to
Calvinists. Their logical force lay entirely in Bull's taking
literally the analogies of the New Testament. If Christ paid
the debt of justice for all, it followed that all were just. To
introduce, then, the necessity of works, was to add something
to the work already complete. Bishop Morley, as a consist
ent Calvinist, opposed Bull's doctrine in a pastoral letter to
his clergy. Dr. Barlow, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, read
public lectures against it at Oxford. Charles Gataker, son
of the famous Thomas Gataker, Thomas Truman, a Non
conformist, and John Tombes, the Baptist, were also among
Bull's opponents. The most formidable, however, was Dr.
T ully, Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, who proved it to be
the doctrine of the Fathers, of the Church of England, and
of all Keformed Churches, that men are justified by faith
alone, without the necessity of works. Bull wrote an elabo
rate defence of the ' Harmonia' especially in answer to Gataker
and Dr. Tolly.*
Our chief interest in Bishop Bull is from his connection ' Defence of
with the Trinitarian controversy. In 1685 he published his F^06110
1 Defence of the Nicene Faith/ The immediate cause of his
undertaking this work was to clear himself from the charge
of Socinianism. This had been made because of his advocacy
of the necessity of good works to justification. It was, of
course, a mere inference, logical enough as to the one point
of satisfaction, but not in any sense admitted by Bull him
self. There were special causes why the work took the form
which it did take. Petavius, Sandius, Episcopius, and Cur-
cellaeus had maintained that the Nicene faith was not the
faith of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Petavius, as a Jesuit,
* Richard Baxter, who had been the against Dr. Tully. It is supposed
chief opponent of this form of Calvin- that Dr. Tully was assisted in his
ism in tho time of the Commonwealth, work by Bishop Morley and Bishop
wrote in defence of Bull's views Barlow.
268 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. wished to prove the permanent authority of the Church to
make new dogmas. The,Nicene faith, he said, was not mani
fested, not distinctly or dogmatically taught, till the Council
of Nice. It was, therefore, useless to look for any Catholic
consent as to doctrine among individual Fathers. Sandius,
as an Arian, had an interest in proving that the Ante-Nicene
doctrine of the Church was Arian. Episcopius and Curcel-
lasus wished to minimize the differences on the subject of the
Trinity. They were not favourable even to the use of the
word Trinity, and wished to return entirely to the use of
Scripture language. Bull stood by the Anglican theory, as
set forth by the High Churchmen of the time of Charles I.,
that the Church of the first centuries was to be our pattern
and guide. To establish this theory it was necessary to show
that the Ante-Nicene Fathers agreed with the Council of
Nice, and that this early Church was guided by a kind of
infallibility. Bull's argument is expressly grounded on the
impossibility of the Council of Nice falling into error on this
subject without a failure of the fulfilment of Christ's promise
to be with His Church always. It was natural for Bossuet
to apply this to the infallibility of Trent as well as of Nice,
and to exclaim, ' God bless the learned Bull, and reward him
for this sincere confession/
Testimony of The ' Defence of the Nicene Faith ' consists of testimonies
the Fathers. from many Fathers to tne pre-existence of Christ before He
was born into the world, and to His consubstantiality and co-
eternity with the Father. It is true, that many of the pas
sages quoted are of doubtful interpretation, and require
some ingenuity to restrict them to an orthodox sense. Bull,
however, was a rational Trinitarian. In fact, he was com
pelled to be by the Nicene Creed. He said that Christ was
God, but only in the sense of ' God of God/ The Father
alone was God of and from Himself. The divinity of the
Son and the Holy Ghost was only a derived divinity.
'TheJudg- Bishop Bull's next work, ' The Judgment of the Catholic
Cathol/cthe Church/ had a more particular reference to the Trinitarian
Church.' controversy in England. It was a defence of the anathema
pronounced by the Council of Nice on all who departed on
any point from the Nicene faith. Episcopius had said that
the early Catholics did not excommunicate those who did
BISHOP BEVEEIDGE.
269
not believe that Christ was the Son of God before He was CHAP. IX.
born of the Virgin. The manner of the divine affiliation
was an open question in the early Church. From this it was
inferred that it ought to be an open question with us. The
same ground had been maintained by Dr. Bury and many
writers of pamphlets, who advocated forbearance and modera
tion, when Sherlock and South were in the midst of the battle.
Bull maintained that forbearance and moderation ought never
to be shown when an article of faith was in danger. The
Catholic Church had never suffered the landmarks to be
removed. The sonship of Christ, as denned by the Council
of Nice, had always been, and must always be, necessary to
salvation. An array of Fathers are summoned to give evi
dence. Their testimonies, as in the former case, are made
to agree by a little licence in the interpretation. Bull wrote
another book of the same kind, called ' The Primitive and
Apostolical Tradition of the Doctrine Received in the Catholic
Church/ This was chiefly in answer to Daniel Zwicker, a
German Unitarian, and his followers in England. Zwicker
had traced the orthodox doctrine to the introduction of
Platonism and Gnosticism into the Christian Church, and
Bull answers by testimonies from the Fathers.*
William Beveridge was appointed to the see of St. Asaph Bishop
in 1704, and died in 1708. The active period of his life Beverid£e-
belongs also to the latter half of the seventeenth century.
He was a Churchman of the rigid type of Bishop Bull, but
with a considerable difference, as he embraced the theology
of Calvin. He agreed with Bull in making faith a condi-
* Bull's 'Defence of the Nicene
Faith' was answered by Gilbert
Clcrke, in the third collection of Fir-
min's tracts. The substance of the an
swer is, that Bull only quotes Fathers
known to be orthodox, that is, who re
ceived the Nicene theology. The Soci-
nians, Clerke says, might quote Fathers
who were opposed to Bull's Fathers,
and who were vastly superior to them
in number and learning. Such were
Theodotian and Symmachus, Theo-
dorus and Paul of Antioch. The
Ante-Nicene Fathers whom Bull
quotes do not deserve the epithets of
' very learned ' and 'very holy,' which
he so frequently bestows on them.
He ; vends all his geese for swans.'
They have not been so described by
any other author. The first quoted
is St. Barnabas, but it is doubtful if
he was the St. Barnabas of the New
Testament, if so, his epistle should
have been in the Canon. But it was
not worthy of this honour, as many
Fathers testify. There is no proof
that ' The Shepherd of Hennas ' was
the work of the Hernias mentioned by
St. Paul. The writings ascribed to
Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Roman
Clemens are all uncertain. Thcodoret
and Augustine testifv that the Naza-
renes honoured Christ only as a man,
and Bull admits that the Nazarenes
were the Jewish Christians.
2/0 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. tion in order to our f being actually vested in that salvation
which Christ has purchased for us/ This might, perhaps,
on other occasions, have been explained away ; in fact, must
have been, on any consistent theory of predestination.
Beveridge also maintained the universality of the atone
ment, saying that Christ had died for all, and that God
willed all -men to be saved. Salvation was thus made on
one point to depend on men themselves, and, as few are in
earnest on this subject, he believed that out of the multi
tudes of mankind only a small number would be saved.
The theology Beveridge, like Bull, had embraced the Anglican theory
tLCuniver^l of tne infallibility of the Early Church. But he found the
consent of universal consent of the Fathers to be on the side of the
theology of Calvin. It was not difficult to find the same
theology in the Articles and Homilies of the Church of
England. In his ' Exposition of the XXXIX Articles'
Beveridge proves every doctrine by Scripture, reason, and
the Fathers. But on Art. XVII. he says, that here we must
put reason aside, and be guided solely by Scripture and
Fathers. The elect, on Beveridge's scheme, must have
been an exceedingly choice remnant. Indians, Mahometans,
Jews, and indeed all who were not Christians, were excluded
by authority of Art. XVIII. Heretics, schismatics, and
sectaries were excluded by authority of Augustine and
Fulgentius. They alone were in the way of salvation who
were members of the Catholic Church, who had been rightly
baptized, and to whom the other sacrament had been duly
administered. But all these were not to be saved. Out of
them was to come the election of grace, to whom fthe
godly consideration of their predestination' was ' full of
sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort/ Bishop Beve
ridge was a very pious man, very learned and very reverent.
When he was a Prebendary of Canterbury Cathedral he
refused to read the brief of King Charles for a collection in
aid of the exiled Huguenots. He told Dr. Tillotson, the
Dean, that it was contrary to the rubrics. Tillotson an
swered, ' Doctor ! Doctor ! charity is above rubrics/ *
* ' A Short View of Dr. Beve- of Beveridge is a very humble one.
ridge's Writings' was written anony- His Calvinism and High Churchism
mously by Dr. Whitby. The estimate are dealt with severely.
JOHN NOREIS. 271
John Norris, Rector of Bemerton, who appeared among1 CHAP. IX.
the adversaries of Toland, was a voluminous writer, but his T , T~
works are now forgotten. He had written against Locke
on innate ideas, advocating the doctrine of Malebranche
that we see all things in God. Norris belonged to the
more visionary class of modern Platonists, best represented
by Henry More. They followed Plotinus more than Plato,
and in some things they were the immediate disciples of
Descartes. Norris seems to have taken his philosophy
and his theology without change from Malebranche. His
largest work is ' An Essay towards the Theory of the Ideal
or Intelligible World/ This was founded on the old
Platonic doctrine of the reality of ideas which, according to
Norris, was adopted by St. John in the beginning of his
Gospel. The Logos was the Wisdom of the Father. All
things were made by Him. In Him was the life, and the
life was the light of men. St. Augustine's rendering of St.
John is even more in agreement with Plato's theory of
ideas. Instead of fin Him was life/ Augustine reads
' that which was made is life in Him.' The ideas were
life in the Logos, Reason, or Wisdom of God. They are
the things that were made in Him.
The world in its ideal is necessarily permanent and His theology
.immutable. It is the prototype of the natural world which tranche! &
owes to it all it has of truth or reality, beauty or perfec
tion. It is this of which Job speaks as ' possessed by the
Lord in the beginning of His way, before His works of old,
which was set up from everlasting, from the beginning or
ever the earth was.' This is the world of which we are
really certain, for it is the world of reason. The natural
world we only know by sense, which often deceives us ; for
senses were not given us, as Malebranche says, to instruct
us in truth, but merely to serve for the common uses of
life.
This Logos by which the world exists is the light and the The Logos
life of men. The Reason of God enlightens every man that
comes into the world. Christ, or the Logos, is so inti
mately united to our minds that in Him we see all things.
He is our light and wisdom, as He is the Light and
Wisdom of the Father. He is ' the inward word and sub-
272 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. IX. stantial conception of our minds/* This, in strict logic, is
to make the reason of man and even his existence parts of
the reason and the existence of God. Augustine is quoted
as saying, that ' rational minds have no other true light
but that very word of God by whom all things were made/
All men are participators of this reason, but in some it is
actual, while in others it is only potential. The light
shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehends it
not. This is paralleled by the corresponding use of the
words salvation or saved. Christ has redeemed all men
potentially, but actual salvation is only to them that believe.
Norris quotes from Hierocles a passage to the same effect
as the words in St. John. Jupiter tells Pythagoras that
they only have the actual illumination who strive to be free
from evil, and so purge their moral sense that they may
see truth. Norris objects to the Quakers' doctrine of the
' light within/ that they make this light a creature, and
not God Himself in His proper essence and being, j-
John Ray. John Kay, the naturalist, may also be classed with the
theological writers of the latter part of the seventeenth
century. He lost his fellowship at Trinity College through
the Act of Uniformity, but remained in communion with the
Church as a layman. Nothing so loudly proclaims the
injustice and the folly of the Act of Uniformity as the
ejection of John Ray. He had no insuperable objections to
the constitution or discipline of the Church of England.
He had never taken the Solemn League and Covenant. In
]660 he had voluntarily sought episcopal ordination from
Bishop Sanderson. He might, with an effort, have sub
scribed to all that was required; but he could not swear
that those who had taken the oath of the Covenant were
not bound by their oath.
Belongs to the Ray belongs properly to the Royal Society. After his
Royal Society. eject(on from the service of the Church, he devoted himself
entirely to the study of nature. This study he connected
with religion, in the spirit of Robert Boyle and Bishop
Wilkins. He laid the foundation of natural theology in
reason, gathering from the works of creation manifold evi-
* 'Treatises upon Several Sub- f Ibid. p. 437.
jccts,' p. 199.
JOHN RAY. 273
dences of the existence, the wisdom, and the goodness of CHAP. IX.
Deity. He took the Scriptures as a revelation from God in
the old sense that they were an infallible guide both in
science and history. He studied nature to confirm the
truth of what they taught. Noah's flood was proved from
the sea- shells found on mountain tops, and the dissolution
of the world by fire, as predicted by St. Peter, from the
inflammability of the earth under the torrid zone. Ray had
no genius for speculation. He made the natural theology
of the eighteenth century, and that century was spent in
studying it.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.
As the Unitarian controversy is somewhat intricate, a list of the
principal tracts, in the order of their publication, may be of some
service as a guide to the reader. The first two were ' The Brief
History of the Unitarians,' 1689, and the ' Brief Notes on the
Athanasian Creed,' 1689.
Sherlock's answer, called ' A Vindication of the Trinity/ etc.,
was published in 1690. This was followed, in 1691, by the first
collection of Firmin's tracts, called ' The Faith of One God, who is
only Father, and of One Mediator between God and Man, who is
only the man Jesus, and of Holy Ghost, the gift (and sent) of
God, Asserted and Defended,' etc. The volume contains: —
1. ' A.n Exhortation to a Free and Impartial Inquiry into the
Doctrines of Religion.'
2. ' The Apostolical and True Opinion concerning the Holy
Trinity Revived and Asserted,' etc. This is a republication of
Bidle's tracts, dated 1548, with a life of John Bidle prefixed. They
consist of the ' Letters to Sir H. V.,' the ' XII Arguments,' ' A
Confession of Faith Concerning the Holy Trinity according to
Scripture,' ' The T 'stimonies of Irenseus, Justin Martyr, Tertul-
lian,' etc.
3. « The Acts of Great Athanasius, with Notes by way of illustra
tion on his Creed, and Observations on the Learned Vindication of
the Trinity and Incarnation,' by Dr. William Sherlock.
4. ' Some Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doc
trine of the Trinity,' in a letter, the second edition, with enlarge-
VOL. II. T
274 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
APPENDIX ments. This tract condemns Sherlock for dealing in philosophy
CHAP* IX anc^ metaPnysics> ^ recommends keeping to Scripture language.
1 5. ' A Brief History of the Unitarians, called also Socinians, in
Four Letters to a Friend.' The second edition, corrected, with
some additions.
6. * A Defence of the Brief History of the Unitarians against
Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity.'
7. 'An Impartial Account of the Word Mystery, as it is taken
in Holy Scripture.'
8. ' Dr. Wallis's Letter Touching the Doctrine of the Blessed
Trinity Answered by his Friend.'
9. * Observations on the Four Letters of Dr. John Wallis
concerning the Trinity and the Creed of Athanasius.'
Some of these tracts are dated 1690. The tracts of the second
collection are dated 1692-93, * Proving the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ the only True God, and Jesus Christ the
Son of God, Him whom the Father sanctified and sent, raised
from the Dead, and Exalted, and Disproving the doctrine of Three
Almighty and Equal Persons, Spirits, Modes, Subsistences, or
Somewhats in God, and of the Incarnation.' This volume con
tains : — •
1. ' A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the
Trinity and the Incarnation.'
2. ' Two Letters Touching the Trinity and Incarnation.'
' 3. ' An Accurate Examination of the Principal Texts usually
alleged for the Divinity of our Saviour, and for the satisfaction,
etc., occasioned by a book of Mr. L. Milbourn, called Mysteries
(in Religion) Vindicated.'
4. * Reflections on Two Discourses concerning the Divinity of
our Saviour, written by M. Lamothe, in French, and done into
English.'
5. ' The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion concerning Almighty
God and Mankind considered, both Before and After the Fall,
with Notes thereupon, which Notes contain also the Unitarian
Scheme.'
6. ' Of Worshipping the Holy Ghost expressly as a Person
equal to, and distinct from, the Father.'
7. * The Unreasonableness of the Doctrine of the Trinity briefly
Demonstrated.'
8. * The Belief of the Athanasian Creed not required by the
Church of England as necessary to Salvation.'
9. * Mr. Chillingworth's Judgment of the Religion of Protest
ants.'
TRACTS ON THE TRINITY.
275
10. ' Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of APPENDIX
the Trinity, by Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. S— th, Dr. Cud-
worth, and Mr. Hooker, as also on the Account given by those
that say the Trinity is an Inconceivable and Inexplicable Mystery,
written to a Person of Quality.'
Another volume contains a third collection of tracts with the
dates of 1694-95.
1. ' Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the
Trinity, Occasioned by Four Sermons Preached by His Grace the
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury ; A Sermon preached by the
Lord Bishop of Worcester ; A Discourse by the Lord Bishop of
Salisbury ; A Sheet by a very Learned Hand, containing Twenty-
Eight Propositions; a Treatise by an eminent Dissenting Minister,
being a Calm Discourse concerning the Possibility of a Trinity ;
and by a Book in Answer to the Animadversions on Dr. Sher
lock's Vindication of the Trinity, in a letter to H. H.'
2. c Animadversions on a Postscript to the Defence of Dr. Sher
lock Against the Calm Discourse of the Sober Enquirer, as also
on the Letter to a Friend Concerning the Postscript/
3. * A Letter to the Keverend the Clergy of both Universities
Concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed, with Reflec
tions on all the Late Hypotheses, Particularly Dr. W.'s and Dr.
S— th's ; The Trinity placed in its True Light ; The Twenty-Eight
Propositions ; The Calm Discourse of a Trinity in the G-odhead,
and a Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notions, with a Short Discourse
Concerning Mysteries.'
4. ' The Reflections on the Twenty-Eight Propositions Touch
ing the Doctrine of the Trinity, in a Letter to the Clergy, and
Maintained Against the Third Defence of the said Propositions,'
by the Same Hand.
5. ' A Reply to the Second Defence of the Twenty-Eight Pro
position, said to be writ in Answer to a Socinian Manuscript.' By
the author of that M.S. No Socinian, but a Christian and Unitarian.
6. 'The Exceptions of Mr. Edwards in his Causes of Atheism
against the Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the
Scriptures Examined, etc.'
7. * The Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrine of
the Trinity Opposed to Dr. Gr. Bull's Defence of the Nicene
Faith.'
8. ' A Discourse concerning the Nominal and Real Trinitarian.'
Besides these three series of Firmin's tracts, there were other
single tracts of the same dates on this controversy. The follow
ing is a list of some of the more important on both sides : —
T 2
Ix
276 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
APPENDIX 'An Answer to an Anonymous Pamphleteer who Impugns the
Tp Doctrine contained in the Creed of St. Athanaaius,' 1(390.
1_ 'A Vindication of the Unitarians against a late Reverend
Author on the Trinity,' 1690.
' Tractatus de Vera Christi Deitate adversus Arii et Socinii
Hayeses,' (Whitby) 1691.
'An Answer to Dr. Wallis's Four Letters concerning the Doc
trine of the Trinity,' 1691.
' A Calm and Sober Enquiry Concerning the Possibility of a
Trinity in the Godhead, Occasioned by the lately published Con
siderations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, by
Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. S— th, Dr. Cudworth, etc., together
with Certain Letters (hitherto unpublished) formerly written
to the Rev. Dr. Wallis on the same Subject.' By John Howe.
' A Letter to a Friend Concerning the Postscript to the Defence
of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of the Trinity in Unity, relating to the
Calm and Sober Enquiry upon the same Subject.' (John Howe.)
*A View of that Part of the late Considerations Addressed to
H. H., about the Trinity, which Concerns the Sober Enquiry on
that Subject.'
' Animadversions on a Postscript to the Defence of Dr. Sher
lock Against the Calm Discourse of the Sober Enquirer, as also
on a Letter to a Friend concerning that Postscript.'
' The Antapology of the Melancholy Stander-By in Answer to
the Dean of St. Paul's late Book, falsely styled an Apology for
"Writing against Socinians,' 1693.
'Brief Observations upon the Vindication of the Trinity and
Incarnation, by the Learned Dr. W. Sherlock.'
' Some Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doc
trine of the Holy Trinity.'
' A Letter to the Rev. Dr. South upon Occasion of a late Book
entitled Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Book in Vindication
of the Trinity,' (Sherlock) 1693.
' The Socinian Controversie Touching the Son of God Reduced
in a Brief Essay, to Prove the Son One in Essence with the
Father, upon Socinian Principles, Concessions and Reason ; Con
cluded with an Humble and Serious Caution to the Friends of
the Church of England against the Approaches of Socinianism.'
By F. Fullwood, D.D., 1693.
' An Answer to the Brief History of the Socinian ' By Wil
liam Basset, Rector of St. Swithiu's, 1693.
' An Apology for Writing Against the Socinians in Defence of
the Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.' By Dr. Sher
lock, 1693.
TRACTS ON THE TRINITY.
277
' A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity, in APPENDIX
Answer to Animadversions, etc., with a Postscript relating to the
Calm Discourse of a Trinity in the Godhead,' (Sherlock) 1094.
' Certain Propositions by which the Doctrine of the Holy
Trinity is so Explained according to the Ancient Fathers, as to
Speak it not Contradictory to Natural Reason, together with a
Defence of them in Answer to the Objections of a Socinian,
written in the Newly-printed Considerations on the Explications
of the Trinity Occasioned by the Propositions,' (Fowler) 1694.
' An Account of the Blessed Trinity Argued from the Nature
and Perfection of the Supreme Spirit coincident with the Scrip
ture Doctrine in all the Articles of the Catholic Creeds, together
with its Mystical, Foederal, and Primary Uses in the Catholic
Church.' By William Burrough, 1694.
' A Modest Examination of the late Discourse of the Vice-
Chancellor of Oxford, etc., concerning the Theory of Three Dis
tinct Infinite Minds in the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity.' By
•William Sherlock, D.D., 1694.
' The Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools Considered, etc., in
Answer to the Animadversions of the Dean of St. Paul's 'Vindica
tion of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity.' By
J. B., 1695.
' A Second Defence of the Propositions, etc., together with a
Third Defence of these Propositions in Answer to the Newly-
Published Reflections Contained in a Pamphlet Entitled a Letter
to the Reverend the Clergy of both Universities/ 1695.
' Remarks by a University Man upon a late Book Falsely Called
a Vindication of the Primitive Fathers Against the Imputations
of Gilbert Burnet, Lord Bishop of Sarum,' 1695.
* A Vindication of the Sermons of His Grace John Archbishop
Canterbury, etc., of the Bishop of Worcester's Sermon on the
Mysteries of the Christian Faith from the Exceptions of a late
P)0ok entitled Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine
of the Trinity to which is annexed a Letter from the Lord Bishop
of Sarum to Mie Author of the Second Vindication on the same
Subject,' 1695.
'Remarks upon the Examination of the Oxford Decree.' By
Jonathan Edwards, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, 1695.
' The Judgment of a Disinterested Person Concerning the Con
troversy about the Trinity Depending Between Dr. S — th and Dr.
Sherlock,' 1696.
'A Modest Examination of the Authority and Reasons of the
Late Decree of the Vice Chancellor of Oxford and some Heads of
278 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
APPENDIX Colleges and Halls, concerning the Heresy of Three Distinct
CHA3? IX Infinite Minds in the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity.' By Wil-
1_L " Ham Sherlock, D.D., Dean of St. Paul's, Master of the Temple,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to Her Majesty, 1696.
' Eye-Salve Recommended to the "World, in a Short Essay,
Occasioned by the Sight of a Discourse Set Forth since the
King's Injunction Concerning the Trinity/ 1696.
' Some Considerations concerning the Trinity, and the Ways of
Managing that Controversy,' 1696.
'The Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and of the Church or
England, Concerning the Blessed Trinity, Explained and Asserted
Against Dangerous Heterdoxes, in a Sermon by Dr. William
Sherlock before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen,' 1697.
This is also called ' Remarks upon Dr. William Sherlock's (false
and treacherous) Defence of some Principal Articles of Faith, in a
Sermon before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, April
25, 1697.'
' Sermon Preached at Colchester by II. De Luzancy. To which
are prefixed some Remarks on the Socinian's late Answer to the
Four Letters Written Against them by the same Author.' 1697.
' The Divine Unity Once More Asserted,' 1697.
'The Agreement of Unitarians with the Catholic Church:
Answer to Mr. Edwards, the Bishops of Chichester, Worcester,
Sarum, and Mons. de Luzancy,' 1697.
'The Grounds and Occasions of the Controversy Concerning
the Unity of God,' etc. By a Divine of the Church of England,
1698.
' A Letter to a Friend, with Remarks upon the Pamphlets lately
published in Defence of Tritheism, a Brief Enquiry by J. T., and
the Socinian Slain,' by J. II., 1700.
'The Moderate Trinitarian.' By Daniel Allen, 1699.
' The Arian's Vindication of Himself against Dr. Wallis's Fifth
Letter on the Trinity.'
* A Vindication of Dr. Sherlock's Sermon concerning the Dan
ger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy, in Answer to some
Socinian Remarks/ 1697.
' A Preservative against Socinianism.' By Jonathan Edwards,
1698.
Some of these tracts, along with others not named here, are
* included in volumes called fourth, fifth, and sixth collections. An
account of them will be found in ' Anti-Trinitarian Biography,' by
Eobert Wallace.
279
CHAPTER X.
ACT OF TOLERATION. LOCKERS LETTERS ON TOLERATION. — COM
PREHENSION BILL. THE QUAKERS. WILLIAM PENN. ROBERT
BARCLAY. GEORGE KEITH ANSWERS PENN AND BARCLAY.
CHARLES LESLIE AGAINST THE QUAKERS. THE BAPTISTS.
JOHN BUNYAN. — ON REPROBATION. THE SABBATH. — CLOSE
COMMUNION. DANIEL DE FOE AGAINST OCCASIONAL CONFOR
MITY. ANSWERS BY JOHN HOWE AND VISCOUNT BARRINGTON.
BILL AGAINST OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY. BURNETTS SPEECH
AGAINST THE BILL. BAXTER, BATES, AND HOWE*S UNWILLING
SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH. SAMUEL CLARKE ON ' DI
VINE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES/ UNITARIANISM
AMONG THE PRESBYTERIANS. THOMAS EMLYN.
accession of William and Mary begins a new era for
J- Nonconformists, as well as for the Church of England.
In the first year of this reign they had a legal existence
secured by the Act of Toleration. Nonconformist ministers The Act of
were to subscribe thirty-four of the Thirty-nine Articles. Toleration.
Special arrangements were made for Baptists and Quakers,
but Roman Catholics and Unitarians were beyond the pale.
It was still penal to teach transubstantiation, or to deny
the Divinity of Christ.
John Locke vindicated the Act of Toleration, but lamented Vindicated by
its imperfection. Toleration was an old subject, and had Jonn Locke-
often been discussed since the Reformation. In Locke's
judgment there was no nation under heaven in which so
much had been said on it as ours, and ' no people that stood
in more need of having something further both said and
done amongst them on this point than we do/* It is easy
* First Letter on Toleration. To the Reader.
280
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. to draw many inferences on this subject to serve party in
terests, but it is not always easy to trace the abstract
principles on which toleration was denied. There are some
obvious cases in which it was due purely to an arbitrary
exercise of power, sometimes on the part of the sovereign,
and sometimes on the part of the Church. But in many
cases it had political or religious reasons ; and in every case
these were not the same. ' Our government/ Locke says,
( has not only been partial in matters of religion, but those
also who have suffered under that partiality, and have there
fore endeavoured by their writings to vindicate their own
rights and liberties, have for the most part done it upon
narrow principles, suited to the interests of their own sects/
The exceptions to this are some of the great writers of the
Church of England, as Taylor, Stillingfleet, and Tillotson,
who advocated toleration for all who were not idolaters.
The Church The Church of England has no doctrine of the duty of the
^SjJ^*rt| civil magistrate in religion beyond that of protecting the
magistrate. safety of the commonwealth. There are traces in the
writings of some of the Reformers that they regarded the
king as taking the place which had been held by the Pope.
Some even said that to the civil ruler was committed the
care of the souls of his subjects. There are also individual
theologians who have held it to be the duty of the State to
defend the truth and to oppose all error ; but the Church of
England in itself authorizes no interference of the magis
trate with the religious opinions of the people, except so far
as they are supposed to be dangerous to the welfare of the
State. The necessities of self-defence demanded the entire
exclusion of the Church of Rome. The Puritans were per
secuted for nonconformity, but the argument for their
persecution involved the charge that nonconformity itself
was disloyalty to the sovereign. The Presbyterians first
distinctly taught that the civil magistrate was to establish
truth and extirpate error. The Independents, however,
were too strong for the Presbyterians. Under Cromwell
toleration was professedly given to all, ( provided tin's liberty
be not extended to Popery or Prelacy/ The Quakers ;m<!
some other new sects were included, but practically tolera
tion never reached them.
LOCKE OJS TOLERATION.
28l
Locke advocated ' absolute liberty.' He wished it to be CHAP. X.
( just and true, equal and impartial/ He founded his argu
ments on an analysis of the duties and objects of civil
governments as distinct from those of religious communities.
Force, he said, which is the foundation of a commonwealth,
can have no place in religion. The magistrate has to pro
tect the lives and property of his subjects, but he cannot
have the care of their souls, for true or saving religion can
only come from an inward persuasion. The Church is The duties of
altogether distinct from the State. It is founded on belief, ^f frj^*"
The magistrates cannot enforce religious doctrines, because those of the
they are beyond the reach of absolute certainty. Even
the fundamental articles of the Christian religion cannot be
demonstrated; they are matters of faith, not of knowledge.
The magistrate, therefore, ' must be content with faith and
persuasion/ *
Locke's position was precisely that of the Church of Locke's doc-
England. His arguments were addressed only to the Pres- church and
byterians and such Churchmen as held that the civil magis- State that of
trate was bound to punish heresy. He did not deny all England,
connection between the Church and the State. Some rela
tions, such for instance as those for mutual self-protection,
he held to be inevitable. Locke nowhere opposes the State
Church principle. He simply advocates freedom and the
utmost toleration. In the ' Laws of Carolina' he objected
to an article which provided that the Church of England
be supported by a grant from parliament. But he did not
wish the State to be without a religion. Contrary, perhaps,
to his own principle of absolute liberty, he made a statute
that 'no person above seventeen years of age shall have
any benefit or protection of the law, or be capable of any
place of profit or honour, who is not a member of some
church or profession.' He allowed, however, a wide scope
for the creeds of churches, requiring no indispensable
articles of faith beyond belief in God, and that He is to
be worshipped.
The Bill of Toleration was accompanied by a Bill of The Bill of
Comprehension. Both bills had the approbation of the
nonjurmg bishops. Could we regard them as purely the
* Works, vol. v. p. H4. Ed. 1824.
282 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. acts of the State Church, they might be explained on the
principle of giving freedom as soon as freedom was compa
tible with the safety of the State. The loyalty of Protestant
Nonconformists to the constitution had been demonstrated.
But, in addition to this, toleration of the Nonconformists had
become a necessity in presence of the common enemy.
There were doubtless men, like Tillotson and Locke, who
advocated liberty of conscience far beyond what was granted
by the Act of Toleration. But all were agreed that tolera
tion itself was in danger if there was to be no check on the
Church of Rome. Locke argued, that though idolatry
might be tolerated, yet the Church of Rome could not,
because of the principle that no faith is to be kept with
heretics. Tillotson told the House of Commons in a ser
mon that it was their duty to make effectual provision
' against the propagation of Popery, which was more mis
chievous than irreligion itself/
The Comprehension Bill was the last effort for the restora
tion of Dissenters. Its history illustrates the position of the
different parties at the final parting with the Nonconformists.
Its provisions. It proposed virtually what Baxter and his party had asked
in 1662. Instead of assent and consent to all and every
thing in the Prayer Book, there was to be substituted a
general approval of the doctrine and discipline of the
Church of England. The use of the surplice, the cross in
baptism, and kneeling at the communion, were not to be
compulsory. As the changes affected the liturgy and the
canons, the Lords petitioned their Majesties for a Royal
Commission to prepare the necessary alterations. The Com
mission was not to exceed thirty persons, who were to be
chosen from the bishops and clergy only. This limitation
was opposed, but when it came to the vote the numbers
were equal, and so the amendment for the admission of lay
men was lost. The Commons ordered the bill to lie on the
table, and passed a resolution that the King be requested to
summon the Houses of Convocation. This was seconded by
the Lords, and so the bill passed entirely out of the hands
of the laity, to be dealt with only by the clergy.
There were reasonable hopes that at this time, even, the
Houses of Convocation would have been willing to promote
THE COMPREHENSION BILL.
283
a scheme of comprehension. The suggestion of leaving the CHAP. X.
bill to Convocation is said to have originated with Tillotson. jtg ^ tor
He believed the Church to be capable of liberty, and he
wished to remove the reproach that it was merely the crea
ture of the State. He was deceived. The bishops, indeed,
showed themselves for the most part equal to the occasion,
but the Lower House too faithfully represented the igno
rance and passion of the inferior clergy. Dr. Beveridge
preached before the Convocation against change, and Dr.
Jane, the High Church leader, was chosen Prolocutor of the
Lower House instead of Tillotson, who had expected the
office without opposition. The scheme of revision was pre
pared, but to present it before such an assembly as had met
in the Lower House would have been labour obviously in
vain.*
The commission consisted of ten bishops and twenty The Royal
divines.f They had been chosen with some care and dif- Commission,
ferent parties were fairly represented. Some of those named
in the commission never came, and others came but seldom.
Dr. Williams, who kept a diary of the proceedings, says,
that on one occasion there were only seven or eight present,
while nine were required to constitute a quorum. At
the next meeting, Sprat, of Rochester, who had been in
trouble through serving on an illegal commission under
James, expressed doubts of the legality of the present
commission, and fears of a premunire. There had not been
a quorum at the last meeting, and many of those named in
the commission as deans and prebendaries had since been
* Dr. Jane was a declared enemy
of William and all his schemes. He
had been chosen by the University of
Oxford to present their plate to the
Prince, when he took the opportunity
of asking the bishopric of Exetor. It
had already been promised to Tre-
lawney, and was therefore refused to
Jane.
f The bishops were Lamplugh of
York ; Compton of London ; Lloyd of
St. Asaph ; Sprat of Rochester ; Smith
of Carlisle ; Trelawney of Exeter ;
Burnet of Salisbury ; Humphreys of
Bangor ; Mew of Winchester ; and
Stratford of Chester. The divines
Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul's ;
Patrick, Dean of Peterborough ; Til
lotson, Dean of Canterbury ; Meggot,
Dean of Winchester ; Sharp, Dean of
Norwich; Montague, Master of Trinity,
Cambridge ; Goodman, Archdeacon of
Middlesex ; Beveridge, Archdeacon of
Colchester; Batteley, Archdeacon of
Canterbury ; Alston, Archdeacon of
Essex ; Kidder, Rector of St. Martin's
Outwich; Aldrich, Dean of Christ
Church ; Jane, Regius Professor of
Divinity, Oxford ; Beaumont, Regius
Professor, Cambridge ; Tenison, Arch
deacon of Lincoln ; Fowler, a Preben
dary of Gloucester; Scott, Grove,
and Williams, Prebendaries of St.
Paul's.
284 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. made bishops. His fingers, he said, had already been burnt,
and he was afraid of fire. Patrick tried to convince him
that the commissions were unlike. Their present business
was only to make recommendations. They had now no
corrupt judges, and there was no danger of coming into
collision with any secret designs of the king. Mew, of
Winchester, who had also been on the former commission,
agreed with Sprat. Aldrich and Jane suddenly left the
meeting and never again appeared on the commission. The
old questions, which had been the occasion of Nonconform
ist scruples, were all thoroughly discussed. Regeneration
by baptism in some sense was found to be the doctrine of
all reformed Churches. Dr. Fowler wished the use of the
Athanasian Creed to be optional, because of the damnatory
clauses. It is said that many Conformists holding high
stations in the Church had long ceased to use it, and that
the Nonconformists now objected to all creeds which were not
Their dis- written in Scripture language. Ordination was discussed
under three forms, that of the Roman Catholics, that of
the Foreign Protestant Churches, and that of the Dissenters.
The validity of the first was doubted, because in the Church
of Rome there is no imposition of hands till the ordination
is completed. It was agreed, therefore, that those ordained
by the Church of Rome should be re-ordained • hypotheti-
cally. As to foreign orders, it was shown that those who
were ordained bishops for the sees in Scotland under James
I. had not to be re-ordained presbyters. Bishop Andrewes,
indeed, had objected to their consecration without re-ordi
nation, but he yielded to the judgment of the king. It
was therefore decided that for those who had been ordained
by presbyters in Foreign Churches, it would be sufficient
to give authority by imposition of hands to officiate in the
Church of England. The case of the English Dissenters
was compared to that of the African Donatists. The
Catholic Church acknowledged their ordinations for the
healing of the schism. For the present distress, this same
might be done with the Nonconformists. Dr. Beveridge
objected that the Donatists had bishops, though they were in
schism, which could not be said of the English Dissenters.
This was answered by the argument that the Donatist
CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE ROYAL COMMISSION. 285
bishops could not have been true bishops, as there could CHAP. X.
not be two bishops in one diocese. The case, therefore,
of the Donatists was allowed to be parallel to that of those
ordained by presbyters.
The changes proposed in the Prayer Book were very changes in
numerous. For the ambiguous word ' priest/ presbyter or the Prayer
minister was everywhere to be substituted. Daily service
was recommended, but not in every case to be obligatory.
Sunday was to be always called ' the Lord's Day/ The
apocryphal lessons were to be excluded from thelectionary,
and all the obscure or legendary saints to be deprived of
their fasts and festivals. The eight beatitudes of Jesus were
sometimes to be read in the Communion service, instead of
the Ten Commandments. It was said that the words ' by
baptism/ before the word ' regenerate/ in the baptismal
service, were added by the printer in the time of James I.
It was therefore right that this error of the printer should be
corrected. The sign of the cross was not to be made if the
parents wished it to be omitted, or if the minister scrupled to
use it. But in the case of parents desiring its use, an incum
bent who had scruples about it, was to have a curate who
had none. ' Verily and indeed received/ in the catechism,
was to be changed so as to read, that not the body and the
blood of Christ were verily and indeed received, but the
benefits of His sacrifice. There was to be a second and
shorter form of the burial service to be used in special cases,
at the option of the minister, and ' the sure and certain hope/
was to be changed into a firm belief. Dr. Kidder had
prepared a new version of the Psalms, but the commission
had not time to examine it.
Baxter, Bates, Calamy, Howe, and all the moderate Non- The Noncon
conformists were satisfied with this scheme. It was frus. 'fonn
trated, as we have seen, by the High Churchmen. Some
supposed that these changes which would have reconciled
the Puritans would have strengthened the schism of the
Nonjurors. Tillotson and the liberal party, who wished the
Church to embrace the nation, were defeated. But South
and his friends rejoiced that the ' rabble' had been excluded,
and the ' thief ' prevented from getting an easy entrance by
the church door.*
* Sermons, vol. v. p. 486.
286
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Sects beyond
the reach of
comprehen
sion.
CHAP. X. By the time of the Revolution, two sects, which no Bill
of Comprehension could touch, had become numerous and
important. These were the Quakers and the Baptists.
Both of them had their origin as sects in the time of the
Commonwealth, and both had retained the character of
thorough Dissenters. The Presbyterian and the Inde
pendent had no scruples which, with an effort or for the
sake of peace and unity, might not have been overcome.
But the Quaker and the Baptist had separated for principles
which made their restoration impossible. To these two
sects we must look specially for the history of religious
thought among Nonconformists. It will be found that they
differed from each other as much as from the Church, and
that they hated each other even more, if possible, than they
hated the Church. To make inferences is not our present
business, but the fact is not to be omitted that the same
latitudinarian theology and the same stringent orthodoxy
which found advocates within the Church, also found advo
cates among the Nonconformists.
The Quakers are the sect which, before all others, is to be
regarded as the peculiar product of the times of the Com
monwealth. They seized on principles which were common,
perhaps in a wilder form, to other sects of that time which
were soon extinct. The superiority of the spirit to the
letter, of the inward conscience to the outward law, was
the distinguishing tenet of Familists, Ranters, and Seekers.
The principle was a rational one, though these sects were
extravagant and fantastic. The same may be said of the
early Quakers. George Fox and his first disciples began
their career chiefly as disturbers of other people's devotions.
Many things, indeed, were laid to their charge which were
not true, but that they were extravagant is not to be
denied.*
The Quakers.
* The testimonies to this are nu
merous. The following passages from
Penn's 'Reply to a Nameless Author'
is evidence not to be disputed, while
it gives the Quaker judgment of tole
ration under the Commonwealth.
The nameless author had said that
some of the Quaker women went
naked, to which Penn answers, —
' Some of our friends have gone naked
for a sign to this generation, in token
of God's stripping some persecutors
of their power, and, in particular, that
generation of the clergy that preceded
the Restoration, which, having risen
through persecution, forgot their pleas
when they had power towards those
that dissented from them, and testi
fied against the same evils in them
that they had justly inveighed against
in the former bishops' days.' — Works,
vol. v. p. 106.
THE QUAKERS.
287
The Quakers believed that they had an immediate divine CHAP. X.
commission to destroy the corrupt Churches of that day, and prete~fa
to introduce the era of the saints.* It is easy to compare this Divine corn-
commission to that of Lodowick Muggleton, when he m
professed to silence all the clergy in London and West
minster. It is also easy to find in the Quaker doctrine the
germ of a rational theology which brings Scripture to the
test of a ' verifying faculty' within. But in both cases
we might be wrong. The early Quakers had the same
reverence for the Scriptures as other Christians. They
received them as a rule of faith, and what they taught as
that which no new revelation could contradict. They were
inspired and infallible. George Fox calls them ' the most
authentic and perfect declaration of Christian faith, being
indited by the Holy Spirit of God that never errs/f
Many passages to the same effect might be quoted from
other writers. That they under-estimated or in any way dis
paraged the Scriptures was merely an inference from their
doctrine of the Spirit.
There was, however, a sense in which Quakerism was a The Quakers
protest against bibliolatry. The necessities of the Protes- ai
tant argument required inspiration, so far as it meant
positive teaching, to be confined to the Scriptures. There
was here at least a tendency to limit inspiration to one age,
and to suppose that the spirits of men had no inspiration
now. The Church of Rome had always maintained the
immediate inspiration of the Church along with the inspira
tion of the Scriptures. The High Anglican, too, in a vague
sense believed that the Church was inspired. The Puritan
held to individual inspiration in the sense that the Divine
Spirit witnessed to the inspiration of the Scriptures, and
enlightened the minds of the saints to understand what the
Scriptures meant. He made, indeed, a distinction for
which he had no authority between the kind of inspiration
given to those who wrote the Scriptures and that which
is given to- all Christians. He was eager, also, to give a
peculiar homage to the Scriptures by calling them ' the
* The evidence of this is abundant by Thomas Hancock.
in the tracts of the first Quakers. f ' Answer to all such as falsely
Some of these are quoted in 'The say the Quakers are no Christians,'
Peculium' (a Quaker Prize Essay), p. 26.
288 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. Word of God/ The Quakers were willing to call them
' the words of God/ but the other title was already appro
priated to One who was above all Scriptures. It is possible
that in the ultimate of the argument, the Quaker doctrine of
the Spirit may be found not to be really different from that
of the Puritan. The apparent difference is that the Puritan
applied his understanding to the Scriptures as his ordinary
guide, while the Quaker waited for a voice from within.
The second generation of Quakers had some educated
men who explained and defended their doctrines with more
accuracy than had been done by Fox and his immediate
William followers. The chief of these were William Penn and
Robert Barclay. Their works may be taken as authentic
expositions of the Quaker faith, so far as the works of indi
viduals can represent the belief of a community which does
not require subscription to any creeds. Penn's history is
another of the many instances of the preponderating influ
ence of religious feelings altogether independent of the
particular opinions with which they may be connected. He
was apparently a deeply religious man, converted in the
same sense as Augustine or Bunyan. For his attachment
to the Quakers, whom he regarded as the chosen people in
these latter days, he was disinherited by his father. He
believed in eternal punishment in the ordinary sense of
these words, and that this punishment was for those who
enjoyed the world, and did not live the religious life of a
Quaker. He was pious, too, in the sense of believing with
out too strict an exercise of the faculty of mere reasoning.
In an epistle to the f Little Flock/ he says, ' 0 let not the
foolishness of the Cross be over-reasoned, cavilled, and dis
puted. A willing offering, resigned spirit, and contented
bearer of the reproach of men for conscience' sake, such
God loves/*
His theology. But Penn's theology, judged by the standard of the ortho
dox churches, was altogether heresy. He rejected the terms in
which the doctrine of the Trinity is expressed in the creeds. A
Trinity of separate persons in a unity of essence he refuted
from Scripture. One in substance but three in subsistence
he called an 'impertinent distinction ;'f for if there be
* Works, vol. i. p. 44. f Vol. i. p. 30.
WILLIAM PENN. 289
three persons there must be three substances. The distinc- CHAP. X.
tion, he said, was born three hundred years after the Scrip
tures were written. It originated with the 'too daring
curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria/ It was unknown
to ' Irensous, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and some
others/
The doctrines usually connected with the Trinity are
disposed of in the same fashion. The mercy of God in
forgiving sin without regard to satisfaction is set forth by On satisfnc-
many passages of Scripture. It is called an absurdity to tion for sin'
say that God forgives, and yet requires the debt to be fully
paid. Man can forgive without satisfaction, and surely
much more can God. If He so loved the world that He
gave His Son, it cannot be said that He stood afar off till
Christ made a complete satisfaction to offended justice.
By many arguments Penn proves this doctrine to be ( irre
ligious and irrational/ It divests God of His power to
pardon transgression, and teaches a licentiousness unbe
coming the Gospel of Christ. The doctrine of imputed
righteousness is also refuted. Many passages from Scrip
ture are quoted, which declare that God will condemn the
wicked only, and justify none but the righteous. The
doers of the law shall be justified. It is said to be contrary
to God's nature to accept the ungodly, because of the impu- and imputed
tation of another's righteousness. Penn concludes with a righteousness,
caution not to mistake his meaning. He does not deny ' a
Father, Word, and Spirit/ but only the inventions of men
which are not in the Scriptures.* The Trinity of the
orthodox has been, he says, the occasion of idolatry, a
scandal to Turks, Jews, and Infidels, and a stumbling-
block in the way of their reception of the Christian faith.
As to satisfaction, Penn does not deny that Christ in His
life and death fulfilled the will of His Father, and offered
up a ' satisfactory sacrifice;' but it was not, he says, ( to
* After quoting St. Paul's words, without His own power and wisdom ;
' Christ the power of God and the but inasmuch as it is impossible,
wisdom of God,' Penn says that from God's power and wisdom should be
this he concludes ' Christ the Saviour distinctly divided from Himself, it
to be God ; ' for otherwise God would reasonably follows that Christ who is
not be Himself, since, if Christ be that power and wisdom is not dis-
distinct from God and yet God's tinct from God. but entirely the very
power and wisdom, God would be same God.' — Vol. I. p. 01.
VOL. II. U
2QO
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. pay God, or help Him to save men/* or to justify them
because of an imputed righteousness. A measure of grace
is given to every man, and he that uses the grace given
will be led out of unrighteousness, and when he is really
just God will justify him.
' The Sandy Foundation Shaken' was the name of the
treatise in which Penn first set forth, these doctrines. Ho
was immediately charged with Socinianism, and wrote in
vindication of himself, ' Innocency with Her Open Face/
He refused the epithet ' Socinian,' but he expressed a great
respect for the memory of Socinus, and believed that in
many things he had a clearer view of the truth than most
Denies that of his contemporaries. On satisfaction he quoted Stilling-
fleet; w^°> in his treatise against Crellius, admits it was
possible for God to pardon sin without satisfaction. The
end of Christ's redemption was to make men righteous by
an inward purification. Whoever, Penn says, believes in
Christ shall have remission of sins and justification, but the
faith must be a faith which comprehends obedience. They
only that 'fear His name and keep His commandments
shall have right to the tree of life.' Christ is within. He
tabernacles in men. To hear His voice, to be led by Him
so as' to forsake the vanities of the world, is to have right
eousness, sanctification, and redemption. In another place
Penn says that the Quakers utterly renounce and reject the
common acceptation of salvation that it is merely to be
saved from punishment hereafter. It is rather to be rege
nerated and renewed, in the words of Scripture saved from
sin.f
The ' Christ within' is said to be in all men. The
obvious objection to this doctrine was, that if the light is in
all men, why are so many in darkness ? Penn answered
by distinguishing between the efficiency of the light, and
rebellion against it. Some are obedient to the light. Many
of the heathens were, — as Plato, Plotinus, Seneca, Epic-
tetus, and Antoninus. Some are disobedient. St. Paul
was before his conversion. He resisted the Holy Ghost,
kicking against the pricks of conscience which were the
convictions of the light of Christ. This St. Paul, in the
* Vol. I. p. 54. t Vol. I. p. 149.
4 Christ
WILLIAM PENN.
291
EpLstle to the Galatians, calls the revelation of the Son of CHAP. X.
God within him. It was not admitted to be an argument
against the sufficiency of this light that all men were not
enlightened. Blindness in man does not prove the insuffi
ciency of the light of the sun. Those who make this objec
tion say that Scripture is sufficient to give the knowledge
of God, yet all who have the Scriptures have not this
knowledge.
Another difficulty connected with the Quaker doctrine of
the light within, was to determine definitely what the
Spirit taught. Where are the actions it prescribes, or the The Spirit
articles of faith which it inculcates ? Does it teach any-
thing not already taught in the Scriptures ? or supposing
we had no Scriptures, is its teaching sufficient? This is
putting the question in the ordinary form. The answer
subjects the Scriptures to the Spirit, making the inspiration
of the writers of the Bible the same in kind as the inspira
tion of other men. This, in fact, as explained by Penn, is
an education. A schoolmaster is not reckoned indifferent
because he does not teach at once all he knows. The
pupils can only make progress according to their capacity
and their willingness to learn. The Scriptures, exclusive
of the Spirit, can teach nothing. All the wise men in the
world could not find out the meaning but by the light of
Christ in the soul. It is, therefore, to the Spirit that we
owe even that which we learn from the Scriptures.
The objection was pressed back to the case of those who is the
lived before Christ. They had not all the Scriptures which
we have, and at one time they had no Scriptures at all. Scriptures ?
The question was asked where the light was then ? Could
any be saved by the light of Christ, when Christ was not
known ? The question had already been answered in what
was said of the wise men among the heathen. In the
present treatise,* Penn answers it in detail. Adam was
created in God's image, and God is light. The Divine light
must have been in him, for he was the image of that light.
To this Moses referred the Israelites when he said that the
word was nigh them, even in their hearts, and of this the
Psalmist speaks, where he says, 'Thou art my lamp, O
* '' Tho Christian Quaker.'
u 2
2Q2 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. Lord, for the Lord will lighten my darkness ; ' and Job, in
his affliction cries out, ' 0 that it were with me as in months
past, in the days when God preserved me, when His candle
shined upon my head/ The path of the just is described by
David as the shining light, which shineth more and more
unto the perfect day. This, Penn says, implies that David
regarded all the just men in all ages as guided by the
Divine Spirit. To this St. Paul testifies in his Epistle to
the Romans, where he says of the heathen that they knew
that which may be known of God, for God hath manifested
it unto them. It is shown, after the fashion of Lord Herbert,
that the heathen knew all the great principles, or doctrines
of religion. The sublimest passages of Scripture concerning
the one God are paralleled by passages from Pagan authors.
Pythagoras and Plato, Socrates and Cleanthes, believed in
conscience as the light of God in the soul of man. It is
within. further shown by many quotations that the Pagan phi
losophers were virtuous men, that they believed in the immor
tality of the soul and the recompenses of the life to come.
Penn does not stop with allowing the heathen merely a
knowledge of what is called natural religion. He maintains
that they ' had a knowledge of Christ's coming, and antici
pated His teaching.' Socrates and Xenophon objected to
swearing, and Jesus said, ' Swear not at all.' They did not
know the names by which Christ should be called, but they
knew that He was to be born of a virgin. Ficinus records
of Plato, that being asked how long men should attend to
his writings, he answered, ' Till that more Holy and Divine
Person shall appear to visit the world, whom all men ought to
follow/ Virgil, as interpreted by Eusebius, had prophesied
in many places of Christ, even declaring His virgin birth. To
an assertion that Christ was not formerly called the light,
Penn answers that in strict language Christ is not, but that
the light in every man is of or from Christ. The justice of
God requires that the light be universal and sufficient. The
coming of Christ in the flesh, that is the historical Christ,
might seem on Penn's theory to be unnecessary. Per
haps in strict reasoning it was. But the contrary of
this is maintained. It is even said of Christ's death that it
propitiated God, that it ' drew God's love the more eminently
WILLIAM PENN. 2Q3
Unto mankind, at least such as should believe on His CHAP. X.
name/*
The first form of the Quaker controversy was necessarily Which is the
the question of the rule of faith, is ib the Bible or the Spirit ? [^S^irifor
Penn said that that could not be a general rule which was the Scrip-
not universal. He had shown that the teaching of the Spirit tures
was universal, but all men had not the Scriptures. They
were not then the rule always and everywhere. If granting
what some maintained that they are now the rule to us, yet it
can only be as a particular rule in subordination to a general
rule. But the faith being something inward and spiritual, no
mere book can be a rule. The Scriptures, moreover, are now
imperfect. We have not the book of Enoch, several books
mentioned in the Old Testament, as those of Nathan, Jasher,
Jehu, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, and the gospels of
which St. Luke speaks in the preface to his history of Christ.
The whole character of the Scriptures, the manner of their
compilation, and the nature of their contents prevent us
supposing that they were ever intended for a general rule.
Who knows when they speak properly or metaphorically,
literally or mystically ? They contain many things hard to
be understood, to be discerned only by the spiritual man,
and therefore they cannot be a general rule of faith. It
cannot be said that the originals are the rule, for we have
none. If the copies, it is to be wished that we knew which
of them were nearest to the original. The various readings
are very numerous. The copies failing, we cannot surely
turn to the translations which differ not only from the copies
but from each other. The first collection of the books was
made by the Council of Laodicea, 360 years after Christ. That
collection was not the same as our Canon. The authority
of the Scriptures as a whole must depend either on the
Church or on inspiration. The Church is rejected by
Protestants. There remains, therefore, only inspiration,
which is that for which the Quakers contend. It was
shown from the writings of the Reformers and the Puritans
that they regarded the assistance of the Spirit as necessary to
understand the Scriptures. But the question as to what the
Spirit teaches, independently of the Scriptures, is still un-
* P. 264.
294
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X.
Creeds dis-
answered. Does the Spirit teach anything corresponding to
the histories in the Bible ? Penn's answer is, that it was
the Spirit which taught Moses the history of Creation
and of the Fall of man, 2000 years after the events. If it
were necessary the same Spirit could still teach men in the
same way. The facts of Christ's life were revealed to
the prophets centuries before they happened. The same
facts might be revealed now to those who have not the
Scriptures. Penn did not say positively that they ever
were, or that anything was revealed by the Spirit in addition
to what we learn from the Scriptures.
Penn zealously advocated the principle which had been
laid down by Bishop Croft and other liberal theologians, of
always expressing doctrines in Scripture language. The
theology of the schools was but opinions, the enforcemen t
of which as conditions of communion had been, Penn said,
the cause of all the troubles that century had witnessed in
England. He wished all creeds to be reduced to the one
article of Christian faith, that Jesus of Nazareth is the
promised Messiah. That, he says, would be a happy day when
all our animosities and vexations about matters of religion
are buried in the one confession of Jesus the great Lord and
Author of the Christian religion.* He quotes with appro
bation the words of John Hales, that it has been ( the com
mon disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content
themselves with that measure of faith which God and the
Scriptures have expressly afforded us/ Whoever really
receives this one article of faith that Jesus is the Messiah,
will have embraced the substance of Christianity, and shall
receive power to become one of the sons of God. What
this means is explained in the sequel of this treatise. f A
true Christian, one that has ' saving grace/ is one that has
left off his sins and become an upright man. Penn did not
receive the popular doctrine that there might be ' moral
men in hell/ It was to the spirit of Christ that they
owed their morality. This itself was the evidence that
they were Christians, and for them to be lost was simply
impossible. To the words of John Hales, ' The moral man
is a Christian by the surer side/ Penn adds, ' Speculations
* Vol. iv. p. 91. f An Address to Protestants.
ROBERT BARCLAY. 295
may fail, notions be mistaken, forms wither, but faith and CHAP. X.
righteousness will stand the test/*
As a thorough Dissenter, and a member of the sect which Toleration
had suffered most from persecution, Penn was in a position ac
to form a correct estimate of what toleration ought to be.
On merely religious grounds he maintained that it should be
the same to all. As to government, there could be no plea
of danger except from Roman Catholics, and they might
be tolerated with the caution that they be prevented from
persecuting others. The resurrection of the body is de
fended, but in the sense of St. Paul ; a body will rise, but
not the same body that is committed to the ground. On
this and many other questions of theology, * Penn agreed
entirely with Locke. The arguments against the use of
the sacraments, though in harmony with the general system
of Quaker belief, seem to do most violence to the principle
of following a simple and natural interpretation of the Scrip
tures.
Barclay's 'Apology for the True Christian Divinity' is Barclay's
the standard authority for Quaker doctrine. It does not, po °°y<
perhaps, treat of any subject that has not been noticed by
Penn, but it is more exhaustive. Penn's writings were
only occasional, called forth by passing controversies.
Barclay's ' Apology' is an elaborate exposition of the whole
of the Quaker faith, and on some points the arguments are
followed to their utmost limits. As a theological work it has
great merits. Jewel may have had more learning, and
Hooker more philosophy, but of all the representative advo
cates of religious parties, Barclay is least afraid of pursuing
his arguments to their ultimate results, and of accepting
what he believes with all the legitimate consequences.
From the dedication of the ' Apology/ it appears that, The Quakers
though the Quakers had been cradled in the era of the tion ^ '
Commonwealth, they had no affection for Cromwell. To Cromwell,
them it had not been a time of liberty, for every man's
hand had been against them. The restoration of the mo
narchy they regarded as the immediate work of God.
Barclay tells King Charles, in words corresponding to those
of Hickes and South, that it was " the Lord's doing,' and
* Vol. iv. p. 115.
296
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. e marvellous in our eyes/ He adds, that 'it will justly be a
matter of wouder and astonishment to generations to come,
and may sufficiently serve, if rightly observed, to confute
and confound that Atheism wherewith this age doth so
so much abound/ The rise of the Quakers and the restora
tion of King Charles were two things so closely connected
that the separation of them seemed impossible. The ' long
and dark night of apostasie' had ended. The Gospel was
now again ' revealed/ *
In harmony with this spirit, Barclay testifies in a brief
epistle to the reader, that what he has written has come
from his heart rather than his head. It is what he has
heard with the ears of his soul, seen with his inward eyes,
and his hands have handled of the Word of Life. To the
Their divine clergy of all kinds he wishes ' unfeigned repentance/f God,
he says, has laid aside the wise and learned, and chosen
some ' despicable ' instruments, like the fishermen of old, to
proclaim the truth.
What is reve- From the instances of revelation in Scripture, Barclay
lation? tries to determine what revelation is. He defines it to be
the immediate teaching of the Spirit. Sometimes it is in
ternal, and sometimes it is by an outward voice. In every
case it is God speaking, and reliance on His word is faith.
This is shown from the instances of faith in the Epistle to
* The leaders in the time of the
Commonwealth are described as full
of oppression. They hated ' instruc
tion which is the way of life,' and
they ' evilly entreated the messengers
of the Lord, and caused to beat and
imprison HiH prophets, and persecuted
His people.' But the Lord ' raised
them up, and armed them with spiri
tual weapons, even with His own
Spirit and power, whereby they tes
tified in the streets and highways,
and public markets and synagogues,
against the pride, vanity, lusts and
hypocrisy of that generation, who
were righteous in their own eyes,
though often cruelly entreated there
fore. And they faithfully prophesied
and foretold them of their judgment
and downfall.' Barclay adds, that
in later times, when persecution was
hottest, unlike other Dissenters, they
were never found ' creeping into holes
and corners.' They were never over
taken in 'private conventicles,' but
met openly in the public assemblies
to testify for God and His truth.
f This is quite in harmony with
the view the Quakers generally en
tertained of the teachers of religion
who were not of their own sect.
Penn describes the clergy as ' that
cursed bitter stock of hirelings who
have made drunk the nation, whilst
they have cut their purses and picked
their pockets.' — ' Serious Apology,'
as quoted by Leslie, p. 156. The Dis
senting preachers he calls 'an ill-
bred, pedantic crew, the bane of re
ligion and pest of the world, the old
incendiaries to mischief, and a pest
to be shunned of mankind, against
whom the boiling vengeance of an
irritated God is ready to be poured
out.' — * Quakerism no New Nick
name,' as quoted by Leslie, p. 165.
EGBERT BARCLAY. 297
the Hebrews. Some had the ministry of angels, some had CHAP. X.
external voices, and some dreams or visions. ( God said/
or ' The word of the Lord came unto me saying/ often
meant nothing more than the Spirit of God speaking in the
heart. Faith in every case has the same object, and revela
tion, or inspiration, is the same now that it has ever been.
The Socinians, according to Barclay, denied the work of
the Spirit altogether, and wished to be guided only by
Scripture interpreted by reason. Others, again, admitted
the subjective, but denied the objective teaching of the
Spirit. They allowed a spiritual influence on the minds of
men, enabling them to understand the Scriptures, but they
did not allow that any distinct or definite truth was pre
sented to the mind. To prove this ( objective ' teaching was
Barclay's great object. He argued from the universality
of the promise 'The Spirit shall teach you all things/ It
is not said that the Spirit will enable them to understand
what is written, but that all things shall be brought to their
remembrance. This is found to correspond to the nature of
the new covenant, as it is described by the old prophets.
In Isaiah God promises His Spirit, saying that the words
which He put into the mouth of the people shall not depart
from them. This is expressed more fully in Jeremiah, and
repeated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where God says
concerning the new covenant, ' I will put my laws into their
minds, and write them in their hearts/ Augustine and
Aquinas both explain the new law as different from the
old. It is not a law written without, but written within,
on the table of the heart. The object of faith, or revelation,
is therefore inward, immediate, and objective.
The answer really required to settle the question was to Revelation
point out definitely what the Spirit now teaches in this umversal>
' objective' way. All men, heathen and Jews as well as
Christians, are said to be led by the Spirit. Are they all
taught the same things ? The answer is that they are ; but
that some have more lessons, and others are more facile in
learning. This makes faith and salvation possible to all
men, whatever may be their knowledge derived from ex
ternal sources. Those whom Barclay addressed had an
idea of revelation, or inspiration, which the Quakers seem
298 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. to have abandoned. They supposed an ' absolute' certainty
as to particular revelations, and in the Church, or the Bible,
they supposed an embodiment of the entire teaching of the
Spirit. But Barclay clearly denies that we can say of any
particular person, or people, that they are infallibly led by
the Spirit. The revelation he admits to be certain and
infallible, but we cannot show where it is made certainly and
infallibly. The light is perfect, but the mediums imperfect.
The light has never deceived, but darkness has often pre
tended to be light. The Spirit is a sure guide, but there
are false spirits. To those who object this uncertainty Bar
clay can only answer, that they render all faith uncertain.
The same difficulty accompanies tradition, Scripture, and
reason. We are in the position of learners, and can only
have a conviction, or inward assurance, that the teacher is
right.
and not This was simply transferring to the Spirit what Protestants
generally had ascribed to the Scriptures, who, as Barclay
shows, really rested on the Spirit for their faith in the Bible.
Calvin's words are quoted, that ' he only whom the Holy
Ghost hath persuaded can repose himself on the Scripture
with a true certainty/ To the same effect are the words of
the French and Dutch Confessions with that of Westminster.
The Spirit is first and the Scriptures follow. Barclay sup
poses that it is on the authority of the Spirit that we now
receive the books in the Bible, and no others, for canonical.
We should have expected that the same Spirit would have
testified to the right copies and the best translations. But
instead of this, Barclay argues from the uncertainty of a mere
writing to the necessity of receiving the Spirit only, as the first
teacher and primary rule of faith. ( We may safely conclude/
he says, ' that Jesus Christ, who promised to be always with
His children, to lead them into all truth, to guard them
against the devices of the enemy, and to establish their feet
upon an immovable rock, left them not to be principally ruled
by that which was subject in itself to many uncertainties,
and therefore He gave them His Spirit as their principal
guide, which neither moths nor time can wear out, nor tran
scribers nor translators corrupt ; which none are so young,
none so illiterate, none so remote in place, but they inny
ROBERT BARCLAY. 2QQ
come to be reached, and rightly informed by it/* Barclay, CHAP. X.
however, denies that we can receive any new gospel, or new
doctrines, so that the ' objective ' teaching of the Spirit comes
in the end to be limited to that which is already taught.
The dogmatic teaching of the Quakers is found, therefore, Quakers or-
to be, in the main, the same as that of the orthodox sects.
It is professedly derived from Scripture, or at least, it is sup
posed to agree with Scripture, even when presented ' object
ively ' by the Spirit. The death which followed on Adam's
transgression Barclay explains as death spiritual. Adam's
guilt, he says, is not ascribed to his posterity until they
make it their own by similar acts of disobedience. Yet, as
Adam had nothing good in his nature, they could not derive
anything good from him. The ' seed of God/ or the light
of Christ, is something superinduced on mere nature. This
privation of good in the natural man is in reality evil, as
understood by Barclay. He applies to all the posterity of
Adam the words in Genesis, that the imagination of man's
heart is evil continually ; and the words of Jeremiah, that
the Jieart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked. When St. Paul says of the heathen, that they do
by nature the things contained in the law, this ' nature ' is
explained as the new nature. By Adam's transgression a
seed of sin is transmitted to all men, but his sin itself is im
puted to none. Eedemption is the counterpart of this cor
ruption. The light enlightens every man that comes into
the world. It is not absolutely necessary to salvation that
they hear the outward preaching of the Gospel. Christ died
not to procure a righteousness to be imputed to others, but
to eradicate the actual evil that is in the world. In the
sinner Christ is crucified by our sins, but in the righteous
man He has risen to life, and triumphed over all His enemies.
The light within is opposed to the natural man. It is also
to be distinguished from the rational man. When reason
takes the place of this spiritual principle, it is Antichrist
setting himself in the temple of God. Reason has its office
in things natural, but the Spirit rules in the spiritual. Bar
clay also distinguishes this light from the light of conscience.
He defines conscience as arising from the natural faculties
* P. 82.
3oo
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. of man's soul. It may be defiled or corrupted, it follows
the judgment, but ' this light, as it is received, removes the
blindness of the judgment, opens the understanding, and
rectifies both the judgment and the conscience/* The light
of Christ is the candle, but conscience is only the lantern in
which it shines. Justification is explained as the inward
birth, and the fruits following it. By grace man is enabled
to keep the commandments of God. The Church consists of
all who are thus justified, whether they be called Christians
or Pagans.
.George Keith Penn and Barclay were both answered by George Keith,
and Barclay, their former friend and colleague. Keith, after being an
apostle of Quakerism, was perverted to the Church of Eng
land. He denies that he had ever received Quaker doctrines
as they were understood by Barclay and Penn. The title ot
his book, ' The Deism of William Penn and his Brethren/
expresses his judgment of Quaker theology. This book was
an answer to Penn's treatise on the rule of faith, and the
judge of controversy. Keith noticed in the preface an
obvious contradiction between Quaker doctrine and Quaker
practice. The Church was said to consist of all who followed
the light within, whether Jews, Turks, Pagans, or Christians.
The practice consistent with this belief would have been
fellowship and communion with all good men. But the
Quakers were exclusive beyond all other sects. They called
themselves ' the chosen people/ and were not content to
absent themselves quietly from the meetings of other Chris
tians, but they were even ' moved by the Spirit y to call all
Christian preachers deceivers except their own, and to cry
aloud against the idolatry of every sect in the nation. Keith
says, < They Christianize the heathen and heathenize the
Christians.' Their doctrine of immediate inspiration was
allied to an enthusiastic piety, and yet, as Keith said, in
some respects it approaches simple Deism.
Keith had already published a volume of l Explications
and Retractations/ He there confessed that he had been
in error, but never, he said, in such error as he found in the
writings of William Penn. He had confounded the rule of
faith with the medium of faith, the things to be believed
* P. 147.
Keith's ' Re-
tractations.'
GEORGE KEITH. 301
with the medium of credibility. The Bible contains the CHAP. X.
credenda, but the Spirit's testimony is the inward evidence.
This he had meant and this he still maintained. What he
opposed was the belief that the Spirit's witness was merely
effective and not ' objective/ For this he claimed the sanc
tion of many Protestant divines. But Penn's error was in
making the Spirit a higher rule than the Scriptures. The
Spirit, Keith says, was not a rule at all, but the moving
cause of faith, that by which we believe the Scriptures.
He had never taught that men might be saved without
believing in Christ crucified, in the remission of sins by His
blood, and ' other doctrinal principles of Christianity/ He
had never taught that the light in every man's conscience,
or the dictates of it, apart from the peculiar doctrines of
Christianity, are the rule of faith. This, he says, is plain
Deism. This is the error of William Penn. ( By general
rule/ Penn says, ' we understand that constant measure by
which men in all ages have been enabled to judge of the
truth or error of doctrines, and the good or evil of thoughts,
words, or actions/ Keith answers, that this is a definition
of something which does not exist. There may be such a
general rule of morality, but not of matters of faith. The
law written in the heart may bear witness of the distinctions
between right and wrong, but it tells us nothing of the blood
of Christ, of the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the
world. Penn's definition of faith corresponds to his defini
tion of the rule of faith. It is such a faith as no one ever
had without faith in Christ as the God- man. Some of the
Pagans may have had a kind of faith or hope in God, but
this is not the faith of God's elect, which can only rest on
special revelation. Faith as denned by Penn may be the
faith of a Deist or a Pagan.
The light within, according to Keith, cannot be the rule Light within
of faith, because it does not dictate the things necessary to r °
be believed for salvation. These are laid down in the
Scriptures, and without the Scriptures they cannot be
known. It is not the sun which indicates the time, but the
sun-dial. Men may know much of God by the contempla
tion of His works, but it is only by special revelation that
they can know the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
302
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
The Quakers
and Deism.
CHAP. X. religion. Perm's principle, that inspiration in the present
day is the same in kind as the inspiration of prophets and
apostles, is to Keith a convincing proof of the Deism of the
Quakers.
In the answer to Barclay, Keith finds the same indica
tions of simple Deism. The knowledge of God is supposed
to be sufficient for salvation,, without the knowledge of
Christ incarnate and crucified for the sins of men ; and this
knowledge is supposed to be given directly by the Spirit,
without the use of the Scriptures. Barclay had made many
quotations from the Reformers and divines of the Church of
England concerning the necessity of the teaching of the
Spirit. Keith shows that in all these quotations the writers
assumed the existence of the external word and doctrine as
a secondary means. The quotations do not bear the sen^e
of immediate inspiration as it is understood by the Quakers.
Barclay had said expressly that the essence of the Christian
religion did not consist in the historical knowledge of the
birth, life, and death of Jesus. This knowledge might be
an external part, but Christianity was independent of it.
There was, of course, the provision that the Spirit might
teach directly the histories and doctrines of the Gospel;
yet there was no evidence that this was done now without
the Scriptures. George Fox had indeed said that without
the Scripture the Spirit had taught men that Christ died
for sin; but this ' he had presumed to affirm most ignorantly
and presumptuously/ If, then, men are saved without the
knowledge of the Scriptures, they are saved without the
knowledge of Christ, and thus Deists and Pagans are in the
same condition as Christians.*
* The pamphlet literature of apo
state Quakers is very plentiful. The
sect claimed to be the people chosen
in the latter day ; and, though pro
testing against the order or necessary
government of other communities, it
was itself compelled to establish order.
This government, in the judgment of
the apostates, was not better than
the government of other churches.
The author of a curious tract called
' The Spirit of the Hat,' who had
been a Quaker, but who was excom-
m unicated for refusing to take off' his
hat during prayer, found the com
munity governed by George Fox and
his friends, as the Pope and the Car
dinals governed at Rome. They al
lowed liberty to none within the body,
but required all to believe as the
Church believed, and to do as the
Church prescribed, even to the times
and seasons for putting on or pulling
off the hat. Another apostate showed
that the once pious Quaker ministers
had become 4 buyers of corn to sell
again, and managers of great brew-
houses ' ('A Testimony against the
THE QUAKERS. 303
The best-known writer against the Quakers on the CHAP. X.
Church side was Charles Leslie. He hated them as wild Charles Leslie
enthusiasts, whose principles were simply those of the against the
Deists. Under pretence of a new revelation they overthrew a
the authority both of the Church and the Scriptures. Leslie
called his treatise ' The Snake in the Grass/ which meant in
Scripture language ' the devil clothed as an angel of light/
In the year 1650 cthe great adversary inspired George Fox
and Lodowick Muggleton, persuading them that .they were
inspired by the Spirit of God/ In Leslie's theology, Chris
tianity stood or fell with the bishops and clergy ; to leave
the priesthood and the ordinances was to make shipwreck of
faith, and to float in the shoreless sea of Atheism or Deism.
It was wholly, he said, for the love of souls that he entered
on the controversy with the Quakers. At one time he had
thought them the most ignorant and contemptible sect of
Dissenters ; but, after reading their books, he found them
the most subtle of all, inheriting not only the heresy, but
the hypocrisy of the Arians and Socinians.
In Leslie' s judgment, the later Quakers had laid aside Their blas-
the madness and blasphemy of George Fox and the first
preachers. They did not own this, as they were unwilling
to admit a change in the principles of the sect. Penn, he
says, refined their blasphemous pretences, and dressed them
up with more craft, and consequently with more wickedness.
George Fox says that ' the soul is a part of God, for it came
out of Him; and that which came out of Him is of Him/
He says that it is equal to God, and infinite. Penn's expla
nation is that Fox, being an illiterate man, did not use his
words definitely. By equality he meant unity, and by
1 infinite/ something which does not end. Leslie finds in
Fox's writings, that he said expressly that he was Christ,
and equal to God ; that he professed immediate revelations,
Quakers' False Doctrine, by Geoffrey been condemned by George Fox for
Bullock,' p. 19), and yet had esta- saying that the earth was round, and
Wished themselves as judges of the that when it was day with us it was
saints. A third apostate, who had night in other places. Fox told him
been censured for refusing to marry a that he knew, by revelation of the
Quaker widow recommended by her Spirit, that the earth was not round,
near kinsman, made some strange re- and that when it was twelve o'clock
velations (' The Quakers' Spiritual with us, it was twelve o'clock all over
Court Proclaimed,' by Nathaniel the world.
Smith, Student of Physic). He had
304
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. the same in kind as are supposed to have been given only
to prophets and apostles; that in 1653 he foretold that the
day of judgment would take place in November that year.
The first Quakers, according to Leslie, believed themselves
inspired as individuals by an infallible Spirit ; but this
doctrine was renounced when the sect was formed into a
society with government. The infallibility was then trans
ferred to the body, and the rulers pronounced judgment on
apostates. When George Keith expounded a passage of
Scripture in a different sense to that in which Penn under
stood it, Penn solemnly, in the name of the Lord, pro
nounced Keith an apostate. Leslie finds the Quakers
heretical on all the authorized dogmas of Christianity, and
even the quaking of their bodies, from which they derive
their name, he found to be one of the works of the devil,
who agitates their bodies as well as their souls. They were
not only ( perfect Deists/ but fthe most monstrous sort of
Deists that ever were in the world ; for they hold with the
Ranters, from whom they sprang, that there is no difference
or distinction betwixt God and creatures, but that every
thing is God, even the devil/ * f
The Baptists. The Baptists, like the Church of England, had divided
into the two parties of Calvinists and Arminians. A few
years later some of them rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.
But the question which separated them hopelessly from the
Church of England was the denial of infant baptism. The
first Baptists attached great importance to external ordi
nances. The observance of a ceremony was to them, as to
the majority of High Churchmen, of equal moment with
keeping a precept of the moral law. Like the Nonjurors,
they were in their own way a ' peculiar people/ The more
they were separated, and the smaller their number, the
greater the evidence that they were 'the chosen/
The chief Baptist writer of this period was John Bunyan,
whose works represent the best and the worst features of
Puritan .theology. Like many deeply pious men, Bunyan
preferred the dim religious light of mystery to the clear
* Vol. ix. p. 12.
f The 'Snake in the Grass' was
answered by Geo. Whitehead. Les
lie vindicated his treatise by a ' De
fence of the Snake,' in answer to tho
' Switch,' and by ' Satan Disrobed
from his Disguise of Light.'
JOHN BUNYA1S7. 305
conclusions of reason. He embraced the theological aye tern CHAP. x.
of Calvin in its extremcsfc form, and lie accepted all the john j>,UJV.m
doctrines concerning the Scriptures, redemption, heaven,
and hell, that were then received by the religious world.
The rational principles of the Quakers were repulsive to the
soul of Bunyan. He thanks God devoutly that he was
delivered from their 'vile and abominable' errors. The
difference between the Quaker, as represented by William
Penn, and the Baptist, as represented by John Bunyan,
covers the whole distance between the rational and the
' orthodox' Christian. The Quaker said that the Scriptures
were not the word of God, and Bunyan gave as his first
reason for refusing to use the ' Book of Common Prayer,'
that it was not prescribed in the Scriptures.
The terribleness of Bunyan's theology might be ascribed His terrii>l<>
partly to his vivid imagination, and partly to an awful
earnestness of the inward man. His mind was one of those
which receive impressions deeply, and reflect but too faith
fully the external influence. To Bunyan hell was literally
a lake of fire, where God Himself would f pile up wrath'
upon the sinner, and f blow the fire.'* To this the divine
Being was impelled by justice, which seems to be some
power of fate external to God, for children being wicked
vipers even in the womb, the holiness of God is offended
until justice is executed.f To deliver the elect from the
punishment of the sins in which they are born Christ bore
the wrath of God. He fulfilled the law for them, and with
His righteousness they are covered. J But those who are
not saved shall suffer in this fire. 'Their bodies will be
raised from the dead as vessels for the soul — vessels of
wrath. The soul will breathe hell-fire and smoke, and
coals will seem to hang upon its burning lips, yea, the face,
eyes and ears will seem to be chimneys and vents for the
flame and the smoke of the burning, which God by His
breath hath kindled therein, and upon them, which will be
held one in another, to the great torment and distress of
each other.' § This, to some, may seem imagination, but
* Works, p. 120. Tho edition re- unfortunate notes,
fcrml to is 'that of Gcorgo Ofior. t Pa^o 1L>7-
This is the most correct edition, j: rat>-o 131.
though sadly marred hy the editor's § l\v->%o 136.
VOL. II. X
306 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. to Banyan it was probably reality. It agreed with tlio
Puritan principle of taking the Scriptures as tho word of
God without reference to an inner word, which was to
determine the sense of the Scriptures.
His too literal Jn the same way Banyan finds that Christ executed
ticmsof Scrip raany offices. These were all taken literally. One, he
turo. thought, had been specially neglected. This was the office
of advocate. The words of Job concerning one that would
plead for him are applied to Christ. But the sense of Job
is forgotten. He longed for one to vindicate his cause, to
establish his innocency, and to reason with God concern
ing sufferings which he had not deserved to bear. But
rt o
Bunyan's sense of advocate is one that takes a bad case,
and makes satisfaction for the shortcomings of the client.
The advocate is even to pay the client's debts, that he may
go free. It is not because men are righteous, but because
they are sinners, that a daysman is required. This is
Banyan's theology ; and so far as words go, it has tho
sanction of St. John. ' If any man sin we have an advo
cate/ The worse the case the more likely it is to succeed.
Christ having paid tho debt He can now maintain our
cause against the devil. According to Bunyan the advo
cate not only pays the debt and refuses all good cases, but
he also becomes the judge. The incompatibility of all
these offices in one person naturally suggested that they
were only ascribed to Christ in the way of figures. But
Bunyan answered that in heaven it was thought possible
and necessary that Christ should hold them all. lie does
not, like other advocates, receive a fee, for He undertakes
our cause as that of those who are unable to pay.
Incongruities To this following of the letter may be traced many evident
I *s incongruities in Bunyan's theology. Scripture phrases which
apparently contradict each other arc taken literally, and so
tho contradiction is made real. Election to eternal life
( before the foundation of the world' is said to be the act of
the Father not of tho Son. This is an evidence of the
grace of the Father,* and yet the blood of Christ is spoken
of as f prevailing with a God of grace to give mercy and
grace' to undeserving mnn.t In virtue of this election
* \\ f,\\. t r. GUI.
JOHN BUNYAN.
3°7
men arc saved before they are called, and yet Bunyan CHAP. X.
represents God addressing sinners in the words in which
Bonncr used to address Protestants, saying, 'Turn or burn/
From St. Paul's words that Christ was made sin and a
curse for us, Bunyan concludes that Christ was imputed
wicked, and was punished as a sinner. He was ' justly
hanged, because sin worthy of death was upon Him.'*
Banyan's controversial writings are not numerous. The His «,,!,! i<>
greatest enemies to Christianity that he could find were the
Quakers, and such writers as Dr. Fowler, who denied the
whole theological scheme of justification by the righteous
ness of another. The ( errors' of the Quakers, whom ho
identified with the old Ranters, are refuted in many places
in Bunyan's writings. Their doctrine of the resurrection
was to him the denial of the resurrection of the body.
Their light within was but the subtlety of the devil, who
sometimes appears as an angel of light. By the light within
the devil makes Baal's priests cut themselves with knives,
and persuades Quakers to give heed to seducing spirits and
doctrines of devils, even to forbear wearing t hat-bands.'
When their spirit moves them, Bunyan says, ' they will
speak such sad blasphemies and vent such horrible doc
trines, that it makes me wonder to see the patience of God,
in that He doth not command either the ground to open
her mouth and swallow them up, or else suffer the devil to
fetch them away alive, to the astonishment of the whole
world. f They are again described as the ' false Christs and
false prophets ' that were to come in the latter days, whose
consciences are seared with a hot iron, who deceive the
very elect, and are themselves sealed for destruction. J It
might be pleaded for Bunyan that ho misunderstood the
Quakers, or that ho had only met some of the more extra
vagant members of the "Tsect. But from Bunyan's stand
point the theology of the most judicious of the Quakers
could have been nothing else but a perversion of Christianity.
They believed in salvation without the necessity of a substi
tute for sin, and in justification without an external right
eousness. They laid aside the scheme which to Bunyan was
the Gospel. They might differ in some little things from
* Yol. i. p. 409. f Vol. ii. p. 153. } P. 103.
x2
308 RELIGIOUS TITO UGIIT IN ENGLAND,
CHAP. X. tlio Ranters,, as a .dog differs from a wolf, but they ' both
agree to worry Christ's lambs/*
His answer to The theology of Dr. Fowler's ' Design of Christianity *
^DcJ^of S was ^° samo in substance with that of the Quakers. Bunyan
Christianity.' heard of this book when in Bedford prison, and wrote an
elaborate answer to it, which he called ' A Defence of the
Doctrine of Justification.' Fowler as a Platonist had set
forth the principles of eternal morality, and interpreted
Christianity as a means of restoring man to the original rec
titude in which he was created. The moral duties were
binding on men by natural laws, and the positive duties Avcrc
enjoined as things indifferent in themselves, considered ab
solutely, but not indifferent when viewed in reference to the
object to be attained. The three positive duties which
Fowler found in Christianity were, coming to God by Christ,
and the observance of the two sacraments. Fowler's mean
ing from the stand-point of philosophy was lost to Bunyan.
That coming to God by Christ could be in any sense a thing
indifferent, was to him a blasphemy not to be borne. Fowler
found among some Pagans the moral excellence which it
was the design of Christianity to promote. The Quakers
had done the same, even including in the idea of the Church
the virtuous men of all countries, all ages, and all creeds.
Many had come to God who had never heard the name of
Christ. Bunyan saw the agreement of Fowler with the
Quakers. They both exalted natural goodness to equal it
with that holiness which is not of the world nor of the crea
ture. A difference, however, was noticed between Fowler
and the Quakers. Fowler made this excellence natural to
man. It was, so to speak, his original nature, and the object of
Christianity was its restoration. The Quakers, on the other
hand, called it Christ within, or the light of Christ. They
made all natural goodness the light of Christ, while Fowler
called it natural goodness, or the original rectitude in which
men were created. To Bunyan they were alike wrong. They
both meant the same thing, under different names. Adam,
Bunyan says, was a pure natural man. He consisted of
body and soul. 'Thai, was not first which is spiritual, but
that which i>. natural, and afterwards that which is- spiritual.'
* r. 182.
JOHN BUN VAN. 309
Through Christ we come into possession of a holiness un- CHAT. X.
known to Adam in Paradise, a holiness which is superin
duced, and not originally natural to man. Hicroclcs, as
quoted by Fowler, said that nothing was really evil but sin,
and consequently the avoidance of sin was the righteous
ness of man. Bunyaii called this the design of the devil to
lead men away from the righteousness of the new covenant.
The restoration of man could only be effected by the death
of Christ. Without satisfaction for sin, ' the eternal justice
of God could not consent to the salvation of the sinner/*
Fowler, indeed, spoke of Christ's death in the most orthodox
language, as an expiatory or propitiatory sacrifice. But he
added that it was effectual only for them that believe. To
Banyan this was a denial of the efficacy of the atonement ;
for if satisfaction was made to God, and yet salvation left to
depend on man's believing, then it was due not to the work
of Christ, but to human faith.
Banyan embraced the Calvim'stic theology in its com- On rcproba-
pleteness. He did not shrink from any legitimate conclii- ^on>
sioii which followed any of its parts. Reprobation, was not
evaded as something not necessarily involved in predestina
tion. The one was the counterpart of the other, and each
was equally true. An old writer says that there is a book
of death, in which ' the names of the reprobates are regis
tered for destruction/ f Banyan does not use the same
words, but he taught what the words mean. Ho reasoned
justly, that if some men were elected, the others must bo
rejected. If only the predestinate are saved, the others
must be reprobate. They are under the negative of elec
tion, which is reprobation. This docs not mean, Bunyaii
says, that God absolutely hates them or curses them. He
only leaves them to the awful suffering which He has ap
pointed for sin. God may give them ' the gift of Christ, of
faith, of hope, and many other benefits/ He only ' denies
them that benefit that will infallibly bring them to eternal
life/J They are reprobated, that God may show His wrath,
and make His power known. Their being rejected, had no
regard to their sin. It is ' most true/ Bunyan says, that
* P. 2 ;)l. nianibm,' by E. llesburie, 1651.
f ' Stop to the Gangrene of Armi- J P. 338.
3io
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
On the
iSabkilh.
CHAP. X. ( sin is no cause of eternal reprobation, yet seeing sin hath
seized on the reprobate, it cannot be but thereby the decree
must needs be the faster fixed/* •
The rigid literalism of the early and extreme Puritans
found its last shelter in the Baptist sect. In the history of
the Sabbath controversy, in the time of Charles I., the
Puritan argument ended legitimately in the observance of
the seventh day as the proper fulfilment of the Divine law.
Samuel Brabourue's ' Seventh- day Sabbath-keepers ' were
now found only among the Baptists. f In his treatise against
these Sabbatarians, Bunyaii first shows his capacity for the
free use of reason in a purely religious question. He denies
that any Sabbath, or seventh day, was binding on man from
Adam to Moses. We read, he says, that Abel, Noah, Abra
ham, and the patriarchs worshipped and sacrificed, but we
nowhere find that they observed the seventh day as a day of
rest and worship. This was purely a Jewish institution.
Nehemiah says' that God made known to the Israelites by
the hand of Moses His holy Sabbath. The punishment due
to the Sabbath-breakers was not known till it was declared
by Moses, which is regarded as an evident proof that the
commandment itself did not exist. When Jesus declared
to the young man what commandments were necessary to
eternal life, He omitted the law of the Sabbath. From
many passages of Scripture Bunyan argues that the seventh
day was not a moral law, but a Jewish institution,
having no relation to the Gentiles. It was accompanied
with rites and ceremonies, which were essential to its proper
observance, and these were known only to the Jews.
But the necessity of worship requires a time to be fixed for
it. So that the principle is moral, though the ordinance of
one particular day is merely positive. The Son of Man was
Lord of the Sabbath Day. In setting aside the dispensation
of Moses, He abrogated the Jewish Sabbath. He gave a
new day, the first day of the week, which is the Sabbath of
the Christians, or the churches of the Gentiles.
Bunyaii's treatise on the Sabbath must have been of
service in correctin the extreme Sabbatarianism of
* T. 312. til ill exists in the East End of
f One congreg-atioii of this sect don.
JOHN BUNYAN.
the Baptists of that day. But he did a far greater work CHAP. N.
than even this for the narrow sect. Before his time open <)n ciosu com.
communion was scarcely known among the Baptist congre- muniun.
gations. Kobert Hall says that Bunyan was the first t to
break the yoke/ and was regarded as a rebel, or insur
gent, against legitimate authority. The difference, ap
parently, lay on the surface ; but in reality it was very
deep, so deep as almost entirely to separate Bunyan in
principle from the Baptist sect. The little flock of the
immersed regarded themselves alone as within the Christian
fold. To the Baptist those baptized in infancy were as
much outside the Christian covenant as the sectary to the
High Churchman. Alike to the Baptist and the extreme
Churchman, the outward ordinance of baptism was the only
gate into the shcepfold ; and to the former that was not
baptism which was performed by sprinkling, or adminis
tered to children. Bunyan altogether denied that baptism
in any sense was the initiatory ordinance of the Christian
Church.* The first believers were baptized on their pro
fessing faith, but it is never said that this baptism made
them members of the Church. Mere outward baptism did
not confer that privilege, and the want of mere outward
baptism cannot take it away. The rule by which the visible
Church is to bo guided in receiving its members is the
Christian life of those who wish to be reckoned Christians.
It was not to depend on anything merely circumstantial,
but on the reality of faith and works. St. Paul wrote to
the Corinthians not to keep company with fornicators,
idolaters, or drunkards. He does not say that they were
not to communicate with those who had not been baptized
with water, or who had not received the 'laying on of
hands/ These notions Bunyan calls ' fictions/ and ' Scrip-
tureless.'t But even if baptism were the initiatory ordinance,
it would be wrong to refuse Christian fellowship with men
who were really Christian in their lives. Moses and Joshua
communicated with six thousand uncircumciscd Israelites
in the wilderness, though circumcision was required as
a condition of visible Church communion.
In the course of this argument Bunyan proves that bap- Baptism iu-
diilcrunl.
* Vol. ii. p. 605. t P. 007.
312 KKLIOIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. tism is altogether a tiring indifferent, and much more a
certain mode of its administration adopted by Baptists.
Many thousands, he says, who have never been baptized by
immersion, ' have more gloriously than we are like to do,
acquitted themselves and their Christianity before men, and
are now with the innumerable company of angels, and the
spirits of just men made perfect/*
The Baptists who replied to Bunyanf said that the Epis
tles in the New Testament were not addressed to the
unbaptized, and the inference was made that the Scrip
tures belonged only to those who had been immersed.
They regarded the ' sprinkled ; Independents with whom
Bunyan associated, as mere Pagans, saying that ' they
ought to be ashamed and repent' of their infant bap
tism, 'before they be showed the pattern of the house/
Bunyan answered that he did not despise baptism even
as administered by the Baptists. But there were those
who had that which baptism signified, which was of more
Not necessary importance than baptism itself. A true believer, though
Christian 110^ baptized with water, has the doctrine of baptism. J
Buiiyan's opponents had recourse to the old Puritan argu
ment, afterwards appropriated by High Churchmen, that
as God took so much care in ceremonies among the Jews,
much more would He under the better dispensation. If
Moses were faithful over his house, much more was Christ.
' Was God so exact/ the Baptists said, ( with His people
then, that all things to a pin must be according to the pat
tern in the mount, whose worship then, comparatively to
the Gospel, was but after the law of a carnal commandment,
and can it be supposed that He should be so indifferent
now, and leave men to their own liberty ?' Bunyan an
swers, ' As for the pins and tacks of the tabernacle, they were
expressly commanded, and when you have proved by the
word of God that you ought to shut saints out of your
communion for want of baptism, then you may begin more
justly to make your parallel/ § It is nowhere said that the
* P. 611. joint work of H. D'Anvers, T. Paul,
f ' Some Serious Reflections on and \V. Kiffin. There is no copy of
that part of Mr. .IJunyan's Confession this tract in any London library,
of Faith Touching Church Commu- J P. 627.
nion with Unbaptized Believers,' by $ P. 636.
"VV. K. It is said to have been the
UNION OF NONCONFORMISTS. 313
unbaptized believer is to be excluded from Church commu- CHAP. X.
nion, nor is it said that Jesus, St. Paul, or the Ethiopian
eunuch by their baptism, became members of the Church.
' it rests with you/ Bunyaii says to his opponents, * to
prove that baptism is the fruit of faith, or that faith ought
to be tied to take its first step in water baptism/* ' It
is/ they answered ' the livery of a Christian/ Bunyan told
them to go but ten doors from home, and see how many
would be known by this livery that they had put on Christ.
' What ! known by water baptism to be one that hath put on
Christ, as a gentleman's man is known to be his master's
servant by the gay garment his master gave him. Away,
fond man, you quite forget the text. By this shall men
know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to an
other.'^ Bunyaii adds, ' I am not against every man, though
by your abusive language you would set every one against
me, but I am for union, concord, and communion with saints
as saints, and for that cause I wrote my book/
In 1691, the Presbyterians and Independents were united Union of
into one body. It was a mere fellowship of brothers in ad- anO^ntUs""1
versity, for the varieties of opinion were the same among pendents,
the Nonconformists as in the Church of England. Matthew
Mead, pastor of an Independent congregation in Stepney,
preached the union sermon, from the text in Ezekiel which
he made famous, concerning the ' two sticks' that were made
one. The ' wolf/ he said, was now to dwell with the lamb,
and he hoped the silence would not be like the silence in
heaven, which continued only for half an hour. The Inde
pendents, who were more exclusive than the Presbyterians,
were never heartily satisfied with this union. It was dis
turbed, before a year had passed, first, by some irregular
preaching, of which the Presbyterians did not approve, and
then by the great Antinomiaii controvers}^. The Inde
pendents kept rigidly to Calvinism, and took the Antinomian
side in the controversy which followed the republication of
the works of Dr. Crisp. J In 1694 the Presbyterians were
excluded from the Merchants' Lecture at Pinners' Hall, and
before the end of the century the union was virtually dis-
* P. 637. t Sec Vol. I. of the present work,
t P. 638. p. 253.
314 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CIIAF. X. solved. The Antinomian controversy was finally settled by
a mutual appeal from both parties to the arbitration of Still-
ingflcet and Jonathan Edwards.
Occasional The Act of Toleration brought freedom to the dissenters,
conformity. |3ufc t]ie rpegfc ^cfc rcmaine(j. No man could hold office who
did not communicate with the Established Church. The
object of this law had been to exclude Roman Catholics from
offices of State. Only a small number of Protestant Non
conformists had scruples about conformity to the extent of
occasional communion. One of the first acts of the ejected
ministers in London, in 1662, was to pass a resolution that
they would continue to receive the sacraments at their parish
churches. This practice was mainly continued by the Pres
byterians. Their sincerity was not to be questioned. They
wished to bo considered members of the Church of England.
It wras then reckoned no paradox, no contradiction, to be a
Nonconformist, and yet a member of the Church of England.
The Lord jn -[(597^ gir Humphrey Edwin, after receiving the Sacra-
Pinners' Hall, mcnt at church, went to worship at Pinners' Hall, with the
sword of office carried before him. Rigid Churchmen were
offended that he had gone in state to the meeting house, and
some Nonconformists that he had gone to church to qualify
himself, as they said, for holding office. It was not necessary
to suppose that the Lord Mayor was insincere, and it was
only by extreme Nonconformists that he was condemned.
Daniel De Foe, who seems to have been the first political
Dissenter, assailed the Lord Mayor in an anonymous pam
phlet called an ( Enquiry into Occasional Conformity among
the Dissenters/ The argument was the easy one, that if
the Church is right, the meeting is wrong, and conversely,
if the meeting is right, the Church is wrong. There is, he
says, a sort of truth, ' a something which all men owe to the
principles they profess, and, generally speaking, all men
pay it/ A Turk is a Turk, and an idolater is an idolater.
It is only Protestants who fare amphibious, and try to serve
God and Baal/ They can believe one way of worship to be
right, and yet they can serve God in another way. To be of
two religions is a contradiction, De Foe ni;m;iges his argu
ment in that incisive form too frequent in religious contro
versies, which assumes premises not granted by the oppo*
OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY. 315
ncut. Every man, lie says, ought to conform to tlic Esta- CHAP. X.
blislied Church, unless he feels dissent a matter of conscience,
and is more willing to die than to conform. This alternative
is founded on the magnitude of the sin of schism. It is said
to be the sin which every man ought to avoid, but if he is
compelled by conscience to separate, then the guilt rests
with those who cause the separation. But to dissent and
yet to conform, is to deny the lawfulness of dissent. Either
occasional conformity is a sin, or dissent is a sin. Men
cannot maintain their principles and subvert them at the
same time. For a man to take the Sacraments at church
that he may hold the office of Lord Mayor of London, is
called a scandal to the chief magistracy, a profanation of
God's ordinance, and a bantering with religion.
In 1 701, Sir Thomas Abney, another dissenter, was elected DC Foe
Lord Mayor, and received the Sacrament at St. Paul's. He
was a member of the congregation of which John Howe
was pastor, and continued to worship as a Dissenter during
the year of his mayoralty. De Foe's wrath became more
impetuous. He republished his pamphlet, with a preface
addressed to Howe, calling upon him to condemn the prac
tice of occasional conformity, and vindicate the purity of dis
sent. Howe had always been a moderate, yet a decided
Nonconformist. He was willing to conform in 16G2, but as
he had been ordained by a presbytery, he refused to be re-
ordained. He had no wish to perpetuate dissent for its own
sake. He was unwilling to be silent, but he wished to con
tinue a communicant in the Church of England. Addressed Answered by
to a man in Howe's position, De Foe's arguments had no Jolm Howc-
meaning. Howe immediately defended himself in ' Some
Considerations on the Preface of the Enquiry.' He had
satisfied his own conscience, and he found it, he said, a much
easier matter to please God than to please men. He pointed
out the distinction, overlooked by De Foe, between a Church
essentially defective, and a Church defective only in some
' accidentals/ There Was a division in the Apostolic Church
about meats and drinks, but St. Paul's advice was not sepa
ration. He gave two rules, one for the persons who li;ul
scruples, that they be fully persuaded in their own minds,
and another for the rulers of the Church, — ( him that is weak
316 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. in the faith receive/ Who art tliou, Howe asks trium
phantly, that jadgest thy brother? The Lord Mayor had
acted according to his own conscience, and not according to
that of Daniel De Foe. Howe is compelled to become the
apologist of the Church of England. He says that he has
known some of the holiest saints who have found their
highest elevation in the use of the Book of Common Prayer.
De Foe's question l for God or Baal ? ' could not, he says,
have been meant seriously, it must have been intended for a
piece of wit. He added,, that it was impious and profane to
speak of the Church and the meeting as two different reli
gions. He reminded De Foe of the original resolution of
the ejected ministers, not to leave the Communion of the
Established Church. It was a matter which must rest with
the individual conscience, and in which one man must not
judge another. De Foe replied, in ' A Letter to Mr. Howe/
He had two objects in writing his ' Enquiry/ One was to see
if he could evoke any arguments sufficient to convince him
that occasional conformity was right, and the other was to
explode, and, as far as in him lay, to oppose the practice.
Howe had boasted that such had been his moderation that
he had never persuaded any one to Nonconformity. De Foe
thought this was something of which one who was pastor of
a Dissenting Church, administering the ordinances to a
' select people/ ought not to be proud. ' Verily/ he says,
if I were advanced to that coldness, I would conform imme
diately/
In 1702 De Foe published two other pamphlets bearing
on the subject. One is the famous piece of irony called
The .Shortest ' The Shortest Way with the Dissenters/ The argument is
0 tllllt if Dissenters care so little about Dissent, the best way
to put them down is by persecution. If their Nonconformity
regards only ' a few modes or accidents/ it is certain that
they will not die for it. Many of the Nonconformists of
that day still maintained that they were members of the
Church of England. They refused to conform in some
things, but they conformed in others. They even said that
\vhile the State gave them toleration that made them part
of the State Church. De Foe treated this argument with
ridicule. Every Dissenting congregation, he said, had
DANIEL DE FOE. 317
always been dissatisfied with 'conforming Nonconformity.' CHAP. X.
The other pamphlet had the title of ' An Enquiry into Occa
sional Conformity, showing that the Dissenters arc in no way
concerned in it/ It was proposed by a Bill in Parliament
to prevent occasional conformity. This appeared to some
to be depriving the Dissenters of privileges which they had
long possessed. On this ground the Bill was opposed by
moderate men of all parties. De Foe's object was to prove
that it was no injustice to Dissenters. It was no prelude to
the repeal of toleration. The Queen had declared herself
decidedly for the Church of England, and this had en
couraged the ' hot men' on the Church side, but there was
every reason to believe that the utmost justice would be
done to Dissenters. ' The pulpit/ Do Foe says, ' that drum
wlcxuistic, began the war, and Mr. Sachcvcrcll in his
sermon at Oxford doomed the Dissenters to destruction
without either bell, book, or candle.' But the Bill to pro
hibit occasional conformity was not, he maintained, intended
for any interference with the rights of Nonconformists.
Sacheverell was in favour of the Bill, but on different Sachovorcll
grounds from De Foe. He wished the prohibition of occa- ^^occa
sional conformity that the Nonconformists might be entirely sional con-
excluded from all civil or municipal offices. The English °
monarchy, he said, depended on the Church. It was there
fore the duty of the Crown to support the Church and sup
press Dissent. The ' occasional conformists' were ' faithless
men/ By ' hypocrisy, craft, and insidiousness/ they ' creep
to our altars and partake of our sacraments that they may
be qualified more secretly and powerfully to undermine the
Church.' No heathen government would ever have tolerated
such ' a religious piece of political hypocrisy/ This sermon
raised a controversy of its own. One of Sachevcrcll's best
supporters was Leslie the Nonjuror. It was congenial work
for him to accuse the moderate Churchmen of entering into
a conspiracy witli ( Whigs and fanatics to undermine and
blow up the present Church and government/ In another
pamphlet he dealt with the occasionally conforming Dis
senters, stripping 'the wolves' of their shepherd's clothing,*
and exposing their hypocrisy and deceit. Schism was a
* Sec 'The Wolf sli-ipt of His Shepherd's Clothing-.'
3l8 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. deadly sin, but to ' comprehend ' the Dissenters was only to
dissolve the Church of England and ' melt her down ' into
all the sects. Leslie was able in this argument to plead the
agreement of the Kirk of Scotland, which had just sent a
petition that in any Bill framed for toleration, ' the benefits
of it might not extend to Episcopalians/
'Mod-ration There were moderate Dissenters besides Howe who op
posed the Bill and advocated occasional conformity. James
Owen, in c Moderation a Virtue/ showed that it was Chris
tian and Catholic. It was no new theory, and there was no
reason why it should cease, as the differences between
Churchmen and Dissenters were really very small. It was
not injurious to the Church of England, but tended rather to
weaken dissent. It was not inconsistent with Nonconformist
principles. The old Nonconformists, 0\ven showed, were
always opposed to separation.
Lord Ban-ing- Tho same principles were advocated by Shute, Viscount
ton on occa- BarriiiGfton, a leader of the Presbyterians. In 1701 he pub-
sional con-
ibrmity. lished a pamphlet, which he enlarged in 1703, called 'An
Essay upon the Interest of England in respect to Protestants
Dissenting from the Church of England/ Lord Harrington
regarded the Bill as an injury to Dissenters. It was taking
away a privilege, and the result would bo that many
moderate Dissenters would conform entirely rather than
become ineligible for civil offices. * There arc many people/
his Lordship says, ' who do not appreciate a sermon unless
heard in the presence of a knight, an alderman, or a justice
of the peace/ He argued against the Bill from the num
bers and importance of Dissenters. They were ' a fourth of
the nation/ They were 'men of substance and of great
influence in the country/ To disoblige them would be
unwiso on the part of the government. Ho compared them
to the unhappy people of Rome under Tiberius, whose every
action was liable to be misunderstood. ' Astrology/ ho
said, ' should be consulted what unhappy planet reigned
when Nonconformity took its rise, since it is not to be
allowed the Dissenters to worship occasionally in a Church/
De Foe wished, of course, that Dissenters should be eligible
to civil offices without occasional conformity, and Lord Bar-
rington wished the same, but maintained that the per-
BILL AGAINST OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY. 319
mission of occasional conformity was an important stop CIIAI*. X.
towards it.
When the Bill was before tlio House of Lords Bishop BishopBurnct
Burnet* spoke against it, drawing his arguments from the ^"fcoil- ^
past history of the Church of England. It had been, he ibvmity.
said, the good policy of Qnecn Elizabeth to allow Roman
Catholics to hold office, on condition of occasional con
formity. Her Lord Treasurer, the Marquis of Winchester,
had protested against all the acts of the Reformation, yet
he was allowed to hold his office because he conformed
occasionally. He was known as a ' Church Papist.' It was
the Pope who first prohibited the occasional conformity of
the Roman Catholics. He saw that its tendency was to
strengthen the Church of England. At the Restoration
Biirncfc said there was an unusually favourable opportunity
for settling all differences, but that opportunity was lost.
Those who had the power abused it, and increased the
differences when they ought to have lessened them. Be
cause of the sufferings of Dissenters the Roman Catholics
obtained a general toleration in 1G72. But the result of
this was the Test Act in the following year, which was
passed with the help and concurrence of the Dissenters.
After speaking of the indulgences of James II. and his
schemes to overthrow the Protestant religion, Bishop Burnet
said that King William came to their deliverance, and by
the Act of Toleration had made the Church of England
stronger and safer than ever. Since that time the Non
conformists had decreased in number as much as a third or
a fourth. Before the wars, there was a great difference
between the Puritan who was a Churchman and the Brownist
who was a Separatist. The latter was hated mainly because
ho was a Separatist. This is now reversed. We show least
favour to those Nonconformists who are nearest to us.
Many people in his own diocese, Burnet said, frequent both
Church and meeting; people ' who have no civil office and
* In 1702 the Bill was brought into failed to pass. Next year a now Bill
llio Commons. It v/as amended by was introduced, which was also do-
tho Lords, and a free conference of feutod in the Lords. It failed a^aiu
Loth Houses was held on it. The in 1701, hut pa:;.-cd by a coalition in
Lords, chiefly guided by Archbishop 1711. The Act, with some others of
Tcnison and Bishop Pun-not, persisted the same kind, was rq.rali -.1 in 1718.
in their amendments, and the Bill
320
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. desire none/ If this Bill is passed they will continue to go
to meeting, but will entirely forsake the Church.*
The leaders of the Presbyterians, Baxter, Bates, and
Howe, continued to the end of their lives in unwilling sepa
ration from the Church. Howe and Bates both refused to
be present at ordinations by Presbyterians, and evidently
lived and died in hope of such changes in the Church as
would make conformity easy for the Nonconformists. The
most eminent men among the Nonconformists after Baxter
and Howe were better known as preachers than as writers,
Dr. Bates. and what they wrote is for the most part practical. Dr.
Bates's chief work, called ' The Harmony of the Divine
Attributes,' is an elaborate and complete exposition of the
scheme of Redemption, as it was understood by the Puri
tans. Adam, the first man, as the covenant head of the
race, stood for all men. He sinned, and his sin was of
universal efficacy. As the race was related to Adam,
naturally the taint of corruption is in all, and because of
the moral or covenant ^relation, it is imputed to all. The
fact of original guilt is found in the cries of infants. The
tears which are born with their eyes signify that they are
come into a state of sorrow. It was remarked by Pliny
how much more sad is the condition of man than that of
the lower animals. They come into the world instructed to
swim, or fly, or run. They arc clothed by nature, and their
clothes grow with their bodies. But man is born in desti
tution. The Pagans, ignorant of Adam's fall, accused
nature, and ' under that mask blasphemed God, as less in
dulgent to man than to the inferior creatures/ But the
explanation is, that man is a transgressor from the womb.
The justice of God is defended in the way that it was de
fended by Job's friends, — on principles that arc not appli
cable to justice with man. Dr. Bates supposes, that if all
the posterity of Adam had been asked to agree that Adam
* Occasional conformity seems to
have Loon practised ehielly l>y the
Presbyterians. The (Junkers, as we
have seen, stood apart from all other
denominations. ]\lr. Skeats says that
'members of some Kiptist chmvlies
were forbidden to enter on any pre
tence whatever the established places
of worship: inter-marriages and social
intercourse with Episcopalians were
equally prohibited.' These were ar
ticles of communion in the Baptist
Church at Cambridge. 'History of
Free Churches/ by H. 8. Skeats.p. I8(i.
JOHN FLAVEL. 331
should bo their covenant head,, they could not have made CHAP. X.
any exception, for God gives His favours as it pleaseth
Him, and if men had refused the headship of Adam, they
might have been justly annihilated.*
Reduced to his present condition by the faults of Adam, Necessity of
it was impossible for man to rise again. The darkness that «ah'sfaction
had come over his mind could only be expelled by super
natural light. And though the arrangement that he should
fall in Adam was not his own making, it was yet impossible
that he could ever make satisfaction by suffering. The •
offence was infinite, and Divine justice is infinite. Man
could only have made such satisfaction as the devils make
which is never complete, though the suffering be for ever.
There was a necessity for an infinite satisfaction. How to
reconcile mercy with inflexible justice was a mystery too
deep for angels, but not for the wisdom of God. The eternal
Son took flesh. He obeyed the law for men, and 'His
righteousness is meritoriously imputed to them that be
lieve/ This doctrine of satisfaction, in the form in which it
was taught by Dr. Bates, was reckoned one of the deep
things which reason could not discover. It could not be
believed by natural reason, yet when revealed it is seen
to bear the stamp of reason, that is, when the intellectual
principle in man is enlightened by faith.
The works of Dr. Daniel Williams consist chiefly of ser
mons, with his polemical tracts in the Crisp controversy.
Matthew Sylvester, another eminent preacher, left no
writings, except a few sermons preached as part of the
morning exercises at Cripplegate. John Flavel wrote many John Flavol.
pious books, but altogether of a practical character. The
only work of FlavePs which gave scope for speculation, or
touched on questions open to controversy, was his ' Treatise
on the Soul of Man/ The immediate object, however, of
this work was entirely practical. It was supposed that we
have a sufficient account in the Scriptures of the souFs
origin, and that Aristotle, and all the ancients who wrote
on this subject, only proved themselves to be, as Lactantius
says, 'learned idiots/ Moses explains it in a few words,
where he says that God breathed into man the breath of
* P. 49, cd. 1674.
VOL. II. Y
322 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. life, and he became ' a living soul.' The soul did not result
from matter. It was not born of flesh, but descended from
the Father of spirits. It is not as the Stoics said, a part
of the Deity. God made the soul. It is not one of His rays.
It did not emanate from Him. Flavel supposes that the
doctrine of the immediate creation of souls is clearly taught
On the soul, in the Scriptures. The soul of a brute is dependent on its
body, but the soul of man is an inspiration from the Al
mighty. All souls were not created at once, like the souls
of the angels, as Plato supposed, but are created daily as
bodies are generated. These arguments concerning the
origin of the soul are introduced for a practical object.
They are the ground of arguments for the soul's value, on
which are founded exhortations to repentance. To save
the soul ought to bo the great object of human life. As
mariners go to sea, and tradesmen to market, that they
may get gain, so should men strive for the gain of the
soul.
The Nonconformists continued long faithful to the Puritan
doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Brian
Walton's c Polyglott' was to many what it had been to John
Owen, an undermining of the foundations of revealed religion.
In 1699, Samuel Clark, whose life was mainly devoted to
Biblical studies, published his ' Divine Authority of the
Holy Scriptures/ This treatise was written with reference
to Simon's ' Critical History of the Old Testament,' and
Samuel Clark some other recent ' assaults' on the Bible. Clark promises
inspiration. ^° inquire into the manner of inspiration, and as far as pos
sible to determine how much is due to the Holy Spirit, and
how much to the inspired writers. La Mothc, in an answer
to Simon, had divided inspiration into three kinds, — that
which is immediate, that which is by sense, and that which
is by reasoning. The immediate revelations given to the
Apostles were given in two ways. The truths were sug
gested to their minds and they received them passively,
'like a piece of cloth that receives colours.' But when they
began to write, the Holy Spirit moved them and refreshed
their memories. There was first suggestion, and then direc
tion or guidance. When the writers wore going right
they were left to themselves, but when likoly to go wrong
SAMUEL CLARK.
323
they wore checked and kept right. The Apostles added CHAP. x.
reflections of their own to what was suggested; and with
these reflections, wherever reason was sufficient, the Holy
Spirit did not interfere except to warrant infallibility.
Clark pronounces La Mothers views of inspiration ( dero
gatory to the majesty and authority of the Holy Scriptures/
He promises to show that all Scripture whatever is directly
inspired. For the Old Testament he has the words of St.
Paul, ' all Scripture is given by inspiration of God/ and the
words of St. Peter, that ' prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost/ The Scriptures in general are
called ' the Oracles of God/ This inspiration is further He proves it
proved from the contents of the books. Many things must
have been immediately revealed. Such were God's words
to Cain, Lamech's speech to his wives, and what God said
to Laban in a dream. Many things are not likely to have
come by tradition, — as the agreement between Abraham
and Sarah before going into Egypt, and what Ecbckah said
to Isaac concerning the daughters of Hoth. Some matters
of fact must have been immediately revealed, — as the story
of Ruth, and that of Naaman. The Book of Job is also a
history of facts, and though the speeches of his friends were
wrongly applied, yet what they said was not wrong in itself.
There are many things in the Scriptures which transcend
human faculties, — as the dialogue in Isaiah between God
the Father and God the Son. There are lofty strains not
to be found in human authors, — as the description in Eze-
kicl of the entertainment of the King of Egypt by his dead
confederates, or ' that elegant prosopopeia of the inanimate
creatures and the dead at the destruction of Babylon/
These could not arise ' from men's brains, but must be put
into them by the immediate Spirit of God/ The writings
of the New Testament are equal sharers in this prerogative
of inspiration. They arc called Scripture, as well as the
writings of the Old Testament. St. Peter speaks of St.
Paul's Epistles being wrested by the unlearned, as well as
( other Scriptures/ The writers, however, were not merely
passive. The Holy Ghost made use of their reason and
understanding. Inspiration was ( attempered and accommo-
Y2
324
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X.
Maintains the
Divine au
thority of the
Hebrew
points.
Changes
among the
Prcsbyte-
dated to the particular genius of each writer, so that ' the
liquor savoured of the pipe through which it ran/ This
was denied by John Owen, but Clark thought that it must
be admitted. It was promised by Christ that the writers
should be led into all truth, and have all things brought to
their remembrance. All things which were matters of puro
revelation were imprinted on their minds. It was necessary
that the very words which they spoke and wrote should be
more than their own, if it could be said that God spake in
them and by them.
With a consistency which was fatal to his own theory
Clark maintained,, not only the inspiration of the words of
Scripture, but the Divine authority of the Hebrew vowels
and accents. The points, he said, were as old as the conso
nants ; in fact, the meaning of the consonants depended on
the vowels. He thought it probable that the Hebrew let
ters, vowels, and accents were imprinted on Adam's soul in
Paradise. As Adam was created perfect, the language
which God taught him must have been perfect too. Bishop
Walton said, that if the late invention of the points made
the Scriptures uncertain, he would retract his opinion, and
acknowledge his error. Clark said, the consequence was so
evident that the bishop must retract. ( If the vowel points
are not coevous with the consonants, it is morally impos
sible the true reading should be preserved, and derived
down to us, and therefore must needs be doubtful and un
certain. Whatever advantages the Masoritcs may have had,
their authority at best is only that of men uninspired. The
sense depends on. the vowel points, and if these are not as
old as the consonants, we are left to merely human autho
rity.' The inspiration of the Spirit, moreover, extended not
only to the vowels and accents, but even to the division into
verses, at least in the Old Testament. After many argu
ments, Clark concludes that the letters, vowels, accents, and
divisions into verses are all of the same extract and original,
of the same authority and antiquity.
The Independents kept to Calvinism, and continued through
the eighteenth century the representatives of orthodox dis
sent. The Baptist sect did not increase, but rather declined,
and became partly associated with the Independents. A
THOMAS EMLYN.
325
few of the General Baptist congregations became Unitarian. CHAT. X.
The most rapid changes,, however, took place among the
Presbyterians. In. their history the student of religious
opinions among Nonconformists will find a special interest.
Many of them were moderate men at the Restoration, and
submitted to the Act of Uniformity. Those who did not
conform became by degrees more liberal in their theology,
and more in sympathy with the tone of the Established
Church. Many of their scruples as to conformity were of a
personal character, as in the case of Howe, who objected to
re-ordination. These scruples did not exist for the next
generation. It may be said that the strength of Presby-
terianisni was ultimately absorbed into the national Church.
Part of it doubtless went with the Independents, but how
much it is impossible to determine, as the final distinctions
between these two parties became one not of polity but of
doctrine. The Presbyterians never had regular government
by presbyteries. They were mainly represented after the
Restoration, by Baxter and the less Calvinistic Nonconform
ists. As represented by Daniel Williams they arc moderate
Calvinists as opposed to the Antinomians. They turn up
again as opposed to subscriptions, and they become finally
the English Unitarians.
For this stage in the history of Presbyterianism we have Thomas
the best materials in the life and writings of Thomas Emlyn. Emlyn-
He belonged, we may say, to the second generation after the
Act of Uniformity. His parents were of the Church of
England, and were worshippers at the parish church of
Stamford when Bishop Cumberland was rector. They in
clined, however, to Puritanism, and designed their son for the
ministry among the Nonconformists. In 1683 Emlyii be
came chaplain to the Countess of Donegal. He had a
licence from an Irish bishop to preach in the churches in
Ireland, and would not have objected to episcopal ordination,
but he could not reconcile himself to the subscriptions. When
Dr. Williams came to London, Emlyn was chosen to be his
successor in Dublin. About a year before this, Dr. Sher
lock's book on the Trinity had been published. Emlyn and
another Nonconformist minister studied it with great care,
and their faith in the Trinity as it is commonly understood
326 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. was unsettled. The other minister became a Socinian, but
Emlyii continued to believe in the pre-cxistence of the
Logos, and that He was the instrument of the creation of
the material world. Emlyn preached in Dublin for about
ten years, avoiding controversial subjects, and confining
himself to ' the agenda and petcnda, and such only of the
credcnda as are contained in the Apostles' Creed/ He had
begun to think the greatest part of controversial divinity as
like ' the various philosophical hypotheses and theories where
men in the dark are pleased with their ingenious romances/
This was said specially in reference to the doctrine of
' covenants,' which was the foundation of all orthodox theo
logy, and supremely that of the Presbyterian.
Teaches Ernlyn's orthodoxy was suspected. He did not positively
Ariamsm. preach heresy, but he avoided the themes familiar in ortho
dox churches. He was pressed by the other ministers in
Dublin to resign his charge. This ended in his publishing
( A Humble Enquiry into the Deity of Jesus Christ/ The
Dissenters procured for this book a ' presentment ' by the
Grand Jury. Emlyn was apprehended and put in prison.
The Established Church in Ireland was also roused to the
danger of suffering heresy. The Archbishops of Dublin and
Armagh, William King and Hugh Boulter, encouraged the
prosecution. Emlyn was condemned and subjected to
the penalties of the law for the publication of blasphemy.
Bishop Hoadly, speaking of Emlyn/s case, says that f we of
the Established Church can manage a prosecution ourselves
without calling in any other help. But I must do the Pro
testant Dissenters the justice to say that they have shown
themselves upon occasions very ready to assist us in so pious
and Christian a work as bringing heretics to their right
minds, being themselves but very lately come from experien
cing the convincing and enlightening faculty of a dungeon,
or a fine/ The bishop concludes concerning Emlyn : ' The
Nonconformists accused him, the Conformists condemned
him, the secular power was called in, and the cause ended in
an imprisonment and a very great fine, two methods of con
viction about which the (lospel is silent/ The rest of
Ernlyri's life was spent writing in defence of Unitarian, or
at least Arian doctrines. In this work he was associated with
THOMAS EMLYN.
327
Samuel Clarke and William Winston in the renewal of tlio CHAP. X.
Trinitarian controversy about the beginning of the eight-
oentli century.
The ' Humble Enquiry ' admitted that in the Scriptures Denies i
Jesus is called God. This, it is said, was never denied either
by Arians or Socinians. The only question to be settled is
the sense in which He is God. Emlyn decides that He is
God only in an inferior sense. He is not God of gods, nor
Lord of lords, though He be both God and Lord. The
supreme God is above Jesus Christ. In the Apostle's words,
He is ' the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ/
This subordination of ' the Son to the Father ' is shown from
many texts. The office of Jesus is one committed to Him,
and when His work is done, His power will be again re
stored to the Father. Emlyn shows further that Jesus dis
claimed all the attributes which properly belong to God
only. He said that of Himself He could do nothing. He
had only a derived power, and therefore was not omnipotent.
He refused to be called good, because there was none good
but God. This was the name by which the old philoso
phers knew God. He was ' the good/ In this sense Jesus
refused the attribute of goodness. He was not omniscient.
God knows all things, for His understanding is infinite ;
but of the day of judgment, Jesus said that no man knew
when it would be, ' not the angels nor the Son, but the
Father only/ Jesus did not merely say, that as the Son of
man He knew nothing of that day, but as the Son, as the
Logos. He was not the Father, and therefore He did not
know the future. It is true that in Scripture Jesus is
spoken of as knowing all things, and of being able to search
men's hearts, but this power He had by revelation from
the Father. Emlyn said that Sherlock's doctrine of three
infinite minds destroyed the unity of God, while South's
doctrine of three modes left no room for a mediator. It
was therefore necessary, in order to keep the Gospel faith
' whole and undefiled/ to believe that God and His Christ
were two distinct beings.
Emlyn was answered by his fellow pastor in Dublin, Answered by
Joseph Boyse. This was the beginning of one of the OSQI)
long controversies which in those days were common,
328 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. Emlyii persisted in maintaining that the Father and the
Son arc two distinct beings. They were distinct in in
tellect, in will, and in life. They were one in the same way
as all believers will ultimately be one with the Father.
That this was the meaning of Christ's words as recorded in
John's Gospel, Einlyn quoted the authority of Calvin, who
said that the ancients abused the Scriptures in attempting
to find in these words the consubstantiality of the Father
and the Son. The Trinitarian argument is summed up in
this brief syllogism. ' There is but one God, Christ is
called God, ergo Christ is the Most High God/ The answer
is, that though Christ be called God, He is not that ' one
God/ that ' only God ' whom the Father is said to be. His
Deity is not denied. This, indeed, is not denied in the Nicene
Creed, which calls him ' God of God/ Boyse made the
distinction that Christ came from the Father by a necessary
emanation, while creatures were a voluntary creation. In this
way he preserved the identity of the being of the Father and
that of the Son. But Einlyn, taking being, mind, and person
as meaning the same thing, maintained that the beings must
be distinct if the one was derived, and the other underived.
A being which has a cause cannot be the same as a being
which has not a cause. Scripture ascribes to Father and
Son distinct actions, which require distinct minds and souls.
Wo cannot say that one mode begat another mode, and that
those two sent a third mode.
On the wor- The worship of Christ was alleged as an argument for His
ship of Chnst. Divinity; Emlyn was moreover accused of not being quite
ingenuous in remaining so long with a community of Chris
tians who worshipped Christ as God. He vindicated him
self by saying that he had never known any Christians
worship Christ as the ultimate object. They worshipped
the Father by the Son as Mediator. If they intended more,
he never knew them express more, and the worship given
to Christ in the New Testament was not, he maintained, of
a higher kind than this. The disciples were taught to prny
to the Father in Christ's name.
In the writings of the early Fathers there are prayers
addressed to Christ, but only as the High Priest or the Inter
cessor who was to offer the prayers of the saints to the
THOMAS EMLYN.
329
Most High. Emlyn quotes from M. Jurieu to prove that CHAP. X.
Roman Catholics do not give to Jesus Christ that worship Do Roman
which they give to God, but only that which they give to Catholics give
saints. They pray to Him to intercede for them. The highest wor-
objection was raised that by this argument Emlyn justified shiP?
the idolatry of Roman Catholics and Pagans. If Jesus is
only a created being, to worship Him is idolatry. The
answer involved a discussion of the whole subject of wor
ship. The ordinary Protestant had evidently come to limit
all religious addresses to God only, and when worship was
offered to Christ it was because He was God. The custom
of the Roman Catholics had been to invoke saints and
angels, Jesus, the Virgin, and all the immortals. There was
a distinction of worship, but the Supreme God was the ulti
mate object of all religious service, and invocation to saints
was included under the general name of worship. In old
English the word had even a wider meaning than this, but
among Protestants it had come to be limited to the imme
diate worship of the Most High God. Emlyn advocates for
Christ what he calls inferior worship. This worship is said
to belong to Him in virtue of His office as Mediator. He
may not know all things, that is, He may not know them of
Himself, and yet He may know all our necessities, and be
by God's appointment the proper object of invocation. But
this does not justify the idolatry of Roman Catholics and
Pagans. They have no command for praying to saints or
images. Jesus is the name above every name, to which all
are to bow. God hath ' made Him both Lord and Christ/
and we are required to give Him honour and homage. But
this is not said of the Virgin nor of the saints. God dwelt
in the Shechinah, and was there to be worshipped. He did
not dwell in the golden calf, and therefore the worship of it
was idolatry. For this worship of Christ Emlyn quotes
from many of the Fathers. They worshipped God and His
Son, or God by His Son. The worship sometimes seems to
be the same, but it is generally distinct. The Father and
Sou are not Worshipped as one in the same numerical
essence. Lactantius says that before creation God ' begot
a Spirit whom He called His Son, which title He did not
give to any other of the spirits whom He afterwards
330 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. created/ Origen says,, ' We religiously worship the Father
of truth, and the Sou who is the truth, two indeed in sub-
Augustinc stance, but one by agreement and concord/ Augustine
ChrLt's^im- saw ^n Christ's humanity that footstool of God which in the
inanity. ninety-ninth Psalm he was commanded to worship. Emlyii
argues that if Christ's humanity could be worshipped with
out idolatry, it was surely not idolatry to worship Him as
the Logos who existed before the world was.
Bishop A tract of some interest in Emlyn's works is ' A Vindi-
1 i 1 v
the^pre-exist- cati°n of Dr. Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, against Dr.
cncc of Christ. Sherlock/ Bishop Fowler had taught the pre-existence of
the humanity of Christ. The ' man Christ Jesus/ he said,
' descended from heaven' in the same sense in which He
afterwards ascended into heaven. This theory was intended
to obviate the difficulty supposed to be in the Trinitarian
scheme, that if Christ existed before His incarnation only
as God, how could He be said to descend from heaven ?
His divine nature could not descend. He could not lay
aside His uncreated glory, and His human nature did not
yet exist. South said, 'It, is impossible for His divine
nature to come, because coming is a motion from the place
where one is to a place in which he was not before, whereas
infinity implies a presence to all places/ The other alter
native is supposed to be that Christ came in His human
nature; but this, too, South denies. ' That,' he says, ' which
did not exist before it was in the world cannot possibly be
said to come into the world, any more than the fruit that
grows on the tree can be said to come to the tree/ The
Ariaii had no difficulty with-the descent from heaven. He
explained it as Jesus Christ leaving the glory which He had
with God His Father. Bishop Fowler explained it by the
pro-existence of Christ's human soul, translating the words
in John iii. 13 as ' The Son of Man who was in heaven/
Dr. Sherlock supposed that the Eternal Word for a time
put otf ' His visible glory,' but not His ( essential glory/
This was all, he said, that was meant by Christ emp
tying Himself, by His being rich and becoming poor.
Ernlyn argues that if this glory was created, it must be a
creature, yet it is called by Sherlock an eternal glory.
Emlyn wrote some remarks on Leslie's ' Dialogues on
THOMAS EMLYN. 33!
Socinianism/ with special reference to tho subject of satis- CHAP. X.
faction. He calls himself a ' Scriptural Trinitarian/ an^ KmiTJ^ii
declares his willingness to believe any doctrine which bears Leslies 'Dia-
the stamp of Divine revolution. Leslie was master of a
peculiar kind of logic, which made short work of all great
controversies. He supposed the justice of God as inde
pendent of the Divine will, so that God could not forgive
without that justice being satisfied to tho uttermost farthing.
After taking satisfaction in this rigid sense, he maintained
the necessity of tho absolute divinity of Christ to enable
Him to make this satisfaction. It was a curious argument
for an Arniinian like Leslie, who believed that the satis
faction had been made for all men, and yet that all men
would not ultimately be saved. Emlyn carefully stated the
question as it stood between different parties. He showed
that the Unitarian view of the atonement was simply that
of the Arminians. They did not take satisfaction literally.
In fact, they did not care about the word at all. It was
not in the Scriptures, but they did not object altogether to
its use. Much less did they object to the scriptural terms
redemption, propitiation, atonement, and sacrifice. The
Ilacoviaii Catechism is quoted in evidence, where it is said
that Jesus Christ made an ' expiatory sacrifice' for our sins.
Emlyn adds that Unitarians do not object to say that Christ
died fm our stead/ so long as the Antinomian sense is
excluded of Christ 'sustaining our legal person/ Christ
suffered to prevent our suffering, and that is dying in place
of us. He did not give a satisfaction of infinite value. He
did not make an equivalent for all the sins of men, but He
made by His obedience an acceptable and 'rewardablc'
oblation. An infinite satisfaction was not necessary for
pardon. Leslie's doctrine, according to Ernlyn, makes God
incapable of mercy. He cannot forgive unless His justice
be satisfied. Even John Owen hesitated to go this length.
He made the impossibility of forgiveness without punish
ment not to depend on any natural obligation, but on a
positive act of God's will. The idea of a proper satisfaction
by Christ supposed, Emlyn says, that Christ was a sinner.
He could only bear punishment if He were a malefactor ;
but He was without sin. Baxter says that Christ was not
332 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. punished properly, but ( analogically/ and Stillingfleet says
that Christ's sufferings ' were not a punishment in the most
proper and strict sense/ The death of Christ showed God's
love, but it is never said that it declared His wrath. The
Jewish victims were called sacrifices and propitiations, but
they were not a full compensation to divine justice. The
great atonement among the Jews was made at the mercy-
scat. It was an application to mercy, and not a satisfaction
to justice.
On baptism. One of Emlyn' s tracts is on baptism. He does not sup
pose that this rite was to be administered to all persons,
but only as an introductory ordinance at the beginning of
the Gospel, or to proselytes from other religions. This was
founded on the argument which derived infant baptism
from the Jewish custom of baptizing proselytes and their
children. Emlyn admitted that the argument was good,
but it only extended he said to proselytes. The aliens were
unclean, while those born within the Christian Church were
holy. They were baptized in their parents. To invert St.
Paul's words, and make them mean that because children are
born of Christian parents they are fit for baptism is called
fa strange inference/ The Baptists tried to get over the
text by interpreting fholy' as 'legitimate.' This, Emlyn
says, is evidently forced, but not more than the interpre
tation which makes children born in the Church unholy
until they are baptized.
333
CHAPTER XI.
NATURAL RELIGION. CULVERWELL S LIGHT OP NATURE. WOL-
LASTON'S RELIGION OF NATURE. — THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY.
ANSWERS TO SHAFTESBURY. — ANTHONY COLLINS. ANSWERS
TO COLLINS. BENTLEY. WHISTON. — CHANDLER. — SYKES.
THOMAS WOOLSTON. ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON. LARDNER.
BISHOP SMALBROKE. — BISHOP PEARCE. SHERLOCK. MATTHEW
TINDAL. ANSWERS TO TINDAL. SAMUEL CLARKE. DR. STEB-
BING. JOHN BALGUY. DR. CONYBEARE. DR. LELAND.— rBISHOP
GIBSON.
THE men who first discoursed of the certainty of natural
religion did it with a good object. They wished to
establish the certainty of our faculties against the sceptic,
and so to lay a foundation for truth. It was generally
assumed that when this was done, the certainty of the Chris
tian revelation would follow as a matter of course. By the
Christian revelation was understood the facts and doctrines
recorded and taught in the Scriptures. Without the abso
lute truth of these, Christianity was not supposed capable of
existence. Reason was an internal light ; Christianity an RcaSon and
external revelation. They were different in kind. In revelation,
strict logic there was no analogy between them. The one,
however, was the complement of the other. Christianity
gave an external certainty to the conclusions of reason.
This was the popular theory, but the foundation once laid
in reason, it was impossible to restrain reason from further
exercise. Before resigning itself to faith, it required to
know the ground which authorized this resignation.
334
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI.
Authority of
Scripture.
Culvcrwoll's
' Light of
Nature.'
No jarring
between faith
and reason.
After the rejection of the infallibility of the Church, the
Scriptures were supposed to be that ' word from God/ which
Simmias the sceptic had desired to give him certainty
concerning the doctrines of Socrates. The question how we
know them to be the word of God required to be answered.
Lord Herbert said he was more certain that the intuitions
of his mind were a word from God than that the Scriptures
were the word of God. This was a conclusive evidence
legitimately reached after what Hooker and Chillingworth
had said of the absolute certainty of reason and the merely
' moral ' certainty of revelation.
A treatise on the ' Light of Nature/ by Nathaniel Cul-
verwell, published in 1652, may illustrate the position of
the theologian who wished to abide by reason, and who yet
received the Scriptures as an infallible revelation.* Culver-
well was a Puritan, and may be reckoned one of the earliest
of the Platonists of Cambridge. His book was published
after his death, and dedicated to Anthony Tuckney, Master
of Emmanuel and one of the divines of the famous Assembly
at Westminster. It had the imprimatur of Edmund
Calamy, and was evidently received by the Puritan leaders
as an orthodox book. And so it was, even though destruc
tive of the fundamental principles of Puritan theology. The
preface declares the object of the book to be the vindica
tion of ' the use of reason in matters of religion/ It speaks
of the prejudices of some ' weaker ones' who aspersed
reason, but it promises also to chastise Socinus for setting
Hagar above her mistress. Reason is the candle of the
Lord. Faith has the blessing, but reason is the first born.
There is not, Culvcrwcll says, any irreconcilable jarring
between them. They may give each other the kiss of peace,
for they both spring from the same fountain of light. To
blaspheme reason is to reproach heaven and ' to dishonour
the God of reason/ Religion is not a bird of prey come to
peck out our natural eyes. It does not demand the imme
diate destruction of the intellect. It does not seek to ex
tinguish the candle of the Lord. Reason is admitted to
have been weakened by the fall. Like Leah it is blear-eyed,
* As this hook was omitted in its inserted here.
]>io)»<T place, a longer account of it is
NATHANIEL CULVER WELL.
335
but not on that account to be hated. It is a picture that has CHAP. XI.
lost some of its gloss and beauty, but not, therefore, to be
destroyed. Men do not pluck out their eyes, because they
cannot look upon the sun in its brightness and glory ; and
though reason cannot reach to the depth of the ocean, it may
still hold up its head and bo sufficient within its own pro
vince. This candle of the Lord discovers that all the moral
law is founded on the light of reason, and that to this light
of reason there is nothing contrary in the mysteries of the
Gospel.
The light of nature Culvcrwell finds manifested where Light of
Lord Herbert found it, in the Pagan world. Nature, ""%> scen i
llic 1 i^nn
according to Plato, was the body of the Deity. This, Cul- world."
verwell says, must be understood rhetorically, that God is
the fountain of being, and nature the channel. In the same
way ho explains the words of the philosophers who call
nature God. They meant that it is God's general provi
dence which extends through all, and by which nature has
its unchangeable order. f Thus God framed this great organ
of the world. He tuned it_, yet not so as it could play upon
itself or make any music by virtue of its general composure,
as Durandus fancies, but that it might be fitted and pre
pared for the finger of God Himself, and at the presence of
His powerful touch might sound forth the praise of its
Creator in a most sweet and harmonious manner/*
This connection of nature with Deity is parallel to the Eternal law
connection of natural with eternal law. This eternal law is rcally Go(i>
really God Himself; and natural law, as Aquinas expresses
it, is nothing but the participation by the creature in eternal
law. The law of nature is the first-born of eternal law, the
beginning of its strength. As God ' shows somewhat of His
face in the glass of creatures, so the beauty of this law gives
some representations of itself in those pure derivations of
inferior laws that stream from it/ Wisdom dwells in the
mind of Deity. Law is an emanation from that effulgent
light. In the words of Cicero, it is 'an eternal light irra
diating from God Himself, guiding and ruling the whole
universe/ This natural law Cul verwell ultimately identifies
with reason in man. 'Therefore/ he says, ' God Himself,
* r. 10.
336 KKLIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. for the brightening of His own glory, for the better regula
ting and tuning of the world, for the maintaining such a
choice piece of His workmanship as man is, has published
this His royal command and principle of reason which Ho
has planted in the being of man/*
Extent of the The next step is to inquire into the extent of the law of
iro' nature. There are clear and indelible principles imprinted
on the very being of man. His soul has seeds of light.
These are created and become fruitful within this enclosed
' Garden of God.' These first principles are expressed in
such sentiments as ' Bonum est appctendum, maluin est
fugiendum •' ' Beatitudo est quasrenda ;' ' Quod tibi fieri non
vis, alteri no feceris.' Over these reason broods as a bird
on her eggs, and from principles of her own laying, hatches
the laws of nature. All morality is said to be nothing but a
collection and bundling up of nature's precepts. 'The
moralists did but enlarge the fringes of nature's garment.
They are so many commentators and expositors upon
nature's law.' The law is written in the heart, and reason
is the lamp by which it is read. Culverwell expressly
refutes the Jewish idea, that the light was manifested only
to the people of Israel, and that what light the Pagans had
was borrowed from them. The Jews had advantages, but not
in respect of natural light. This candle of the Lord shone
equally on Gentile and on Jew. Hierocles says that ( to
obey right reason is to be persuaded by God Himself, who
has furnished and adorned a rational nature with this intrinsic
and essential lamp that shines upon it.' Socrates and Cicero
are quoted to the same effect. The Jews, on the other hand,
say that there is 110 certainty in our common notions. Like
the sceptics, they cast doubts on all the conclusions of
philosophy. Their object is to limit certainty only to what
Culverwell calls an oriental tradition, a Rabbinical dream, a
dusty manuscript, a remnant of antiquity, a bundle of testi
monies. '0!' he exclaims, ( incomparable method and
contrivance to find out certainty, to raze out first principles,
to pluck down demonstration, to demolish the whole struc
ture and fabric of reason, and to build upon the word of two
or three Hebrew doctors that tell you of a voice, and that as
* r. 44.
NATHANIEL CULVERWELL. 337
confidently as if they had heard it !' The law of nature is CHAP. XI.
shown to be sufficiently declared by the light of reason, but
in a secondary way it is also shown by the consent of
nations. They all agree in the common notions of religion
and virtue. In this sense we may hear all men of all nations
speaking in their own tongue the wonderful works of God.
As the eternal law from which the human proceeded was Human reason
identified with Deity, so the human soul or reason is sup- 1S dlvmc*
posed to emanate from God, and, therefore, to be divine.
To this effect many passages from Greek and Latin authors
are quoted and endorsed. Epictetus says that e the soul is
cognate with Deity ;' and Arrian, in his comment on these
words, says that there is a connection and coherence of souls
with Deity. Seneca exclaims, ' What else do you call the
soul but God dwelling in a human body V These passages
are quoted to establish the divinity of reason. Culverwcll,
however, takes a little liberty of interpretation, saying that
they are to bo understood as meaning that souls are the
image of the Creator, — workmanship on which are to be
traced, the Divine lineaments of their Maker. This is enough
to prove that reason is a certain light, and to be preferred
to all tradition. The Roman Catholic Church, under pre
tence of antiquity and authority, puts out the light of reason.
Lord Herbert, on the contrary, builds the Catholic Church
on the first principles of religion that are common to all men.
Culverwell has another foundation for the Church, which he
calls ' a surer and higher rock, a more adamantine and pre
cious foundation / but he agrees with Herbert that the
Church has a greater security in resting upon reason than
upon tradition. Reason, he says, is the daughter of eter
nity and before antiquity, which is the daughter of time.
' Let none/ he adds, ' so superstitiously go back to former
ages as to be angry with new opinions and displayings of
light either in reason or religion. Who dare oppose the
goodness and wisdom of God if He shall enamour the world
with the beauty of some pearls and jewels, which in former
days have been hid or trampled on ; if He shall discover
some more light upon earth, as He hath let some new stars
be found in the heavens ?'#
* P. 136.
VOL. IT. 7
338
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI.
The Scrip-
tares the
foundation of
the Church.
Wollaston's
' Religion of
Nature De
lineated.'
The foundation on wliicli Culverwcll built the Church was
the Scriptures. Lord Herbert included them among the
traditions that were less certain than reason. Culvcrvvell
excepted them from the list of uncertain traditions. Hero
was the only question to be settled among the advocates of
reason, and, by their mode of settling it, they were classed
as Christians or Deists. Culvcrwell simply excepted the
Scriptures. He did not reason concerning them, but re
ceived them with a Puritan's faith. Reason told him to
rest here, and not to oppose mysteries that were beyond its
reach. The Holy Spirit, he said, creates in the soul that
faith which f closes and complies with every word that drops
from the voice or pen of the Deity, and which facilitates the
soul to assent to revealed truths/ Reason knows that the
Godhead is one, but the eye of faith discerns that in this
Godhead there are three persons. Reason sees the immor
tality of the soul, but that of the body is disclosed to faith.
' The very principles of the Christian religion are attractive
and magnetical, they enamour and command, they over
power the understanding and make it glad to look upon
such truths as are reflected in a glass, because it is unable
to behold them face to face. This speaks the great pre
eminence of Mount Sion above Mount Sinai. In the law
you have the candle of the Lord shining ; in the Gospel you
have the day-spring from on high, the sun arising. Nature
and reason triumph in the law ; grace and faith flower out in
the Gospel/* Socinus put reason above faith. So did
Pelagius, the great heretic of antiquity. He had but one
eye in his head, and his soul was like his body. It had the
eye of reason, but it wanted the spiritual eye of faith. The
distinction between reason and faith was a sound one. A great
deal that Culvcrwell says on it is excellent, but the subject
could not rest where he left it. The foundation of faith
had yet to be explained. After going so far with the light
of nature, this sudden bound to the authority of Scripture
was not likely to be admitted.
In the year 1722, William Wollaston published ' The Re
ligion of Nature Delineated/ This work was not written in
any controversial spirit. It was an effort simply to find out
*• r. i •>•_>.
WILLIAM WOLLASTON.
339
what would bo tlio natural religion of a rational man, hide- CIIAP. XI.
pendent of any external authority. The author undertakes
to answer the questions, if there is such a thing as natural
religion, what it is, and how a man may judge calmly of other
religions. He speaks of the subject as one already beaten
and exhausted in all its parts by all degrees of writers, and he
scarcely hopes to be able to say anything new, unless it be
that he is to find a foundation for religion in the distinction
of moral good and evil. If there is a real difference between
actions that are good, evil, or indifferent, there must bo re
ligion. The converse is also held to be true. Religion is
defined as an obligation to do what ought not to be omitted,
and to forbear what ought not to be done. If there arc such
things, those must bo religion, and that there are is proved
from the nature of good and evil. Wollaston maintains that
there is such a thing as right reason, that it can discover
truth, and, therefore, to act according to right reason is to
act according to truth. This is the essential law imposed
on man by the Author of nature.
Duties or obligations imposed by nature respect either the Reason shows
Deity, ourselves, or our neighbours. Reason shows us that Q^J
there is a God. When we find in the world a subordination
of causes and effects, there must be a causo prior to all the
others. If it be said that there is an infinite succession of
effects, there must still be an efficient for these effects, a
cause infinitely effective. It is proved by the usual argu
ments that God is self-existent, independent, and perfect.
The manner of His existence alone is above reason. To the
objection from the existence of evil, Wollaston answers, that
moral good and evil depend on ourselves. ' If we do but
endeavour, the most we can, to do what we ought, we shall not
be guilty of not doing it/* Physical evil is shown to be the
cause of much physical good. The works of reason, wisdom,
and goodness are everywhere so manifest in things which
we do understand, that we may be satisfied it is the same in
things which we do not understand. ' If/ Wollaston says,
' I should meet with a book, the author of which I found had
disposed his matter in beautiful order, and treated his sub
ject with reason and exactness, but at last as I read on,
* r. 71.
z 2
340 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. camo to a few loaves written in a language which I did not
know, in this case I should closo the book with a full per-
suasion that the same vein of good sense, which showed
itself in the former and much greater part of it, ran through
the other also/*
Objections to The settled laws of nature are made an argument for the
Providence of God. By these laws all creatures live. They
prove a general providence, but they seem inconsistent with
the idea of interference for the special protection of indivi
duals. The objection was put in the words that have been
versified by Pope, ' If a good man be passing by an infirm
building, just in the article of falling, can it be expected that
God should suspend the force of gravitation till he is gone
by, in order to his deliverance ? or can we think it would be
increased and the fall hastened if a bad man was there only,
that he might be caught, crushed, and made an example ?'t
This, in other words, was the question of interference by
miracle for special objects or in answer to prayer. Wollas-
ton said that he thought such interference quite possi
ble. He explained it, however, as not interference, but pre-
arrangement. God knows the future. Though men are free
to act, yet God knows what their actions will be. It is then
' not impossible that such laws of nature and such a scries
of causes and effects may be originally designed, that not only
general provision may be made for the several species of
beings, but even particular cases ; at least, many of them
may also be provided for without innovations or alterations
in the course of nature/ In this way Wollaston supposes
that f the prayers which good men offer to the All-knowing
God, and the neglect of others, may find fitting effects al
ready forecasted in the course of nature, which possibly may
be extended to the labours of men and their behaviour in
general/J It is also supposed possible that many things
suitable to several cases may be brought to pass by means
of secret and sometimes sudden influences on men's minds.
There may be a suggestion, impulse, or other silent commu
nication of some spiritual being, perhaps the Deity Himself.
There are few men who are not conscious to themselves that
they have been ' overruled, — they know not by what nor how
* P. 72. f P. 09. j P. 104.
WILLIAM WOLLASTON.
341
nor why, and that their actions have had consequences very CHAP. XI.
remarkable in their history/ There may also be higher
beings who arc the instruments or ministers of God's pur
poses, and these may have the power consistently with the
laws of nature to influence human affairs. It is concluded
that a particular providence is as certain as that God is a
Being of perfect reason. If men are treated according to
reason, they must be treated according to what they are,—
the virtuous as virtuous, and the vicious as vicious. The
duty of worshipping God arises from His character. It is
something according to right reason.
After establishing the existence of God and the duty of Human
worshipping Him, Wollastoii proceeds to human duties. dutlcs>
Antecedent to all human laws, he finds the fact of property
or rights. He finds, also, that whatever is inconsistent with
the peace and welfare of mankind is inconsistent with the
laws of human nature. These laws are found to extend not
merely to individuals, but to families and to societies.
Morality is shown to be rational and agreeable to the consti
tution of man. So far Wollastoii delineates the religion of
nature. From the religious capacities and hopes of men ho
infers the probability of a future life, and that God will
satisfy fa reasonable expectation/ But here he says, fl
begin to be sensible how much I want a guide/ The reli
gion of nature was his theme, and he is unwilling to go
beyond it. Whatever is revealed by God must be believed
and obeyed, otherwise it is not treated as what it is. Natural
religion is so far from ' undermining true revealed, that it
paves the way for its reception/
( The Religion of Jesus Delineated ' was added by another 'The Religion
hand as a companion to < The Religion of Nature/ The
author lamented that Wollastoii had not come nearer to
Christianity. There he would have found a correspondence
between revelation and the religion of nature, with the de
fects of natural religion supplied. It is doubted, however,
if any heathen philosopher could have made such a system
of natural religion as that which Wollastoii delineates. He
would not then have been taught by reason, but by God.
This, indeed, was really maintained by Wollastoii. With
him, tht^ teaching of reason was the teaching of God. Ho
342 RELIGIOUS THOUGUT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. had argued from the fact of the reality of good and evil to
the existence of G od and the duties of religion. This author,
on the contrary, says there may be morality where there can
be no religion, for it relates to the existence of God and de
pends on it. A distinction was also made between the re
ligion of innocent and the religion of guilty nature. The
religion of a nature undefiled cannot be the same as that of
a vitiated nature. The one requires forgiveness and the
other does not. Natural religion says nothing of the re
mission of sin, though nature everywhere testifies of guilt.
The duty of repentance may be inferred, but who is to de
clare forgiveness ? Wollaston maintained that all sin* must
be punished, and that this is the teaching of nature. But if
so, forgiveness is impossible, and so the religion of nature
must perish. The foundation which Wollaston had laid for
religion was to be overthrown, because it left no room for
the doctrine of substitution. And here we have another
issue, which separated men nominally into Christians or
Deists.
From Chris- We pass from Christianity to Deism by imperceptible
' stages. The principles of the Deists were the legitimate
development of a tendency that had always existed among
reasoning Christians. In saying this it is not to be for
gotten that all Deists cannot be classed under one category.
Some openly professed Deism, and some were merely Deists
by inference. Classifications of this kind are not fortunate.
Mere names generally mislead us. It is safest to take
every author as what he professes to be, and to estimate
him entirely by what he says.
Lord Shaftcs- The Earl of Shaftesbury, author of the f Characteristics/
|g genera;fly reckoned among the Deists. He did not admit
that the term was applicable to him in any other sense than
that of Theist. A Deist, he said, is not the opposite of a
Christian, but of an Atheist.* He had written a preface to
* ' Averse as I am to the cause of Atheism. Nor have I patience to
Atheism, or name of Deist, when taken hear the name of Deist, the highest of
in a sense exclusive of revelation, I all names, decried and set in opposi-
considcr still that in strictness the tion to Christianity. As if our reli-
root of all is Theism, ancl that to "be a gion was a kind of nia^ic, which
settled. Christian it is necessary to lie depended not on the belief of a single
first of all a j^ood Thrist, fur Thei; in Supreme 1'iein", or as if the firm
MUk only be opposed to Polytheism 01 and, rational ln-lief on philosophical
THE EARL OF SIIAFIESBURY. 343
Whichcot's sermons,* and did not seem to object to be CHAP. XI.
considered a rational Christian. In fact lie always professed
to be a Christian, but his opposition to enthusiasm, fanati
cism, and superstition, is often expressed as if under these
he included Christianity.
In ' A Letter concerning Enthusiasm/ and in ' An Essay Ridicule tho
on the Freedom of Wit and Humour/ Shaftesbury advocated tr^tn°f reli"
testing religion by ridicule on the principle that ridicule was
the test of truth. He found his text in Aristotle's ' Rhetoric/
where Gorgias Leontinus says ' that humour is the only test
of gravity, and gravity of humour, for a subject that would
not bear raillery was suspicious, and a jest that would not
bear a serious examination was certainly false wit/ Kidi-
culc was to be a weapon in the hands of reason. It could
only prevail against what was irrational, and would itself
become ridiculous if used against reason. Enthusiasm with
Shaftesbury was a disease of the mind, a sort of melancholy
which deepens if it is treated severely, but which disappears
before raillery or ' good humour/ Too frequently when
enthusiasm prevails in a State, and there is a religious
1 panic/ the magistrate uses persecution, but this only
increases the distemper. The policy of the ancients was
different. They tolerated enthusiasm, but allowed philo
sophy to banter it. Shaftesbury advocates the principle of
a National Church as c a public leading in religion' which is
a check on enthusiasm, but for those who dissented lie
advocated toleration as more salutary than persecution. He
opposed enforcing uniformity of opinions, and he lamented
that ' the saving of souls is now the heroic passion of
exalted spirits/ and in a manner fthc chief care of the
magistrate, and the very end of government itself/ f
grounds were an improper qualifica- some uncertainty as to its authorship,
cation for believing anything further.' In an edition of the ' Characteristics'
— Vol. ii. p. 209. in the British Museum, with MS. cor-
* Bishop Butler says that if Shaftcs- rections and additions by Shaftesbury
bury had lived later, when Chris- himself, there is the following memo-
tianity was better understood, he randum : — ' Mr. Churchhill, the book-
would have been a good Christian, seller mentioned in the title-page, told
In the ' Letters to a Young Man at mo in April, 1724, that the Lord
the University' he shows a very reli- Shaftcsbury, author of the " Charac-
gious spirit, a great esteem for Chris- tcristics," w;is the publisher of these
tianity and tho great divines of his sermons, and, as he believed, v.Tote
:igu, such as Tillotsuii and Buriiet. the preface.— April, 1721. M. Jiaper.'
As the preface to Dr. Whichcot's t Vol. i. p. ID.
sermons was anonymous, there was
344 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. What Shaftesbury says of tlic application of ridicule to
This liable to ^es^ 1'eligioii is capable of a good meaning, but it is also
Lc misundcr- liable to be misunderstood. He assures us that he has no
wish to recommend getting rid of all thoughts of religion
by diversion or levity. He only wishes that men think of
it in ( a right humour/ By this he means, as the context
shows, that we should not be hindered from a full examina
tion by any morbid or melancholy feelings. A man must
be in ' ill humour ' before he can believe that the world is
governed by any devilish or malicious power. It is doubted
if anything but ill humour can be the cause of Atheism. A
free and cheerful contemplation of nature makes men
Theists, and thus 'good humour' is reckoned the best
foundation for piety and religion. Shaftesbury's estimate,
however, of piety and religion was evidently not the popular
one. He had no sympathy with enthusiasm, and under
this term he avowedly included the zeal which made men
martyrs. He agreed, he said, with the Apostle who preferred
the spirit of love and humanity above that of martyrdom.
He was no admirer of the early martyrs, who sacrificed
their lives when by a little prudence they might often
have saved them. He speaks of some French prophets
who had come into England very eager for martyrdom.
But instead of their receiving the honour of a perse
cution, they were made 'the subject of a choice doll
or puppet-show at Bart'lemy Fair. This was more effec
tual than making them martyrs/ Shaftesbury adds,
' Whilst Bart'lemy Fair is in possession of this privilege,
I dare stand security to our National Church that no
sect of enthusiasts, no new vendors of prophecy and
miracles, shall ever get the start, or put her to the trouble
of trying her strength with them in any case/ He thinks
it was well for us that Smithfield was not always used in
this way. ( Many of our first Reformers/ he says, ' it is to
be feared were little better than enthusiasts, and God knows
whether a warmth of this kind did not considerably help us
in throwing off spiritual tyranny. So that had not the
priests, as is usual, preferred the love of blood to all other
passions, they might in a merrier way, perhaps, have evaded
the greatest force of our reforming spirit. I never heard
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY. 345
that the ancient heathens were so well advised iu their ill CHAP. XI.
purpose of suppressing the Christian religion in. its first rise
as to make use at any time of this Bart'lemy Fair method.
But this I am persuaded of, that had the truths of the
Gospel been in any way surmountable, they would have bid
much fairer for the silencing it, if they had chosen to bring
our primitive founders upon the stage in a pleasanter way
than that of bear-skins and pitch-barrels/ *
The Jews were ' a cloudy people/ and would endure little The Jews
raillery in anything. Their sovereign argument was hanging.
But they would have done more harm to Christianity if,
instead of showing their malice to Jesus, they had acted
' such puppet-shows in His contempt as at this hour the
Papists are acting in His honour/ St. Paul never had a
suspicion of the soundness of his cause. He was always
willing to try it against the sharpness of any ridicule.
Socrates, the divinest man that ever appeared in the heathen
world, was ridiculed by the wittiest of all poets. But what
harm did it do either to his reputation or his philosophy ?
It injured neither, but rather enhanced both. It made him
the envy of other teachers. He presented himself openly in
the theatre that the people might compare his actual figure,
which was by no means prepossessing, with the one which
the poet represented on the stage. This was the best pos
sible test of the real goodness of the man. He could not
have given a more convincing proof of the genuineness of
his character or the soundness of his doctrine. True wis
dom goes not with affected gravity. It rather seeks the
companionship of cheerfulness, and basks in the open sun
shine of freedom. Jesus himself, according to Shaftesbury,
was sharpy witty, and humorous. His repartees, parables,
and similes were all of a lively and animated character.
This was true even of His miracles, especially that at the
marriage festival of Cana of Galilee. His instructions to
His disciples, His discourses to the people, His reproofs to
the men of that generation, had all a certain festivity,
alacrity, and good humour, fso remarkable/ Shaftesbury
says ' that I should look upon it as impossible not to be
moved in a pleasant manner at the recital of them/ The
* P, 29.
346 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. Gospels, he says, are full of good humour, and the Psalms
and Proverbs of jocular ivit.
Thedisposi- The words wit, humour, freedom, pleasantness, and faini-
ncTcia^for liai%; arc a11 uscd bJ Shaftesbury as signifying much the
the considcra- same thing. After recommending the drollery of ' Bart'lemy
gion.° Fair/ he speaks of a good disposition and composed mind
as necessary for the consideration of religion. He laments
the evil custom of thinking of it only in times of sickness,
of private sorrow, or of public calamities. The mind is
then disturbed, and instead of seeing the goodness of God,
men sec only wrath and revenge. The truly religious man
is not afraid to use freedom in considering the works of
God. He does not hesitate to justify himself when he
knows that he is right, nor freely to canvass God's ways
when they seem to be unjust. Job was very patient, but
he knew that he had done nothing to deserve the affliction
which was brought upon him, and he said plainly that so far
as he could then judge, God's ways were not equal. ' His
friends/ Shaftesbury says, ' plead hard with him, and use
all arguments, right or wrong, to patch up objections, and
set the affairs of providence upon equal foot. They make a
merit of saying all the good they can of God, at the very
stretch of their reason, and sometimes quite beyond it. But
this in Job's opinion is flattering God, accepting of God's
person, and even mocking Him. And no wonder. For
what merit can there be in believing God or His providence
upon frivolous and weak grounds ? What virtue in assuming
an opinion contrary to the appearance of things, and re
solving to hear nothing which may be said against it ?'
Those who, like Job's friends, put the lie on their under
standings, are called • sycophants in religion/ and ( parasites
of devotion.' They deny their reason here, thinking by this
to avoid any risk hereafter, and by an affectation of belief in
what is too hard for their understanding, they expect favour
in another world. It is ' a beggarly refuge/ but in much
esteem among the teachers of religion. They recommend
that men should ' strive to have faith, and believe to the
utmost, because if, after all, there be nothing in the matter,
there will be no harm in being1 thus deceived, but if there
be anything, it will be fatal for them not to have believed to
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY.
347
the full.' This principle Shaftcsbury reckons the founda- CHAP. XL
tion of doubt and perplexity. A religion which requires
men to have such an injurious opinion of the Supreme Being
could bring but little happiness in this world, and must be
but a poor recommendation for the next.
Shaftesbury approached religion from the side of morality. Morality
He allied himself with the Cambridge Platonists, who, in etcrauL
opposition to what was understood to be the doctrine
of Hobbes, maintained the independent, eternal, and immu
table existence of morality. He was educated under the
care of Locke, at least Locke had some share in the manage
ment of his education; but he openly disowned Locke's
philosophy. In his ' Letters to a Young Man at the Uni
versity/ he says that Locke, following Hobbes, threw all
order and virtue out of the world, and that all free-thinkers
have followed him. He frequently expresses his dissent
from what we call the sensual, sensational, or sensuous
philosophy. He especially finds fault with those passages
in the ' Essay on the Human Understanding ' where Locke
fails to discover the universality of moral obligation, and
where ho expresses his belief in what some travellers have
said concerning nations so barbarous as to be without the
idea of God. That Shaftesbury fairly interpreted Locke, or
that Locke, like Hobbes, cannot be easily reconciled with
himself as to the foundation on which morality rests, are
questions which we cannot now discuss. We have already
maintained, notwithstanding all that has been said to the
contrary, that Hobbes was a believer in immutable morality,
and we have Locke's own express words that morality is one
of the sciences capable of demonstration.
Morality had been made to depend on the authority of the And not do-
State, the Church, or the will of God. Shaftesbury denied
that justice and goodness were in any sense among things God.
created. God is God, not because He creates justice and
goodness, but because He is eternally just and good, If
His will constituted right, He might will two contraries,'
and both of them would be true, which is impossible. One
of the schoolmen, William of Ockham, said that, ' if God
had commanded His creatures to hate Hi in, the hatred of
God would even be the duty of man.'' On Shaftesbufy'fl
348 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XL principles this would be to deprive God of His moral
character. In this he entirely agrees with Cudworth, who
classes with the ancient Atheists those who in modern times
affirm ' that God may command what is contrary to moral
rules, and that whatever He wills is just because He wills
it/
Right and The immutable distinction between right and wrong is
corrdblcb" discernible by reason, by the moral conscience, or, to use
reason, Shaftesbury's phrase, the moral sense. There is a venustum,
a honestum, a decorum of things which forces itself on the
mind. Every one pursues a Grace or courts a Venus of
some kind. It is the inherent beauty or symmetry which
constitutes art. The musician knows that harmony does
not depend on caprice or fashion : it is harmony by nature.
The architect and sculptor find their proportions in nature.
It is the same in morals. Harmony and symmetry are dis
coverable in the characters and affections of men.
And by their From this view of morality, it follows necessarily that
consequences, virtue must be the good, and vice the ill, both of every indi
vidual man and of the whole race of mankind. But though
virtue is our highest interest, we are to follow it for its own
sake, and not for any reward different from what it brings
by its own nature. Unless we feel the pleasure of being
virtuous, we miss the reward of virtue. Many devout
people, Shaftesbury says, decry the present advantages and
the natural benefits of goodness. They even magnify the
happiness of the vicious life, and maintain that were it not for
future rewards and punishments they would break through
all moral restraints. But this, he says, is a kind of selfish
ness which implies the want of real goodness. In such
mercenary virtue it is difficult to see what there is that
deserves reward. To be bribed or terrified into being
honest argues but little real honesty. If virtue be not
estimable in itself, there is nothing estimable in following
it for the sake of a bargain. If the principle is carried into
a future life, it is but intensified selfishness. A religion
which has no other foundation than the hope of heaven or
the fear of hell is a false religion. It worships a god of
terror — a fiend, and not God. True religion must have its
foundation in the moral nature of man. There may be
THE EARL OF SIIAFTESBURY. 349
morality without religion, but there can bo no right religion CHAP. XI.
without morality. We know God as a moral Being, and as
such we must worship Him. Our love of goodness is the
only measure of our love to God. Shaftesbury maintained,
against the selfish moralists, that man is capable of disin
terested love ; that he not only possesses a moral sense by
which he knows what is right, but that he has disinterested
affections which enable him to love it and to follow it for its
own inherent loveliness.
It is, however, admitted that the hope of reward or the Rewards and
fear of punishment may in many circumstances be a security ^ecmity^or
for virtue. A man may have a real sense of right and wrong, virtue,
and this sense may be in danger of being overcome by the
force of passion. The belief that the violation of this
sense has not only evil consequences of its own, but that it
may provoke the displeasure of the Deity, must be ' advan
tageous to virtue/* Sometimes a man may bo in circum
stance in which honesty is the cause of adversity, while the
contrary would bring prosperity. In this case the conside
ration that honesty will have a future advantage may de
termine him to virtue. This principle is made use of in
civil government, so that well-doing may be the inter
est of every one. It is used also in families. The master
of a family, by ' proper rewards and gentle punishments
towards his children, teaches them goodness, and by this
help instructs them in a virtue which afterwards they prac
tise upon other grounds, and without thinking of a penalty
or bribe/ It is added that in the ' case of religion/ if by the
bribe or reward be understood the love and desire of vir
tuous enjoyment, or of the practice and exercise of virtue
in another life, the expectation or hope of this kind is so far
from being derogatory to virtue, that it is an evidence of
our loving it sincerely, and for its own sake.f
It is evident that with Shaftesbury the inquiry was purely Deism not
one of the nature and essence of virtue. No inference of^j^^^J.
Deism could fairly be made from what he says of the disin- bury's doc-
tcrestcdness of virtue. The doctrine itself, that virtue trinoofvhtnc-
should be followed for its own sake, is surely a Christian
doctrine. The love which Jesus taught His disciples
* Vol. ii- p. 01, f Vol. ii. p. GO.
350 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XT. was a disinterested love, like the love of His Father,
who was good even to the evil and the unthankful. ' If
ye love them that love you/ He said to them, fwhat
reward have ye ? do not even the publicans so ? ' The
peace which He promised His disciples was an inward
possession, the joy of righteousness. He led them into
the paths of wisdom, which were paths of blessedness
and peace. It is true, however, that the Scriptures say a
great deal about rewards for well-doing, both in this life and
the life to come. Jesus told His disciples not to invite the
rich to their feasts, but the poor, the lame, the blind, that
they might be recompensed at ' the resurrection of the just/
St. Paul says, that for the joy set before Him, He endured
the cross, and despised the shame. The same Apostle sots
before the Christians of Corinth the glorious resurrection as
an encouragement , for them ' to be baptised for the dead/
though they had thereby to stand in jeopardy every hour.
But if the dead arc not to rise again, he admits the wisdom
of the Epicureans, who said, ' Let us eat and drink, for to
morrow we die/ The Old Testament saints all looked for
ward to the recompense of reward. Sometimes it was in
rich lands and prosperous families, sometimes in the natural
advantages of well-doing, and sometimes in the joy of walk
ing humbly with God. To work or love without the hope
of personal interest seems beyond our feeble powers. We
may have disinterested affection, we may be willing to sacri
fice the life that now is, while we have hope of another ; but
the thought of annihilation seems to paralyse us, and to
Selfishness leave us indifferent to either virtue or vice. Selfishness,
weU*aaabad h°wever:> as Shaftesbury plainly shows, like many other
sense. words, has a good as well as a bad sense. He who is rich
towards God is wiser than he who seeks only the riches of
the present life. It takes nothing from the value of good
ness that a man knows it will be followed by an infinite
reward. Indeed, the only practical test of our duty is, that
it conduces to our own well-being. Whatever tends to
promote the health, physical, mental, or moral, of the indi
vidual or the race, points to our duty. Shaftcsbury may
have been opposing an evij which lie found ;nnong religious
people, but ho knew and acknowledged that his own doc
trine was that of Jesus.
THE EARL OF SIIAFTESBUIIY. 351
That virtue is necessarily blessedness, and vice misery, CIIAr. XL
is a belief founded on the existence of a moral order pro- < whatever is
vailing throughout the universe. We only see a part of it. is right.'
There are many apparent irregularities in the world, but
we see enough to lead us to believe that 'whatever is, is right/
The philosophical Theist in every age has rested his main
argument on the fact of the existence of this order. His
greatest difficulties and perplexities have ever been to ac
count for the disorders of the world. The oldest question in
religion is how evil can exist at all, if God is almighty, all-wise,
and infinitely good. Either He wills it or permits it, or He
cannot prevent it. In the last case He is not almighty. If
He wills it or permits it, that can only be as a means to an
end, that He may overrule it and make it the instrument of
good. The oldest solution of this question was to admit the
existence of two principles, one good and the other evil. It
is supposed that with the old Persians and their Christianized
followers, the Manichees, these two principles were both
eternal. The principle of good, however seems to have
been prior to that of evil. But evil had its origin inde
pendently of the good principle. It is essentially the same
doctrine, under another form, which wo find everywhere
among the Greeks. Their poets sung of a Prometheus
who, mixing celestial fire with mortal clay, mocked the face
of heaven. Unwilling to blame God for the evils of the
world, men charged them on nature. This is only to re
move the difficulty a step further back. The Indians sup
ported the world by an elephant, and the elephant by a
tortoise; but the question remained, What supports the
tortoise V The Greek fables represent Jupiter as over
powered by necessity. Ho stood aside lamenting his
troubles. He was crossed and thwarted by the fatal sisters.
The theology of the philosophers corresponded to that of
the poets. Plato made matter identical with evil, and again
with non-being. He called matter tlio wMnitedt leaving
his commentators to determine whether or not it was ,-rttI,
which, with his Alexandrian disciples, mo-smfc eternal. As it
seemed unworthy of the Supreme God to create a phenome
nal or material world, the work of creation was entrusted to
theDemiurgus — an inferior god, or perhaps one of the A///m-
352 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XL stases of the Godhead. The Domiurgus did his best for the
refractory creation. His materials were imperfect, and so
in a sense was his work. Out of Plato, Leibnitz derived the
modern doctrine of optimism, or all for the best. Arch
bishop King and the Earl of Shaftesbury had it from Plato
or from Leibnitz, or perhaps from both. Pope wedded it to
immortal verse in the noblest of his poems, the ' Essay on
Man/ Plato said that there were five worlds possible to
the Creator, and He chose the best. The modern optimists
do not limit the number of possible worlds. They only say
that, of possible systems, ( wisdom infinite must form tho
best/ and in governing it must do all for the best. Things
which appear evil to us are in reality not evil. Could we
see them in relation to the All of the universe, and the ob
ject which the Divine Being has in permitting them, we
should then find that they were really good, —
' Respecting man, whatever wrong we call
May, must be right, as relative to all.
Discord is harmony not understood,
All partial evil universal good.'
Shaftesbury adduces the usual arguments for optimism,
and makes many of the reflections with which we are fami-
Pope's 'Essay liar through the ' Essay on Man/ This world, regarded in
itself, is imperfect ; but regarded as part of the universal
system, it is perfect. In an infinite universe there must be
all degrees and ranks of being. There must be somewhere
such a creature as man. And if disposed to murmur and
complain that we are not greater and more important than
we are, we have the same reason to be thankful that we are
not less and more insignificant. It is according to infinite
wisdom that we fill that place in creation in which we are
found.
' He who through vast immensity can pierce,
See worlds on worlds compose one universe ;
Observe how system into system runs,
What other planets circle other suns,
What varied beings people every star,
May tell why Heaven has made us as we are.'
Man's error in The great cause of our supposing irregularities in the
Wmseinhe order of the world is human pride, which thinks the world
final cause of was made solely for man. f The whole order of the uni-
creation.
THE EARL OF SITAFTESBURY.
353
of Nature
studies the
general good.
verso/ Shaftcsbury says, ' elsewhere so firm, entire, im- CHAT. XT.
movable, is here overthrown and lost by this one view, in
which we refer all things to ourselves, submitting the inter
est of the whole to the good and interest of so small a part/*
Pope has expressed the same in the well-known lines : —
' Ask for what end the heavenly bodies shine ?
Earth, for whose use ? Pride answers, "Pis for mine !
For mo kind Nature wakes her genial power,
Suckles each herb, and spreads out every flower ;
Annual for me the grape, the rose, renew
The juice nectarious and the balmy dew ;
For me the mine a thousand treasures brings,
For mo health gushes from a thousand springs,
Seas roll to waft me, suns to light me rise,
My footstool earth, my canopy the skies.'
The Ruler of the Universe thinks not of the good of man, The Author
the individual, but of the general good.
' Remember, man, the Universal Cause
Acts not by partial, but by general laws,
And makes what happiness we justly call
Subsist not in the good of one, but all.'
Throughout the orders of being, sacrifice is required. Each
has to yield to the other. The vegetables, by their death,
sustain the animals. The bodies of animals are dissolved,
and enrich the earth. Man, in his turn, is sacrificed in
common with all other things. And if it be just that these
humble natures sacrifice their interests, how much more is
it reasonable that man should be sacrificed to the superior
nature of the world !
' See matter next, with various forms endued,
Press to one centre still — the general good :
See dying vegetables life sustain,
See life dissolving vegetate again :
All forms that perish other forms supply ;
By turns we catch the vital breath and die.
Like bubbles on the sea of matter borne,
They rise and break, and to that sea return.
Nothing is foreign, parts relate to whole ;
One all-extending, all-pervading soul
Connects each being — greatest with the least ;
Made beast in aid of man, and man of beast.
All served, all serving, nothing stands alone ;
The chain holds on, and where it ends unknown.'
Vol. ii. p. 291.
VOL. II.
2A
354
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI.
Individuals
sacrificed for
the general
gOOd.
Physical and
moral evil
serve the
general good.
The unalterable laws of the universe demand the conti
nual sacrifice of all individual life, for which nature cares
nothing, except so far as it serves the general good. 'Here/
says Shaftesbury, ( are those laws which ought not, nor can,
submit to anything below. The central powers which hold
the lasting orbs in their just poise and movement, must not
be controlled to save a fleeting form, and rescue from the
precipice a puny animal whose brittle frame, however pro
tected, must of itself so soon dissolve. The ambient air,
the inward vapours, the impending meteors, or whatever
else is instrumental or preservative of this earth, must ope
rate in a natural course, and other constitutions must sub
mit to the good habit and constitution of the all- sustaining
globe.'*
' When the loose mountain trembles from on high,
Shall gravitation cease if you go by ?
Or some old temple, nodding to its fall,
For Chartres' head reserve the hanging wall ':'
For the physical world the earthquake, storms, and tem
pests have their uses. They may destroy individuals — yon,
whole species of beings — in one common ruin ; yet they
contribute to the general health of the whole world, and
save the all by the sacrifice of the few. If this be so with
physical evil, as we plainly see is the case, we may fully
conclude that it is the same with moral evil. Our passions,
our sins, our worst vices, may be permitted, or even willed,
by God, for the moral well-being of the universe. Those
who think the world was made for man, may ask —
' But errs not Nature from the general end,
From burning suns when livid deaths descend ;
When earthquakes sudden or when tempests sweep
Towns to one grave, whole nations to the deep ?'
Pope answers No, and refers to the general laws,
applies the argument to moral evil : —
He then
• If plagues or earthquake break not Heaven's design,
Then why a Borgia or a Catiline ?
Who knows but Ho whose hand the lightning forms,
Who heaves old ocean, and who wings the storms,
Pours fierce ambition in a Caesar's mind,
Or turns young Ammon loose to scourge mankind ?'
* Vol. ii. p. 215.
THE EARL OF SITAFTESBURY.
355
We are to look upon moral evil as necessary, no loss than CHAP. XT.
physical. It is God who is permitting, we may say causing,
both. A thousand objections may be raised, such as that
God is the author of evil, and that He cannot work without
it. The answer is, here is the actual fact, and ' to reason
right is to submit •' for
' All subsists by elemental strife,
And passions are the elements of life ;
The general order since the world began
Is kept in Nature, and is kept in man.'*
Shaftesbury ended where all religious philosophy has Shaftesbury '
ended since Plato, in a theology which resembles that rf
Spinoza, if it is not identical with it. There is thought,
which has the eldership of being, and sense, which makes
us conscious of the one original and eternally existent
Thought, whence we derive our thought. The All-true and
Perfect communicates Himself immediately to us. He, in
* 'I beg of you, gentlemen,' said
Voltaire, 'to explain to me how every
thing is for the best, for I do not un
derstand it.' Voltaire quotes Shaftes
bury, Leibnitz, and Pope, and still
pleads his inability to comprehend
how that which is not good can be
good, and how all can bo for the best,
when many things might have been
so much better. Lucullus, in perfect
health, enjoying a good dinner with
his friends, may jocosely deny the ex
istence of evil ; but let him put his
head out of the window, and he will
behold wretches in abundance. Let
him be seized with a fever, and he
will be one himself. M. Jules Simon
classes Voltaire with those who had
never read Leibnitz. It is certain
that Voltaire understood all for the
bent to mean that all was for the best
as regards the Author of the all of
nature, but not as regards individuals.
After quoting Pope's lines that God
' Sees with equal eye, as Lord of all,
A hero perish or a sparrow fall.'
and Shaftesbury 's remark, that God
would not derange the general sys
tem of the universe for such ' a mise
rable animal as man,' Voltaire says,
' It must be confessed, at least, that
this pitiful creature has a right to cry
out humbly, and to endeavour, while
bemoaning himself, to understand why
these eternal laws do not comprehend
the good of every individual.' To
ridicule optimism was the object of
the romance of ' Candide.' Dr. Pan-
gloss, the oracle of the house, proved
admirably that in this best of all pos
sible worlds the castle of his master,
the Baron Thunder-ten-Tronckh, was
the most beautiful of castles, and the
baroness the best of all possible ba
ronesses. Candide and his master, Dr.
Pangloss, are driven from the castle
of the baron ; they endure untold
misfortunes, biit it is all for the best,
in this best of all possible worlds.
Shipwrecked on a voyage to Lisbon,
they reach the shore on a plank, just
when a terrible earthquake is destroy
ing the city. Among the ruins of
the houses they discourse of all for
the best, and a servant of the Inquisi
tion accuses them of denying the doc
trine of original sin. For this Can
dide was flogged, and Pangloss was
hung. Candide sails for South Ame
rica, in the hope that El Dorado or
Paraguay may be the best of all pos
sible worlds. His hardships do not
end here, and at last he doubts the
truth of the doctrine of his dear mas
ter. He cannot see that all is good
where there are so many bad people,
nor can he understand how all is for
the best when there is suffering and
sorrow all the world over.
2 A 2
356 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. some manner, lives within us. He is the original Soul dif
fusive, vital in all, and inspiring the All. Shaftesbury
makes one of the characters in one of his Dialogues thus
address the Deity : — ' 0 Mighty Genius ! sole absorbing and
inspiring Power ! author and subject of these thoughts !
Thy influence is universal, and in all things Thou art in
most. From Thee depend their secret springs of action;
Thou movest them with an irresistible unwearied force by
sacred and inviolable laws, framed for the good of each par
ticular being, as best may suit with the perfection, life, and
vigour of the whole. The vital principle is widely shared,
and infinitely varied. Dispersed throughout, nowhere ex
tinct. All lives, and by succession still revives. The tem
porary beings quit their borrowed ferns, and yield their
elementary substance to new-comers called in their several
turns to life ; they view the light, and viewing pass, that
others, too, may be spectators of the goodly scene, and
greater numbers still enjoy the privilege of nature. Muni
ficent and great she imparts herself to most, and makes the
subjects of her bounty infinite. The abject state appears
merely as the way or passage to some better. But could we
merely view it with indifference, remote from the antipathy
of sense, we then, perhaps, should highest raise our admi
ration, convinced that the way itself was equal to the end/*
Pope follows Pope followed his master without a scruple, concluding
Shaftesbury. the first ^^ Qf the c Essay Qn Man^> ^fo the lmes that
have often been censured by Christian readers —
' All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul,
That, changed through all, and yet in all the same—
Great in the earth as in the ethereal flame —
"Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze ;
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees ;
Lives through all life, extends through all extent ;
Spreads undivided, operates unspent ;
Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part,
As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart ;
As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns
As the rapt seraph that adores and burns.
To Him no high, no low, no great, no small :
He fills, He bounds, connects, and equals all.'f
* Vol. ii. p. 3GG. occasion of many controversies. The
t Pope's ' Essay on Man' was the Abbe du Resnel and M. de Crousaz,
THE EARL OF SIIAFTESBtTltY. 357
Shaftesbury's optimism bears the same relation to Chris- CHAP. XI.
tianity as that of any other optimist. We come back to Kelation~of
the question, if the God of Plato is the God of Jesus, or if optimum to
our philosophy is compatible with the Christian faith. The
Bible gives an account of the origin of evil. Is it to
be taken literally or allegorically ? If the latter, it docs
not differ from the theory of Optimism, and becomes only a
fable setting forth a philosophical idea. If it is to be taken
literally, the difficulty is not removed even a step ; for either
God willed that man should fall, or, foreknowing the fall,
He was unable or unwilling to prevent it. The Christian,
no less than the optimist philosopher, is unable to under
stand why evil should have been permitted at all. Could
not the omnipotent Creator have compassed His ends with
out the use of means ? Why is He under the necessity of
being limited by possibilities ? We cannot answer. As
Shaftesbury and Pope were believers in the life to come,
they must have meant that the losing ourselves in the all
of which they spoke was not annihilation, bub a union of
blessedness and perfection with the All True and infi
nitely Good. So that in the midst of perplexity we may still
have faith, —
' Hope humbly, then, with trembling pinions soar ;
"Wait the great teacher, Death, and God adore.'
Shaftesbury ;s Deism is founded on a few passages Foundation of
,. . ,,. i . .- • /> f -i Shaftesbury a
which look like an application of his own doctrine of good Deism.
humour/ ' Do not imagine/ he says, in the character of a
speaker in a dialogue, 'that I dare aspire so high as to
defend revealed religion or the holy mysteries of the Chris
tian faith. I am unworthy of such a task, and should pro
fane the subject. It is of mere philosophy I speak/* In
another place he says, ' The only subject on which we are
perfectly secure, and without fear of any just censure or re
proach, is that of faith or orthodox belief. For in the first
place, it will appear that, through a profound respect and re
ligious veneration, we have forborne so much as to name any
of the sacred and solemn mysteries of revelation ; and in the
a Swiss professor, thought its general rity of St. 1'aul and Sir Isaac Xcw-
principles opposed to Christianity ; ton even for the lines quoted m the
but Pope found a vindicator in Bishop text.
Warburton, who claimed the autho- * Vol. ii. p. 208.
358 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. next place, we can with confidence declare tliat we have
never in any writing, public or private, attempted such high
researches, nor have ever in practice acquitted ourselves
otherwise than as good Conformists to the lawful Church, so
we may in a proper sense, be said faithfully and dutifully to
embrace those holy mysteries, even in their minutest par
ticulars and without the least exception, on account of their
amazing depth/* He was sure that if he were to exercise
himself in such speculations, the farther he inquired the less
satisfaction he would find, for l inquiry was the sure road to
heterodoxy/ This was a mode of writing common with the
Deists. It must have been provoking and offensive to all
right-minded people. It is possible, however, to plead that
Shaftesbury was only bantering the clergy, whose ignorance
and prejudices may have been equally provoking to all sen
sible men.
His treatment There are also some passages in which miracles are
spoken of in the same way of f good humour/ One of the
characters in a dialogue says, ' No matter how incredulous I
am of modern miracles, if I have a right faith in those of
ancient times by paying the deference due to Sacred Writ.
It is here I am so much warned against credulity, and
enjoined never to believe in the greatest miracles which may
be wrought, in opposition to what has been already taught
me. And this injunction I am so well fitted to comply with,
that I can safely engage to keep still in the same faith and
promise never to believe amiss /f He goes on to say that
being satisfied of the truth of our religion by past miracles,
the belief of new ones might do us harm, but can never do
us good, so that the best maxim to go by is f that miracles
are ceased/ It is possible that these things, with a few
more of the same kind, may have been said in earnest, but
they do not sound as if they were.
On the rule In one place Shaftesbury introduces a professed Free
thinker discoursing of the rule of faith as it is expressed
in the words of Chillingworth, ' that the Scripture alone was
the religion of Protestants/ The Free-thinker asks the
company to explain the word Scripture and to inquire into
the origin of the collection of books which is known by that
* Vol. iii. p. 310. t Vol. ii. p. 326.
THE EAftL OF S1IAFTESBURY. 359
title. fls it/ lie says, 'the apocryphal Scripture or the CHAP. XI.
more canonical ? the full or the half-authorized ? the doubt
ful or the certain ? the controverted or uiicontroverted ?
the singly-read, or that of various reading ? the texts of
these manuscripts or of those ? the transcripts, copies, titles,
catalogues of this Church and nation, or of that other ? of
this sect and party, or of another ?' * Then came the ques
tion of the obscure meaning of many parts of Scripture, the
senses ' literal, spiritual, mystical, and allegorical/ In these
difficulties concerning the uncertainty of the Bible as an
authority, the Free-thinker was able to quote the well-
known passages of Jeremy Taylor in his ' Liberty of Pro
phesying ' and a similar passage from Archbishop Tillotson's
1 Rule of Faith/
Shaftesbury's aim was evidently the noble one of main- Supremacy of
taming the supremacy of reason and conscience. The Bible, rcason-
as it was understood by many theologians, was made to over
rule the moral sense instead of evoking and educating it.
They supposed that all that was recorded in the Scriptures
must be right, just because it was there*; and Shaftesbury
refused to think anything right which contradicted his 'moral
sense/ Whatever truth may be in the following passage,
most men will wish that the tone of it at least had been
different. It occurs as it were incidentally in advice to an
author. l In mere poetry and the pieces of wit and literature,
there is a liberty of thought and easiness of humour indulged
to us, in which perhaps we are not so well able to contem
plate the divine judgments and see clearly into the justice of
those ways which are declared to be so far above our ways,
and above our highest thoughts or understandings. In
such a situation of mind, we can hardly endure to seo
heathens treated as heathens, and the faithful made the
executioners of divine wrath. There is a certain perverse
humanity in us, which invariably resists the divine com
mission, though ever so plainly revealed. The wit of the
best poet is not sufficient to reconcile us to the campaign of
a Joshua, or the retreat of a Moses, by the assistance of an
Egyptian loan, nor will it be possible, by the Muses' art, to
make that royal hero appear amiable in human eyes, who
* Vol. iii. p. 320.
360 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IX ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. found sucli favour in the eye of Heaven. Sucli are mere
human hearts that they can hardly find the least sympathy
with that only one which had the character of being after
the pattern of the Almighty/*
Brown's Among the opponents of Shaftesbury, the first that de-
Charact<^ serves notice is John Brown, vicar of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
tics.' He was, in fact, the only one who undertook to reply to
Shaftesbury in full, that is, to expose the whole circle of his
errors. Brown's book was called ' An Essay on the Cha
racteristics/ It began by stating that the noble author
had taken it into his head to oppose the solid wisdom of the
Gospel by the visions of false philosophy. This beginning
might give the ' judicious reader' a prejudice against John
Brown. But this would be an unjust prejudice ; for Brown
invariably vindicates the right of every man to the natural
privilege c of seeing with his own eyes, and judging by his
own wisdom/ He speaks of well-designing men who had
tried to make an unnatural separation between truth and
liberty, and he commends the f excellent Locke ' for his
labours in helping to subdue this spirit. He first
considers what Shaftesbury advances concerning wit and
humour. He complains justly of a want of precision in the
use of these words. Wit and ridicule are confounded with
urbanity and good-nature. He defines raillery as ' that
species of writing which excites contempt with laughter/
It is a species of eloquence which may be successfully used
by an advocate in pleading a cause. Gorgias thought that
the best way to confound an adversary was to answer his
serious arguments by raillery. Aristotle said that he judged
well. Brown argued that this might do for pleaders whose
great object was to gain their clients' cause, but to answer
a serious argument by ridicule is not the best way to discover
truth. Quintilian explains that raillery succeeds by draw
ing off the mind from the real question that is being dis
cussed. The ' Tale of a Tub ' was an exquisite piece of
raillery, but, as a test of truth, ' low, vain, and impotent/
Cicero says that the proper objects of ridicule are certain
kinds of turpitude and incongruity. But it may be used
successfully against truth as well as against falsehood. In
* Vol. i. p. 358.
ANSWERS TO SHAFTESBUKY. 361
continental countries, the freedom of the English people is CHAP. XL
a favourite subject for ridicule. The French Catholic is
never more droll than when he speaks of the Protestant
claim, that in religion every man should follow his own pri
vate judgment. The Church of Rome has used every spe
cies of invective against the Reformed Churches, and the
latter have not wanted their men of wit and humour.
Ridicule and banter are now the chief arguments of the shows that
Free-thinkers against Christianity. Shaftesbury said that anything may
, T . • T i , be ridiculed,
nothing can appear ridiculous except what is deformed.
To this Brown answers that many things may be apparently
deformed which are not so in reality. A man may endure
misplaced ridicule when he does not know that it is mis
placed. A just cause may suffer from being misrepresented
before the multitude. Socrates was injured by the ridicule
of Aristophanes. It is natural for men to ridicule every
thing that is strange or unusual. Ancient authors often
provoke a smile. Homer was reckoned a dunce for telling
us that Patroclus cooked Achilles' dinner and his own.
The Princess Nausicaa, with her maids, going to the river to
do the family washing, and finding the clothes useful for
Ulysses, has been ridiculed infinitely. Modern refinement
has been amused with the simplicity of the daughters of
Augustus plying the loom to provide a coat for their royal
father. Voltaire complained that nothing new could be
brought on the stage, for the people ridiculed everything
that was not in fashion. Reason, and not raillery, is the
abiding test of truth. f How insipid are now/ Brown ex
claims, ' the repartees of antiquity ! Even Tully does not
raise a smile, and the Sales Plant ini have lost their
poignancy/ It should not, however, be forgotten that
Shaftesbury limited the application of wit as the test of
truth to men of ( justness of thought/ He did not approve
of buffoonery, nor did he deny that before an ignorant mul
titude a good man might be injured by unjust ridicule.*
Brown reviews at some length the whole question of the The unselfish
unselfish philosophy — Shaftesbury's moral sense, Clarke's
* Charles Bulkelcy, a Dissenting of raillery, against the remarks of
minister of some note, defended the Brown.
Earl of Shaftcsbury, on the subject
362 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. ' conformity of action with the eternal and immutable rela
tions/ and Wollaston's * conformity of actions with truth.5
He pronounces the difference between these philosophers to
be a mere logomachy, and, in opposition to them, asserts
that the beauty, fitness, truth, or virtue of those actions
which we call morally good is, after all, tested only by con
sequences. At first sight it seems to reside in the actions
in an independent manner, but, on a deeper examination, it
is found to be admitted by these writers themselves to have
its value from the end to be obtained. Even with Shaftes-
bury it looks to public interest or the general happiness of
mankind. There must be a motive to induce a man to an
action. That motive must in some way, however remote,
have reference to oneself. ' Men/ he says, ' are really in
capable of the fancied excellence of loving a good which
brings no advantage/ As to Shaftesbury 's Christianity,
Brown takes it for a mere profession, that he may have a
wider field for the exercise of his favourite weapon, raillery.
He thinks, also, that Shaftesbury throws discredit on the
belief of a future state of misery considered as a consequence
of vice, and that he unhinges society by deriding religious
fear, which is natural to man, and which must have an
object. He puts a high value on testimony, asserting that
from it we may have a confidence of the veracity of revealed
religion ; and he maintains that Shaftesbury opposes
Christianity in saying that actions done from the hope of
future happiness are destitute of virtue. He defines re
ligious inspiration, and wherein it differs from enthusiasm,
denying that any of the elements which go to make up
enthusiasm, were found in Jesus and His apostles.
Balguy's John Balguy, vicar of North Allerton, wrote ( A Letter
to a £*eis V which was entirely devoted to Shaftesbury's
view of morality, or at least to an exaggerated form of it,
as held by the ' Deist ' to whom the letter was addressed.
Balguy dedicated the collection of his tracts to Bishop
Hoadly, the defender of Might and liberty.' This is a
pledge that the writer will give at least a reasonable defence
of Christianity. He admits ' the fine genius ' of Shaftes
bury, and how unlike he is to ' vulgar authors ; ' but he
does not overlook the ' absurdities ' which are mingled with
ANSWERS TO SHAFTESBURY. 363
his 'fine thoughts/ nor his prejudice against the clergy, CHAP. XI.
concluding that it was self-evident that those who are pre
judiced against the Christian religion naturally dislike its
ministers. His lordship had a inind to say something new,
such as nobody had ever said before him, or, Balguy adds,
would be likely to say after him. He dissents from the
doctrine which resolves all morality into self-interest;
but in the ' notion of disinterest ' he cannot go so far as
Shaftesbury. He admits that goodness, absolutely or
abstractedly, must be independent of self-interest. No
thing can be more binding upon reasonable creatures
than reason. A good law obliges us even more than a law
giver. God has no superior to prescribe laws for Him, yet
He is eternally bound by the rectitude of His own nature,
that is, by the rules of right reason. As it is with God, so
should it be with man. But why, he asks, should virtue
be stripped of her dowry and presented empty-handed?
The motives of self-interest, held out to us in the form of Maintains the
rewards, do not weaken benevolence. They rather increase reward!?' °
and strengthen it. He calls these rewards positive as dis
tinguished from those which naturally flow from virtue. This
distinction does not appear necessary to his argument, while
it is the distinction which gives force to Shaftesbury' s rea
soning. The rewards which well-doing brings with it natu
rally, may surpass all that the imagination can conceive. But
a reward in some form must be set before men. The fair
ideal of goodness apart from this is far beyond the reach of
men. To preach virtue without reference to a future life
he calls ' a sort of religious knight- errantry/ Constituted as
we now are, the belief that when men died they were ex
tinct would ' damp every good design, and strike all virtue
dead.' The gross mind, which is that of the great multi
tude of men, must have something substantial, something
that will strike the senses and work upon the passions ; and
what can better serve this object than the rewards and
punishments set forth in the Scriptures ? Nothing can sup
port a man under the pressure of any great evil but the hope
or prospect of a good to follow. It was so with the early
Christians, who, if their hope in Christ had been for this
life only, would have been, of all men, most miserable. The
364 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. beauty of virtue would not suffice to nerve the martyr at
the stake. He would cry out, with Brutus, that virtue had
betrayed him. But let religion step in with her promises,
let her lift his eyes to the joys and glories that she has pre
pared for him above, and at once he is comforted — his tor
ments are forgotten — the flames lose their force, and death
its sting. The ancient heroes, who died for their country,
were animated by other motives as well as patriotism.
They thirsted after glory. They hoped to immortalize their
names, and to perpetuate the fame of their deeds. Socrates
was animated by a higher motive, still it was an interested
motive. He fell a sacrifice to truth and virtue. But he
hoped thereby to please (rod, and to obtain His favour.
Balguy ended by saying what Shaftesbury had said, almost
in the same words, — that a man led, by a desire of his own
safety to follow virtue, would probably afterwards follow it
from a higher principle. He added a postscript to the
letter, in which he said that the more disinterestedly any
agent acted, the more virtuous he was ; and that if he had
written anything contrary to this sentiment, he wished to
retract it, for he was fully convinced that the highest prin
ciple of a moral agent was a love of virtue for virtue's sake.
Anonymous An anonymous tract in answer to Shaftesbury is ' Reflcc-
Shaftesbury. tions upon a Letter concerning Enthusiasm, to my Lord
* * #.' The writer finds that Shaftesbury brings Chris
tianity down to the ' same level as Pagan superstition,
makes Jesus Christ no better than Bacchus or Apollo, and
does not in the least believe in revealed religion/ He com
plains that the first Christians arc compared with the French
prophets, and a slur cast on the sufferings of the martyrs
and reformers. ' This gentleman's ravings/ says the writer,
f make him fit for a place in the hospital. Lunatics think
the sober mad; so this infected person takes revealed re
ligion as little better than frenzy and infection — a panic, as
can be shown from the history of Pan and Bacchus, spread
ing itself from heathenism to Christianity.' The pamphlet
ends with some banter,, which is amusing if not clever, re
gretting that Shaftesbury was not a young counsellor, as he
Would have been a State oracle — a perfect Apollo — who
would strike all with a noble sort of panic ; and if ridicule
ANSWERS TO SITAFTESBUPvY. 365
is to bo the best remedy for enthusiasm, instead of the CHAP. XI.
Bible, we had better read plays.
Another anonymous reply to Shaftesbury was, ' Remarks A • Letter not
upon a Letter to a Lord concerning Enthusiasm. In a Let- in Eatery.'
ter to a Gentleman, not written in Raillery, yet in c/ood
Humour.' The author discovers in Shaftesbury's writings
' a sly design ' to set the prophets and inspired writers of
the Old and New Testaments on a level with pretenders to
inspiration. The arguments of this tract are extraordinary,
which is more than can be said for the author's wit, which,
however, is plentiful.
' Bart'lemy Fair ; or, an Enquiry after Wit, in which Due ' Bart'lemy
Respect is had to a Letter concerning Enthusiasm to my Fair->
Lord * * */ was written by Dr. Wotton. It has two
mottoes —
'Much malice mingled with a little wit.' — Hind and PantJi. travestied.
and ' Answer a fool according to his folly/ It is dedicated
' to the most illustrious society of the Kit Cats/ The writer
wished to try Shaftesbury' s soundness by his own test and
touchstone. He complained, in the end, of the manner in
which men now treat religion. ' They creep into houses,
and, with their " Tales of a Tub," lead captive silly women/
Shaftesbury noticed that the mode of refuting heretics by
raillery was getting very common. The burlesque divinity,
as he calls it, ' was coming mightily in vogue/ The most
esteemed answers to the heterodox were those which were
written ( in drollery/
The doctrine of all for the lest took a practical form in Mandevillc's
Dr. Mandeville's ' Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices 'B™!° of tho
Public Benefits/ It was maintained, as a matter of actual
experience, that the vilest and most hateful vices of indi
vidual men are subservient to the well-being of tho whole.
A hive of bees, representing a flourishing society of men,
were in great perplexity. The lawyers, physicians, priests
and soldiers were all knaves. Avarice, prodigality, luxury,
envy, vanity, abounded, and nourished the State in pro
sperity. The hive at last grumbled against the knaves, and
prayed to Jupiter for their reformation. They became
honest, and the hive or State was soon ruined.
366 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. ' Fools only strive
To make a groat, an honest hive.
T' enjoy the world's conveniences,
Be famed in war, yet live in case
Without great vices, is a vain
Eutopia seated in the brain.
Fraud, luxury, and pride must live,
Whilst we the benefit receive.
*****
80 vice is beneficial found
When it's by justice lopped and bound ;
Xay, when the people would be great,
As necessary to the State
As hunger is to make us eat.
*****
Bare virtue can't make nations live
In splendour ; they that would revive
A golden age must be as free
For acorns as for honesty.'
Vice do- Mandeville defended the encouragement of vice as neces
sary to the preservation of virtue. Even the violent pas
sions in the community do something for the common good.
He devoted a chapter of his book to an inquiry concerning
the origin of moral virtue. He found it entirely in self-
interest,, and, in opposition to Shaftesbury, denied that man
was capable of any higher motive. He disputed, also, the
existence of a pulchrum or honestum in the nature of things,
and tried to show that virtue and vice are not permanent
realities, but varying in different ages and countries.
Bishop Butler Shaftcsbury is one of the few authors who are mentioned
on^Shaftes- by Bishop Butler. To no writer did Butler owe so much as
to Shaftesbury. The existence of conscience, a moral nature
in man, our being under a scheme of moral government
imperfectly developed here, the argument from this of a
future life where it will be completed, and the present trials
of virtue being the probation of the moral agent, are the
main subjects of Shaftesbury's writings. In the preface to
his Sermons, Butler points out a deficiency in Shaftesbury's
doctrine of conscience. Ho did not give it authority.
There was no question of his having proved that virtue is
naturally the interest of man, and vice his misery. But
supposing, which indeed wo must do, that there are par
ticular exceptions, or that there are men who are not con
vinced of the happy tendency of virtue, Shaftesbury has no
ANSWERS TO SIIAFTESBURY.
367
remedy. Men will always feel that they ought to follow CHAl'. XI.
what is conducive to their interest or happiness. But, by
taking in the authority of that conscience which Shaftosbury
yet believed to be in every one of us, wo overbalance all
consideration, and leave men under the most certain obliga
tion to the practice of virtue. Butler dissented from what
Shaftesbury says about the little value of good done
through the hope of reward or fear of punishment. Ho
calls prudence a virtue, and considers the contrary a vice.
It is right that we should have a due concern for our own
interests. There is nothing in this that can properly be
called selfish. We have a faculty within us which approves
of prudent actions. On the doctrine of all for the lest, But
ler speaks with his usual cautious wisdom. To account for
the existence of evil may be beyond our faculties. We may
conclude it to be voluntary, and overruled for good ; but its
origin is a mystery. It is easy for us to conceive that the
commission of wickedness may be beneficial to the world.
Yet is it not infinitely more beneficial that men refrain
from it? There arc, in the natural world, disorders
which bring their own cures, diseases which are themselves
remedies. The gout or the fever often preserves a man's
life. Yet it would be madness to assert that sickness is a
more perfect state than health, which is what is asserted by
the Optimists as to the moral world.
In the ' Minute Philosopher' of Bishop Berkeley, the The « Minute
most of Shaftesbury's peculiar views are discussed. Berkeley
did not deny the existence of a honestwn, but ho would not
admit that the mere sense of the beauty of virtue was suffi
cient to engage men in the pursuit of it. He maintained,
to effect this, the necessity of rewards and punishments.
In a little tract, not published in the collected edition of his
works, called ' A Vindication of the Theory of Vision/
Berkeley replies to Shaftesbury with some severity. He says
that the doctrine taught by the author of ' Characteristics/
who makes reward of a good action nothing more than its
natural consequence, is not religion in any sense. In such
a belief Atheism is as serviceable ns Theism, and fate and
nature would do as well as Deity. In the ' Minute Phi
losopher' Berkeley has this dialogue on Shaftesbury 's
368 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. doctrine of wit find humour : — Crito speaks first : ' Though
On ridicule ^ mus^ ^o own°d the present age is very indulgent
applied to test to everything that aims at profane raillery, which is
alone sufficient to recommend any fantastical composi
tion to the public, you may behold the tinsel of a modern
author pass upon this knowing and learned age for
good writing, affected strains for wit, pedantry for po
liteness, obscurity for depth, rambling for flights, the
most awkward imitations for original humour, and all this
upon the sole merit of a little artful profaneness. — Aid-
phron : Every one is not alike pleased with writings of
humour, nor alike capable of them. It is the fine irony of
a man of quality, " that certain reverend authors who can
condescend to lay wit are nicely qualified to hit the air of
breeding and gentility, and that they will, in time, no doubt,
refine their manner to the edification of the polite world,
who have been so long seduced by the way of raillery and
wit." The truth is,. the various taste of readers requireth
various kinds of writers. Our sect hath provided for this
with great judgment. To proselyte the graver sort, we
have certain profound men at reason and argument. For the
coffee-houses and populace, we have declaimers of a copious
vein ; of such a writer it is no excuse to say flu-it lidnlcntus,
he is the fitter for his readers. Then, for men of rank and
politeness, we have the finest-witted rallleurs in the world,
whose ridicule is the surest test of truth. — Euphranor : Tell
me, Alciphron, are these ingenious raiUeurs men of know
ledge ? Ale. Very knowing. — Euph. Do they know, for
instance, the Copernican system or the circulation of the
blood ? Ale. One would think you judged of our sect by
your country neighbours : there is nobody in town but
knows all these points. — Euph. You believe, then, antipodes,
mountains in the moon, and the motion of the earth ? Ale.
We do. — Euph. Suppose five or six centuries ago a man had
maintained these notions among the beaux csprits of an
English court, how do you think they would have been
received? Ale. With great ridicule. — Euph. And now it
would be ridiculous to ridicule them ? Ale. It would. —
Euph. Bat truth was the same then as now ? Ale. It was.
— Euph. It would seem, therefore, that ridicule is no such
ANTHONY COLLINS.
369
sovereign touchstone and test of truth as you gentlemen CHAT. XI.
imagine. Ale. One thing wo know, our raillery and sarcasm
gall the black tribe, and that is our comfort. — Cri. There is
another thing it may be worth your while to know, that
men in a laughing fit may applaud a ridicule which shall
appear contemptible when they come to themselves ; witness
the ridicule of Socrates by the comic poet, the humour and
reception it met with no more proving that, than the same
will yours, to be just, when calmly considered by men of
sense. Ale. After all, this much is certain, our ingenious
men make converts by deriding the principles of religion ;
and, take my word, it is the most successful and pleasing
method of conviction. These authors laugh men out of
their religion as Horace did out of their vices, — admissi
circum prcecordia ludunt. But a bigot cannot relish or find
out their wit/
The last of Shaftesbury's opponents whom wo shall men- Warburton
tion is Bishop Warburton. He vindicated the doctrine of ™ Shaftcs-
allfor the best, and opposed Shaftcsbury only on the subject
of ridicule being the test of truth. He urged the same
objections which were urged by Berkeley and others. He
addressed the whole race of Free-thinkers, as they are called,
in the words of Cicero: — ' Ita salem istum, quo caret vcslra
ncttio, in irridendis nobis nolitote consumer e. Et mclicrcle, si
me audiatis, ne cxperiamini quidein, non decet, non datum
estj non potcstis,' — a sentence which seems as if it had been
written by the Roman orator expressly to suit the defiant
temper of the haughty English bishop.
' If I were now setting out in the world, I should think it my Anthony
greatest happiness to have such a companion as you, who c'
had a true relish of truth, would in earnest seek it with me,
from whom I might receive it undisguised, and to whom I
might communicate what I thought true, freely.' These were
the words of John Locke, the year before he died, to his
young and dear friend Anthony Collins, a gentleman by
birth, education, and fortune. It is supposed that if Locke
had lived to sec the full development of his disciple, he
would no longer have regarded him as a friend either to
himself or to truth. Of the soundness or unsoundness of
this conjecture it is not necessary to speak, but the relation
VOL. n. 2 B
370 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XL between Locke and Collins must not bo overlooked if we
are fully to understand the position of the latter. Locke
had raised the question which for the greater part of the
last century was the ' solitary thesis of Christian Theology J
— the relation of reason to revelation, or the right of reason
to be heard in matters belonging to religion. It was no
new question, nor a question that belongs to any particular
time, but one that is forced upon us as men, as Christians,
and specially as Protestants.
Use of reason ' The use of Reason in Propositions, the evidence whereof
depends upon human testimony/ was the subject of one of
Collinses first essays. He defined reason as the faculty
whereby the mind perceives the truth or the falsehood, the
probability or the improbability, of anything which is pro
posed to it. Revealed religion must depend either on an
immediate manifestation of truth by the Divine Being
directly to the individual mind, or on a revelation once
given and coming to us through the medium of testi
mony. If the contents of a revelation depending on
testimony contradicted ^our reason, we must reject it. If,
for instance, it contained the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion, we could have no alternative but to reject it, for rea
son is the gift of God, and that which is irrational cannot
come from God. No miracle can prove a doctrine to be
divine which is in itself repugnant to our natural ideas. Col
lins did not carry this principle to any unreasonable length.
He admitted that there was an infinite world lying beyond
what is known to us. Our reason is not to be the measure
of possibility, but it is to be the judge of what is contradic
tory or not contradictory. A miracle — such, for instance,
as that an oak, which requires centuries for its full growth,
should spring up in an hour, is in nowise impossible. It
may bo improbable, but there is no contradiction in the
proposition. The distinction between above reason and con
trary to reason is rejected as wanting in definitencss.
Under pretence of above reason some divines advocate
mysteries and contradictions. Now a proposition con
sidered as an object of assent or dissent, is either agreeable
to reason or it is not. There is no third category to em
brace propositions that do not fall under one or other of
these heads.
ANTHONY COLLINS.
371
Revelation — that is, the revelation in the Scriptures — CHAP. XI.
comes to us on human testimony. The credibility of the ROVCi^n
witnesses, and the credibility of *tho things professed to must not con-
bo revealed, must both be considered. However great *
the external evidence for revelation may be, it can never
be equal to our perception of a self-evident proposi
tion. In this doctrine Collins only said what had been fre
quently repeated by Archbishop Tillotson and which was de
duced from the teaching of Locke, who says that wo cannot
bo obliged, ' where we have the clear and evident sentence
of reason, to quit it for the contrary opinion, under the pre
tence that it is a matter of faith, which can have no au
thority against the clear and plain dictates of reason/
But a supposed revelation should not be rejected because Contrndic-
of any merely apparent contradiction. If it comes to us cv^m-ly'i,,.
with even the least degree of evidence, it is one of the uses onlyappannt
of reason to endeavour to find out if it will bear a rational
explication. It may be necessary for a revelation which is
addressed to the minds of the multitude to speak in popular
language, and not in that which strictly corresponds to the
ideas of reason and philosophy. We are to expect, for in
stance, that God will be represented as possessing human
qualities ; that He will have parts and passions, though men
who have thought deeply on the being of God know that
these things are improperly attributed to Him. Revelation,
then, to bo useful, and credible to the ordinary mind, must
consist of words whose literal meaning is false, but whose
real meaning is consistent with all that the mind of the phi
losopher knows to be true. And this is just what we find
in the Scriptures. They speak of God as resting, repenting,
being angry, and appearing in the likeness of man. Yet
they also say that He is a spirit and invisible, and therefore
it is only by metaphor that we ascribe to Him parts and
passions. There is yet, Collins says, a further use of rea
son, and that is, not to reject the whole of the Scriptures
for some parts which cannot be supposed to come from
God. If they contain passages which could not have been
written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, it is
only the respect due to these writings to admit that these
passages have been added at a later date. Such arc the
2B2
372 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. records of the deaths of Moses and of Joshua ; the words
unto this day frequently occurring in the Pentateuch, and
the statement in ExoduS that the children of Israel did eat
manna forty years,, which could not have been written by
Moses, as he died before the forty years were expired.
'Vindication Among the early tracts published by Collms: the only
Attributes™0 *wo °^ muc^ theological significance were, ' A Vindication
of the Divine Attributes/ in reply to Archbishop King's
famous sermon on Predestination, and a ' Letter to Dod
well/ on the immortality of the soul. The first of these
consisted of some judicious remarks in defence of the
capacity of the human mind to know God. The being,
nature, or essence of God is admitted to bo above human
knowledge ; but it is maintained that through those attri
butes which are common to God and man, we have the
means of arriving at positive ideas concerning God. That
He is wise, good, and powerful may be predicated of Him as
truly as of man, and the words applied to Him have a
meaning as certain and definite as when applied to men.
But for this, the very possibility of revelation could not
exist. The Archbishop, Collins maintains, gives up the
case to Bayle, who, after setting forth the difficulties that
meet us concerning the divine attributes, said with an
ironical scepticism, that we must keep close to the Scrip
tures, and captivate the understanding to the obedience of
faith. Tertullian was not a little mistaken when he
said that fthe merest mechanic among Christians appre
hends God, and can answer the question which so puzzled
the greatest of the heathen philosophers.' But though Ter
tullian over-estimated the knowledge of Christian mecha
nics, wo have surely gained something more by our study
of philosophy and the revelation in the Scriptures, than to
run into the opinion of Simonides and Cicero, and to esteem
the question as obscure and doubtful as ever. The ' Letter
to Dodwcll ' concerned a controversy in which Dodwell was
engaged with Samuel Clarke. Among his arguments for
the natural immortality of the soul, Clarke brought forward
its immateriality. What is not material, he said, could not
be dissolved. Dodwell, who was the High Church eccen
tricity of his day, maintained that the soul was naturally
ANTHONY COLLINS.
373
mortal, but immortality was infused into it as a ' baptismal
gift/ Collins, who did not believe in the supernatural vir
tue of baptism to convey immortality, wrote to Dodwell,
not denying that the soul was by nature immortal, but im
pugning the arguments by which Clarke had endeavoured
to prove it. Before speaking of materiality or immate
riality, Collins said that Clarke should first have defined
substance, for who knows if the substance or substratum of
spirit is really different from the substance or substratum of
matter ? But taking matter in its vulgar sense, Clarke's
proof is still inconclusive, for he has granted that God may
have superadded to matter the power of thinking. We
cannot, then, conclude its immateriality from the mere fact
of its being a thinking substance. If from this we are to
argue immateriality, and from immateriality immortality, by
the same argument that we prove the immortality of the
human soul we prove the immortality of all sensible crea
tures in the universe.
v In 1713 Collins published ' A Discourse of Free-thinking,
occasioned by the Eise and Growth of a Sect called Free
thinkers/ This treatise was a further application or de
velopment of the principles set forth in the ' Essay on the
Use of Reason// It is probable that, by this time, the
words f free-thinking ' were used in a bad sense ; but Col
lins throughout his book uses them in a good sense, in
cluding among free-thinkers such men as Milton, Bishop
Wilkins, Cudworth, More, Locke, and the prince of tko
sect, John Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury. Collins
takes it as a thing certain that we must reason, and if we are
to reason there must be some self-evident truths as the founda
tion of our reasoning. To go about to prove free-thinking
a duty is to try to prove what is already more evident than
any argument which can be brought forward to support it.
There is no truth forbidden to man, and there is no surer
way of reaching truth than by examining any subject fairly
and thinking of it freely. This impartiality of judgment is
as necessary in religion as in anything else. The Bible,
which contains God's Revelation to man, is a miscellaneous
collection of books, written at different times and in dif
ferent languages, and requiring considerable learning and
OHAP. XL
Immateriality
of the soul
docs not prove
its immor
tality.
' Discourse of
Free-think
ing.'
374 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. careful study to find out the meaning of all that it contains.
Great knowledge and a clear understanding are necessary
to understand Horner, because of the many allusions to
different sciences and arts — much more are they necessary to
understand the Bible. The only way to arrive at perfection
in any science is by thought and inquiry — much more in
the sublimest of all sciences, theology. Indeed, the revela
tion in the Bible is a revelation to us only as we understand
it. When Jesus bids us love our enemies and to him that
takes away our coat to give our cloak also, He laid down a
general principle, and left it to the reason of men to make
the necessary restrictions in any given case. If we take
the words of Scripture without examination and understand
them literally when they speak of God, we can never rise
to the true idea of the nature of God. It is only by reason
ing we can know that God is not a body but a spirit. The
Pagan priests kept the people at a distance. They forbade
inquiry, and would not perform their miracles except in the
presence of those who believed. Some Christians act on the
same principle. When we propose, Collins says, to consider
the truth of the Christian religion, we are met by a cry of the
danger and sinfulness of thinking on such a subject. But
the devil's kingdom has no greater enemy than the honest
free-thinker. After the Revolution in England, when men
began freely to use their reason, the devil's power visibly
declined. It is true that since f the reign of Dr. Sacheverell
the witches have come back, and the devils have returned
to their old pranks of metamorphosing themselves into cats/
Duty of free- There are certain opinions held by some to be necessary
thinking, ^Q sa}vation. In a matter where the interest of every man
is so great there ought to be free thinking, that we may
find out the right opinion. The Society for the Propaga
tion of the Gospel must ask the heathen to think freely;
and surely after the heathen have received the Gospel they
are not to be asked to cease using their reason. The
design of the Gospel was to set men to examine their
former beliefs, to inquire freely, that they may have a
rational faith and the religion of a sound mind. Jesus par
ticularly charges us to search the Scriptures. He bids us
take heed how we hear. We are not to surrender our
ANTHONY COLLINS.
375
judgments to our fathers or mothers, Church rulers or CHAP. XI.
preachers. Dr. Whitby says that we should call no man
guide or master upon earth, no Fathers, no Church, no
Council. If we take the priests for our guides we shall find
them calling each other atheists, as Carroll does Samuel
Clarke, Turner the author of ' The Intellectual System of
the Universe/ and Dr. Hickes Archbishop Tillotson. Some
will tell us that the Bible is inspired every word of it infal
libly, while the priests of Home will answer that it is so
corrupt that there is no safety but in following the Church.
Some will maintain that Episcopacy is of divine origin, in
spite of one of the plainest facts in history that the Church
of England always, till the Act of Uniformity, held Presby
terian ordination to be valid. Our reliance must not be on
priests, but on the honest use of the faculties which God
has given us. It may be objected that to think freely
on such deep subjects as those which concern religion is
beyond the capacity of the multitude. To which the
answer is, that the obligation does not rest on any man to
engage in inquiries for which he knows he has not sufficient
qualifications.
Collins engaged in several controversies, and wrote many ' K-ssay on
tracts on different subjects, especially an ' Essay on the ^^§["
Thirty-Nine Articles/ with reference to the clause concern- clos.'
ing the authority of the Church in controversies of faith ;
but it was' not till 1724 that he touched the question of
prophecy — the subject on which he came most directly in
collision with the popular Christianity of his time. ' The
Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian
Religion7 was a bold book, but it was the natural growth
of Collinses mind. It was the work of a man who had real
difficulties, and who wished to see them honestly solved.!
It was the application to prophecy of the principles which
he had learned from Locke, and which he had been preach
ing in every tract he had written. The preface was a
re-assertion of the right of every man to think for himself,
and the duty of every man to think freely. Not to permit
learned and ingenious men, Collins said, to defend their
opinions, seems as if we distrusted the truth of what we
ourselves believed. Especially does the obligation rest on
376 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XL the clergy honestly to find out the truth. It is their busi
ness to inquire into the mind of God, and impartially to
study and examine the Scriptures. Francis Hare,, after
wards Bishop of Chichester, had written a tract ironically
persuading the clergy not to study the Scriptures, because
of the difficulties and discouragements attending that study.
Collins, referring to this • tract, maintained it to be the
imperative duty of the clergy to study the Bible rather than
Horace or Terence, to find out the meaning of the word of
God and to make it known to the people, rather than ' to
illustrate drunken catches, explain obscene jests, or make
happy emendations of passages that a modest man would
blush to look at/
1 The Grounds 'The Grounds and Reasons' took the form of a letter
and Reasons.' to ft < ])ivme of North Britain/ After congratulating the
northern divine that earnest inquiry was at length begin
ning to reach Scotland, the land of the tenaciously orthodox,
Collins stated his first proposition, ' That Christianity is
founded on Judaism,' and then his second, ( That the
Apostles ground and prove Christianity from the Old Tes
tament/ Under this second proposition came the casus
belli. Collins enumerated the many places in the New
Testament where a passage in the Old is introduced with
the words, thus was fulfilled what was said by the prophet.
Such were Mary's being with child by the Holy Ghost, the
angel foretelling the birth of Jesus, His being born at Beth
lehem, His flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents,
His dwelling at Nazareth and at Capernaum, in the borders
of Zabulon and Naphtali. The writings of the New Testa
ment only confirm and explain the Christianity of the Old,
for in them, as the Church of England says, ' everlasting
life is offered to mankind by Christ/ It is the law of
religion that every new development finds its essence in the
old one out of which it has sprung. The mission of Moses
supposed a former revelation. Many of his rites were in
existence among the Pagans, especially the Egyptians, to
whose religion the Israelites seem at one time to have con
formed. The mission of Zoroaster supposed the religion of
the Magians, that of Mahomet Christianity, as Christianity
supposed Judaism, j Jesus and His Apostles appeal to the
ANTHONY COLLINS.
377
prophecies of the Old Testament to establish the truth of CHAP. xr.
what they taught. If these proofs are valid, Christianity is
established ; but if they are invalid, then Christianity is
false. \
Collins himself does not take this alternative. He merely
speaks as a sceptic inquiring into the value of prophecy as an
evidence of Christianity. By comparing the New Testament
with the Old he finds that the prophecies are not to be taken
in their literal sense ; that the writers of the New Testament
did not so take them ; that almost all commentators on the
Bible, both ancient and modern, have considered them as
applied only in a secondary, typical, mystical, allegorical, or Prophecies
, T-, i -n/r j. • r»^ oo f A n have a sense
enigmatical sense, ror example, Matt. i. Zz, zd : — f All typical Or
this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken secondary,
by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Immanuel.' Now the words as they stand in Isaiah vii. 14,
in their obvious and literal sense, relate to a young woman
in the days of Ahaz, king of Judah. The verses which
follow, including the eighth chapter of Isaiah, show plainly
that the child was to be Isaiah's own sou, who was also
called Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Again, Matt. ii. 15, ' That it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the pro
phet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son/ The
words occur in Hosea xi. 1, where, in their obvious sense,
they are no prophecy, but relate to God's bringing the
children of Israel out of Egypt. In Matt. ii. 23, it is said of
Jesus : ' He came and dwelt at Nazareth, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, saying, He shall
be called a Nazarene.' As there is no such passage in any
of the prophets, this cannot be a literal prophecy. Iu
Matt. xi. 14, Jesus says of St. John the Baptist : ' This
is Elias, which was for to come.' If Jesus referred to
Malachi iv. 5, then this prophecy was not fulfilled literally,
as Elijah only came mystically in John the Baptist. In
Matt. xiii. 14, 15, Jesus applies to the Jews, as a pro
phecy, the words of Isaiah vi. 9 : ' By hearing ye shall lu-ur
and shall not understand/ which, in their literal sense,
relate obviously to the obstinate Jews of Isaiah's day.
Collins says that, to produce such passages as tlu-so tr«>m
378
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI.
William
Whiston on
prophecy.
Says the Old
Testament
texts were
corrupted by
the Jews.
This incredi
ble.
New Testament writers as literal fulfilments, and therefore
proofs of Christianity, is to give up the cause of Christianity
to its enemies. He then explains what is meant by typical
and allegorical. It was such a sense as no one could have
discovered in the passages quoted in the New Testament
simply as they stand in the Old, so that prophecy was truly
a light shining in a dark place ; in Collinses judgment, the
light in no way overcoming the darkness.
i The ' Discourse of the Grounds' had a second part, which
consisted of considerations on the scheme of interpreting
prophecy proposed by William Whiston in opposition to the
allegorical method. ( Whiston had been Boyle Lecturer, and
had taken prophecy for his subject. He strongly opposed
the principle which admitted a prophecy to have a double
sense, maintaining that, if we say the predictions which
refer to the Messiah had a primary fulfilment in Old Testa
ment times, and only a secondary or typical fulfilment in
Jesus of Nazareth, we lose the advantage of the Old Testa
ment predictions as proofs of Christianity. But, as it was
impossible for Whiston to prove that those prophecies were
literally fulfilled which were not literally fulfilled, he said
that the Jews in the second century corrupted the texts in
the Old Testament in order to invalidate the arguments
drawn from them by Christians. He also wrote an f Essay
towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament/ in
which he maintained that, in the time of Jesus and His
Apostles, the Septuagint agreed with the Hebrew text, and
then the passages quoted in the New Testament corresponded
to the passages in the Old. In the third century the Jews
gave Origen a corrupted copy of the Septuagint, which he
put into his ' Hexapla/ and which soon took the place of the
authentic copy which the Christians had hitherto possessed.
In the latter end of the fourth century the Jews gave the
Christians a similarly corrupted copy of the Hebrew Bible ;
and as the Christians were till then universally ignorant of
Hebrew, it was received eagerly as an invaluable treasure.
If Collins's object had been merely to oppose the revela
tion in the Scriptures, he might have been satisfied with
Whiston' s admission that we have no correct copy of the
Bible. But he could not admit the credibility of such cor-
ANTHONY COLLINS.
379
ruptions as the Jews were supposed to have made, or that CHAP. XT.
such a man as Origen could have beeii imposed on iii the
matter of a version of the Septuagint. He finds Winston
at length arguing that the ritual laws of Moses, and parts
of the Old Testament history, were typical prophecies of
Christ, but to be distinguished from others which were
literal, though both were confirmations of Christianity.
Collins says they are all typical, and proofs of Christianity
only in the sense that the fulfilment of a typical or alle
gorical prophecy can be a proof.
The ' Discourse on Free-thinking/ and, still more, that on Answers to
the ' Grounds and Reason of the Christian Religion/ engaged C<
the whole Church militant in controversy. Bishops and
deans, country curates and dissenting preachers, formed a
phalanx whose name was legion, whatever might be its
strength. I That much of it was weakness, is not to be mar
velled at ; but Collins had many able and formidable adver
saries. His c Essay on the Use of Reason * did not escape
the notice of William Carroll, who had written against Locke
on the same subject. 1 Carroll's mind was typical of the minds
of that numerous class who have always opposed the exer
cise of reason in matters belonging to religion, just as
Locke represents those who believe in the reasonableness of
Christianity. ^ In a letter to Dr. Prat, of Trinity College,
Dublin, he { detected, confuted, and gradually deduced from
the very basis of atheism, upon which they are bottomed,
the dangerous errors in a late book.' These errors were
the doctrine of necessity, the attributing extension or ex
pansion to the Deity, supposing that mind and matter in
the last analysis may be only one substance, and identify
ing the human reason with the Divine. The last, in Carroll's
opinion, was the foundation-error. It supposed the reason
of man to be trustworthy and capable of pronouncing judg
ment on the contents of a revelation. 1 He called it an ' athe
istical imagination, and the foundation of Socinianism,
Deism, Atheism, ''The Reasonableness of Christianity,'
' Christianity not Mysterious,' and such books/ Dr. Gas-
kell, afterwards Bishop of Chester, made some remarks on
Collins's tract in the third edition of his book on the Tri
nitarian controversy ; but these were solely on the question,
380 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. if the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is capable of such a
rational explication as to bo placed among the reasonable
doctrines of Christianity.
Richard Richard Bentley, the great critic, assailed the ' Discourse
swers°Collins °^ Free-thinking ' under the feigned name of Phileutherus
Lipsiensis, in a letter to Dr. Francis Hare. It has been said
of Bentley's performance that, as an answer, it was ' com
pletely successful ;' but to this high estimate was added the
qualification that it was successful only by avoiding the
question at issue.* Beiitley had no quarrel with Collins
about the right and duty of free-thinking when taken in
that sense in which it is applied to Chillingworth, Taylor,
and Tillotson. No religion, no sect — not, he said, the very
Papists, deny it. This was a blunt method of ignoring a
difference which is evident as the daylight. Bentley first
assumed that Collins was the enemy of all righteousness —
one of ' those atheists who, looking at their own actions,
wish there were no God ; and because they wish there were
none, persuade themselves that there is none/ He then
described the free-thinking of free-thinkers, not as honest
thinking, but as ' bold, rash, arrogant presumptuousness, to
gether with a strong propension to the paradox and the per
verse/ It did not, perhaps, materially affect the argument
that Beiitley was a great scholar, a philologer by profes
sion, and that Collinses scholarship did not rise above that
of a man of extensive reading, who made literature the plea
sure rather than the labour of his life. Some not very
learned criticisms on the Bible, and one or two mistrans
lations of Cicero, Virgil, and Horace, gave Bentley the
opportunity of saying that Collinses ' self-assurance sup
plied all want of abilities/ and that he interpreted ' the
Prophets and Solomon without Hebrew, Plutarch and Zo-
simus without Greek, and Cicero and Lucan without Latin/
The mistakes which Collins made are so palpable that it
did not require a Bentley to discover them. Ingeniwn,
rendered by ( knowledge ;' terrores magicos, by ' panic
fears •' and Idiotis EvanycUstis, by ' idiot Evangelists,'
were translations for which any schoolboy deserved a Hog
ging. Taking advantage of mistakes like these, Beutley
* Mr. Pattison in 'Essays and Reviews.'
ANSWERS TO COLLINS. 381
pronounced the whole discourse ' a uniform scries of in- CHAP. XI.
sincerity and ignorance, of juggle and blunder/*
Dr. Hare, to whom Bentley's letter was addressed, wrote Francis
a tract, which he called <A Clergyman's Thanks to Phi-
IciitJtcrus Lipsicnsis.' He did not feign ignorance of the
writer. Bentley, he said, may personate a foreigner, but
no foreigner can personate Bentley. Hare had been Collms's
tutor at King's College, in Cambridge, but he showed no more
charity towards his former pupil than Bentley had done.
The rational free-thinkers he called irrational and absurd
atheists. It is not liberty for which they contend, but licen
tiousness — ' an unbounded liberty to propagate their crude,
absurd notions, which do not deserve the name of thoughts.3
In this judgment of the free-thinkers, Benjamin Hoadly,
Rector of St. Peter's Poor, agreed with Dr. Hare. He
addrescd ' Ten queries to the authors of the late Discourse/
in which he intimated that Collins manifested strong pre
judices against the very foundation of all religion ; that he
had been unfair in representing it as the chief doctrine of
the Gospel, that men were doomed to everlasting punish
ment for the sin of Adam ; that he should not have spoken
of the fear of God as something servile and terrifying ; nor
have given such an explication of the Trinity as he knew
was not that of the New Testament writers. Many of
Hoadly's remarks are very judicious, but there is an
amount of resolute opposition to Collins which we could
scarcely have expected from one who was afterwards to be
known as the Socinian Bishop.
Dr. Daniel Williams, the founder of the Nonconfor- Dr. Williams
mists' Library, wrote ' A Letter to the Author of a Dis-
course of Free-thinking, wherein the Christian religion is
vindicated by detecting several abuses of Free-thinking.'
Dr. Williams was a very orthodox Presbyterian divine.
He considered it very wicked for people to dispute about
the eternity of hell torments, for since God, in His word,
has said they are eternal, then eternal punishment must con
sist with His perfections. Moreover, • so long as there is
* Some of Collins' s mistakes in lino as 'Sybil' and 'Sybillinr.'
mcro matters of scholarship are cer- Surely no one who knows the _(Jiv.-k
tainly unaccountable. Throughout 2t)3vAAa could possibly make this mis-
his books he spells Sibyl and Sibyl- take.
282 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. X. acts of the State Church, they might be explained on the
principle of giving freedom as soon as freedom was compa
tible with the safety of the State. The loyalty of Protestant
Nonconformists to the constitution had been demonstrated.
But, in addition to this, toleration of the Nonconformists had
become a necessity in presence of the common enemy.
There were doubtless men, like Tillotson and Locke, who
advocated liberty of conscience far beyond what was granted
by the Act of Toleration. But all were agreed that tolera
tion itself was in danger if there was to be no check on the
Church of Rome. Locke argued, that though idolatry
might be tolerated, yet the Church of Rome could not,
because of the principle that no faith is to be kept with
heretics. Tillotson told the House of Commons in a ser
mon that it was their duty to make effectual provision
' against the propagation of Popery, which was more mis
chievous than irreligion itself/
The Comprehension Bill was the last effort for the restora
tion of Dissenters. Its history illustrates the position of the
different parties at the final parting with the Nonconformists.
Its provisions. It proposed virtually what Baxter and his party had asked
in 1662. Instead of assent and consent to all and every
thing in the Prayer Book, there was to be substituted a
general approval of the doctrine and discipline of the
Church of England. The use of the surplice, the cross in
baptism, and kneeling at the communion, were not to be
compulsory. As the changes affected the liturgy and the
canons, the Lords petitioned their Majesties for a Royal
Commission to prepare the necessary alterations. The Com
mission was not to exceed thirty persons, who were to be
chosen from the bishops and clergy only. This limitation
was opposed, but when it came to the vote the numbers
were equal, and so the amendment for the admission of lay
men was lost. The Commons ordered the bill to lie on the
table, and passed a resolution that the King be requested to
summon the Houses of Convocation. This was seconded by
the Lords, and so the bill passed entirely out of the hands
of the laity, to be dealt with only by the clergy.
There were reasonable hopes that at this time, even, the
Houses of Convocation would have been willing to promote
THE COMPREHENSION BILL. 283
a scheme of comprehension. The suggestion of leaving the CHAP. X.
bill to Convocation is said to have originated with Tillotsoii. jta j^
He believed the Church to be capable of liberty, and he
wished to remove the reproach that it was merely the crea
ture of the State. He was deceived. The bishops, indeed,
showed themselves for the most part equal to the occasion,
but the Lower House too faithfully represented the igno
rance and passion of the inferior clergy. Dr. Beveridge
preached before the Convocation against change, and Dr.
Jane, the High Church leader, was chosen Prolocutor of the
Lower House instead of Tillotson, who had expected the
office without opposition. The scheme of revision was pre
pared, but to present it before such an assembly as had met
in the Lower House would have been labour obviously in
vain.*
The commission consisted of ten bishops and twenty The Royal
divines. f They had been chosen with some care and dif- Commission.
ferent parties were fairly represented. Some of those named
in the commission never came, and others came but seldom.
Dr. Williams, who kept a diary of the proceedings, says,
that on one occasion there were only seven or eight present,
while nine were required to constitute a quorum. At
the next meeting, Sprat, of Eochester, who had been in
trouble through serving on an illegal commission under
James, expressed doubts of the legality of the present
commission, and fears of a premunire. There had not been
a quorum at the last meeting, and many of those named in
the commission as deans and prebendaries had since been
* Dr. Jane was a declared enemy Patrick, Dean of Peterborough ; Til-
of William and all his schemes. He lotson, Dean of Canterbury ; Meggot,
had been chosen by the University of Dean of Winchester ; Sharp, Dean of
Oxford to present their plate to the Norwich; Montague, Master of Trinity,
Prince, when he took the opportunity Cambridge ; Goodman, Archdeacon of
of asking the bishopric of Exeter. It Middlesex ; Beveridge, Archdeacon of
had already been promised to Tre- Colchester; Batteley, Archdeacon of
lawney, and was therefore refused to Canterbury ; Alston, Archdeacon of
Jane. Essex ; Kidder, Rector of St. Martin's
f The bishops were Lamplugh of Outwich ; Aldrich, Dean of Christ
York ; Compton of London ; Lloyd of Church ; Jane, Regius Professor of
St. Asaph; Sprat of Rochester; Smith Divinity, Oxford ; Beaumont, Regius
of Carlisle ; Trelawney of Exeter ; Professor, Cambridge ; Tenison, Arch-
Burnet of Salisbury ; Humphreys of deacon of Lincoln ; Fowler, a Preben-
Baiigor; Mew of Winchester; and dary of Gloucester; Scott, Grove,
Stratford of Chester. The divines and Williams, Prebendaries of St.
were Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul's ; Paul's.
384 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. These hopes not being realized in Augustus, when his
Virgil and wife Scribonia was pregnant, Virgil wrote his fourth eclogue,
the*Messianic in which he ascribed to the child that was to be born all the
glorious things in the Sibylline verses concerning the great
king that was to come. Scribonia's child was not a son,
and Virgil lost credit as an interpreter of prophecy. The
political applications of the prophecies were incorrect, but
they show us what were the expectations of that age.
Virgil speaks of an age to come, called the ultima cetas, or
' last age/ —
rrt prmum
Dosinet, ac toto surget gens aurea mundo,'
which corresponds to the fifth kingdom of Daniel, which was
to succeed the fourth, or iron kingdom, which ' breaketh in
pieces and subdueth all things/ The glorious times de
scribed by Isaiah are the same which Virgil describes when
he says,
' Omnis forot omnia tcllus
Non rastros patietur humus, non vinca falccm.'
And again —
' Tc ducc, si qua mancnt scclcris vestigia nostris
Irrita perpetua solvent formidinc terras.'
Cicero and So great was the dread of the victorious king, that
Cicero, thinking the religion and liberties of the common
wealth in danger, proposed to remove the Sibylline books
into secret custody, to be opened only by an order of the
Senate. Augustus was pleased to be considered this pre
dicted king, and, fearing any rivals, he had all the Sibylline
verses carefully examined and treasured up in the Temple
of Apollo. That these prophecies came from the Jews,
Chandler thinks is placed beyond doubt by a passage of
Tacitus, beginning ' Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis
sacerdotum libris contineri co ipso tempore fore ut valesceret
Oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potireiitur/ and another
in Suetonius, ' Percrebuerat orient! toto vetus ac constans
opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judasa profecti rcrum
potirentur •' with a similar passage in Josephus concerning
the war under Vespasian.
This general expectation of the Messiah is traced back to
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the first book of
ANSWERS TO COLLINS.
the Messiah.
Maccabees it was resolved to lay up the stones of tho pnl- ( HAP. xi.
lutod altar till there should come a Prophet to answer about r™
• IT T Jrwisli
them, llus could not be an ordinary prophet, for after tanging to
Malachi no such prophet was to come till the return of
Elijah. Again, it is said that Judas the Maccabeo was
appointed the Governor and High Priest for ever, i.e. him
and his sons, until there should arise a faithful prophet.
The Jews expected such a prophet as Moses, who was
faithful in all his house. In Nehemiah's time the Messiah
was looked for as the High Priest who was to come with
the Urim and Thummim; and His coming was to be con
nected with the gathering together of the twelve tribes ; of
which there is frequent mention in the Apocryphal writings.
The belief of this general expectation is confirmed by the
liturgies and service-books of the ancient Jews. They had
many such prayers as this quoted by Joseph Albo, ' O that
Elias would come quickly with Messias the Son of David !
Send to us the branch of David in our days. How long
will He tarry ? Let the memory of Messias the Son of
David, Thy servant, come before Thee/
\ Chandler was willing to test tho question of literal fulfil- Chandler's
inenfc by twelve prophecies taken as specimens. He would
select them from the later prophets, because they were the phecies.
clearest and the most difficult to be evaded. \
1. Mai. iii. 1. — ( Behold, I send my messenger, and he Themes-
shall prepare the way before me : and the Lord whom ye
seek shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger
of the covenant, whom ye delight in : behold, He shall come,
saith the Lord of Hosts/
This is one of the prophecies which Grotius gives up as
not having a double sense, but as referring literally to Christ.
There are two persons spoken of, both messengers — John
the Baptist and Jesus. The messenger was a common
name for the Messiah among the Jews.
2. Mai. iv. 5, 6. — 'Behold, I will send you Elijah tho The coming
prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of oi
the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to tho
children, and the heart of the children to the fathers, lest I
come and smite the earth with a curse/
This prophecy is a repetition of the former. Elijah was
VOL. II. - (<
twelve Mes
sianic pro-
386
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
The desire of
nations.
CHAP. XI. to come before the Messiah. Prophecy was sealed up with
Malachi. There was to be no prophet till the coming again
of Elijah, which was to precede the destruction of the Jews
as a nation. The Baptist spoke of ' One to come after him
mightier than he, whose fan was in His hand, and who was
to burn the chaff with unquenchable fire/
3. Hag. ii. 6-9. — ' For thus saith the Lord of Hosts;
Yet once more, it is a little while, and I will shake the
heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and
I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall
come : and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord.
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of
hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than
of the former, and in this place will I give peace, saith the
Lord of hosts/
It is true that the word desire is plural in Hebrew, which
Chandler says is a Hebraism. It gives intenseness to the
meaning. Besides, we could not speak of desirable things
as coming. It is only of a person that we can predicate
coming in an active sense. Peace is one of the names of
the Messiah. The second temple was inferior to the first ;
yet its glory was greater, because of the presence of Him
whose glory was as the glory of flic only begotten of the
Father. The second temple was to continue till the days of
King Messiah.
4. Zech. ix. 9. — f Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Sion,
shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem. Behold thy King cometh
unto thee, the righteous One and that Saviour, lowly riding
upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass/
This prophecy is twice expounded of the Messiah in the
Talmud. The multitude knew of whom it was spoken when
they cried, ' Hosanna to the Son of David.'
5. Zech. xii. 10. — ' And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of
grace and of supplication; and they shall look on Him whom
they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one
mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for
Him as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn/
There is no other but Jesus to whom this prophecy can
be applied. It corresponds to Ps. xxii., where David, pcr-
The Son of
David.
The Messiah
a sufferer.
ANSWERS TO COLLINS.
387
seriating the Messiah, says, 'They s/w//y>/Vyv ///// htmds and CHAP. XI.
my foci.9 And to the words of Isaiah, ' Jfr UMU wounded
for our transgressions <nnl ln< ixed for our inif/m'tli-x.'
6. Dan. ii. 44, 45.— -' And in the days of these kings shall The ^roat
the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be kinsdora-
destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these
kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou
sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without
hands, and that it breaketh in pieces the iron, the brass, the
clay, the silver, and the gold/
The Jews always understood by the stone, the Messiah,
and by the image the Roman empire. When the kingdom
of the Seleucidao, one of the two remaining branches of
Daniel's third kingdom, was destroyed by Pompey, the
Jews everywhere were in immediate expectation of their
redemption. This was the origin of the rumour that nature
was in pangs to bring forth a king. It was this which
frightened the Roman Senate, and caused them to desire
the strangling of every child, Augustus alone being per
mitted to live. This made Lentulus become the leader of
the conspiracy under Catiline. We read in Lucan, that
when the Greek empire fell, and Egypt became a Roman
province, a Sibylline verse was found importing that the
advent of a great king was near at hand. Josephus inter
preted the fourth empire as the Roman, and that which' was
to follow as the kingdom of the stone.
7. Dan. vii. 13, 14. — fl saw in the night visions, and The Son of
behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds ofman>
heaven and came to the ancient of days, and they brought
Him near before him, and there was given Him dominion
and glory and a kingdom that all people and nations should
serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which
shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not
be destroyed/
This corresponds to the kingdom of stone in the former
vision. The Jews earnestly maintain that Daniel's ' Son of
man' was the Messiah.
8. Dan. ix. 24-27. — ' Seventy weeks are determined The seventy
upon thy people/ etc,
2c 2
recks.
388
BELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI.
The ruler in
Israel.
Ho that was
to come.
The rebuild
ing of the
tabernacle of
David.
Here is a plain promise of a Messiah, a Prince who was to
come after sixty-nine weeks, who was to be judicially cut off
at the end of or in the seventieth week. Soon after His
death a Gentile army was to lay waste Jerusalem, when the
daily sacrifice and the oblation of the temple were to cease.
9. Mic. v. 2. — ' But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though
thou be little among the princes of Judah, yet out of thee
shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose
goings forth have been of old from everlasting/
It is impossible to accommodate this prophecy to any
other but to the Messiah. No one besides him has ever
been thought of except Zerubbabel. But Zerubbabel was
not born in Bethlehem ; he never was ruler in Israel ; nor
were his goings forth of old even from everlasting. The old
Jews always understood that Bethlehem was to be the birth
place of the Messiah. In one of the oldest of the Jewish
prayers there is this petition, ' Shake thyself from the dust ;
arise, put on thy beautiful garments, 0 my people ; by the
hand of Ben Jesse, the Bethlehemite, bring redemption near
to my soul/
10. Hab. ii. 3, 4. — ( For the vision is yet for an appointed
time, but at the end it (or he) shall speak and not lie.
Though He tarry wait for Him/
There was an age to come, and a Person who was to
begin this age. This Person was spoken of as He that
cometh or that shall come. Hence the words of the woman
of Samaria, of Martha of Bethany, and of the Jews who
sent to John the Baptist to ask if he were the One that was
to come.
11. Amos ix. 11, 12. — f In that day I will raise up the
tabernacle of David which is fallen, and close up the
breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will
build it as in the days of old. That they may possess the
remnant of Edom and of all the heathen which are called by
my name, saith the Lord that doeth this/
The tabernacle of David was a similitude for the kingdom
of David. In its restitution the Gentiles were to have a
part. This corresponds to many prophecies which speak of
the calling of the Gentiles.
12. Isai. lii. 13; liii. 12. — ' Behold, my servant shall deal
prudently/ etc.
ANSWERS TO COLL1KS.
389
ecies
This is the last of the twelve prophecies. Chandler re- CHAT. XI.
marks that the Person here spoken of is one and the s;ime The righteou
from the beginning to the end, that a continual series of servant.
events is predicted of Him without reference to any other.
He is the servant of God, His righteous servant. He was
once the desire of the Jews, but in the afflicted condition in
which he was to appear they were not to desire Him. He
was a man of sorrow, and yet He was to prosper. His vo
luntary offering of Himself was to be expiatory of sin. He
was to be a priest bearing iniquities, and yet a king exalted
and extolled.
J Chandler distinguishes between prophecies that are typi- Propheci
cal and prophecies that are allegorical. The latter arc those
the sense of which is not that of the prophet, but of the
person applying the prophecies. \ They were in common use
among the Jews. St. Paul's allegory of Sinai and Hagar is
an instance. Typical prophecies may be used as proofs, for
we may discern the intention of the writer or of God speak
ing in the person who personates the Messiah. In the early
ages of the world it was common to speak by actions. Dio-
nysius, the Thracian, has particularly noticed this custom
among the Greeks. The Eastern people, especially the
Jews, retained it longer than the others. Isaiah went naked
and barefooted to represent the captivity of the Egyptians
and Ethiopians by the King of Assyria. Ezekiel took a pot
of iron and put it for a wall of iron between him and the
city. The tabernacle was a type or figure by which the
Holy Ghost signified a greater and more perfect tabernacle
under the Messiah. The words of David concerning the
greatness of Solomon, point to one yet greater than Solo
mon. David himself interpreted of the Messiah the words
of older prophets, as when God spake in vision to His saints,
saying, ' I have laid help upon One that is mighty/
V In regard to the passages of the New Testament quoted
by Collins, to show that prophecy was not literal, Chandler
answers that Matthew wrote for Jews, and may have used
a method of interpreting prophecy to which the Jews were
accustomed. \ The phrase that it nunj !><• fulfilled, is often
used when a text has simply been accommodated by the
writer. It is equivalent to the expression, // />• //•'"', or
390
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IX ENGLAND.
quotations
from the Old
Testament ^
arc merely
accommoda
tions.
CHAP. XI. herein in that saying true. An event darkly intimated is
St Matthew's now Painty illustrated, or a fact as truly answers the cita-
tion, as if the citation had been a prophecy of it. Jeremiah
sPoke of tue lamentation of the Jewish mothers for the
murder of their infants by the Assyrian army, and when
Herod slew the babes of Bethlehem, the words of Jeremiah
were again fulfilled. The tender mother, personated by
Rachel, again caused her voice to be heard in Rama, or
upon the high hills, which mourners were wont to ascend to
proclaim their grief. Out of Egypt have I called my son,
had been a kind of proverb since the children of Israel
came out of Egypt. It suited Christ's case just as it suited
any other parallel event. He shall be called a, Nazarcnc, is
not, indeed, in the Old Testament in words, but it is there
in substance, and is implied in the proverb that no good
thing could come out of Nazareth. The Evangelist' had in
his mind Isaiah's prophecy : ' There shall come a rod out
of Jesse, and a branch (netzar) shall grow out of his roots/
As to the coming again of Elijah, there is nothing to show
that more is intended than that the forerunner of Jesus
should come in the spirit and power of Elias. Their heart
is ivaxed gross, is applied by Jesus to the Jews of His day,
who were a perverse and hypocritical people in the days of
Isaiah. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, was not
taken for a prophecy either by Christ or by the scribes.
Behold a virgin shall conceive, whether understood typically
or literally, was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Isaiah's son,
though called Iinmanuel, was not born of an undejiled virgin,
nor could the words Wonderful, Counsellor, Everlasting Fa
ther, be applied to him. Moreover, it could not have been
any remarkable sign to the Jews, that a married woman
should have a son. That the Messiah was to be a virgin's
son was a general belief. Hence Simon Magus gave out
that his mother Rachel was a virgin. Doinitiau, flattered
even by the Jews with the title of Messiah, proclaimed
himself the son of Minerva, born without a father; and
so Virgil calls the child that was to be born of Scribonia
the great offspring of Jupiter.
' The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecy'
was written by William Winston. Wliiston was under some
ANSWERS TO COLLINS.
391
obligation to reply to Collins, for a great part of the ' Lite- C1IA1'. XI.
ral Scheme' was devoted to his ' Essay on the Restoration ^vhistoiTn-
of the True Text of the Old Testament/ He now showed, stores the true
by restoring the original readings of the Old Testament
from the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Roman
Psalter, and the Apostolical Constitutions, that all the pro
phecies quoted in the New Testament concerning Jesus j ire-
literal fulfilments, without any sign of a double sense, typi
cal interpretation, or previous application to any other per
son. As to Jesus' description of the Jews from Isaiah, it
might be applicable to the Jews both of the time of Isaiah
and of Jesus. Yet all such descriptions in the Old Testa
ment properly belong to the days of the Messiah. Whiston
showed that very many of the prophecies of Daniel hud
been literally fulfilled, though some were still future, and
that in the New Testament there are many predictions which
he knew to have been accomplished. He was looking out
for the dawn of the Millennium, and interpreted from St.
Barnabas Haggai's desire of nations as the Messiah, whose
coining was to be followed by the destruction of the temple
in the time of the Romans, and the final restoration of the
Jews in the seventh Millenary of the world. That we are
living in the last times is evident, he said, from the inven
tion of the art of printing, the great knowledge in natural
philosophy reached by Sir Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle,
the institution of the Society for Promoting Christian Know
ledge, and that for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts,
the discovery of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Apostolical
Constitutions, the Epistles of Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius,
and Polycarp,— and above all, an old copy of the Sibylline
oracles. That the scoffers of the last days had come is evi
dent from the publication of Collins's ' Discourse of Free-
thinking/ Cato's letters in the London Journal, and John
Toland's pamphlets. The great foundation of unbelief in
modern times Whiston held to be the reception of the
Masoretic Bible.
YA more rational reply to Collins was that of Samuel Clarke, Samuel
who wrote ' A Discourse concerning the connection of the
Prophecies in the Old Testament and their application to
Christ,7! Clarke understood Collins to affirm that the Old
392
KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IK ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. Testament prophecies in no way referred to Christ : that
they were entirely fulfilled in other persons or events, and
that there was no foundation for their application to the
Messiah or His kingdom. It is not evident that Collins
stated his case so strongly as this ; but Clarke's answer is,
that the Jews had not a clear and distinct understanding
even of the express prophecies, much less of those which
were obscure and indistinct. They were only intended to
be a light in a dark place. Yet it is evident that these pro
phecies, indistinct as they were, created in the Jewish mind
a general expectation of a Messiah. Jesus showed Himself
by His mighty works to be the Son of God. The prophecies
are never urged as proofs ; they have not, Clarke says, any
thing in themselves of the nature of direct or positive proof.
It is enough to show that there was wanting no circum
stance, no sine qua non, no character appropriated by any of
the ancient prophets to the promised Messiah. They are not
applied allegorically, much less can the reasoning be called
allegorical. ( Ought not Christ to have suffered these things'
is not urged to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, but to
answer the objections of those who did not know that through
suffering He was to come into His kingdom. Though not
positive proofs, the Messianic prophecies are confirmations
of the fore-knowledge of God, and of the uniform designs
of Providence under different dispensations. Clarke calls
special attention to the literal fulfilment of the prophecies
concerning Babylon, Egypt, and Tyre; but he grants to
Collins that some of the quotations in the New Testament
are mere allusions, as 'the voice heard in Rama/ and
' surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,'
applied to Jesus healing the sick.
A still more rational Christian than even Samuel Clarke
was Arthur Ashley Sykes, rector of Rayleigh, in Essex, who
wrote ' An Essay on the Truth of the Christian Eeligion/
with special reference to prophecy. He begged of the ad
versaries of Christianity to read the New Testament books
with the same equity and candour that they did Greek and
Roman authors. He admitted what Collins so strongly con
tended for, that the miracles of Jesus would not prove His
Messiahship, if He appealed for proofs to the Old Testa-
Arthur Ash-
Icy Sykes on
the Christian
religion.
ANSWERS TO COLLINS.
393
mcnt prophecies and these prophecies did not refer to Him. CHAT. xi.
The whole question, then, was, if these prophecies referred
to Him at all in any sense. Collins said they were iiinv
'accommodations' made by 'artful and learned men.'
Sykes said no, but rather ' the observation of things has
pointed out what it is that was foretold.' But we cannot
argue from types, we cannot use them as proofs, for that
word in the New Testament signifies nothing more than
similarity. We cannot prove to a gainsayer that the rites
and ceremonies of the Mosaic law were designed prefigura-
tions. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not
use the types as arguments, but only as illustrations. Many
passages applied in the New Testament to Jesus plainly re
late to other persons, and did not refer to Jesus even in a
secondary sense. Such as ( A virgin shall conceive,' John
the Baptist being compared to Elias, ' Surely He hath borne
our griefs,' and the application of Psalm xix. to the first
preachers of the Gospel, which is no more than if the Evan
gelist had addressed them in the words of Virgil : ' Vos
clarissima mundi lumina.3 The words of Isaiah, quoted by
Matthew, concerning the birth of Jesus, is merely the cita
tion of words agreeable to the event, and not a prophecy of
it. Bishop Kidder had come to the same conclusion after a Bishop KiJ-
long consideration of the subject. Le Clerc says that the
Jews used to speak of a passage of Scripture as fulfilled, if
anything happened to which it could be applied. /Elian
mentions a similar mode of speaking, from which we learn
that it was not unknown to heathen writers. Diogenes Si-
nopensis used continually to say of himself that lie fulfilled
and underwent all the curses of tragedy. ' This is He that
was spoken of by the prophet Esaias,' is paralleled by a
passage in Plato's ' Alcibiades.' Socrates throws out a
conjecture that some time or another One would come into
the world who should teach mankind how to behave them*
selves towards God and man. Alcibiades asks when that
time will be, and who He is who is thus to instruct man*
kind ? Socrates answers, ' It is He who now takes care of
you ;' and soon after that ' He has a wonderful concern for
you.' Alcibiades declares his readiness to wait for that
time, and expresses a hope that it may come soon. ' No\v/
394 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. Sykes continues, ' should any one say when Jesus appeared,
and did, in fact, what Socrates said, " This is He that was
spoken of by Socrates," the common use of language in all
countries would bear him out and justify the expression ;
much more would the particular idiom of the Jews, whose
way of citing their sacred books is known to be exactly in
this manner/ Sykes, however, finds many literal prophe
cies in the Scriptures, and notably that of Isaiah liii., which
is applied only to the Messiah. There is, he says, no one
thing which has made the New Testament the subject of
ridicule to Jews and infidels so much as the obscure infe
rences which Christians usually draw from passages which
visibly contain not one tittle of what is pretended. And
Sykes rccom- he concludes with these remarkable words : — ' Would to
ration. " " God that Christians would be content with the plainness and
simplicity of the Gospel ! That they would be persuaded to
make no other terms of communion than what Jesus Him
self has made ! That they would not vend, under the
name of Evangelical truth, the absurd and contradictory
schemes of ignorant and wicked men ! That they would
look upon all serious Christians as members of the one body
of Christ ! That they would cease from unchristian damn
ing, persecuting, and burning each other for not assent
ing to the words of men as the words of God ! And
Christianity would soon become the joy of the whole earth,
and infidelity would lose its main — I may say, its only
support/
Thomas Shor- Thomas Sherlock, Master of the Temple, and afterwards
j>htcy.n Pr°" Bishop of London, published six discourses on < The Use
and Intent of Prophecy in the several Ages of the World/
The discourses were originally delivered in the Temple
Church. Sherlock understood Collins to say that the argu
ment from prophecy, though a very bad one, was the best
that could be produced for Christianity, and that this was
affirmed by St. Peter where he speaks of the sure word of
prophecy. To which Sherlock replied, that though inter*
preters differed very much in explaining the words of St»
Peter, yet all were agreed in rejecting the sense which
gives a superiority to the evidence of prophecy above all
other evidence. It was only a light in a dark place, to be
ANSWERS TO COLLINS.
395
attended till the day dawn. The author of prophecy Him- CHAP. XI.
self described it thus : — f I have multiplied visions and used
similitudes by the ministry of the prophets ; ' and elsewhere
it is spoken of as dark speeches delivered to the saints in
visions and dreams. The most literal prophecies have re
ceived the greatest confirmation and the most light from
the events. The evidence is not to be sought in the appli
cation of single prophecies to Christ, but in a general view
and comparison of them all put together. Jesus of Naza
reth gave the fullest evidence of His divine commission by
His mighty works, but He also claimed to be the person
foretold in the law and the prophets. Is there enough to
justify His claim ? The argument from prophecy is not ; —
all the ancient prophecies have expressly pointed out and
characterized Christ, but all the notices which God gave to
the fathers of His intended salvation are perfectly answered
by the coming of Christ.
Samuel Chandler, a Dissenting minister, maintained, in Samuel
opposition to Collins, that Christianity had other grounds
than the prophecies of the Old Testament. Theophilus prophecy.
Lobb, Doctor of Medicine, wrote ' A Brief Defence of the
Christian Keligion/ which was very orthodox. Brampton
Gardon, Archdeacon of Sudbury, defended the Christian
religion by the prophecies of the Old Testament. The
Archdeacon had been Boyle Lecturer, and had taken
prophecy for his subject. He was disappointed that
none of the disputants on either side took any notice of
his Boyle Lectures, and so he wrote a treatise to call
attention to what he had said in them. John Green
wrote ' Letters ' to Collins, in which he maintained that
Isaiah's 'virgin' was the Virgin Mary and no other;
and as Matthew was inspired, he could not have mistaken
the sense of the prophecies which he applied to Jesus.
Moreover, he declared that Bishop Chandler interpreted
the prophecies as if they were not much better than cun
ningly-devised fables. Orthodoxy and simplicity are often
united, as they were in John Green.
t When Collins replied to his numerous antagonists, he felt Collins*
that it was really with Bishop Chandler that he had to
deal. The rest might be left to refute each other; and if he
396 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. could get a victory over tlie great champion of prophecy, they
might be tied to the chariot-wheels to grace the triumph.)
Sykes, Clarke, and Sherlock had answered skilfully.) By
their large admissions, and by their maintaining that pro
phecy was a proof of Christianity only in a limited sense,
they came near to Collins, and at the same time deprived
him of what seemed to be his strongest points. Chandler,
indeed, had gone a long way with them ; but, partly from
the thoroughness with which he went into the subject, and
partly from a desire to be as orthodox as possible, he pre
sented a broader side for attack. \ Collins wrote a review of
the controversy, which he called l The Literal Scheme of
Prophecy Considered/ He denied emphatically that he
ever meant it to be inferred that the foundation of Chris
tianity was chimerical. He admitted that there was an
expectation of a Messiah about the time of Christ, but it
had its rise not long before that time, and was not so
universal as some supposed. The iron in Nebuchadnez
zar's image had no relation to the iron age of the poets.
Virgil proceeded 011 the common theological idea of the
ancients, that there were four ages, — the golden, the silver,
the brazen, and the iron ; and now that the iron age had
come, the cycle would begin again. The Ultima JEtas then
was not, as the Bishop said, the glorious times of the
Messiah, but the iron age of the Roman empire. That the
' prophet ' of the Maccabees was an ordinary prophet, Col
lins brought forward, in evidence, Justin Martyr, who rea
soned against the Jews that their prophets never ceased till
Jesus was born, though, after Malachi, they were deemed
prophets of a lower degree. 1 But the great question be-
Chandlor's tween Chandler and Collins was literal prophecy. This is
daS^twophe- ^° ^° t™^ by ^he twelve prophecies quoted by the Bishop,
ties consi- As to the first, Collins says ho is not reduced to the alterna
tive of naming the person to whom an obscure prophecy
refers, or admitting that it is a literal prophecy of the
Messiah. The Messenger promised in this prophecy was to
be the proprietor of the temple, to preside there^ and to
purify the sons of Levi ; but Jesus came to put an end to
the temple and the priesthood — to destroy the idea of the
necessity of such things. In the second, the Bishop does
ANSWERS TO COLLINS.
397
not prove that Elijah in Malachi means John the Baptist. CHAT. XI.
Conformity of doctrine or manner is no proof of identity of
person. But how is it a literal prophecy if by Elijah is
meant John the Baptist ? The Septuagint reads Elijah the
Tishbite. When John was asked if he was that prophet,
ho said No, and rather identified himself with the voice cry
ing in the wilderness, in Isaiah. In the third, the Bishop
forgets that he is proving a Messiah from the Old Testament
against adversaries who arc not obliged to show that any
prophecy was fulfilled. It is far from being evident that
the desire of all nations is a person. The fourth prophecy is
referred by Grotius and Sykes to Zerubbabel. Having sal
vation, as in the English version, is not correct ; neither is
a Saviour, which is the reading of the Vulgate. The Hebrew
is passive, saved. It refers to one that was saved during the
captivity. It proves nothing in the fifth prophecy, that wo
know of no one in history to whom it can be referred. It
manifestly does not concern Jesus. There was to be war in
Judea, and a siege in Jerusalem ; and after that a deliverer
of the Jews by a destruction of all nations. The contrary
of all this happened at the death of Jesus, as Sykes had
shown. Jerusalem was destroyed, but all nations were not
destroyed. The Jews had not the spirit of grace and sup
plication, but were hardened. Instead of mourning for Him
whom they had pierced, they curse Him to this day. The
sixth is from Daniel, the authenticity of which book Collins
does not admit. The seventh is also from Daniel. By the '• Son of man
Son of man Collins maintains that the writer meant the
Roman power. It was a great compliment to the Romans,
to whom the Jews were under many obligations, to represent
them by a symbol so much higher than the images of the
former kingdoms. This is Grotius's interpretation. In the
eighth, the Messias Prince that was to come after seven
weeks, or forty-nine years, was Cyrus. At the end of
sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, was
to come another Messias Prince, Judas Maccabeus, and
before that time the city and wall were to be restored. At
this time the Messias priest Onias is to be cut off, when the
army of Antiochus Epiphanes was to destroy the city :md
sanctuary. He was to cause the Jewish worship to cease,
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Zcrubbabcl
' the ruler in
Israel.'
CHAP. XI. and to set up the idols of the desolator. The Jews were
again to recover their civil and religious liberty. All this
is simple history which took place in the four hundred and
ninety years between the fourth of Jehoiakim and the time
of Judas Maccabosus. The ninth is referred by Grotius to
Zerubbabel. Goings forth of old even from everlasting refer
to his being descended from an illustrious house. Medo
thinks this is a prophecy not yet fulfilled, and if so,
it cannot be of much service to the Bishop as a proof
of literal fulfilment. The tenth is referred by Grotius to
Cyrus, who was to restore the Jews from captivity. It is
an exhortation to patience. Upon the eleventh Grotius says
' that God will raise up the kingdom of David in Zerub
babel as in the days of old, and that the Jews shall be so
powerful as to possess the remnant of Edom ; ' which, Col
lins says, was certainly never fulfilled in the time gf Jesus.
As to the twelfth, a great part of the words is literally
applicable to Jeremiah, to whom Grotius applies the whole
prophecy. After going through the twelve literal prophe
cies, Collins says that there is not one which is not given up
by some eminent Christian commentator.^ Grotius gives up
almost all, and the illustrious Dodwell, who was the orna
ment of the High Church party, maintained that the Chris
tian world never would have discovered the meaning of the
Old Testament prophecies but for the gift of the baptismal
spirit. After an examination of Whiston's literal prophe
cies, Collins challenges him to produce one so clear as that
in Seneca, the tragedian, of the discovery of America and
Greenland, —
' Veniont annis
Secula seris, quibus oceanus
Vincula rcrum laxet ct ingens
Pateat tellus, Tiphysque novos
Detegat orbes, nee sit terris
Ultima Thulc.' *
Bishop Chandler wrote a vindication of his defence ; but
the subject narrowed to the question of the authenticity of
the Book of Daniel and the meaning of Daniel's prophecies.5
* It is remarkable that in this con
troversy no one mentioned the Mcs-
sianic prophecy in the 'Prometheus' of
TEschylus. * Of wretched mortals he
took no account, but designed after
having annihilated the whole race, to
plant a new kind in their place. No
one opposed these purposes except
me; but I had courage for the task,
and saved mortals from descending to
hell by a violent destruction. It is
therefore that I am bowed beneath
these sufferings, which are painful to
endure and melancholy to be seen.'
ANSWBBS TO COLLINS.
399
Samuel Chandler also wrote again; so did Thomas Bullock, CHAP. XI.
Rector of North Creek, in Norfolk, who had published a
sermon on Collinses book on prophecy. Thomas Jeffrey, a
preacher among the Dissenters, and other writers, published
volumes of more or less value, but none of them contributed
anything new to the main argument. Samuel Chandler
admitted that the subject required a thorough examination,
and did not seem to regret, after all, that it had been so
freely handled.
It was natural that one who had so many adversaries as Collins' s sin-
Collins would have some who abused him and refused him cc
credit for either learning, ability, or common honesty. His
frequent use of such phrases as ' our blessed Saviour/ ' our
holy religion/ and the ( ever-blessed Trinity/ was very
offensive, if he had ceased to be a believer in revelation.
But it is not evident that he really was a positive unbe
liever. v He seems rather to have been a sceptic, a sincere
doubter, who found difficulties in the way of believing
Christianity as it was then popularly understood, which
difficulties he could not overcome. Collins' s intellect was
as cold as it was clear, but it was thoroughly honest. To
examine freely and to judge fairly was his religion. \ The
true end, ho said, which a man ought to have in view is
happiness during the extent of his being, happiness in this
world and in the world to come. The means to attain such
happiness is by endeavouring to know and obey the will
of God. I He was a professed member of the Church of
England, and regularly attended the celebration of the great
Christian rite — the commemoration of the Last Supper of
Jesus with His disciples. As a magistrate he bore a high
character. His worst enemies, it is said, could never
charge him with any vice or immorality. He is described
as ' amiable, prudent, virtuous, and humane in all domestic
duties and relations ; of a benevolence towards all men
worthy of the character of the citizen of the world/ When
he was dying, he said he was persuaded that he was going
to that place which God had prepared for them that love
Him, and that the Catholic religion was to love God and
man. I It is mentioned in the ' Autobiography of Alexander
Carlyle/ that one who knew Collins well once said that if
400 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XT. lie was not saved in the ship he would certainly get ashore
on a plank.
Thomas Among the many replies that were made to Collinses
on' ( Grounds and Eeasons of the Christian Religion/ there was
one by Thomas Woolston, called ' The Moderator between
an Infidel and an Apostate/ c The Infidel ' was Collins,
and ' the Apostate ' the Protestant Church of England. The
' Moderator ' found that the great error on both sides was in
departing from the doctrine of the Primitive Church, as we
have it in the writings of the Fathers. Woolston was a
fellow of Sidney- Sussex College in Cambridge, and had
already become notorious by his devotion to patristical learn
ing and his hatred of the clergy.
On the fulness In 1702 he had delivered a discourse in St. Mary's Church
Cambridge, in which he undertook to demonstrate by reason,
against the objections of the old Gentiles and of modern
unbelievers, that the time in which Christ was manifested in
the flesh was the most proper time in the history of the
world for such a manifestation. This discourse was much
admired as an able defence of Christianity. There are in
it no traces of any want of sincerity, and the arguments are
such as might have been expected from a theologian of unsus
pected orthodoxy. It was not published till twenty years
afterwards, and the object of its publication then was to
show that the author was still not only a Christian but a
defender of Christianity.
'The Old In 1705 Woolston published the book which first dis-
Christumity tinctly indicated the peculiar bent of his mind. This was
Revived.' " called ' The Old Apology for Christianity Revived.' It was
written temperately and earnestly. The argument was an
application of typology as proof. The whole of the Old
Testament history was regarded as typical of Christ and the
Christian Church. Moses was hid three months from
Pharaoh, so was Jesus to be hid from Herod. Tho people
of Israel obeyed Moses, their ruler, whom God had placed
over them ; so the first apologists of Christianity presented
their apologies to the Roman Emperors. The darkness in.
Egypt foreshadowed the darkness of the Pagan world ; and
the plague of hail was the type of the rain and tempest that
followed the prayers of the thundering legion. To convert
THOMAS WOOLSTON.
401
tlicso fanciful analogies into proofs of the truth of Chris- CIIA1'. XT.
tianity was extravagant, but no one was offended with an
author who pleased himself with allegories which owed their
origin to the pious ingenuity of the Fathers of the Church.
Woolston got into trouble with the authorities of his col
lege, and was deprived of his fellowship. From this time
the two passions which possessed his mind — love of the
Fathers and hatred of the Protestant clergy — began to
intensify. Under the fictitious name of ' Aristobulus ' ho ' Aristobulus.'
wrote letters to Dr. Bennet, of Cripplegate, announcing that
he had come to England as a foreigner, and, after long study
of all the different sects of English Christians, he had reached
the conclusion that only among the Quakers could there bo
found any traces of Primitive Christianity. The ostensible
object was to exalt the Quakers, the real object to abuse the
clergy. He answered his own letters under the name of ' A
Country Curate/ but the answers had the same object as the
letters. He also wrote in Latin a dissertation concerning
Pontius Pilate, in which he wished to prove that Pilate
wrote to Tiberius an account of the life and works of Jesus,
but that the letter preserved in the writings of the Fathers is
not genuine. He wrote also to Drs. Whitby, Waterland, and
"Whiston concerning the orthodox faith, and the true inter
pretation of the Scriptures, reproaching these great divines
with pretending to follow the Fathers, and yet departing
widely from them. In all these writings Woolston had
before him his two favourite objects, — abuse of the clergy
and the restoration of the patristic interpretation of the
Scriptures.
Just before his appearance in the Collins controversy
Woolston had published a series of pamphlets, called ' Free 'Free Gifts to
Gifts to the Clergy, or the hireling Priests of what denomi- il
nation soever/ He challenged them to a disputation, in
which he was to prove that the hireling preachers of this
age were the worshippers of the apocryphal beast and
ministers of Antichrist, a subject, he said, very fit to be
debated in these later times of the apostasy, in which,
' Fugcre pudor, vcrumquo, fidcsquc,
In quorum subiere locum fi-iudrsqur dolique,
Insidia) ct vis ct amor scolcratus habendi.'
VOL. II.
2 D
402 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. The one proof of the apostasy was that the modern preachers
interpret the Scriptures literally,, and not in the allegorical
manner of the Fathers. The Church was now Babylonish
and miserably bewildered. Literal interpretation was the
cause of all heresy and infidelity. Origcn. had well said that
those who literally expounded the law of Moses arc preachers
of vanity and lies, ' idiots or blockheads (idiot as) who under
stood not the typology and imagery of Scripture/ But
those who know the deeper sense of the law are ' kings and
princes and priests unto God. They have the key of know
ledge. They remove the earth of the letter and draw forth
living water/ Woolston said that he was the divine instru
ment to restore the Gospel that had been hid for ages am!
generations. He was the only man in the world that under
stood patristic learning, and he was sent in these latter days
to turn, the hearts of this generation to the understanding of
the Fathers. By their authority he was to show the clergy
the whole history of the Church from opened parables and
enigmas of prophecy ; and, after bringing them out of dark
ness, to put them on the straight path to the city of the
New Jerusalem. When Origen wrote against Cclsus, he was
pleased to say of Woolston that he of all men was best
skilled in the spirit of prophecy. Lactantius says that the
way to divine knowledge is not by disputation, but by divi
nation ; and in this, venerable antiquity agreed with him.
' There is no man like me/ said Woolston, ' at divination
and the interpretation of dreams, and at the music of the
evangelical harp, and at singing the new song of the gospel
upon the old law. The hireling clergy are but vain babblers,
and it would be better for the people if, instead of listening
to their sermons on Sunday, they were to be entertained
with a bear and a fiddle, a tumbler and a rope-dancer.'
Elijah derided the priests of Baal, and why should not he,
who was sent to found f the sect of .^Enigmatists, or harjiri-x,
liarpincj on their harps, not deride the priests of the latter-
day apostasy ?'
Woolston It is time to say that Woolston was not sound in his
intellect. He speaks of this himself, and beseeches God to
continue him in that state of reason to which ho was
restored. In one of the Fire Gifts to the Clergy lie says that
THOMAS WOOLSTON. 403
ho was carried up in a lucid vision, like as in a chariot of CHAP. XI.
fire, to the highest mountain of the law and the prophci>,
on which is situated that Paradise of God spoken of by
St. John, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, and other ancient
Fathers. Here he met Elias feeding, as St. Augustine s;i it h ,
on the choice fruits of the tree of life, deep in the study of
the Fathers, and writing a spiritual exposition of the law in
confutation of Antichrist, previous to his coming to destroy
the ministry of the letter, and to restore all men to the right
understanding of the Fathers. Elias had a library on the
Paradisiacal mount, about as good as the library at Sion
College, where Woolston was daily employed in the s;mi<-
studies as Elias. The prophet was very expert at tho
Fathers, and explained many enigmatical things, especially
what concerned the holy vestments of the priests. Wool
ston was very anxious to know who were the two witnesses
in the Apocalypse. He had searched all the writings of
the ancient Church authors to get their opinions, for ' the
universal consent of antiquity is a great confirmation of
one's own views.' Some said Moses and Elias, some Enoch
and Elias, some Elias and Jeremiah, and others the two
Testaments. Woolston asked Elias, who reminded him
that the Fathers, though very singular harpers upon the
law, were sometimes out of tune. Elias then sounded a
trumpet through the long street, called Spiritual Israel,
where the two witnesses lay dead. He summoned all the
Fathers and Apostles to settle the question. After a long
discussion they came to agree, with St. Augustine, that the
two witnesses were Moses and Elias, Enoch and Elias, and
also the two Testaments, and they passed a resolution not
to depart from any of the ancient opinions about the tivo wit
nesses, but to hold them all as true, for they all had the
sanction of a venerable antiquity.
It may be concluded fairly that by this time Woolston's His object,
faith in Catholic antiquity had failed him. Ho proposed to
Collins to make a collection of the ridiculous opinions that
have the sanction of the Primitive Church, and through
them to bring contempt both on the Fathers and the modern
clergy. This proposal is perhaps the best key to all his
subsequent writings. In the ' Moderator' he laments the
404
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Allegorical
interpreta
tions.
CHAP. XI. growth of infidelity, and, starting with Collinses difficulties
about the fulfilment of prophecy, undertakes to help the
Christian side by showing the allegorical fulfilments.
It was not denied that Jesus expressly said He had come
to fulfil the law and the prophets. The ancient Jews con
sidered them typical of the Messiah, so did the Apostles
and Fathers. No other argument for Christianity can be
valid till this of prophecy is settled. Augustine and Theo-
phylact say that the five books of Moses were a treatise of
Christ and His Church under types and figures. The Jews
said that every word, yea, every letter of the law, had in it
something mysterious, which would receive illumination in
the days of the Messiah. Many of those who replied to
Collins appealed to the miracles as an additional argument
for the truth of Christianity, but the appeal to miracles
could not be made if Jesus were not the person He professed
to be — the promised Messiah of the Jews. False Christs
were to do miracles, so that miracles could not establish
His mission. And, moreover, the miracles of Jesus are
scarcely credible. St. Augustine said that if some of them
were not figurative they were foolish. Woolston maintained
they were all figurative, not works actually wrought, but
prophetical or parabolical narrations of what Christ would
do wondrously and mysteriously in His Church. This was
the subject of his last book, 'The Discourses on the
Miracles/ in which his hatred to the clergy and his love of
the Fathers reached their climax. ' I shall not/ he says,
' deliver my own opinions, but the opinions of the Fathers,
for I, so unlike am I to the rest of mankind, have no opinion
but what I have taken from them. And all the honour
and happiness I pretend to is to defend and illustrate their
opinions against all the opposition of Jews, infidels, and
apostates/
1 The Discourses on the Miracles ' were properly an exten
sion of ' The Moderator/ The first was dedicated to
Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London. It is admitted that
Jesus appeals to His works as proof of His Messiahship, but
the works to which He appealed were those done in the
spirit, not in the flesh, just as in the case of prophecy Ho
did not appeal to literal but to figurative predictions.
4 Discourses
on the Mira
cles.'
THOMAS WOOLSTOX. 405
Euclicrius laid down this principle, that the Scriptures of CHAP. XI.
the New as well as the Old Testament are to be interpreted
in an allegorical sense. This was a common opinion in the
primitive ages. As the writings of the Evangelists are not
excepted, the miracles are included. Origen says that
what Jesus did in the flesh was but typical or symbolical of
what He would do in the Spirit. The bodily diseases were
figures of the infirmities of the soul. St. John of Jeru
salem said that the cures performed by Jesus were great,
yet unless He do mighty works daily in His Church wo
should forbear our admiration of Him. St. Augustine said,
that considering the almighty power and goodness of Jesus,
He did nothing great, and that such works as He did
might be done by magical acts. He said, also, that Anti
christ would imitate and equal all the miracles wrought by
Jesus. Apollonius Tyana3us, Vespasian, and the Irish
Greatrakes performed as miraculous cures as those ascribed
to Jesus ; but they were not sufficient to entitle them to be
considered prophets, or to claim to found new religions.
Origen says that in the historical parts of Scripture there
are things inserted as history which were never transacted,
and which it was impossible should be transacted ; and St.
Hilary says that there is a necessity for mystical interpreta
tion, formany parts of the New Testament, if taken literally,
are contrary to sense and reason.
To apply this to the miracles. First, there is the most Casting the
stupendous of all miracles, Jesus casting; the traders out of fj><'l(ler8 °ut °f
„ . . . the temple
the temple. Origen says the whole story is only a parable, only a pam-
If Jesus had attempted such a thing, the merchants would Wc-
have reproached him with damaging their property. He
would, besides, be amenable to the public authorities for
raising a riot in the temple, when He had neither right nor
power to interfere with the buyers and sellers. The temple
means the Christian Church. Those who sold are those
who make merchandise of the gospel. St. Hilary is of the
same opinion as Origen. He says there was no such market
kept in the temple of Jerusalem. The seats of those who
sold doves were the pulpits of those who sell the Holy
Ghost, that is doves. Its real meaning is some future ejec
tion of hireling clergy out of the Church. St. Jerome says
406
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
The de
moniacs of
Gadara.
CHAP. XI. there are absurdities in the letter, but Jesus will yet enter
His temple, and with a mysterious whip, made out of Scrip
ture texts, He will cast out the bishops, priests, and deacons
who make a trade of preaching. Augustine also interprets
it of the clergy who make the Church a den of thieves.
As to the miracle of the Demoniacs of Gadara, there arc
many circumstances that would induce us to call in question
the whole of the story. It is not credible that there was
any herd of swine in that country. The Jews were forbid
den to eat swine's flesh. There was nothing beneficent in
the miracle, but the contrary. It was a great loss to the
owners of the swine. St. Hilary justly says that it is typical.
The madmen are mankind. There are two of them — the
Jew and the Gentile. They are possessed by devils, that
is, they are subject to diabolical lusts, and are given up to
the worship of demons. They are naked, which shows that
they are destitute of grace. The devils were cast out of
Jew and Gentile, and suffered to go into a herd of swine,
that is, the heretics. Woolston thinks the heretics meant
are the clergy of the present day, who believe in the letter
of the Scriptures, which, in the mystical language of the
Fathers, is compared to the husks that the swine did eat.
Had the owners of the swine been present when Pilate
asked, ' What evil hath He done V they would have found
a ready answer.
The transfiguration on the mount Woolston calls, 'the
darkest and blindest story of the whole gospel/ Jesus was
metamorphosed. His form was changed. The word is
generally used of a transformation of shape or essence.
Moses and Elias talked with Him about the book of Exodus,
and how He should fulfil it in the New Jerusalem. It pre
figures some future transfiguration which is to take place, as
St. Hilary says, after six ages of the world, which arc the
six days of the text. Moses and Elias, according to Origcn,
mean the law and the prophets bearing an allegorical testi
mony to Jesus as the fulfiller of them. By the mountain
Origen understood the sublime and allegorical sense of the
Scriptures. By the black cloud some of the Fathers under
stood the letter of the Old Testament, and by the white
Vestments of Jesus the words of the Scriptures, which will
The trans
figuration.
THOMAS WOOLSTCLV 407
then shine clear and bright. We shall never sec Jesus in CHAP. XI.
His white vestments, said St. John of Jerusalem, so loin.-
we follow the letter.
These three miracles occupy Woolston's first discourse. The woman
The second, dedicated to Edward Chandler, Bishop of Lich- $ issue
field, is devoted to the consideration of the cure of the
woman who had the issue of blood, the woman who had a
spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and the conversation with
the woman of Samaria. We are in ignorance of the nature
of the issue of blood. It could not have been very grievous,
for the woman subsisted too long under it, and bore it too
well. St. John -of Jerusalem says that it was her own
imagination which cured her. St. Ambrose says that the
issue of blood was the corruption aud impurity of the
Church, and the twelve years the 1200 years during which
it was to continue. This may correspond to the 1200 days
of the woman in the wilderness, which Protestants take to
be a prophecy of the apostasy of the universal Church.
Now that the 1200 years are passed, it is time that the
woman were cured. The Fathers are generally agreed that
the physicians are the clergy, on whom the poor afflicted
woman has spent all her living in fees, stipends, and gra
tuities, and instead of getting better she is growing worse.
The Church for ages has been declining in morals and prin
ciples. God in His own time must give her medicine, for if
she is left to the physicians her issue will continue to flow.
The woman with the spirit of infirmity may have had
comfortable words addressed to her by Jesus, but after the Of infirmity,
devil is taken out of this story there is nothing more in it.
The woman is the Church, as Augustine, Ambrose, and all
the great Fathers have shown. She is lowed down with a,
spirit of infirmity, that is, she is bent on interpreting tlio
Scriptures literally. Augustine says, that after 1800 years
she is to be healed of this infirmity. It is said that the
ruler was moved with indignation, which cannot possibly be
true. Human nature is incapable of such resentment.
Works of charity and mercy were allowed on the Sabbath
day by the law of Moses. The woman being bound by
Satan shows the fanatical and persecuting spirit which keeps
her infirm. This is all that is meant by Satan, the Dragon,
408 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT TN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. and the Devil. This persecuting spirit is itself to be bound
for a thousand years ; the chains that are to bind it are the
strong fetters of reason and Christian freedom.
The woman At the well of Samaria Jesus is represented as appearing
of Samaria. >n tiie character of a fortune-teller. He divined all the
woman's history and her present character. The other
Samaritans came out and got their fortunes told. Pro
bably they expected this would be the mark of the Messiah.
The literal story is altogether silly. The Fathers say that
the woman is a heretical and adulterous Church, which
Jesus, long wearied with her corrupt state, will meet in the
sixth ago of the world. He will meet her at the well of
the Holy Scriptures, whose sense lies deep. He will make
her drink of the spiritual meaning, after drinking which she
will never be thirsty again. She had five husbands, which
mean five senses, and also that she was wedded to the
literal sense of the five books of Moses. When the Church
has revealed to her the mystical sense, then the disciples
will marvel that Jesus talks with the woman.
ofthe fi-tL. The third discourse is dedicated to Richard Snialbroke,
Bishop of St. David's. It treats of the cursing of the fig-
tree, and healing the lame man at the pool of Bethesda.
Augustine said that if cursing the fig-tree is not a figure, it
was a very foolish act. The time of figs was not yet,
which made it very unreasonable to look for figs, as unrea
sonable as if a Kent yeoman were to look for pippins at
Easter. But whose fig-tree was it ? Jesus could have no
right over it. He owned nothing. Among all the relics
preserved by the Church of Rome there is not so much as a
three-footed stool or a pair of nut-crackers that belonged to
Him. He must then have destroyed somebody's property,
and therefore this miracle does not fall within the definition
of miracles given by Bishop Chandler, that they must be
such works as ' it is consistent with the perfection of God to
interest Himself in.' St. Ambrose makes it part of the
parable of the barren fig-tree recorded by St. Luke. It is
therefore to be understood, on Origen's principle, as one of
the things to be done, mentioned as already done. Dr.
Whitby has rightly understood it as a type of the destruc
tion of the Jewish nation. This is its allegorical meaning.
THOMAS WOOLSTON. 409
The leaves arc the barren literal interpretation. Jesus will CHAP. XI.
look for figs; that is, mystical allegorical meanings. The
letter of the Bible must undergo a good overturning, a dig-
ging into its roots, and a dunging, and after that it will
bring forth mystical fruit. This will be at the second
advent, which means not a literal coming of Christ, but a
descent of wisdom upon the Church. It shall come on the
clouds of the law and the prophets. St. Jude says the
Lord will come with ten thousand of His saints ; which
is explained by Origen that He shall come in His hohj
thousands of alley orists to criticize upon all Scriptures, and
to convince ministers of the letter of their abominable errors,
and of their horrid blasphemies spoken against the law and
the prophets.
The man at the pool of Bethesda was evidently more T^1'"110 man
afflicted with laziness than lameness. Nobody knows what Bethesda.
was the matter with him. One would think from the
stories which John records in his Gospel that he intended
to blast the reputation of his Master by trying how far he
could impose on the credulity of men. No historian men
tions the existence of that miraculous pool. Why did not
Josephus speak of it ? It would be very extraordinary
if a man were to write the natural history of Somersetshire,
and say nothing of the mineral waters at Bath. It is
strange that the angelical favour was left to the struggle of
the multitude. Why was not the benefit sold to some rich
lord or merchant, and the profits divided among the other
poor and distressed people ? St. John surely meant to
banter us when he said the blind, lame, and withered put in
for a prize that depended on their going down into the
water. St. Ambrose has well said that the letter of the
New as well as of the Old Testament ' lies abominably/ But
why did Jesus miss such an opportunity of healing the
multitude ? The Bishop of Lichfield says that Jesus wher
ever He went healed all that came to him without dis
tinction, — the impotent, halt, and withered. ' He certainly/
Woolston says, ' had his eye on this text where Jesus healed
none of them. For such circumspection of thought, such
exactness of expression and acuteness of wit, I admire that
prelate, and must needs say of him, whether he ever be
410 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. translated to Canterbury or York or not, he is an arch
bishop/ The story of the man at the pool of Bethesda is
a profound mystery. St. Chrysostom says that in itself it
is incredible, and we must look for the thing typified. Our
translators had no right to insert the word ( market ' after
sheep. The Greek is, eVt rfj 7rpo/3aTtKfj Ko\vfi^0pa. The
tco\Vfjtf}ijQpa was the piscina, — in the Church the laver of
regeneration ; and it was eVl ry TrpofiaTiKTj for the flock of
Christ. The pool was at Jerusalem, but this is the New
Jerusalem, the entrance to which is by the mystical laver.
The five Bethesda is the house of grace. It has five porches, which
the five books are> as Augustine and Theophylact say, the five books
of Moses. Of Moses. At these five books of Moses lie a great multitude
of impotent folk — blind, halt, withered. These are the people
who do not take the Bible as the Fathers did, in the alle
gorical sense, but depend on the letter of the law. They
are so afflicted with the letter that they cannot be cured with
out an angel from heaven. The certain man is mankind
in general. The infirmity is the same as the woman's who
was bowed down eighteen years. The man lay in the
porches of Bethesda thirty-eight years, that is, 3,800 years —
2,000 under the law and 1,800 under the Gospel, not under
standing the spirit of prophecy. St. Augustine, who always
added to Catholic antiquity something original of his own,
said that as thirty-eight was two short of forty, and these
two are doubtless the love of God and his neighbour, the
man who wants these must be a paralytic.
The fourth discourse was dedicated to Francis Hare,
Bishop of St. Asaph. He was chosen for this honour
because of his ' admirable satire against modern orthodoxy
and persecution/ called ' Difficulties and Discouragements
attending the Study of the Scriptures/ and because Collins,
his pupil at King's, had learnt from him the love of liberty
and religion. Convocation was not sitting, otherwise they
would have been honoured with the dedication, and im
plored to recommend the 'discourse ' to the clergy through
out the country. The first miracle considered is that of the
The man man born blind. But can it be called a miracle that Jesus
should restore sight to a blind man by the use of a pecu
liar ointment ? It was certainly a strange kind of ointment,
THOMAS WOOLSTON.
such as was never before nor since known to cure blind CHAT. XI.
eyes. St. Chrysostom said that it would sooner put a man's
eyes out than restore sight to a blind man. We must go
to the Fathers and learn the mystery. The blind man is a
type of all nations. They are blind through ad In -ring to the
letter of Scripture. They are to have the eyes of their
understanding opened on the Sabbath day, that is in the
perfection of time. By the clay and the spittle, says St.
John of Jerusalem, we are to understand perfect doctrine.
The clay is the letter, but the mystical spittle is the water of
the spirit which makes a mystical eye-salve.
The next miracle is that of turning the water into wine at The turning
Cana of Galilee. St. Chrysostom speaks of some who were
greatly offended with the story as recorded in John's
Gospel. They did not think it was becoming in Jesus to
be present at a riotous feast, that His mother and disciples
should bear part in the revellings, and that He should make
more wine when the company had already drunk more than
enough. The Empress Eudocia has given a poetical de
scription of this wedding. She makes it such a sumptuous
and voluptuous feast, with such an abundance of mirth,
music, and dancing as would be quite unbecoming the pre
sence of a company of saints. Apollonius TyanaDus per
formed a similar miracle, when, for the entertainment of his
friends, he commanded the table to be covered with a
variety of dishes and the choicest wines. But Justin Martyr
says that it is absurd to take literally the stories of the
marriages and concubinages of the patriarchs, and so it
would be absurd to take the wedding at Cana of Galilee
literally. It is all a mystery, as St. Augustine shows. The
six water-pots mean the six ages of the world ; the two or
three firkins are the divisions of mankind — Jews and Gen
tiles, or the descendants of the three sons of Noah; the
water is the letter of Scripture, and the wine the spiritual
interpretation. Theophilus of Antioch says that Jesus is
the bridegroom, and Moses is the governor of the feast. It
is the same as the feast in the Revelation to which all the
fowls of the air shall be invited, that is, as Clemens Alcxan-
drinus understood it, all heavenly Christians. They shall
soar aloft on the sublime consideration of the allegorical
sense of the Scriptures.
412 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XL The last miracle in this discourse is healing the paralytic,
The healin"- wnicn m absurdity is said to surpass all the miracles of
of the para- Jesus. It would require an ingenious mind to invent a
romantic story consisting of so many impossible circum
stances. There was no need of such haste as to take the
man to the top of the house. They had only to wait a
little time, and the crowd would be dispersed. If they
could not come to the door of the house, how could they
get to the side of it ? Did they go over the heads of the
people ? Did they get up by pulleys, ropes, or ladders ?
Let us come at once to the mystery. Let us hear the
Fathers. The four bearers are the four Evangelists. The
house where Jesus was is the house of wisdom. The top of
it is the sublime sense of the Bible ; and the tiles, as the
venerable Bede said, are the letter of the Scriptures, which
must be removed.
Thoresurrec- The fifth discourse was dedicated to Thomas Sherlock,
^ c ' Bishop of Bangor. Its subject is the three resurrections —
that of Lazarus, of Jairus's daughter, and of the widow's
son of Nain. The ruler's daughter was but an insignificant
girl, twelve years of age. There could be 110 end in raising
her to life, except to wipe away tears from the eyes of
parents, who ought to have been better philosophers than
to be crying for the dead child. If she really was dead,
which after all is doubtful, a lecture on patience or resigna
tion would have been more appropriate. But she was only
asleep, or in a swoon, probably caused by the screams of
the women, as Theophylact and Theophanes Cerameus con
jecture. The widow's son was only a youth, of no more
importance than the ruler's daughter. There was more of
the appearance of death in him, for he was carried forth to
his burial. But who knows what fraud or mistake may
have been in the case ? Perhaps Jesus suspected that the
youth was only in a state of lethargy, or there may have
been some contrivance between the youth and his mother to
further the fame of Jesus as a miracle-worker. Lazarus,
too, was only an insignificant person. Why did not Jesus
raise John the Baptist? Why did He not restore to life
some magistrate or merchant who were benefactors to the '
community ? It is strange that the first three Evangelists
THOMAS WOOLSTON. 413
should say nothing of the most important of Christ's CHAT. XI.
miracles — the resurrection of Lazarus. When a man writes
the life of a hero, he does not leave room for biographers
who come afterwards to add the greatest events in the
hero's life. May not Lazarus have consented to be buried Was Lu/.mis
alive in a cave as long as a man could live without food ?
The story is so full of absurdities that when John wrote it
he must have outlived his reason and his senses. It was a
fine prologue in Martha to say, 'By this time lie stinlceth.'
St. Basil asks why Jesus wept when He was about to bring
Lazarus again from the dead. Grief like this was childish
and effeminate. A stoical apathy would have been more
becoming. Epiphanius says that some of the ancient
Catholics were so much offended by the words, ' Jesus wept?
that they expunged them from their Bibles. Why did
Jesus call Lazarus with a loud voice ? Was ho more deaf
than Jairus's daughter or the widow's son ? or was it that
his soul was further off? The napkin ought certainly to
have been removed, that the spectators might have seen in
Lazarus's face the transformation from death to Life. But
what became of these persons after they were raised ?
Ignatius says that the little child whom Jesus placed in the
midst of the disciples became a renowned bishop. We
might have expected Lazarus and the widow's son to have
been eminent preachers of the Gospel. Of the persons on
whom Jesus performed His miracles we hear nothing more
except what Eusebius says of the woman who had the issue
of blood, that she caused costly statues of Jesus and herself
to be erected at Cesarea Philippi. Dr. Whitby does not
believe what Eusebius says, but the chanter of Sarum was
rather tainted with infidelity. Epiphanius, indeed, says
that Lazarus lived thirty years after his resurrection, but
whether for good or evil is not recorded. St. Augustine
says that he gave a large account of hell; but, with duo
deference to the Bishop of Hippo, it is not to be credited
that the soul of Lazarus went there. St. Ambrose wonders
why the people were turned out of the house when the
ruler's daughter was raised. Would it not have been
better that they had remained as witnesses? St. Hilary
says that there was no such person as Jairus. The name
414 KELTGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. was fictitious; allegorically it moans Moses. The three
Allen-erica! persons raised are figures of three kinds of sinners. The
moaning; of ruler's daughter represents those who have conceived sin in
clesf ' their hearts, but have not yet brought it forth into deeds.
The widow's son,, those who have passed into actual sin.
Lazarus, old sinners far gone, their souls in a state of putre
faction. The bearers of the young men are vices, evil
spirits, heretics, and seducers. The stone at the grave of
Lazarus is the hardness of the sinner's heart.
The resurrec- The subject of the sixth and last discourse is the resur-
of Jcsus- rection of Jesus. This discourse is dedicated to John
Potter, Bishop of Oxford. The objections which Woolston
makes are not many, and they are mostly conjectures. As
Jesus had said He was to rise again, it is concluded that
there was an agreement between the chief priests and the
disciples to be present at the opening of the seals of the
sepulchre on the third day, that is, the Monday following.
But the body was clandestinely removed on the Sunday, a
day before the time predicted. Three or four soldiers were
enough to form a guard, and this being passover time, when
there were great festivities in Jerusalem, it is possible the
soldiers may have had an opiate. A similar case is recorded
by Herodotus. The disciples were not above taking a hint.
' Peter, who could curse and swear like a trooper, would
hardly scruple to fuddle a few foot-soldiers.' Why did not
Jesus after His resurrection appear before Pilate and the
chief priests, and upbraid them for their unbelief? As in
all the miracles of Jesus, we must turn away from the
absurdities and impossibilities of the letter, and learn what
the Catholic Fathers have to tell us of the mystery. The
sepulchre, says Origcn, is the letter of the Scriptures, in
which Jesus is bound, as in a rock. Those who crucified
Jesus, says St. John of Jerusalem, are the ministers of the
letter. The rending of the veil, says St. Jerome, is the
removing of the veil of the letter from the law and the
prophets. The rending of the rocks is the opening of the
oracles of God, which before were as hard as a rock. The
earthquake is the shaking of men's hearts. Barabbas is
Antichrist, or the letter of Scripture, and the multitude cry
out for it, and demand the crucifixion of Christ ; that is, the
mystical and allegorical meaning.
ANSWER TO WOOLSTON. 415
It was some time before Woolston could prevail on any of CHAT. XI
tlio clergy to enter into controversy with him. The coarse
ness and vulgarity of his language, added to a vijo buf
foonery, which rarely rose to the dignity of either raillery or
wit, marked him out as a man whom it was wiser to let alone
than to approach. But the Christianity of his day was in
low esteem. Thoughtful men like Collins, and even judi
cious men in the Church, were branded with evil names.
The clergy were despised by the people, who had lost
faith in their teachers, and were but too ready to believe that
Christianity had no solid foundation on which to iv>t.
There was, however, undoubted ability of a certain kind in
Woolston' s writings, which, added to their popularity, de
manded that they should be noticed. Nor did he wait in vain.
In the number and variety of the publications evoked, this Woolston's
controversy was scarcely surpassed by any that preceded it. °1)1>or
The author of a pamphlet called ' Free Thoughts on Mr.
Woolstoii and his Writings/ gave a catalogue of fifty-eight
pieces, besides several that were then in the press. Some
were written in Woolston' s style, with his vulgarity, and
without his ability. The title of one was, ( Tom of Bedlam's
Letter to his Cousin, Tom Woolston/ Another was, ' For
God or the Devil ; or, Just Chastisement no Persecution,
being the Christian Cry to the Legislature for Exemplary
Punishment of Public and Pernicious Blasphemers, particu
larly THAT WRETCH WOOLSTON.' He is further described as,
' the devil's bellwether/ that canis qui ablatrat contra lin-i-m
vcritatis. The cry for persecution, unfortunately, was
listened to, and the vehement advocate of patristic learning
was sentenced to pay a heavy fine and to suffer a long impri
sonment. That the clergy were the authors of the prose
cution of Woolston is probably true, but it is also true that
Clarke and Whiston were unceasing in their endeavours to
stop it. The Archbishop also expressed himself as opposed
to the prosecution, but he told the chief justice that he
wished less had been said about the hireling clergy. This
was the crowning offence. Woolston mentions an interview
which he had with the Archbishop, in which the conversa
tion turned on the Fathers, and he says that he never hc:inl
any man talk with such learning and judgment Bfl tin-
416 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. primate did on that occasion. The Archbishop was William
Wake, whose reverence for Christian antiquity was second
only to Woolstoir's.
Several dissenting ministers wrote with considerable
ability in reply to the ( Discourses on the Miracles/ Many
of them take notice of the prosecution, condemning it as
unchristian in principle and bad in policy. Among these
Nathanacl was Nathanael Lardner, who vindicated the three resurrec-
Lardner on tions. There was nothing in* his arguments which had not
the miracles. .
been urged by others ; but he nobly took his stand on the
reasonableness of Christianity. We live, he said, in a
rational age ; and if we believe that Christianity can stand
the test of reason, then let us use reason in its defence, and
not persecution. Simon Brown, another preacher among
the Dissenters, wrote ' Some Remarks on Mr. Woolston's
Fifth Discourse/ the same which was the subject of Dr.
Lardner' s treatise. He gave his pamphlet this title — ' A
Fit Rebuke to a Ludicrous Infidel/ and vindicated the law
fulness of using ridicule in controversies about religion.
He subscribed to Shaftesbury's principle, that religion
suffers nothing from it except it be ridiculous. Elijah ridi
culed Baal. Had his ridicule been misplaced it would have
recoiled on himself —
' Eisu inepto res incptior nulla cst.'
Simon Brown Brown describes Woolston's object as setting all on the
on miracles. mvstical meaning, and after this is done to make as much
diversion with it as he tried to do with the letter. It is not
correct, he says, to represent the Evangelists, especially the
first three, as endeavouring to aggrandize their Master as a
miracle worker. Their general design seems rather to have
been to give an account of the more public acts of His life.
John adds some private matters, as the miracle of Cana,
the conversation with the woman of Samaria, the interview
with Nicodemus, and the resurrection of Lazarus. Why,
he states, should we expect Lazarus or the widow's son to
be ministers of the Gospel ? Might they not have been of
more service to Christianity by staying at home — one at
Bethany, the other at Nam — where people could send to
learn if such persons lived in these towns ? The resurrec
tion of Jairus's daughter was as good a proof of the power of
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON. 417
*
Jesus to raise the dead as if she had been a woman of thirty. rilAl*. XI.
The shrieking women were more likely to recover her from
a fit than to put her into one. Death is often called sleep
by profane authors. Cicero says, ' Quid est melius quam in
inediis vitoo laboribus obdormiscere et ita conniventes somno
consopiri sempiterno ? ' If death is here called an endless
sleep, how much more appropriate was it for Jesus to say of the
ruler's daughter, ' She is not dead, but slecpeth/ seeing He
was about to restore her again to life ! The widow's son
may have been as useful a person as a rich merchant. It
was both human and natural for his mother to weep.
' Naturoo imperio gemimus cum fumis adult; r
Virginis occurrit.'
It is a poor remark to say that the widow had tears at
hand. It was far more becoming in Jesus to weep for His
friend Lazarus than to show the indifference of a Stoic. He
was a true man, His heart was all human.
' Mollissima corda
Humano generi dare se Natura fatotur
Cum lachrymas,' etc.
How did .Woolston know that the persons restored to life
told no tales of the other world ? If they had been recorded,
would he not have made as merry with the other-world
tales of an insignificant boy and girl as he did with the
narratives of the Evangelists ?
The longest and most elaborate answer to Woolston was by Bishop Smal-
Bishop Smalbroke. As the third discourse was dedicated ™
to him, he was fairly challenged to the combat. The
bishop's work was diffuse, full of long quotations, and
learned ; in fact, he put all his learning into it. The two
volumes were dedicated, one to the Queen-Kegent, the other
to the King. The bishop defended the prosecution, which
he said was not persecution, for ( licentious invectives
against the Founder of our religion' and 'a professed
ridicule of the Christian miracles are libels cognizable by
the Christian magistracy/ The first and most manifest of
Woolston's errors was his affirming that the Fathers denied
the literal sense of the Gospel narratives. The passages he
quoted showed that this was not the case. Origen, St.
Augustine, St. Hilary, and St. Jerome were doubtless very
9 P
VOL. II.
4i8
EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. absurd individuals considered as interpreters of the Scrip
tures, but they were not responsible for all with which
The Fathers
did not deny Woolston charged them. Bishop Smalbroke did not
the literal
meaning.
Ull-
A miracle
defined.
dertake to vindicate all that the Fathers said. He had no
sympathy with their allegorizing of the Scriptures. He
did not believe that they were safe guides in theology, and
he intimated that the cause of Woolston's perverseness of
mind, not to say aberration of intellect, was due to his fond
ness for the allegories of the Fathers, especially of Origen.
In his discourses on the miracles Woolston quoted everything
he could find in Catholic antiquity that made for his side ;
that is, everything that was likely to make Catholic anti
quity ridiculous. That he often quoted honestly and care
fully is true, but Bishop Smalbroke showed that in many
cases his quotations were imperfect, and bore a different
meaning in the context from that which they were made to
bear in the quotation. Moreover, Woolston quoted Fathers
that are not acknowledged as Fathers, and the spurious
pieces of genuine Fathers, as the c De Antichristo ' of St.
Augustine ; and in some cases he quoted words put into the
mouth of objectors without adding the answers that were
made to them. It was admitted that Origen especially has
frequently spoken contemptuously of the letter of the
Scriptures. Yet even here we must remember that in many
cases we have not Origen's text, but only the imperfect
Latin version of Ruffinus. And when Woolston quotes him
as saying that some things in the Gospels could not be done,
and some as done which were not actually done, the re
ference is to such passages as 'Salute no man by the wuy?
'Provide not two coats,3 and Jesus seeing all the world
from the top of the mountain.
After these remarks Bishop Smalbroke proceeds to con
sider miracles in general, and then the particular miracles
of the New Testament which, according to Woolston, were
impossible and absurd. The bishop defined a true miracle
as properly a ' supernatural operation, disagreeing with and
repugnant to the usual course of things, and the known laws
of nature, either as to the subject-matter or the manner of
its performance/ The miracles of Jesus are not to be com
pared with those done by evil spirits. These are mere ,s ///>/, s-
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON. 419
and wonders which surprise weak and wicked men, but can- CHAP. XI.
not deceive the elect. The pretended miracles of Apollonius
are foolish and monstrous. Besides, the character of the
man evidently shows that they were false. He was a
zealous worshipper of the Pagan gods. His pride and
ambition were excessive. He had a vain affectation for
divine honours. A miracle is to be judged by the moral as
well as the historical evidence. Origen laid down a just
criterion that the lives and morals of those who profess to
work miracles are to be taken in evidence, and also the
tendencies and consequences of the miracles themselves,
whether they are prejudicial to men or whether they reform
their morals. Tacitus says that Apollonius pretended to False
work miracles in order to recommend Vespasian to the c es'
people as a person favoured by God. This may be true ;
and in that case it is possible that the miracles may have
been wrought by the power of God, who may have wished to
give some superior dignity to Vespasian, as he, with Titus, was
to be the signal instrument of Divine vengeance on the
Jewish nation. Their object, however, was merely political.
They did not approach in dignity the miracles of Jesus, which
were wrought to establish his Divine authority. As to the
miracles of the Irish Greatrakes, who seems to have antici
pated modern mesmerism, the bishop said they were only
tentative. He never pretended to work infallible cures.
When he failed in any attempt ho had recourse to physic
and surgery. Woolston had quoted the twelfth chapter of
the first Epistle to the Corinthians to show that the power
of working miracles did not imply that the worker of them
was invested with a Divine commission. He quoted also
St. Augustine, who said that when we see a visible miracle
we are not to infer a visible sanctity. The bishop answered
that the miracles mentioned in the tenth verse as spiritual
gifts to the believers were only a particular kind of miracles.
It is evident from the ninth verse that they did not include
the ' gifts of healing ; ' and to the quotation from Augustine
he answered, that it accorded with the words of Jesus to
those who said they had cast out devils in His name, and
done many wonderful works, which throws us again on the
moral character of the miracle worker, and though the
420 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. capacity to work a certain kind of miracles does not prove a
Divine commission, yet the miracles of Jesus prove His
Divine authority, as He could do all kinds of miracles, for
God gave not the spirit by measure to Him.
Woolston's Woolston had objected to the expulsion of the traders
arguments frOrn the temple on the ground that Jesus had neither the
frivolous.
right nor the power to do it. This was easily answered by
the remark of the Evangelist, that all the multitude took
Jesus for a prophet. He had just been hailed by the in
habitants of Jerusalem as the king who cometh in the name
of the Lord. With all the people very attentive to hear
Him, it could not have been difficult for Him to expel those
who profaned His Father's house. It is but a frivolous
question to ask about His anxiety for a building which Ho
was soon to destroy, and a service which he was about to
abolish. The temple was consecrated to the worship of
God, and the law of Moses was not yet annulled. St.
Hilary did not say that there was no market in the temple.
He said that the dove was the Holy Ghost, and the
Jews had not that, and therefore they could not sell it.
He was not speaking of the market. It is admitted that in
Jerusalem there were others besides Jews who exorcised
evil spirits. It is not clear to whom Jesus referred when
He spoke to the Jews about their children casting out devils.
Augustine and some of the Fathers wishing to confine exor
cism to Christ and His followers explained ' their children '
as the seventy disciples. The bishop concludes that if be
fore Jesus devils were cast out, it was done by the invoca-
The swine in tion of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Gadara
Gadara. was par^ of Decapolis, the region of the ten cities. The in
habitants were Greeks intermixed with Jews. That there
were swine in that country is shown by Casaubon in pas
sages cited from Strabo and Josephus. If the proprietors
were apostate Jews, the loss of their property was a just
punishment for their apostasy. If they were Gentiles, this
miracle may have been wrought to cure them of demon-
worship. In either case the Gadarenes were amply com
pensated for the loss of their swine by having 6,000 devils
cast out of a man. In the transfiguration it is a poor re
mark of Woolston's that the Greek word signifies a
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON.
421
change of form. The Evangelist explains what the trans- CHAR XI.
figuration was when he says of Jesus, His face did shine
as the sun, His countenance was white as the /•//////.
EgoSo? is a Hebraism, the Latin words Excitus and Exccssns
were frequently used for death. The Hellenist Jews used
the word "EfoSo? in the same sense, and so does St. Peter
in his Epistles. This was designedly a private miracle
wrought for the benefit of the three disciples. Why,
then, should it be asked that it was not done before the
multitude ?
The first miracle in Woolston's second discourse is the The woman
woman with the -issue of blood. Her affliction was evidently ^Vod0 188ue
chronic and confirmed, whatever may have been the nature
of it. As to her imagination curing her, she must have had
good exercise for that when she believed so long in the
physicians on whom she spent all her money. It is said
she suffered many things, which implied that she had gone
through severe courses of physic. The whole account of
the woman with the spirit of infirmity shows that this was a
serious affliction. The Jews in Christ's time were very
strict about keeping the Sabbath. It was one of their
superstitions. The law of Moses admitted works of neces
sity and mercy, but they made void the law through their
traditions. It is in keeping with all that we know of this
spirit of Pharisaism to complain of Jesus doing a miracle on
the Sabbath Day. Josephus records that the Jews lost
their city by refusing on that day to fight with the Romans.
The attempt to ridicule the conversation with the woman of
Samaria shows how easy it is to ridicule anything. Might
not all the prophets in this way be called fortune-tellers ?
The fig-tree which Jesus cursed is the miracle most The cursing
difficult of defence, excepting perhaps that of the devils in of ^fig-tree
Gadara. Mark evidently speaks of a kind of fig-tree that
had fruit on it at that season. It is fair to conclude this
from the parable, if there were no other reason. lie sought
fruit and found nothing but leaves. What St. Augustine
says on this subject is not to be taken for much. He had
not studied the natural history of fruit-trees, and what he
wrote about this miracle ought to have had a place in his
Retractations. Ambrose calls the miracle a parable. He
422 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. means tliat its meaning lay deeper than the surface. It was
said that those who had faith were to do not only what was
done to the fig-tree, but remove mountains, and, as the
disciples had never done this, Woolston argued that the
miracle had never been performed. The bishop asked how
Woolston knew that the Apostles never removed moun
tains ? St. Jerome says that Hilarius did remove moun
tains, and St. Chrysostom spoke of holy persons, inferior to
the Apostles, who did the same. Gregory Nyssa says that
Gregory Thaumaturgus by a word removed a vast rock out
of its place. Even in the middle ages Paulus Venetus
speaks of a rock in Persia which was removed by a Christian,
and the miracle was so wonderful that many Mahometans
were converted to Christianity. ' Those who, like Wool
ston/ adds the Bishop, ' believe implicity in the Fathers
ought to receive their testimonies. If we consider the
punitive acts in the miracles of cursing the fig-tree and the
destruction of swine were performed on inferior creatures
which are but the appendages, so to speak, of men, it will
a.ppear that, comparatively, they were acts of goodness and
mercy. What was the destruction of a fig-tree, if by it
Jesus taught a great lesson of the righteousness of God ? '
If Woolston had mentioned in what part of Origen the ten
thousand holy allegorists are spoken of, the Bishop would
have turned to it, but as the reference had been omitted
the passages were not to be found. The other miracle in
The man at this ' Discourse ' is that at the pool of Bethesda. It is
Bctiiesda? surely nothing against it that it is not mentioned by Jose-
phus. There are many things which Josephus does not
mention. Tertullian had already answered this objection.
He said that the pool of Bethesda lost its healing qualities
through the unbelief of the Jews ; there was, therefore, no
reason for Josephus, when he wrote, to speak of the virtue
of its waters. But Josephus did speak of a pool at Jerusa
lem, and he called it by the very word used by the Evan
gelist, Ko^vfjiftrjOpa. He says nothing of its miraculous
cures, yet even this may be accounted for, as he only men
tions it incidentally, and promises in another book to give
a more complete description of Jerusalem and its walls. In
this book he may have related all that was known of the
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTOX. 423
pool of Botliosda. It is idle to make objections against CHAP. XI.
any particular means of healing. God can surely choose
His own means. That only one a year was healed may have
better secured the object than that many should have been
healed. The annual recurrence of the miracle served to
keep up a sense of God's presence in the nation. It was
not true that the magistrates took no care of the pool, for
they provided the sick people with a hospital, and five
porches or cells for passing down into the water when it
was troubled by the angel. But the healing of the soul is
greater than the healing of the body. The angel descended
once and one was benefited, but Jesus descended into the
waters of baptism that all might be healed.
The Bishop's second volume begins with the miracle on The man born
the man who was lorn blind. That he really had been born
blind was attested by his parents, and it has never been
known that natural blindness could be cured by any art of
man. The use of means that could not of themselves pro
duce the effect was very appropriate. It served to show
that Jesus did not act in a natural but a supernatural man
ner. It was symbolical, and accorded with the custom of
the old prophets. Moses lifting up his rod to divide the
Red Sea, and casting the tree into the waters of Marah ;
Elijah stretching himself on the child ; Elisha with the cruse
of salt taking away the unwholesomeness of the waters of
Jericho, are instances of the custom. The merriment which
Woolston made over the spittle would have been less had
he known that the use of spittle on the Sabbath was for
bidden by the Jewish law, and that Jesus may have wished
to protest against this superstition. The washing at Siloam,
says Irenaeus, was an emblem or a type of the efficacy of
baptism. The objections concerning the man sick of the
palsy being let down through the tiles are not worth noticing.
People who know the construction of Eastern houses feel
none of the difficulties which Woolston supposed. St. Jerome,
in his day, described a Jewish house for the benefit of those
who thought the circumstances of this miracle strange. It
is not to be wondered at that the resurrection of Lazarus is
not mentioned by the other Evangelists. They do not pro
fess to record the events of the time into which the miracle
424 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. falls. The additional miracles recorded by St. John are
omitted for the same reason. Eusebius, of Cresarea, says
that the first three Evangelists confine their narratives to
the period of one year, beginning with the imprisonment of
Arguments John the Baptist. Similar omissions may be found in pro-
sionsnot&~ fane authors. No historian, till Joseplms, mentioned the
valid. vision which Alexander had in Asia, and in which he was
encouraged to subdue the Persian Empire. It is not re
corded in the earlier lives of Pythagoras that he did not
entirely abstain from eating beans and the flesh of some
kinds of animals. Xenophon does not tell us that Socrates
discoursed about physics, and yet Plato does tell us. The
loud voice at the tomb did not regard Lazarus, but the
people who stood by. The supposition of a compact be
tween the chief priests and the Apostles is an extravagant
invention. The disciples did not even expect the resur
rection. A watch was not a few soldiers, but a large body.
Three days and the third day were equivalent expressions.
This the Bishop shows by many passages from the Old
Testament. That Jesus did rise again is as well-attested
as any event in history can be. We have no instance of
men persevering to death in what they knew to be a lie,
and when, by confessing it, they might have saved their
lives. The Apostles gave their lives in attestation of what
they saw and knew.
Of all who wrote answers to Woolston we at once give
Bishop Pcarce the palm to Zachary Pearce, Bishop of Rochester. His
Pamphlet, called ( The Miracles of Jesus Vindicated/ con
sisted only of eighty-six pages, but it was a perfect model
of controversial writing. He began with the resurrection
of Jesus, the miracle on which historical Christianity rests.
He reasoned rightly that if this miracle is credible all the
other miracles of Jesus are credible, but if this fails in evi
dence the others must fail too. He insisted that as the
objections had been made on the supposition that the
accounts were written by the Evangelists, the same sup
position must be allowed to stand in the defence. He
thinks it impossible that the Apostles could be deceived
in the resurrection of Jesus, for He showed himself alive by
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days. There
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON. 425
were twelve distinct appearances, during which the disciples CHAT. XI.
conversed with Him, ate and drank with Him, and handled
Him with their hands. He submitted to a close examina
tion by Thomas. He promised them power from on high,
and the gift of tongues. They knew in their own inward
perception, which in the judgment of some is more certain
than the outward, that they had the gifts which were pro
mised. All the Apostles unanimously asserted the resur
rection of their Master, and maintained it with- their dying
breath, even when expiring under the most cruel tortures.
The objections are reduced to those four. (1.) Jesus did Objections to
not rise at the time He foretold. (2.) Some of His disciples ti
did not know Him when He appeared to them. (3.) He answered.
did not personally show Himself to the chief priests and
elders as (it is supposed) He ought to have done to con
vince them. (4.) The stone at the mouth of the grave
being sealed, and the seal being broken open when the
sealers were not present, there is room to suspect fraud
and imposture.
The answers are : — (1.) It was the third day. The Jews
reckoned from sunset to sunset, which, indeed, seems to
have been the custom with the Greeks, for a day and a
night was vv^Or^epov, the night, before the day. Then any
part of the twenty-four hours between the sunsets was
counted a day. A child, for instance, was to be circum
cised 011 the eighth day, but, if born only an hour before
sunset, that hour was reckoned a day. Now as Jesus died
about three in the afternoon on Friday, by six o'clock one
day had passed. Saturday was another day, and Sunday
was the third. Porphyry has a passage in his Homeric
questions which fitly illustrates this mode of reckoning —
' He that is at home in the evening and goes abroad in the
morning of the third day is said to be from home on the
third day, though there be only one day complete, which is
the middle one/ The third day was the same as after
three days. In 2 Qhroii. x. 5, Rehoboam said to the people,
Come unto mo again after three days. In verse twelve we
read that the people came to Rehoboam on tltr Ilitnl d<nj, as
the Idng commanded. The most difficult form of the words
is in Matt. xii. 40, where it is said of Jesus that He was to
426
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI.
The disciples
did not be
lieve that He
was to rise
again.
Difficulties
may some
times be ex
plained.
be in tlie earth three days and three nights. But the diffi
culty is only in our forgetting the day-ni(jht of the Jews
and Greeks. They sometimes called the twenty-four hours
a day and a nicjht, and as the words were equivalent, the
part of a day which was called a day was also called a day-
iiight. There is a remarkable instance of this in the book
of Esther. In chap. iv. 16, Esther declares she would fast
with her people, the Jews, three days, night and day, yet we
find in her in chap. v. 1, 4, upon the third day at a banquet
with the King and Hainan, her adversary. (2.) There was
nothing marvellous in the disciples not knowing Jesus when
they saw Him after His resurrection. They did not expect
that He was to rise again. Their deliverer, who was to
redeem Israel, was crucified, and with this their hope of de
liverance was gone. There was wisdom in His revealing
Himself to them by degrees. They had to be prepared for
it, too sudden an appearance might have been injurious.
On the way to Emmaus He was probably in the garb of a
traveller. It was dark, and so their eyes were holden. All
that can be said is that the disciples did not at first believe,
but they believed afterwards. (3.) The chief priests and
rulers had seen enough to convince them had they not been
obstinate. They saw His miracles. They knew of the
rending of the temple veil, and the darkness which followed
the crucifixion. But, supposing He had appeared to them,
we could only have known of it by testimony, and which
testimony would have been greater, that of the chief priest
or that of the Apostles, who sealed their testimony with
martyrdom ? Had we depended only on the testimony of
the priests, how easy might it have been said that it was
only a national contrivance of the Jews, a trick of State, or
political craft. (4.) The supposition of a contract between
the chief priest and the disciples is ' quite original/ The
Gospel record is that when Jesus was crucified the disciples
all fled for their lives.
To such objections as are generally made to many of the
miracles it is a sufficient general answer to remember that
it was 1700 years since they were wrought, and that the
climate, language, and customs of the people were very
different from ours. The story, moreover, is often told in a
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON. 427
short and uncircumstantial manner, and there are allusions CHAT. XI.
to history and geography,, with which we are not fully
acquainted. Things may seem strange, and even absurd to
us which were quite familiar to the people of Judca. St.
Hilary did not deny the existence of a market in the temple,
but there is other evidence even better than this. In the
Babylonian Talmud it is said that forty days before the
temple was destroyed, the Great Council removed from the
place where they used to assemble in the inner court of the
temple and sat among the sliops. This place is frequently
mentioned as the place where goods were sold, and money
exchanged. It was in the outer court, or court of the
Gentiles. St. Augustine is quoted as saying that there
could be no great sin in buying and selling things in
the temple that were for the temple service. But it
is not this that Jesus condemned. It was the unjust
and unrighteous trade carried on there which He op
posed. The traders had made the temple a den of thieves.
It is not difficult to suppose that Jesus could expel the
buyers and sellers when we read that the people were on
His side, and the chief priests were afraid. Nor does it
matter much that the temple was soon to be destroyed. In
1728 the churchwardens of St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, got
an Act of Parliament to pull down that church ; but that
would not have justified its profanation, so long as it stood
for Divine worship. Woolston had expressed wonder that
the demoniacs of Gadara were among the tombs. Bishop
Pearce answered that it was not easy to give a reason for
the fancies of madmen. The Jews buried their dead in
caves in the mountains, wild desert places, just such as
would attract men of this kind. It cannot be said no care
was taken of them, for they were bound with fetters and
chains. Gadara was joined to Syria by Pompey. Augustus
gave it to Herod. It was again annexed to Syria. The in
habitants were partly Jews and partly Syrians. The pas
sage in St. Mark about the time of figs, as it stands in our
version, Pearce calls 'downright nonsense. ' The time was
about three days before the passover. It was not yet the The time of
time or season of figs, but there were early figs that might gs'
be gathered at the time of the passover. Josephus mentions
428 EELiaiOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. that at this season some Jewish robbers made an excursion
from the castle of Maisanda and carried off all the ripe fruits
belonging to the town of Engaddi. These early figs are
often mentioned by the prophets. In Hosea ix. 10, I saiv
your fathers as the first-ripe in the fig tree. Jeremiah xxiv.
2, speaks of a basket that had very good figs, even like the figs
that are first ripe. Isaiah xxviii, 4, calls it the liasty fruit
before the summer. It was not yet the time of gathering
the figs. The fig harvest had not yet arrived. On the
second day of unleavened bread, about six days after this,
the first fruits were solemnly offered in the temple, and
until that time the owners of the fig-trees were not allowed
to gather the fruit. It was not, then, in any way unreason
able that at this season Jesus should have expected figs on
his fig-tree. Tradition says that the marriage of Cana of
Galilee was the marriage of Cleophas and Mary, the sister
of Jesus's mother. Why should not Jesus have been pre
sent at His aunt's wedding ? ' These weddings/ Bishop
Pearce says, 'had not the indecencies witnessed at wed
dings amongst us. Well drunk does not mean that there
was excessive drinking. The Greek word pedvew signifies
primarily to drink after the sacrifice. The word is used in
the Septuagint, where it is said of Joseph's brethren that
they drank and were merry with him, which in the circum
stances could scarcely have meant drinking to excess. It is
again used in Haggai i. 6, when God says to the Jews, Ye
drink, but ye are not filled with drink, eWere KOI OVK et?
^07jv, where it is evident from the context that ifc does not
mean drunkenness/
'The Trial of < The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus/
nesses.' " ^y Bishop Sherlock, was another of the defences which came
out of the Woolston controversy. The discussion is primarily
on the nature of evidence. The subject of the resurrection
of Jesus is taken as the test. The general facts on which
both sides agree are, that Jesus declared Himself a prophet,
that He put the proof of His mission on this, — that He would
die openly and publicly rise again the third day. When He
found that He was to be put to death, He did not shrink
from the trial. He was not crucified by His disciples, but
by His enemies, the Romans and the Jews. As they were
ANSWERS TO WOOLSTON. 429
in good earnest about their work, it is not likely that they CHAP. XI,
would omit any caution to make sure of His being really
put to death. The question discussed is the resurrection.
The witnesses are described by the counsel for Woolston as :
— (1.) An angel, or angels, which appeared to the women.
They were like men, and therefore must be taken for men.
The women could not witness to the presence of angels if
they only saw men ; at the best, the evidence only amounts
to apparitions appearing to women. (2.) The women them
selves, what are they worth ? Poor silly women. (3.) The
two disciples who met him on the way to Emmaus. All the
time during which Pie conversed with them they did not
know Him. How, then, could they be eye-witnesses?
Their eyes were holden that they knew Him not. (4.) The
disciples among whom Jesus appeared. They are frightened,
taking Him for a spectre. He had already refused to let
Mary Magdalene touch Him, but now He invites the Apostles
to handle Him. What body did they examine ? The body
that came in when the doors were shut ? Is it credible that
God should raise a body bearing the very wounds of which
it died? There were more appearances, but the nations
that received the Gospel had not even this evidence. They
believed on the testimony of Apostles or an Apostle.
When nothing is asserted but what is probable, possible,
and according to the usual course of nature, a reasonable
degree of evidence ought to satisfy every man ; but when
the thing testified is contrary to the order of nature, no
testimony is sufficient to overturn the constant evidence
which nature gives of the unfailing regularity of her opera
tions.
To this the Christian advocate replies that, if the thing is Probability or
really impossible, it is unnecessary to ask more evidence.
Before we discuss the probability of miracles, we must first
settle the question as to the possibility of any miracle what
ever. The advocate asked Woolston's counsel if he could
mark out the limits of natural possibilities. All that we mean
by the course of nature is the course of nature, so ///• «« if
is known to us. Every man, from the humblest labourer to
the highest philosopher, forms to himself, from his own
experience and observation, a notion of the course of nature,
430 EELiaiOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. and is ready to say of everything beyond this observation,
that it is contrary to the course of nature. We know by
experience that all men die and do not rise again, and so we
conclude that it is contrary to the course of nature for a
man to rise again from the dead. But we only mean by
course of nature that uniform settled order of things which
is within the sphere of our observation. We have no right
to suppose that, beyond this, there are no real laws of nature
in accordance with which the dead may be raised. If we
reason on this supposition, our reasoning is without a foun
dation ; for our knowledge of nature is limited, and cannot
be made the measure of the infinitude which lies beyond. It
is not, then, a question of possibility but of probability, and
therefore testimony must have the weight which belongs to
it. There is positive evidence that, after the resurrection,
the body of Jesus was seen, felt, and handled by many
persons.
The resurrec- It may be difficult to explain why He said to Mary Mag-
tion of Jesus, dalene, Touch me not. Probably He only meant that she
would have many opportunities of doing so before Ho
ascended to His Father. It is said that He came in the
midst of the disciples when the doors were shut, but this
may only be that He came in unnoticed by them. It is not
intimated that the wounds in His side were uncured. They
were not fresh and bleeding. The expression ' print of the
nails ' implies only a scar. The Jews had no cause to com
plain. The sepulchre was in their keeping. If it was
necessary for Jesus to show himself to the chief priest, why
not to Tiberius ? And if these could not be convinced
without a personal appearance, there is the same necessity
for Christ appearing now in England. The fact rests on
testimony to us and to them. The authors of the Gospels
are particular in setting forth the evidence of the resurrec
tion. The Apostles were appointed witnesses of it. The
testimony of the men is surely not less to be believed
because women also were witnesses. The Apostles had the
power of working miracles given to them. Could they be in
doubt whether or not they possessed the power r They lived
miserably and died miserably, bearing witness to what they
had seen and known. The man who docs not deny the
THOMAS SHERLOCK. 43!
possibility of miracles, and yet does not believe the rcsurrec- CHAP. XT.
tion of Jesus, must reject all miracles whatever be the testi
mony in evidence of them.
It is not necessary to follow this controversy further. No
man was ever more thoroughly refuted than Thomas Wool-
ston. It seems a pity that such men as Pearce, Sherlock,
and Lardner should have been under the necessity of de
fending Christianity against one who, it is charitable to
suppose, was not really sane. It was a pity in many re- Character of
spects that the Deist controversy reached its climax in ami°^st(
madman. Woolston's mind was typical of the minds of a
large class which is fairly divided between believers and
unbelievers. They can only be Christians while they can
lean upon a book, a Church, primitive antiquity, or some
external authority. When this prop fails, they are unbe
lievers. So long as Woolston could believe in the Fathers,
he was a Christian. When he found it impossible to believe
Christianity on their authority, he was no more a believer.
He had no eye to see the everlasting harmonies. He had
no soul to feel that there is a Divine Christ in the miracles,
whatever else we may know about them. That spirit which
giveth life was more dead to him than the letter which he
despised. He wrote against the clergy ; perhaps they
deserved it. He wrote much against the Gospels, and ho
could have written much more of the same kind. It is easy
to raise a thousand plausible and ingenious objections to any
thing whatever, and as easy to make a thousand answers as
plausible and ingenious, while the thing itself remains where
it was.
Thomas Sherlock, author of ' The Trial of the Witnesses/ Thomas
Dean of Chichester, and finally Bishop of London, preached *"
the annual sermon in behalf of the c Society for the Propaga
tion of the Gospel ' in the year 1714. In that sermon he
said : ' The religion of the gospel is the true original religion
of reason and nature, and its precepts declarative of that
original religion, which was as old as the creation/ This
was a great commendation to the religion of the Gospel, and
if it really had its foundation in nature and reason, the
occasion on which Sherlock preached was a proper one for
mentioning so important a fact. But was it any gain for
432
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Matthew
Tindal.
At Oxford.
CHAP. XL the Gospel to be so rational ? And if its reasonableness was
that for which it was commendable, did it not follow that if
there was anything in it beyond or above nature and reason,
that part was less commendable, that is, less commendable
to reason than what was rational ? Was that which con
stituted the substance of the Gospel nothing more than the
religion of nature and reason ? What Sherlock meant is a
question into which we need not enter. Tindal understood
him to mean that the Gospel and the religion of reason were
identical, and to prove this proposition he wrote a book
which he called, in the words of Sherlock, ' Christianity as
Old as Creation/
Matthew Tindal was the son of a clergyman in Devon
shire. He was sent to Oxford as a youth, and entered at
Lincoln College. He afterwards obtained a fellowship at
All Souls, which he held to the end of his life. If we reckon
by the time of his appearing in the Deist controversy,
he was one of the last of the English Deists ; but he was
really an older man than either Toland, Collins, or Wool-
ston. In his seventieth year he published c Christianity as
Old as Creation/ but for many years he had been known as
a controversial writer, and had been long regarded as an
enemy of the Church and the clergy. TindaPs history is
brief and uneventful, as the history of a man whose life is
spent as a Fellow of a College must be, almost of necessity,
but it is not without its lessons. He came to Oxford about
the time of the Eestoration. His mind being, as he tells us,
in every way unfurnished, he readily fell in with the prevail
ing High- Church notions of the time. When the Roman
Catholic emissaries of James II. came to Oxford, he was
one of the first to conform to the Church of Koine, reason
ing that if High-Churchism had any solid foundation, sepa
ration from Rome could not be justified. Going out into
the world, or, as his biographer expresses it, ' by means of
free conversation with gentlemen in public coffee-houses in
London, he found the absurdities of Roman Catholicism to
be greater than he had imagined/ He re-examined the
constitution of the Church of England, and was convinced
that High-Churchism had no foundation there. ' High-
Churchmen/ he said, ' mean some other Church than the
MATTHEW TINDAL. 433
Church of England/ which, ' being established by Acts of (HAP. xi.
Parliament, is a perfect creature of the civil power/ As
Tindal returned to Protestantism about the time of the
abdication of James, his enemies did not fail to find a rea
son for the change, but his biographer maintains that his
re-conversion took place before that event.
The Church of England in TindaPs day was divided into High Church
two leading parties. These were called High Church and
Low Church. The former were the sincere defenders of the
divine right of Episcopacy that they have been since the
time of Laud. The latter consisted of the rational party,
which included almost all the great English theologians of
the last century. They are now called the Latitudinarians.
Against High-Churchism, Tindal wrote several books ; and
long before he appeared as a Deist, High- Churchmen had
consigned him to perdition. His old tutor, Dr. Hickes,
called him ' Spinoza revived/ and Dr. Evans, another Ox
ford divine, sent him to banquet with the devil, in company
with Hobbes, Spinoza, and Milton : —
' But above all the hot-brained atheist crew
That ever Greece or Rome or Britain knew,
Wave all their laurels and their palms to you.
Spinoza smiles and cries, the work is done.
Tindal shall finish (Satan's darling son) —
Tindal shall finish what Spinoza first begun.
Hobbes, Milton, Blount, Vanini with him join, —
All equally admire the vast design.'
The chief of TindaPs publications on the Church question ' The Rights
was a book called, ' The Eights of the Christian Church tfan'church"'
asserted against Romish and all other priests who claim an
independent power over it/ As a defence of the Erastian
constitution of the Church of England, and as a refutation
of the claims of Episcopacy, this was one of the ablest books
ever written on the subject. The author had the honour of
a presentment, along with the printer and publisher, by t lie
Grand Jury of Middlesex. The book was written against
and preached against by High Churchmen at home, and
commended for its learning and moderation by eminent
divines of the Reformed Churches abroad. Le Clerc, who
had a great respect for the Church of England, and was
partial to Episcopal government, made it the subject of a
VOL. IT. 2 F
434
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
' Christianity
as Old as
Creation.'
CHAP. XI. long review in his Bibliotheque Choisic. The Lower House
of Convocation — that judicious., circumspect, and always
orthodox body of men — discovered that ' Le Clerc had
been paid for commending TindaFs book, and that infidels
(Tindal and his friends) had procured abstracts and com
mendations of their profane writings, probably drawn up
by themselves, to be inserted in foregn journals, and that
they had translated them into the English tongue, and pub
lished them here at home, in order to add the greater weight
to their wicked opinions/
On the title-page of ' Christianity as Old as Creation '
Tindal put several quotations as mottoes, expressing the
scope of his argument. Some were from the New Testa
ment, one from Grotius, one from Eusebius, and one from
Samuel Clarke. After the passage mentioned from Bishop
Sherlock, the most pointed was a sentence out of the ' Re
tractations of St. Augustine' : — ' The thing which is now
called the Christian religion was also among the ancients,
nor was it wanting from the beginning of the human race,
until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true reli
gion which then was began to be called Christian/
The question was not raised whether Christianity be true
or false. The whole inquiry was in what sense Christianity
is true. Are we to believe it because of its internal evi
dence, its reasonableness, or because it is delivered to us on
authority? Tindal did not deny the truth of traditional
religion, but he held that tradition was too uncertain a
foundation for religion to rest on. The external evidence
of Christianity did not amount to a demonstration of its
truth, and so long as the question of evidence was at issue,
so long there was a question whether the essence of Chris
tianity consisted in that which carries its own reason with
it, or in that which depends merely on authority. The two
parties into which the Church of England was divided, had
already taken different sides on this question. The rational,
or Low Churchmen, ever since the days of Hobbes, had
been laying deep the foundations of natural religion. The
High Churchmen attached great importance to the holy rites,
and under the head of doctrines of the Gospel they rather
embraced the speculative dogmas of the Church than the
Does not de
pend on au
thority.
MATTHEW
435
moral teaching of Christianity. Whatever might be the value CHAT. XI.
of positive rites or speculative doctrines, Tindal reasoned
that they could not constitute the essence of Christianity,
because they were not a part of natural religion, which did
not, or rather could not, differ from revealed, except in the
manner of its being communicated. They are both, ho said,
revelations of the same unchangeable will of a Being who
is alike at all times infinitely good and wise. On the belief
that there is a God, this must be His character ; and if men
are responsible for their actions, they must have, to some
extent, the means of knowing what is the Divine will.
From the beginning all men must have had some law or
rule, by observing which they are acceptable to God. As
no external revelation could do more than make men ac
ceptable to God, the first natural, original, or internal law
must have been perfect, and in itself incapable either of
addition or diminution. The name Christianity may be of
later date, but the thing itself must be as old and as extensive
as human nature. It may be objected that all men have
not equal knowledge, and that though this law of nature
may be perfect in itself, all men have not the means of
knowing it perfectly. To this Tindal answers, that all men
have sufficient knowledge for the circumstances in which
they are placed. A sincere desire to know the Divine will
must always make men acceptable to God. He cannot re
quire more than that men should strive to the best of their But by a
ability to know what is right, and to follow it. We arc to rcaso'ni
reach this knowledge by means of the faculties by which we
are distinguished from the brutes. By these faculties we
know that there is a God, what are His laws, and that we
are to be accountable for them. Whatever He requires us
to believe and practise must be in itself a reasonable ser
vice. As the eye is given to see what is visible, and the
ear to hear what may be heard, so is reason given to know
the rational. Since God has bestowed upon all men
a knowledge of those things which arc hurtful to their
bodies, it is not to be supposed that He has had less regard
to their immortal souls. There is a clear and distinct light
in natural reason which enlightens all men. Let them but
attend to this light, and they shall perceive those eternal
2*2
436 EELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. truths which are the foundation of all knowledge. Arch
bishop Tillotson, Bishop Wilkins, and other writers of that
school had maintained as a certain truth that there must be
a law independent of the Scriptures,, and previous to all ex
ternal revelation ; that by this law all men shall be judged,
and therefore it must be everywhere so plain as that no one
can plead ignorance of it. Tindal takes it for granted that
there is sufficient evidence that Jesus was sent from God to
publish an external revelation, and he maintains that it is
greatly to advance the honour of this revelation to show
that it is in perfect agreement with the reason and the con
science.
The religion The religion of nature, he says, is plain. It arises out of
our relations to God and to each other. By considering
these relations, we learn our duty, which is the practical
part of religion. As God before creation was completely
happy in Himself, He could have no motive in framing His
creatures and giving them laws, but to promote their good.
It follows from this that nothing can be a part of the Divine
law which is not conducive to the common interest and
mutual happiness of all rational creatures. He has so con
nected our present actions with our future happiness, that
to sin against Him is to sin against ourselves. It is to act
contrary to our rational nature. Reason teaches us that we
are not to indulge our senses to the prejudice of either mind
or body ; that we are to moderate all our passions ; that as
we have a rational nature it must govern us. By obeying
it, we must be fulfilling the will of Him, who, by thus con
necting our happiness with reason, so plainly directs us to
what is His will. There is implanted in man a love for his
kind. The gratification of this leads to acts of benevolence,
compassion, and good-will. These produce a pleasure which
never satiates, while the contrary have for their natural
fruits shame, confusion, and everlasting reproach. In no
other way could God have more clearly revealed His will
than by making everything within us and without us a de
claration of it, and an argument for keeping it. In an
external revelation it is impossible to lay down rules appli
cable to every particular case that may arise. There
must be, on the supposition of our responsibility, some
MATTHEW TINDAL. 437
standing rule discernible by the eyes of reason. Kcligion ciIAl'. XI.
must in its essence be always and everywhere the sumc.
Being founded on our relations to God, and our duties to
each other, it must be immutable. One jot or tittle of this
eternal law can never be abrogated or changed.
To live up then to the dictates of our rational nature con- The rational
stitutes the only true and lasting well-being. We have only
one principle which can properly be called innate, and that
is the desire for happiness. God has given us reason to
discern what actions do or do not lead to this. Our nature
is most perfect when it is most rational. The felicity of
the Divine Being consists in His moral goodness. He fol
lows the infallible dictates of His own reason. In imitating
His purity and His rectitude we participate in His blessed
ness. We live the life of God. We become His children
by a new birth, and are made perfect as our heavenly Father
is perfect. It is our reason which constitutes the image of
God within us. It is the bond which unites earth and
heaven. Rational actions carry with them their own re
ward, and irrational their own punishment. There is no
virtue which has not some good inseparably annexed to it,
and no vice which does not necessarily carry with it some
evil. It is true that in this life we are subject to diseases
and disasters which often interfere with the natural results
of well-doing. Yet even in this life to follow the dictates
of right reason is to have an inward peace, and hereafter,
when freed from the present imperfection, the happiness of
rational, that is, of virtuous and righteous men, will be com
plete. It is not necessary to suppose that God, like a
human lawgiver, has recourse to rewards and punishments.
Good and evil having their foundations in the essential dif
ferences of things, joy, or suffering, follows as the natural
and necessary result of our deeds. God has spoken
plainly by the revelation in nature, which our reason can
understand. It is impossible that He can tell us our duty
by any book more plainly than He has done by natural rea
son. No book can give rules for every case that may arise
in the ever-varying circumstances of our lives. Even the
Gospel precepts cannot be followed according to the letter.
To find their proper meaning we must go back to what the
438
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI
Punishment
is for the
good of the
sinner.
Worship is
for our bene
fit, not for
God's.
law of nature antecedently teaches to be our duty. No com
mands can alter the nature of things, or make that fit which
in itself is unfit. External revelation must attend the
utterances of right reason. It can only speak what reason
speaks. If revelation required less than reason, it would
be imperfect. If it required more, it would be tyrannical.
The precepts of the Gospel, Dr. Barrow truly says, are no
other than such as a physician prescribes for the health of
our bodies, such as reason dictates. Tillotson says that
' all the precepts of Christianity are reasonable and wise,
requiring such duties as are suitable to the light of nature ;'
and St. Augustine says, ' He that knows how to love God,
and to regulate his life by that love, knows all that the
Scripture propounds to be known/
The penalties annexed to the Divine laws, Tindal main
tains, are for the good of mankind. They do good even to
those who suffer. God does not punish men for their sins
because He wants reparation. He cannot be injured, and,
therefore, He can never require satisfaction. We make
God in our own image when we think that He seeks wor
ship and honour for His own sake. We cannot be profit
able to God, nor is it any gain to Him that we are right
eous. To represent Him as revengeful and wrathful is to
clothe Him with human infirmity. If He could be made
angry by the conduct of such wretched mortals as we are,
He would never have a moment's peace ; but He loves even
when He punishes, for the object of punishment is not to
leave the creature in a state of sin, which is inevitably a
state of misery. With this view of punishment it is impos
sible that it can be never-ending, for endless punishment
could not bo for the good of the creature. Tillotson has
well expressed himself on this subject, where he says,
' There is none can do a greater evil than the good he has
done amounts to; and I think it next to madness to doubt
whether extreme and eternal misery be not a greater evil
than simple being is a good/
It is not, Tindal continues, for God's sake, but for ours that
He desires worship. This agrees with what we know of
the Divine nature. Prayer is properly a contemplation of
God's attributes — an acknowledgment of His great and
MATTHEW TINDAL.
439
constant goodness. It serves to keep up a sense of our CHAP. XI.
dependence on Him, and disposes us to imitate the perfec
tions which wo admire in Him. Le Clerc has said that
' nothing is more contrary to the nature of the Gospel than
commands which have no relation to the good of mankind.
Religion was revealed for us, and not for God/ Even the
Sabbath Day was not for God, but for man. Tindal spoke
of it as a great honour to the clergy of his time that they
tried to teach the people humane and benevolent principles.
Not long before, the only zeal which the people showed for
religion was to hate every one that the priest hated. The
end for which Christ came into the world was not to teach
men new duties, but to teach them to repent of the breach
of duties well known. There were the lost sheep, and those
that were not lost, the sick, and those who did not re
quire a physician. He came to save the lost, to heal the
sick. His remedy was repentance and amendment. They
that were whole had no need of repentance, but in every na
tion they that wrought righteousness were accepted of Him.
Natural and revealed religion having the same object, Natural and
their precepts must be the same. Natural religion being [fJionthcT"
perfect, what is revealed must be judged of by its agree- same in
rnent with natural religion. Whatever can be shown to
tend to the natural good of the creature must be a super
structure that belongs to the law of nature. It is objected
that the good of the creature and the honour of God may
sometimes interfere with each other. Tindal answers that
this is impossible. To glorify the Father is to let our light
shine before men. The Father is glorified when the dis
ciples of Jesus bear much fruit. We cannot love God and
hate our brother. This identity of the human and the
divine is one of the deepest lessons of cultivated reason.
Marcus Aurclius has beautifully said, ( Thou wilt never do
anything purely human in a right manner unless thou
knowest the relation it bears to things divine, nor anything
divine unless thou knowest all the ties it has to things
human/ Man gives gloly to God by following that reason,
which is God's light in his soul, and by fulfilling the duties
of this life he serves the end for which he was created.
Bishop Sherlock is quoted at length as showing the identity
essence.
440
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. of the religion of nature and external revelation. The
necessity of the latter arises from the ' ignorance and super
stition that had grown upon the world ,' and the religion of
the Gospel being ' the true original religion of reason and
nature, it has a claim to be received independent of those
miracles which were wrought in its confirmation/
The cause of all superstition and all the evil that men
have inflicted on each other in the name of religion is
through neglecting what reason dictates concerning God.
To prove this statement Tindal examines some of the prac
tices of the ancient religions. Among those to be con
demned he mentions circumcision. Had this been required
by nature it would have been required always. He sup
poses that Abraham adopted it from the Egyptians, with a
view to commend his posterity to their favour. It was not
till God sent Moses into Egypt that the Lord met him by
the way in the inn, and sought to Idll him for not circumcising
his son. Circumcision was not practised in the wilderness.
But when the Israelites were encamped at Gilgal then the
Lord said to Joshua, ' This day have I rolled away the re
proach of Egypt from off you/ The custom of offering
sacrifice is another evil enumerated among those that spring
out of superstition. The heathen nations imagined that
their deities were delighted with the butchering of animals,
and that the sweet smelling savour atoned for their crimes.
At first sacrifices were probably on religious festivities, or
the commemoration of some national benefit. As men be
came more wicked, and the power of superstition stronger,
they sacrificed beasts, and at length they offered human
victims. But, in spite of these instances, reason still had
its followers, who knew that God did not delight in the fat
of rams, and that the acceptable sacrifice was a broken
spirit and contrite heart. Ovid wrote —
' Nee bove mactato ccelestia numina gaudent,
Sod, qua) pnoetanda cst ct sine toste, fide.'
Tindal maintains that human sacrifices were sanctioned by
the Levitical law, that Abraham was commended for being
ready to offer up Isaac, and that Jephthah sacrificed his
daughter. For this reason Jephthah is reckoned among
Jewish heroes by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ;
Neglect of
reason the
cause of su
perstition.
MATTHEW TINDAL. 441
and Bishop Smalridge says ' that all the Fathers, us well as CHAR XI.
our own homilies, own that he sacrificed his daughter/
As God never acts arbitrarily or interferes unnecessarily, Divine laws
He leaves human discretion to determine what means are j*r°™r a
most conducive to those things which are in their own
nature obligatory. These means being changeable, in
order to suit the different circumstances of different people
and nations, they are not of God's appointment in the same
sense as are things eternal and immutable. It is not neces
sary that God should interpose with arbitrary commands.
Everything of this kind that has been introduced into
religion has been made a handle for human imposition. We
have ample evidence of this in the history of the two sacra
ments instituted by Jesus. What could be more simple
or more reasonable than these are ; and yet there are men
who think that to sprinkle an infant with water is to save it,
and to eat bread and drink wine is mysteriously to eat flesh
and drink blood. To substitute for spiritual religion meats
and drinks, washings and sprinklings of blood and water, is
that to which the superstitious mind is always prone. The
Pagans had their Taurobolia, in which they bedaubed a man
in a pit with the blood of a bull, which fell through the
holes of a plank on which the beast was slain. And this
was believed to wash away all his sins and to confer
baptismal regeneration. The priests are attached to cere
monies, and are generally the promoters of superstition ;
but there are always men of sense who follow reason.
Lactantius, a weak-brained Father of the Church, might
say, — 'Give us one that is unjust, foolish, and a sinner,
and in one instant he shall be just, prudent, and inno
cent ; with one laver all his wickedness shall be washed
away/ But Cicero, the Pagan philosopher, who was much
nearer the kingdom of God, said, — ' Animi labes nee diutur-
nitate evanescere, nee amnibus ullis elui potest/
Tindal argues that to make religion consist in merely Positive rc-
... . . , . , . i • , i ,i -ic ligion less
positive institutions is inconsistent both with the good of imp0rtant
mankind and the honour of God. The happiness of society than morality.
depends on the practice of morality. It is to be found that
the more the mind is taken up with these religious obser
vances which are not of a moral nature, the less it attends
442 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. to those which are. The Italian banditti are the most
scrupulous observers of the external ordinances of the
Church. In most places the substance of religion has been
destroyed to make room for superstition, immorality, and
persecution. There are even now in the best reformed
Churches people who persuade themselves that God is won
derfully concerned about small things, trifling opinions,
indifferent actions, the rites, modes, and appendages of
religion. It has been observed that in our dealings with
men we are seldom satisfied with the fullest assurance given
us of their zeal for religion. If we are told that a man is
religious, we still ask what are his morals. But if we hear
that a man has honest principles, we seldom care to ask
whether he be religious and devout. Tacitus observed in
Superstition his time that f men extremely liable to superstition are at the
of religion17 same time as violently averse to religion/ Tillotson says
that ' men are apt to take to pacifying God by some external
piece of religion, — such as were sacrifices among the Jews
and heathens. The Jews pitched upon those that were most
pompous and solemn, the richest and most costly. So that
they might but keep their sins, they were well content to
offer up anything else to God. They thought nothing too
good for Him, provided He would not oblige them to be
come better. As to the Church of Rome, they are the most
skilful people in the world to pacify God. Shall I go before
a crucifix to bow myself to it as the Most High God ? To
which of the saints or angels shall I go to mediate for me
and intercede on my behalf? Will the Lord be pleased
with thousands of Paternosters or Ave Maries ? Shall the
host travel in procession, or myself take a tedious pilgrim
age ? or shall I list myself a soldier for the Holy War ? Shall I
give my estate to a convent, or chastise and punish my
body for the sin of my soul ? ' The heathen priests made
the chief part of their religion to consist in gaudy shows
and pompous ceremonies. The Mahometans make a pil
grimage to Mecca the highest act of their religion. To
make void the moral law by vain tradition, and that under
pretence of serving the temple, is an old error of men who
sacrifice the substance of religion in clinging to the shadow.
' What vile things,' Tindal says, ' has not the abused
MATTHEW TINDAL. 443
name of the Church patronized? Nay, even in the best CHAT. xi.
constituted Church have we not lately heard mention of men oftcndestmc
fond of the name of High Church, whoso religion chiefly con- tivn of mo-
sisted in drinking for the Church, cursing, and swearing, ra
and lying for the Church, raising riots, tumults, and sedi
tion, in favour of a Popish Pretender, and all for the secu
rity of the Protestant Church of England ; or in believing
that those who go to places with steeples can never bo in
the wrong, and that those who go to places without tin m
can never bo in the right ? ' ' It is happy/ Tindal adds,
' for the laity that they can fall back upon reason and sense
and be independent of the traditional religion of the priests.
To uphold their traditional religions in that which they are
traditional, which is the positive or mutable parts, has been
the temptation in all ages to depart from rectitude of heart
and conduct. Daille says that the Holy Fathers in their
controversial writings did not think themselves obliged to
speak the truth, but that everything was lawful which served
to gain the victory. Scaliger says that the primitive Chris
tians put all things into their books which they thought
would help Christianity. St. Hilary says that since the Creeds and
Council of Nice we have done nothing but make creeds, — tut^fo/rc"-
we make creeds every year, yea, every moon. It is a just ligion.
remark of Uriel Acosta, "that when men depart ever so
little from natural religion, it is the occasion of great strifes
and divisions ; but if they recede much from it, who can de
clare the calamities which ensue ? " The heroes of old,
instructed by the philosophers, learnt to look on the in
trinsic loveliness of virtue, and the utter deformity of vice.
They were taught in their actions to be guided by the com
mon good. But now the good of the Church is set up in
opposition to the common good. It has even been main
tained that vice is lovely, and virtue unlovely, — that barring
the consequence of a future state, they would act like fools
who did not indulge themselves in a vicious course. Bishop
Atterbury in a sermon has endeavoured to prove that in
this life the virtuous man is most miserable. There are two
ways which never fail to make superstition prevail — mys
teries to amuse the enthusiasts, especially the pretenders to
deep learning, and all that admire what they do not under-
444 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. stand ; and gaudy shows and pompous ceremonies to be
witch the vulgar/
The Church of Rome, Tindal says, has made the most of
these, and by them has weakened the force of Christianity
in the hearts and lives of men. The Quakers arc most averse
to ceremony, and among them religion seems to have made
the deepest impression. To magnify revelation some men
weaken the force of the religion of reason and nature. But
this is to strike at the root of all religion. For the govern
ment of human actions there cannot be two independent
rules. It may be objected that reason is fallible, and revela-
Ecason in- tion infallible. To this the answer is, that whatever is true
by reason can never be false by revelation. To suppose any
thing in revelation inconsistent with reason, is to destroy all
rational proof for the truth of religion. If our reasoning
faculties, duly attended to, deceive us, we have no certainty
for anything, but can only float on a shoreless sea of scepti
cism. To weaken the force of reason in order to magnify
tradition, is to sap the foundation in order to support the
superstructure. So long as reason is against men, they will
be against reason. We see men trying to reason people out
of their reason, which is a demonstration that we really have
nothing to trust to in the end but reason as the final judge
or arbiter. It is the highest commendation that we can give
to religion, to say that it is a reasonable service. There are
self-evident notions, which are the foundation of all our
reasonings. Without these there could be no intellectual
communication between God and man. As we are consti
tuted, God cannot assure us of any truth but by showing its
agreement with these self-evident notions. Revelation in
any other way than by the light of nature, can only come
under the head of probability ; and the probability of facts
depending on human testimony, must gradually lessen in
proportion to the distance of time when they were done.
By reason we rpj^ internai excellency of the Scriptures is the main proof
Scriptures of their coming from God. ' For my part/ says Chilling-
come from W0rth, ' I profess if the doctrine of the Scripture was not as
good and as fit to come from God, the fountain of goodness,
as the miracles by which it was confirmed were great, I
should want one main pillar of my faith ; and for want of it,
MATTHEW TINDAL. 445
I fear, should be much staggered in it.' We cannot be CHAP. XI.
governed both by reason and authority. The one must bend
to the other. ' It is/ Tindalj says, fan odd jumble to prove
the truth of a book by the truth of the doctrine it contains,
and at the same time conclude these doctrines to be true be
cause contained in that book/ We can have no fuller evi
dence of the sovereignty of reason than this, that when there
is anything in a traditional religion which cannot be defended
by reason, we have recourse to any method of interpretation,
however forced, to make it appear reasonable.
We can only judge of a religion by its internal marks or
by miracles wrought in evidence of its truth. But miracles
may be false miracles as well as true, and they may be per
formed by evil beings as well as by good. It was a pro
verbial saying among the philosophers of Greece, that
' miracles are for fools, and reason for wise men/ The
Boeotians were remarkable for their stupidity and the num
ber of their oracles. In the Christian world, ignorance and
the belief of daily miracles go hand in hand. Scripture Tho Scrip-
e very where asks for examination. It calls reason fthe in- JurcsaPPeal
^ to rcnsorij
spiration of the Almighty/ Isaiah represents God as invit
ing the people of Israel to come and reason with Him. Job
says, ' I desire to reason with God/ St. Paul ' reasoned ' in
the synagogue; 'reasoned with the Jews out of the Scrip
ture/ ( reasoned (before Felix) of righteousness, temper
ance, and judgment to come/ Had men kept to reason,
there would never have been any occasion for external reve
lation; and its great use now is, to lead men to observe
those laws which make for their happiness both in the pre
sent life and in that which is to come. Tindal never denies
the necessity of an external revelation. He admits the
deplorable condition of the heathen world, but he does not
admit that they are without the means of recovery. They
have the same eternal law of reason which Christians have.
Let them follow it, and they will be saved. It is objected
that reason could never make known to us that there are
three persons in the Godhead. Tindal answers that he does
not profess to understand the 'orthodox paradoxes/ He
will only say that he does not disbelieve them. He cannot
have any faith which does not bear the test of reason. A
446
KELIG10US THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
And can be
tested by
reason.
CHAP. XI. book cannot be a guide to override reason. If it is figura
tive, or difficult to understand, so far it requires reason to
interpret it. Athanasius says of the Bible, that if we under
stand a great part of it literally, we shall fall into the
most enormous blasphemies. St. Gregory says, ' The Scrip
tures are not only dead, but deadly, for it is written, the
letter killeth.' To lay stress on reason is not to set aside
revelation, but rather, if the revelation be reasonable, to
establish it. Whichcot does justice to external revelation.
He says, ' The Scripture way of dealing with men in matters
of religion is always by evidence of reason and argument/
He adds, Tindal says very judiciously, ' I reckon that
which has not reason in it, or for it, is man's superstition,
and not religion of God's making/ Bishop Hoadly calls
authority the greatest and most irreconcilable enemy to truth
and argument that the world ever furnished. ' It was autho
rity/ the Bishop says, ' which hindered the voice of the Son
of God Himself from being heard, and which alone stood in
opposition to His powerful arguments and His divine doc
trine/ As to some things being above reason, Tindal an
swered nearly in the words of Collins, that if he does not
understand the terms of a proposition — if they are inconsis
tent with each other, or so uncertain that he does not know
what meaning to fix upon them, — there is nothing told, and
consequently no room for belief.
There must be, Tindal declares, in the multitude of man
kind, ability to distinguish between religion and superstition.
If not, men can never extricate themselves from the errors
Internal evi- in which they were born. External proofs are beyond the
multitude. They will never be convinced of the true religion
but by its internal evidence. There are many things in the
historical parts of the Scripture which cannot be literally
true, and, consequently, the truth of religion cannot depend
upon them. The common people must judge of the truth of
Scripture by its internal marks, for they have not the capacity
to enter into the innumerable disputes that require time and
learning. God is sometimes represented as falsifying, not only
His word, but His oath. The Old Testament prophecies are
very difficult of interpretation, and some in the New Testa
ment were never fulfilled, proving that those who uttered
MATTHEW TINDAL. 447
tliom were in error. The only reasonable course left is to Cll.\r. xi.
take all for Divine Scripture which tends to the honour of
God and the good of man. And this was really what St.
Paul did, as Grotius rightly interprets the passage, that no
Scripture is divinely inspired unless profitable for doctrine,,
reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. A
natural revelation is direct from God; a traditional is one
which we have on testimony. When they are different, and
we follow the traditional, to the neglect of the rational, we
are like that prophet in the Book of Kings, who was per
suaded by an old prophet to disobey the voice of the Lord,
and for his disobedience was slain by a lion, which met him
in the way, as he departed from Bethel.
In the last chapter of ' Christianity as Old as Creation/ Tindal and
Tindal opposed some of the propositions laid down by Samuel i
Clarke in his Boyle Lectures on the ' Truth and Certainty of
the Christian Heligion/ As Clarke was one of the divines
who laid the foundations of religion and morality in the un
changeable relations of reason and the natural fitness of
things, it is here that we come nearest to a correct under
standing of Tindal's views of Christianity. On the excel
lency of natural religion Clarke had spoken as decidedly as
Tindal had done. He pronounced the law of nature a per
fect law, and he said almost in the words of Cudworth, that
( the eternal and unchangeable nature and reason of things
themselves are the laws of God, not only to His creatures,
but also to Himself, as being the rule of His own actions in
the government of the world/ And this unchangeable law
must always be the will and command of God to all His
rational creation. Bishop Cumberland, in a passage quoted
by Clarke, calls it ' that law of nature to which the reason of
all men everywhere as naturally and necessarily assents, as
all animals conspire in the pulse and motion of their hearts
and arteries, or as all men agree in their judgment concern
ing the whiteness of snow or the brightness of the sun/
After drawing out a consistent scheme of natural religion,
Clarke says, ' now that Christianity has corne, what was once Deism a con-
a consistent scheme of Deism is so no longer/ Tindal *$*£ **™
answers, that if it was a consistent scheme once, it cannot tianity.
bo made inconsistent by revelation. Either it is the same as
448 KELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. revelation, and in that case it stands, or it is different from
revelation, and then it must stand, for the certainty of natural
religion is greater than that of any external revelation can
be. If the doctrines of reason are as evidently the will of
God as that the sun is bright, it is impossible for the Deists
to believe on the less evidence when they have the greater.
Faith is here swallowed up in knowledge, and probability is
lost in certainty. It is not likely that Clarke would have
objected to what Tindal says of the certainty of natural reli
gion, and he might have admitted its advantage in this re
spect over an external revelation ; but when Clarke said that
there was not now a consistent scheme of Deism, he did not
mean precisely what Tindal understood him to mean. The
argument, as propounded in his first discourse, is that Chris
tianity so accords with reason, that whoever believes in
natural religion must also receive the Gospel. It was the
argument of Lactantius to the Pagan philosophers, that if
they continued to follow reason and philosophy, they must
become Christians. There was 110 alternative but absolute
Atheism, for the same difficulties and objections that are in
the way of believing the doctrines of the Gospel, lie equally
against the doctrines of Deism.
So far Tindal and Clarke, if the terms had been properly
defined, would probably have agreed ; but after Clarke has
said that some doctrines are in their own nature necessarily
and demoiistrably true, and others necessarily false, he adds,
' that other doctrines are in their own nature indifferent or
possible, or perhaps probable to be true, and these could not
have been known to be positively true but by the evidence
Yet insuffi- of miracles which prove them to be certain.'' Here Tindal
cient. objects that as God never acts arbitrarily, on Clarke's own
principles, there can be no doctrines indifferent. Every one
of the doctrines of the Christian religion, Clarke says, has
a { natural tendency, and a direct powerful influence to reform
men's lives, and correct their manners/ and he pronounces
it a great and fatal mistake to think that any doctrine or
any belief whatever can be any otherwise of any benefit to
man than as it is fitted to promote this end. Some of the
doctrines of Jesus were possibly or very probably true, yet
we could not be assured of them without a revelation con-
ANSWERS TO TTNDAL.
449
firmed by miracles. Tindal objects that to distinguish be- CHAP. XI.
twecii the moral part of Christianity and that which tends to
promote the honour of God and the practice of righteousness,
is to make a distinction without a difference, and he endea
vours to show that, to make room for external revelation,
Clarke contradicts what ho has already said of the certainty of
natural religion. In the original uncorruptcd state of human
nature, right reason, Clarke says, was a sufficient guide ;
but after mankind had fallen, they required supernatural
assistance. He expresses this strongly, saying that a divine
revelation was absolutely necessary for the recovery of man
kind. Tindal takes this to mean that without an external re
velation men were under an absolute impossibility of recovery
from the universal corruption and degeneracy into which
they had fallen. If this be the right interpretation, it is to
suppose that for 4000 years God left men without the means
of knowing their duty, and yet expected them to do it. If
the light of revelation did not come till a late age in the
world, and it commanded things not commanded by the light
of nature, we must conclude that until that time it was not
necessary for God to command them, nor expected of men
to do them. Yet Clarke, according to Tindal, makes the
light of nature and right reason altogether insufficient to
restore true piety, laying the fault not in man, but in the
light of nature, which at one time, he says, ' nowhere ap
peared/ and at another time that it ' has undeniable defects
in it/ In another place Clarke says, ( Even those few extra- Perplexity of
ordinary men of the philosophers who did sincerely endea- wjjjj.
vour to reform mankind, were themselves entirely ignorant
of some doctrines absolutely necessary for bringing about
the great end of the reformation and recovery of mankind/
The whole attempt to discover the truth of things, and to
instruct others therein, was like ' wandering in the wide
sea, without knowing whither to go, or which way to take,
or having any guide to conduct them/ Tindal supposes this
to mean that the heathen were left without the means of
being saved, and pronounces Dr. Clarke's scheme as less
merciful than that of the Predestinarians. In all ages the
Predestinariaii believed there were some elect, but here men
are inextricably involved in depravity, corruption, and im-
VOL. II. 2 G
45°
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
Uncertainty
oven under
the gospel.
CHAr. XT. piety. Against this conclusion Tindal urges that the Pagan
world was under 110 necessity of being in such darkness and
ignorance, for that which may be known of God was manifest
enough in all ages. No age indeed could know more of
God than was knowable, but all men have had sufficient light
to teach them their duty,, and by that light shall be rewarded
or condemned. They who followed the corruptions of the
heathen world did not do it in perfect ignorance. They
knew the judgment of God, that they wlio did such things arc
worthy of death. God has given every man a plain rule for
his conduct. An ignorant man may not know so much as
the learned Rector of St. James's, yet he may know what is
sufficient for him. Clarke says that the philosophers were
ignorant of the whole scheme, order, and state of things.
Tindal answers that we are in the same ignorance still. The
things to which Clarke referred were the Bible accounts of
o
the fall of man and the scheme of restoration by means of a
Eedeemer. Tindal replies that the philosophers would
scarcely have been satisfied with the stories of Adam and
Eve, the serpent tempting them, and the Lord God walking
in the garden in the cool of the evening ; and as to knowing
how to be restored to God's favour, Tindal answered with
Locke, that all men know this was to be done by repentance
and amendment.
The arguments of ' Christianity as Old as Creation5 were
really directed against Tindal's former friends, the High
Churchmen. Ho calls himself a Christian Theist, and no
where denies the supernatural character of external revela
tion. His adversaries attributed to him many indirect
designs against religion, but the only ostensible and really
tangible object of his book was to show that the essence of
Christianity did not consist in any positive institutions or
precepts. Whether or not there were any positive institu
tions of Divine appointment was a further question; but
the multitude of ecclesiastical precepts, and the ceremonies
which constituted the religion of most Christians, ho
declared to have no authority. They were the inventions of
the clergy, and tended only to keep the people in supersti
tion. Christianity is a reasonable service — the religion of a
sound mind.
Tindal calls
himself a
Christian
Theist.
ANSWERS TO TINDAL.
451
TindaPs opponents wore very numerous, and, what is very CHAP. XI.
remarkable, the ablest of them were of the rational or lati-
tudinarian school. Scarcely one High Churchman appeared
against him. Dr. Stebbing wrote a defence of Clarke's Dr. Stebbing
evidences. He reasoned keenly, but he was not above a!;jim'st Tm~
unworthy insinuations as to TintlaPs ulterior object. When
Tindal praised Clarke's lectures, Stebbing said it was only
an artifice, meaning that Christianity was not capable of
defence. He would confine himself to that part of the
argument which concerned the use and advantages of the
Gospel revelation. He maintained that Clarke had followed
the Apostles in laying the foundation of Christianity in
natural religion, which is binding on the consciences of all
men antecedent to any revelation. St. Paul referred to the
law of nature when ho said that the grace of God, which
bringcth salvation, appeared unto all men. Wo are to
regard the Gospel as a remedy for our apostasy. It is no
disparagement to the Gospel, Stebbing said, to consider it
as an instrument to restore natural religion; and Tindal ad
mitted that it was 110 disparagement to natural religion that
the Gospel supports it, but the Gospel offers a remedy which
was not offered in natural religion. The main question at
issue between Clarke and Tindal is to reconcile what Clarko
says of the perfection of the law of nature with the defects
he ascribes to it. Stebbing was to prove that revelation was
indeed necessary. It is not evident that Tindal denied this
in the sense in which Stebbing uses the word necessary.
Stebbing's explanation of Clarko is that he reasoned of the
necessity of revelation from the actual condition of mankind.
Tindal ridiculed the Bible account of the fall, but he did
not deny that men were in great ignorance, and that any
means of instructing them how to rise out of it were useful,
desirable, and so necessary. Ho admitted, too, that the
Gospel, being a reasonable religion, was well fitted for this
object. Stebbing denies that Clarke laid the fault on the lie explains
law, and not on mankind. He admitted right reason to be
a sufficient guide before the mind of man was depraved ;
but it is not now sufficient for the bulk of mankind, because
of the force of corruption, though, even in spite of this
corruption, some few in all ages have discovered plain
452
BELIGTOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. duties. Stabbing goes on to show tliat Clarke and Tindal
do not differ on this subject, — that Clarke's account of the
light of nature is that it is clear and strong, but not irre
sistible, and that Tindal says tho same thing. No rational
creature can be ignorant of natural religion who attends to tho
dictates of his own mind. Stebbing denies that Clarke ever
said the heathen were invincibly ignorant. His position is,
that the general wickedness and darkness of men were so
great that they needed farther instruction. Clarke's views
are explained in a passage which he quotes from Cicero,
' as in physic, it matters nothing whether a disease be such
as that no man does, or no man can recover from it ; so in the
present case there is no difference, whether men cannot
reform themselves, or whether they will not.3 With the
adroitness of a controversialist Stebbing turns on TindaPs
doctrine of sincerity, and charges him with making it equi
valent to keeping the moral law, thus advancing tho grossest
Pagan errors to an equality with Christian faith and morality,
and making a state of ignorance as good as a state of know
ledge — a consequence which certainly was not in any way
implied by what Tindal said.
Clarke spoke of some doctrines unknown to the philoso
phers as absolutely necessary for the recovery of mankind.
Tindal answered that these must either be doctrines of
natural religion, or that they were not absolutely necessary
for the recovery of mankind. Stebbing says that these
doctrines were (1) the manner in which God might be ac
ceptably worshipped, and (2) the method by which such
as have erred from the right way and have offended God
may yet again restore themselves to His favour. Hero
the objection is plainly against the light of nature. It is
not a sufficient guide for man in his present ignorance :md
corruption. But these doctrines concern man as a fallen
being. They reveal a way of recovery. Difficulties arise
which the original law is not able to explain. Kevelation
is an explanation of them. Doctrines, which had no re
lation to man as an innocent being, may be important to
him as a sinner. They maybe said to be beyond or outside
of the law of nature, yet their tendency was not to mend or
perfect the original law, but to influence Ihe behaviour of
Doctrines
necessary to
salvation.
ANSWERS TO TINDAL. 453
men for good, and to bring thorn back to the duties of CHAP. XI.
natural religion. Clod has promised forgiveness on condi
tion of repentance, and He has told us to perform acts of
worship, the effect of which is to confirm faith, and be helps
to virtue. This is Stebbiug's explanation of the doctrines
revealed in the Gospel.
The controversy becomes finally a question of what Chris- What is
tianity is. Is it, as Tindal says, co-extensive with natural re- Christianity ?
ligion, neither more nor less ; or does it, as Sherlock, Clarke,
and Stcbbing maintain, include doctrines peculiar to itself,
which, though not different from the principles of reason
and nature — that is, do not really contradict them — yet are
distinct from them ? Sherlock said, in explanation of the
very words on which Tindal fastened, that there wore some
institutions in the Gospel which in their own nature are no
constituent parts of religion. Their object is to confirm
and strengthen our hope in God, but not to supply the
defects of natural religion. The positive institutions of
Christianity are only instruments, but not, 011 that account,
Stebbing says, to be called arbitrary commands. There are
Christian institutions which, if Christianity were taken
away, would have no meaning, — such, for instance, as the
commemoration of the Last Supper. The same is true of
what are called the speculative truths of the Gospel, such as
the doctrine of reconciliation. It is true also of some prac
tices which arise out of certain doctrines which show us
duties that would not have been duties if the Gospel had not
commanded them. They are not indifferent doctrines as
regards use, but they are without natural obligation. The
one tangible doctrine which must be made the test of tho
controversy is that which concerns the method of tho
Divine forgiveness. Tindal concluded that as the Pagan
world placed it in repentance and amendment, they were
not ignorant of the way of salvation. Stebbing goes into a
long argument to prove that we cannot conclude on the
mere ground of the Divine goodness that God will forgive
sin. He disputed the truth of the statement of Locke, that
God, who is rich in mercy, will forgive His frail offspring if
they acknowledge their faults, and strive to conform their
actions to the law of nature. Stebbing says there may be a
454 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. scheme or order of things of which we arc not competent
judges. In this order it may be a necessity that justice
require satisfaction, and that goodness be directed by wis
dom. On this supposition a scheme of reconciliation must
be revealed. Tindal argues that if the knowledge of this
scheme is absolutely necessary to salvation, then it ought to
be made known to all men. Stebbing answers that perhaps
the reason for the want of universality cannot be given.
Revelation, being an act of mercy, not of justice, God is at
liberty to give it to whom He will. This, however, Tindal
never denied, except on the understanding that these re
vealed doctrines were absolutely necessary to salvation. In
that case the man who never had the means of recovery
would have a right to complain not only of the want of Di
vine mercy but also of Divine justice.
John Balg-uy Another writer of the rational school who replied to
.'13 ' Tindal was Balguy. He had already written against Sliaftcs-
bury in ' A Letter to a Deist/ He now writes against
Tindal, ' A Second Letter to a Deist/ He says the book
should have been called — Christianity Older than the Crea
tion ; or, rather, ' Christianity Before all Ages/ The two
main pillars of TindaPs scheme he finds to be, (1) That the
law of nature is perfect and unchangeable ; (2) That all
men arc naturally capable of discovering it. The inference
he supposes to be made is, that the Gospel is needless, and
all revelation superfluous. The second is not a very accu
rate expression of Tmdar's doctrine, and the inference is
Balguy's, not Tindal's. It is agreed that as man is in
ignorance he requires instruction. Temperance and exer
cise constitute a good rule of health : but it does not follow
that physic and the physicians are useless. The light of
nature might give men hopes that repentance would produce
some good effect ; but what this effect might be was beyond
the power of men to describe. They wanted deliverance
from the penalty as well as from the power of sin. Moral
and Divine truths are discoverable by our unassisted facul
ties, as the lights of heaven are seen by the naked eye.
The Gospel, like the telescope, brings them nearer. To
TindaVs question, if God had not enabled all mankind, even
those who never heard of the Gospel, to obtain as much light
ANSWERS TO TINDAL.
455
and knowledge as arc sufficient to tlio discharge of their CHAT. XI.
duty, Balguy answers decidedly,, without a scruple or hesi
tation, in the affirmative. It cannot possibly, ho says, be
any man's duty to do what is not in his power to kin>v.
Whoever improves his knowledge as much as he can, and
practises accordingly, is sure to discharge his duty. In
this sense and in this respect no one wants light. Balguy
renounces what he calls the absurd doctrine of hereditary
guilt ; but he acknowledges the actual fact of human cor
ruption, and this in connection with original guilt. What
ever, he says, wounds or weakens the root, must naturally
hurt the branches. The light, however, was not extin
guished. The chief lines of duty remain visible to all men
unless they wilfully shut their eyes. Still the light of reason
is not sufficient to bring men to that standard of duty
which belongs to their nature, and that state of perfection
of which they are capable. But even if it were, revelation,
though less needful and less expedient, would still not be
useless. And this, according to Balguy, is all for which
Clarke contended, — that the generality of men stood in need
of more light and better instruction. Clarke never even by
inference complained of the want of perfection in the light
of nature. He was too wise to charge God foolishly.
During the four thousand years that preceded the incarna
tion, the world, ho said, had the benefits of the Gospel,
though ignorant of the name. It is no objection against
the light of nature that so many were in darkness, any more
than it is against the Gospel that so many arc still unen
lightened by it. Clarke regarded all virtuous men in all
ages as among God's elect, and not, as Tindal supposed he
did, in a state of perdition because they were without
external revelation.
Christianity, Balguy says, neither abrogates nor discoun- And main
tenances the least tittle of the law of nature ; 011 the con- ^—nexA
trary, it sets the whole in the clearest light, and earnestly Christianity
J } °. _ . rnu with natural
recommends and inculcates the observation ol it. J-&6
Christian has many advantages over the Pagan. On the
supposition that Tindal questioned the right of the Divine
Being to give to some men greater favours than He gives
to others, Balguy reasons that this is perfectly within flu'
456 IIELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XL province of the Divine Will. Christiana may have positive
sis well as natural advantages in the life to coino over the
heathen. There are many mansions in our Father's house,
and in these many ranks and degrees may be as fitting as
they are on earth. Such distinctions may contribute to the
order and perfection of the heavenly state. The body of
faithful believers may be distinguished by a regard to
their meritorious Head. Balguy objects to TindaFs defini
tions both of Deism and Christianity. They do not, he
says, consist in being governed by moral fitness. This is
moral virtue, and may be the guide of an Atheist as well as
of a Deist or a Christian. Deism is, to be governed by the
obligations of natural religion, and natural religion consists
in obedience to the will of God as made known by the light
of nature and reason. Christianity is obedience to the same
will as made known in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Ke-
ligion obliges men to do actions, not because of moral fit
ness, but because they are commanded. The primary idea
of religion is obedience to the will of God.
Conybearo Dr. John Conybeare, Eector of Exeter College, in Ox-
Tindal, ° ford, and afterwards Bishop of Bristol, wrote ' A Defence
of Revealed Religion against the Exceptions of a late Writer
in his Book entitled " Christianity as Old as Creation. "
This work was dedicated to Edmund, Bishop of London,
who had also written against the Deists. Conybeare con
trasted the spirit of the Bishop's writings with those of the
Deists, pronouncing the latter ' remarkable for an entire
contempt of decency/ Tindal's great design, he said, was
to prove that there neither hath been, nor can possibly be,
any revelation at all ; and that the main principle on which
he builds is, that the light of common reason is sufficient
without it. According to Conybeare, Tindal concludes
that all information this way must be entirely superfluous
and unworthy of God, because useless and unprofitable to
man. There is a distinction to bo noticed between doc
trines and precepts or duties. They arc both, Conybeare
says, to be included under religion ; for, though distinct,
they are connected, many of the duties arising from, belief
of the doctrines. Another distinction is to be made in what
is meant by religion of nature. It may either be what is
AKSWEUS TO T1JSDAL. 457
founded in tho reason and nature of things, or il may lie rilAl'. XI.
what is discernible by our faculties. In the former case, it
is such a collection of moral doctrines and precepts as have
a rational foundation ; in the latter, only such a collection
as wo have Itc-sn able to discover by the exercise of our facul
ties according to the means and opportunities we enjoy.
Coiiybearc says that Tindal was not ignorant of this dis
tinction,, but that he confounds it in his argument. Natural
religion is to us only that which may be known by our reason.
There arc perfections belonging to God of which we have
not complete or adequate ideas. Supposing it demon
strable that God is just and good, yet there may be occa
sions of which we are not judges in what way His justice
and goodness are to be exercised. Again, there may be And shmvs
distinctions in the Divine nature analogous to personal dis- QfCr"vcktion
tinctions among men. If so, each person may have different
offices, and a different relation to mankind, so that there will
be something in the Divine nature not discernible by human
reason. This is what the Christian religion teaches. In
consequence of this, there are things required in Christianity
which our faculties could not have discovered by the light
of reason.
Conybeare notices that Tindal sometimes speaks of the law Make,, law i<>
of nature as the will of God, and at other times as the moral !^ii !!r (*iod. '
fitness of things. This was done by all the great writers
on morals of that age, but Conybeare objects to speak of any
obligation as antecedent to the will of God, and especially
of God Himself as the subject of obligation. Tho notion of
law, he argues, refers to some superior, as the author of
law. It is only in the light of a command from God that
it is either a law or a religion. Though expressing his dis
sent from both Clarke and Tindal on this subject, Cony
beare guards his remark with a declaration of his faith in
the truth and certainty of the religion of nature. Inferring
to his former definition of the law of nature as embracing
only what is discoverable by our faculties, Couybeaiv says
that it will be in vain to reply that all men Lave means of
knowledge sufficient for the circunistamvs in which they
are placed. Yet he admits that if Tindal only means that
a just and merciful God will judge men according to the
458 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. opportunities they liavc had, in this sense every man has suf
ficient means of knowledge. But this, he maintained, was
not the question at issue. The question, in Conybeare's
judgment, was whether every man is capable of knowing
all things that are of real moment to him, and ho proceeds
to show that, though in all ages men have hoped that a
good and merciful God will forgive, yet hope is not cer
tainty. We cannot conclude by mere human reason that
pardon will certainly follow on repentance ; there may be
something in the constitution of things to us unknown
which possibly may not admit of absolute pardon. But
when God declares that pardon is offered in view of some
thing accepted by Him as a satisfaction, then the point is
clear. As the law of reason and nature can reach no fur
ther than human reason can carry us, this law or religion,
Conybeare argues, must so far fail, and therefore it is not,
as Tindal contends, absolutely perfect.
As to things indifferent, it is maintained that God may
enjoin such, though neither relating to what is moral or na
tural — that is, having no direct reason in themselves. Such
was the command to Naaman to wash seven times in Jor-
Wluit God dan. For God to act from mere will or pleasure is not to
bcTarbiSarv. ac^ arbitrarily. He does not thereby violate moral rules.
There arc things which He must do out of mere will, such
as creating the world at a certain time. There are things
in religion which are fit and proper for the occasion, such
as the institution of the Last Supper. Positive precepts
may be useful for a trial of our faith, patience, and obe
dience. It is, however, admitted that it is to positive pre
cepts that superstition invariably clings. There is a natural
tendency in the multitude of men to consider things merely
positive as in themselves excellent, and in their own nature
moral. The popular mind mistakes means for ends, and
often takes mere human rites as of divine institution, and
invariably gives them too much importance, whether divine
or human. This was substantially what Tindal said; but
Conybeare, like all Tindal's adversaries, thought he meant
more than he said. His real sentiments, Conybeare says,
are, that there is no such thing as revealed religion, and
that Christianity in particular is a gross imposture; that,
ANSWERS TO TINDAL. 459
on the one hand, there is 110 occasion for a revelation; and, CHAP. XI
on the other, there is no sufficient proof that such a revela
tion has ever been made at all. Conybearc returns, towards
the end, to his favourite distinction between the will of God
and the nature of things, and declares that for his life he
cannot see how the performance of what is right, without
considering it as the will of God, can be obedience to God.
He objects to the word revelation being applied to that
knowledge which we have by reason. As well, he says,
may we speak of mathematical or natural philosophy as a
revelation. He maintains that only that is revealed which
we have on the authority of a revealer. We may not know
it, for it may not come under the cognizance of our self-
evident notions, as Tindal called them, but we may have
assurance of it. The proofs of revelation, he admits, may
be only probabilities, but it is by probabilities that we are
guided in life. Morality itself, though demonstrable, can only
be reasoned out by a very few. The greater part of man
kind must believe in morality 011 evidence which is only pro
bable. And to TindaPs three objections that Christianity was
not made known before the time of Tiberius, that it was not
given all at once, and that it was not made to all persons,
Conybearc answers that objections of the same kind, and
as difficult to be answered, may be brought against natural
religion.
Dr. John Leland, the indefatigable opponent of the whole Dr. L.l-m.1
generation of the Deists, wrote 'An answer to a book
entitled Christianity as Old as Creation.' Leland under
took to prove that Tindal's scheme is inconsistent with rea
son and with itself, and that it was injurious to the interests
of virtue and the good of mankind. By Christianity, he
says, Tindal did not mean what any one else means, the
whole of that revelation published by Christ and His Apos
tles, but simply what is called the religion of nature. His
chief objections — those which formed the largest scope for
declamation— are such as lie not so much against Scripture
or external revelation as against Providence, and are there
fore the same difficulties for which the Deist has to account
in his scheme as those which meet the believer in revela
tion. Leland, like all Tindal's adversaries, found that
460 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. though lie pretended to believe Lotli internal and external
revelation, his belief in the latter was only feigned for the
occasion. The title of the book ought to have been Chris
tianity not as Old as Creation, and therefore false. Leland
urged, as Stebbing and Conybeare had done, that the state
of man as a creature fallen from God, required light and
help beyond what were given by natural religion. And as
to positive commands, he saw no difficulty in believing that
God might enjoin many things the reason of which we do
Object of nofc at present see. Many of the positive institutions in the
positive com- T ... i T T • .1 i i-i
mands. Levitical economy had a reason in tnemselves which even
now we can discover. Some of them were to keep the
people separate from the surrounding nations, some were
commemorative of past deliverances, and others figures of
good things to come. The Christian sacraments need never
be prejudicial to the end for which they were instituted, if
men would but keep them as they were intended ; and so
with all symbolical representations,, if they arc limited to
those appointed by God, they may be useful and the danger
of superstition avoided. Leland says the question between
him and Tindal is — whether all men have by natural light
or reason such knowledge as that 110 external revelation can
make it clearer. Supposing this to be Tindal' s position,
Insufficiency. Leland wishes to show the insufficiency of the light of rea
son. He rejects the test of moral actions drawn from their
tendency to promote the general good, on the ground that
men are not agreed as to what makes for the general good.
Is it for the general good that one man should have only
one wife ? Plato recommended a community of wives. Is
it for the general good to destroy weak and sickly children
as the Spartans did ? Is self-murder, under some circum
stances, for the general good ? Is it true, as has been main
tained, that ( private vices are public benefits' ? The hea
then guessed at a future life, but they were not assured of
it. There was nothing to tell them that forgiveness fol
lowed 011 repentance. We do not know without revelation
what is necessary for the vindication of Divine law. Locke's
arguments for the connection between repentance and for
giveness are pronounced more ingenious than solid. As
Tindal had connected all well being with well doing, Leland
ANSWERS TO TTNDAL. 461
charges him with teaching tho doctrine of selfish love, and niAP. \i.
contrasts this with the disinterested morality of tho (Jospol.
What Tindal calls speculative doctrines and speaks of as
useless, Leland makes the essence of Christianity, such as
the mediation of Christ and His death as a sacrifice for sin.
He includes among the doctrines of Christianity the birth,
death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and he asks
how any man who rejects these can be said to believe 1li.«
Scriptures on account of the doctrines. The facts of Chris
tianity arc connected with its doctrines and must depend on
testimony. Authority in such a case is the only kind of
proof available.
There were many other replies to Tindal of various de
grees of merit. John Jackson, Rector of Rossington, in John Jackson
Yorkshire, wrote ' Ecmarks on Christianity as Old as Crea- 5^,2.
tion/ This author states tho object of TindaPs book with
more accuracy and fairness than any of TindaPs opponents.
' The design/ he says, ' of this ingenious author, after
showing the ground and principles of natural religion to
be the eternal and immutable truth and reason of things
which is the original will of God, and obligatory upon all
rational agents, is to prove from thence that true reveal od
religion can be no other than a re-establishment of rational
religion by an immutable and express Divine authority.9
Thomas Cookman, Master of University College, Oxford,
asserted and vindicated in answer to Tindal, ' Salvation by
Jesus Christ alone/ He calls Tindal the head of those who
lead young men into vice and irreligion. Cookman was
eclipsed only by the anonymous author of ' Tho Conduct of
the late Matthew Tindal, LL.D./ where Tindal is desig
nated 'the grand apostate and corrupter of the principles
and morals of the youth of the present age/ He is called
a wretch, an atheist, a renegade, and some other names too
vile to be mentioned here. The replies to Tindal, taking
them altogether, were unsatisfactory. This may have been
owing to a want of dcimitencss as to the object of his book.
It was diffuse in its style, abounding in long quotations, and
many subjects were merely alluded to and left for futnr"
treatment. His opponents generally assumed that his ob
ject was to set aside the revelation in the P»il>lo a
462 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND.
CHAP. XI. and then they proceeded to show the darkness and igno
rance of mankind, and consequently the necessity of reve
lation. To prove that a revelation was needed was not
proving that a revelation was given, nor was it proving that
the Bible contained that revelation, much less that the
revelation itself consisted in the speculative doctrines of the
Church, or the positive institutions of the Christian reli
gion.
Tindal left another volume of his book in manuscript, but
it fell into the hands of the Bishop of London, who thought
Bishop Gibson the best way to answer it was to destroy it. Bishop Gibson
and Tindal. ^ m^Q Tindal>s wor], t]ie subject of one of his ' Pastoral
Letters/ He had said the same things against it as Tm-
dal's other opponents, and he said them as well as they
had been said by others. Gibson was a liberal Churchman
as well as an assiduous bishop, and had some of the best
qualities of the rational divines of his time, but the world
will scarcely forgive him for destroying the work of one of
the most thoughtful men of that age. On the monument
erected to his memory in the vestibule of Fulham Church
this is not recorded among his noble virtues and the great
acts of his life. Could the deed speak it would say —
' Non ego sum. titulis surripienda tuis.'
APPENDIX (A).
TT is a matter of regret that the plan of this work nccessarilv
gives greater prominence to controversial and even heretical
writings than to the works of men whose lives were spent in the
furtherance of practical religion. I have felt this in many cases,
but in none more than in Chapter X., which is devoted to the
religious literature of the Nonconformists. The controversial
writings of Bunyan have occupied some pages, but there was no
occasion to mention those to which he owes his immortality. For
Matthew Henry, the most important Nonconformist writer after
Banyan, I have not found n place. His theology is sufficiently
described by the word orthodox. The only controversial tract he
wrote was on schism, the argument of which was that separation
is not schism, which consists rather in uncharitablcnoss and
alienation of the affections. There may be, Matthew Henry Rays,
schism where there is no separate communion, and there may be
separate communion where there is no schism.
In the case of the Quakers this necessity of making prominent
the controversial and heretical may seem as if I had put this com
munity beyond the pale of the orthodox. I have tried to dis
cover what was the teaching of the chief teachers among the early
Quakers. After Fox I had only Peim and Barclay as really
important writers. I do not at all enter on the question of the
religious opinions of Quakers in the present day. I have been
told by members of the Society of Friends that the prevailing
doctrines are those known as evangelical, but that the variety of
opinion is quite as great as in the Church of England. It is
probable that there has always been among them a great diversity
of sentiment, and perhaps at first they did not know that they
differed. Penn has not been regarded as orthodox by some, and
Barclay's book has no official authority. It is likely that most
Quakers would give up any distinctive doctrine concerning the
Spirit which interfered logically with the commonly received
doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Those who did not
would probably, as I have intimated, identify themselves with the
liberal theologians of the Church of England, and make the light
of the Spirit a ' verifying faculty ' in the conscience. This, in my
judgment, is the logical ultimate of the primitive Quaker doctrine
of the Spirit. I have maintained that the Quakers held this doc
trine in common with the Banters, Seekers, Familists, and other
half-mystical, half-rational sects of the Commonwealth era. It is
464 APPENDIX.
difficult to kno\v what really were the doctrines of these sects.
The accounts we have of them are only from enemies, and are
sufficiently distorted. It seems, however, evident that they were
dissatisfied with the current view of revelation, that it is some
thing given long since and coming to us only by tradition. They
wanted immediate revelation, and supposed perpetual and universal
inspiration with the continuance of miracles. This exposed them,
as it did the Quakers, at once to charges of enthusiasm and Deism.
They were reckoned fanatics for supposing themselves inspired,
and deniers of revelation, because they did not limit inspiration
to the writers of the Bible.
Many volumes of sermons by Churchmen have been omitted
which are of great value in themselves, as those of Dr. John
Conant, one of the ejected ministers of 1GG2, and a leading
Puritan at the Savoy Conference, but who conformed after seven
years of nonconformity. I have omitted also the sermons of
Dr. Claget, preacher at Lincoln's Inn, and the very excellent
sermons of Hezekiah Burton, who died Hector of Barnes. Burton
was a Cambridge man, and was chiefly known as a preacher. He
was also a Canon of Norwich, and had been Hector of St.
George's, Southwark. He died comparatively young, and had
published nothing except a preface to Dr. Cumberland's ' De
Legibus Naturae.' His posthumous sermons were collected and
edited by his friend Dr. Tillotson, who speaks of a long intimacy
with him, and describes him as a man of great prudence and ' in
comparable sweetness of temper.' The sermons are altogether
practical, pervaded by a devout spirit, making very little of specu
lations about religion, but a great deal of religion itself. A good
life is called 'the best and only religion,' and the best worship we
can give to God is said to be ' to do good to men.' Again
Burton says, ' In our beings we arc like to God, our souls are
rays from His sun, and in our virtues we are still more partakers
of the divine nature.' The value of some creeds is described
thus, ' Are there not articles of faith made by those who think
they have the power of composing them, that are perfectly re
pugnant ? e.g., that God is good, and yet more cruel than the
worst tyrant on earth. And faith and obedience which should
conspire and assist each other mutually are made to clash and
hinder each other in the religion that some men teach.' In the
same sermon Burton says, * .Religion is no narrow, confined thing ;
it is not kept within the limits of a Church or a closet, nor is it
determined to time, one or more davs in seven to bow down the
APPENDIX.
-!r'5
head for a day ; nor is it kept in tin* compass of some fe\v exer
cises, such as praying and reading, and hearing and pondering,
but it extends itself by a kind of omnipresence to all times and
places in which we are, to all persons and things, and actions
with which we converse. It is both in the shop and in the
market, in the house and the field, in business and relaxations, in
public as well as private, not only in devotions, but in our very
divertisements and entertainments of ourselves. It is on the
working as well as the resting and holy-days. It regulates our
mirth as well as our sorrow, and directs and moderates our eating
and drinking as well as our fastings and mournings.'
Of nearly the same character as Dr. Burton's sermons is the
work of Henry Scougal, ' The Life of God in the Soul of Man.'
Scougal was the son of Bishop Scougal, of Aberdeen, and was for
four years Professor of Divinity in the university of that town,
though he died at the early age of twenty-eight. This work was
published by Bishop Burnet during the author's lifetime. Its
object was to withdraw men's minds from contentious about reli
gion to the practice of it, and to show that religion did not con
sist in what is called orthodox opinions or in the observance of
external duties, but in a living ' union of the soul with God, a real
participation of the divine nature.' Scougal describes religion as
a life, because ' it is an inward force, a self-moving principle,' and
those who have made progress in it ' are not,' he says, ' acted only
by external motives, driven merely by threatening^, nor bribed by
promises, nor constrained by laws, but are powerfully inclined to
that which is good, and delight in the performance of it ; the love
which a pious man bears to God and goodness is not so much by
virtue of a command enjoining him so to do, as by a nc\v nature
instructing and prompting him to do it ;' nor doth he pay his
devotions as an unavoidable tribute, only to appease the divine
justice, and quiet his clamorous conscience, but those religious
exercises are the proper emanations of the divine life, the natural
employments of the new-born soul. The divine life rules in a
righteous man, and faith is to him what sense is to a natural man.
Religion and all that belongs to it have their certainty according
to the strength of this inmost life. Scougal endorses the words
of a saint who once said, ' I had rather see the real impressions
of a God-like nature upon my own soul, than have a vision from
Heaven, or an angel sent to tell me that my name were enroll- d
in the book of life.'
Among the evidence literature there is a work of some historical
VOL. II.
2 n
466 APPENDIX.
interest by Dr. John Cockburn, published in 1097, called ' An
Enquiry into the Nature, Necessity, and Evidence of Christian
Faith.' The supposed enemies of Christianity are those who
doubted the purity of the received text of the Bible, and those who
said that a good life was of more importance than an orthodox
faith. The first part is occupied with the theistic arguments,
among which is one from the intellectual faculties in man, tho
omission of which Brougham notices in Palcy.
A pamphlet by George Hickes on the passive obedience con
troversy, called ' The Story of the Thundering Legion,' could not
be found till it was too late. A copy was discovered in the
British Museum which had not been catalogued under the
author's name. The story is that when Maximiauus Caesar
ordered the Theban Legion to offer sacrifices to the gods at
Octodurum, they fled to Agaunum. He sent after them, but
they united with one voice to refuse. Maximianus then com
manded every tenth man to be slain, which was done without the
least resistance. Mauritius, the General of the Legion, thus
addressed the soldiers, ' How fearful was I lest any of you being
in arms, and therefore no hard matter to do it, should attempt
the defending of yourselves, and by that means prevent a happy
and most glorious death.' He went on to encourage them rather
to submit to death than resist the Emperor. When every tenth
man was slain the Emperor repeated his command to the survivors,
and they all answered, ' We are, it is confessed, thy soldiers, 0
Ca3sar, for the defence of the Roman Republic, nor have we ever
proved either traitors or cowards, but this command of thine we
cannot obey, for now we are all Christians, yet all our bodies shall
be subject to thee.' Exuperius, their ensign, concludes thus,
' Despair itself hath not armed us against thee, O Emperor; behold
we have all our weapons in our hands, and yet resist not, because
we would rather die innocent than live nocent.' On this they
were all put to death, not a man of them once offering to defend
himself. This is the account given by Eucherius, and this conduct
of the submissive legion was meant by Hickes for an example to
the subjects of James II.
467
APPENDIX (15).
Tlie Bishops from 1G01 to 1720.
CANTEEKUBY.
Gilbert Sheldon 1GG3
William Bancroft . . . . . 1678
John Tillotson 1691
Thomas Tenison 1694
William Wake 1715
ST. AsArn.
Henry Glcnham 1GG7
Isaac Barrow 16GI)
William Lloyd 1680
Edward Jones 1692
George Hooper 1703
William Beveridgc .... 1704
William Fleetwood .... 1708
John Wynne 1714
BANG on.
Humphrey Lloyd 1673
Humphrey Humphreys . . . 1680
John Evans 1701
Benjamin Hoadley 1715
lliciiard Reynolds 1721
BATH AND WELLS.
Robert Creighton 1670
Peter Mew 1672
Thomas Kcnn 1685
Kichard Kidder 1691
George Hooper 1703
BBISTOL.
Guy Carleton 1671
William Gulston 1678
John Lake 1684
Sir Jonathan Trelawney . . . 1685
Gilbert Ironside 1689
John Hall 1691
John Robinson 1710
George Smalbridgc .... 1714
Hugh Boulter 1719
ClIICHESTEB.
Peter Gunning 1670
Ralph Brideoke 1675
Guy Carleton 1679
John Lake 1685
Simon Patrick 1689
Robert Grove IG'.H
John Williams 16%
Thomas Manningliam . . . 1709
ST. DAVID'S.
William Thomas 1677
Lawrence Womaek .... 1683
John Lloyd KM;
Thomas Watson 1687
[Vacant 5 years 8 months.]
George Bull 1705
Philip Bisse 1710
Adam Ottley 1712
ELY.
Benjamin Laney . .
Peter Gunning . . .
Francis Turner . . .
Simon Patrick . . .
Jol in Moore . . . .
William Fleetwood. .
EXETEB.
Scth Ward . . . .
Anthony Sparrow . .
Thomas Lampleiigh .
Jonathan Trelawney .
Offspring Blackball .
Lancelot Blackburn .
1C67
1675
1684
1691
1707
1711
1662
1667
.1676
16S1)
1707
1716
GLOUCESTER.
John Pritehet or Pritchard . . 1672
Robert Frampton 1GSL
Edward Fowler 1691
Richard Willis 1715
IlEKEFOUD.
Herbert Croft 1662
Gilbert Ironside 169L
Humphrey Humphreys . . . 1701
Philip Bisse 1713
LlClIFIELD AND COVENTEY.
Thomas Wood 1(571
William Lloyd 16«.»2
John Hough 1699
Edward Chandler 1711
LINCOLN.
Benjamin Laney 1663
William Fuller 1667
Thomas Barlowe KIT.')
Thomas Tenison 1«!91
James Gardiner 169 1
William \Vako 17<>">
Edmund Gibson 1716
468
APPENDIX.
LLANDAFF.
Francis Davies 1GG7
William Lloyd 1675
William IJcaw 1679
John Tyler 1707
John Hough 1690
William Talbot 1699
John Potter 1715
LONDON.
Humphry Henchman . . . 1663
Henry Compton 1675
John Robinson 1713
NORWICH.
Anthony Sparrow 1676
William Lloyd 1685
John Moore 1691
Charles Trimnell 1708
OXFORD.
William Paul 1663
Walter Blandford 1665
Nathaniel Crew 1671
Henry Compton 1674
John Fell 1676
Samuel Parker 1686
Timothy Hall 1688
Edward Stillingflect .... 1689
William Lloyd 1699
John Hough 1717
PETERBOROUGH.
Joseph Henshaw 1663
William Lloyd 1679
Thomas White 1685
Richard Cumberland .... 1691
White Kennet 1718
ROCHESTER.
John Dolben 1666
Francis Turner 1683
Thomas Sprat 1684
Francis Atterbury 1713
SALISBURY.
John Earlc 1663
Alexander Hyde 1665
SethWavd 1667
Gilbert Burnet 1689
William Talbot 1715
WINCHESTER
Peter Mew 168 1
Jonathan Trelawney .... 1707
WORCESTER.
John Earlc . 1662
Robert Skinner 1663
Walter Blandford 1671
James Flcctwood 1675
William Thomas 1683
YORK.
Richard Sterne 1661
John Dolben 1683
Thomas Lamplugh .... 1688
John Sharp 1691
William Dawcs 171-4
CARLISLE.
Edward Rainbow 1661
Thomas Smith 1684
William Nicholson .... 1702
Samuel Bradford 1718
CHESTER.
Henry Feme 1662
George Hall 1662
John Wilkins 1668
John Pearson 1673
Thomas Cartwright .... 1686
Nicholas Stafford 1689
William Dawes 1708
Francis Gastrell 1714
D DRHAil.
Nathaniel Crew 1671
SODOR AND MAN.
Isaac Barrow 1663
Henry Bridgcman 1671
Jolm'Lake 1682
Baptist Lcvinz 1681
[Vacant 5 years.]
Thomas Wilson . „ . . , 1697
Iii demy 8vo, 21.y.,
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND
FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE END OF LAST CENTURY.
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTOEY OF THEOLOGY.
Br THE EEV. JOHN HUNT.
VOLUME I.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. I. — Transubstantiation. — The difference between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome, no narrow interval. — Reformation progressive. — Barnes — Frith. — Tyndale.— Doctrinal
Documents. — Cranmer. — Ridley. — Latimer. — Hooper. — Bradford. — Philpot. — Hutchinsnn.
CHAP. II.— The Church under Elizabeth.— The Consecrators of Archbishop Parker.— Elizabeth's
first Bishops. — Jewel.— Becon.— Rise of the Puritans. — Grindal, Cartwright, and Whitgift. —
Hooker and Travers.— Dr. John Bridges and Martin Marprelate.— Aylraer.— Bancroft.— Bilson.
— Lord Bacon.
CHAP. III.— Hampton Court Conference.— Field on the Church— "Works of King James.— Overall's
Convocation Book. — Bishop Andrewes. — Bilson and Broughton on the " Descent into Hell." —
Archbishop Abbot.— The Sabbath Controversy.— Tithes.— The Five Points of Arminius.— Richard
Montagu. — The Vicar of Grantham and his "altar.1' — Bishop Willams. — Archbishops Laud,
Ussher.— Bishop Hall and the Smectymnians— Prynne on "Timothy and Titus."— John Milton.
— Conference against Innovations at the Dean of Westminster's.
CHAP. IV. — Westminster Assembly of Divines. — Twisse-Burges. — Cawdry. — Cheynell. — The Dis
senting Brethren. — Thomas Goodwin on Independency. — The Savoy Declaration. — Rights of the
Baptists —Controversy between Tombes and Marshall.— Family of Love.— Quakers.— Behmen-
ists. — Rosicrucians. — Muggletonians. — Fifth Monarchy Men. — John Bidle. — Antinomian Con
troversy. — Peter Sterry. — John Owen. — John Goodwin. — Richard Baxter.
CHAP. V.— The Restoration.— The King's Declaration.— The Savoy Conference.— Exceptions of the
Ministers against the Prayer-Book.— The Bishop's Answer.— Baxter and Gunning.— Bishop
Morton. — Bishop Cosin. — Bishop Walton' — Bishop Pearson. — Bishop Sanderson. — Dr. Ham
mond. — Herbert Thorndike. — Archbishop Bramhall. — Bishop Hopkins.— Jeremy Taylor. — John
Gaule and Henry Jeanes. — Samuel Rutherford. — Liberty of Conscience. — Sir Thomas Browne. —
Matthew Hale.
CHAP. VI. — Rational Theologians. — John Hales. — Chillingworth. — Hobbes. — Replies to Hobbes. —
Lord Clarendon. — Archbishop Tenieon. — Archbishop Bramhall. — Samuel Clarke. — Bishop Parker.
— The Cambridge Platonists. — Cudworth. — More. — John Smith. — Bishop Whichcot. — Bishop
Cumberland. — Lord Herbert.— Replies to Lord Herbert. — Locke. — Halyburton.— Whitby .—
Richard Baxter.
" Here we have clearness, vigour, and originality of style, and an abundance of new thought. . . .
The views of a man who has not only studied his subject, but is a thorough master of it in every part.
. . . He is a master in the art of analysing and condensing the thoughts and opinions of others ; and
in his biographical sketches of such men as Baxter, Milton, Cranmer, Hooker, George Fox, or Ham
mond, often manages to give us the pith of the question under discussion in a single page. We look on
his present work as evincing talents of a high order ; unflinching love of truth, great devoutness, and
the boldest reliance on the power and value of reason being conspicuous throughout. The book will
attract many thoughtful readers, and reward all who take the trouble to study it with the care which
it deserves."— Standard.
" A more complete and faithful picture of English theology we do not know. The author's mode
of treating his subject is very thorough, but at the same time he does what it is difficult enough to
do in a book dealing with opinion, he escapes being dull, and has produced a volume which is sure
to be extremely attractive to all interested in theological studies, and in watching the growth of
freedom of thought." — English Independent.
" Mr. Hunt is a very able thinker and critic, commands a terse and very serviceable style for his
matter and purpose, is a laborious and conscientious reader and historian, and has accordingly pro
duced a book of great value. His former work is one of real merit, and his reputation will be en
hanced by the present instalment of the important history which he has undertaken to write." —
London Quarterly Review.
" Mr. Hunt has executed his task with much fairness and judgment, and has condensed the results
of very extensive reading. The book treats of topics of the utmost importance, which are presented
in an interesting manner, so that all persons, whatever may be the nature of their puruits, who are
capable of reading a sensible book, will derive pleasure and instruction from the perusal of it. ...
We shnll be glad to welcome the second volume on its appearance, and in the meantime have to thank
Mr. Hunt for a very serviceable addition to a library."— Christian Observer.
"This work supplies a lack in our historico-theological literature. It not only traces the genens
and development of the successive schools which have ruled the realms of religious thought in Eng
land for the last three centuries, but it also contains a biographical sketch of the men, and an accu
rate analysis of the writings of the chief leaders of the schools. . . . We thank Mr. Hunt for a pro
mising instalment of a work the conception of which was most happy ; the execution of which bears
all the marks of the learning, diligence, and impartiality of the accomplished author; and the cont nits
of which ought to secure for it a place on the shelves of every well-oelected library."— Watchman.
STRAHAN & CO., 56, LUDGATK HIM..
sanu
vo, 10s. 6c7.
AN ESSAY ON PANTHEISM.
" The work of a man indefatigable in his pursuit of truth, not content with second
hand information where it was accessible to him at the fountain-head, making his
task a labour of love, and proclaiming his results fearlessly. There is, we believe,
no English treatise bringing together the same amount of information, given where
it was possible in the words of his authorities and grouped with an instructive clear
ness." — Contemporary Review.
" The subject of this book is one which must always interest thinkers. . . . Mr. Hunt
gives sufficient proof that he has read much on the subject, and spared no pains to
apprehend its bearings. He has traversed a wide field, scattering his materials over
it with a liberal hand. . . . We commend the volume to the favourable attention of
the reader, as one deserving his perusal. The author is earnest and devout. He
shows that he is an orthodox Churchman, as well as a man of reading and reflection.
. . . He is no common-place writer ; his book is well fitted to stimulate and enlighten
the minds of those who are desirous to be introduced into the illustrious company of
thinkers who have pondered over the profound problem of being." — Athenaum.
" For particular commendation we should select his account of the doctrine of
Scotus Erigena, and especially his vindication, for it amounts to that, of Benedict
Spinoza. Mr. Hunt's is a very good style, and well suited for setting before the
reader intelligible summaries of philosophical systems which might be laboured into
any degree of obscurity. It is concise without being peremptory. . . . He manifests
no hostile spirit, and his object is evidently to conciliate. Christianity and Pantheism
must be reconciled, otherwise it will be the worse for Christianity." — Westminster
Review.
" The Curate of St. Ives has redeemed the credit of his order. The Church of
Rome has awarded him its most distinguished honour of the Index, in company with
Dr. Pusey, and the author of Ecce Homo ! and we think he is fairly entitled to the
distinction from the ability, the patience, and the honesty with which he has con
ducted the investigation that he felt called to enter upon. In the straightforward
and attractive preface, he explains how he came to undertake the task of resolving
the great religious question of the day, and how he gradually awoke to the magnitude
of the work he had set himself. . . . Mr. Hunt is quite aware of the danger he incurs
by his appeal to reason in these matters, but he is one of the few people who see that
there is really no help for it, that a man must use his reason, if it is only for the pur
pose of making up his mind that he won't. In language that frequently rises into
eloquence, he maintains the supremacy of the much-abused faculty, and he commends
the outcome of his patient labour to the sympathies of those who feel the necessities
of the age and appreciate the value of truthful inquiry." — Spectator.
" This learned and elaborate work will be hailed with thankfulness by such theo
logical students as take an interest in tracing out, amongst all nations and in all ages,
the struggles and developments of human thought in relation to the being and
government of God. It will lead devout readers afresh to adore Him, in whom are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" — Wesleyan Paper.
" In passing round and over so wide a field, the author has brought out much that
is both interesting and curious. Any reader who wishes to master the subject will
find all the materials brought together to his hand within the single volume before
us ; and also reference to many original sources of information." — Record.
" It passes over a broad field, and occupies a space in English literature before
vacant." — Christian Examiner (American).
STRAHAN & CO., 56, LTJDGATE HILL.
WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
STBAHAN AND CO.,
56, LUDQATE HILL.
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF HUGH MILLER. By PETER
BAYNE, M.A. 2 vols. demy 8vo, 32*.
" Hugh Miller takes rank with the most notable men of this generation, and among the self-taught
men of Scotland he holds the highest place after Burns. Mr. Kayne has written two volumes to tell
the world what it lost in Hugh Miller, and ho has done a difficult tuk well."— ypurfn/nr.
" Mr. Bavnc's memoir deserves to take its place among the. few specimens of standard bio.
graphy." — Nonconfoi'mixt.
REASONS FOR RETURNING TO THE CHURCH OF ENG
LAND. Crown Svo, 6s.
"See that remarkable book, lately published, 'Rea?ons for Returning to the Church of Eni'lan I,'
by a distinguished Roman Catholic." — Dean Stanley in the Spectator.
"The author, who gives us here his Apologia, is a thinker and writer of no common force and
clearness, and his reasons are of more than usual interest." — Guardian.
MEMORIALS OF AGNES ELIZABETH JONES. By her SISTER.
Third Edition. Crown 8vo, G*.
" Her Christian love was wide and brave, and she laid down her life for her friends. Her example
is a glorious one." — Spectator.
" It is really the duty of every one who can possibly do it to study the exceedingly beautiful cha
racter here presented to us. What she did was marvellous, but what she wax is the deeper interest
and the truer lesson of her life. Her work never mastered her, as important work is too ;ipi i .,
master even really earnest Christians; great as it was, she herself was greater, and able to hold it in
its due place." — Literary Churchman.
KESHUB CHUNDER SEN'S ENGLISH VISIT. An Autl.ori/,-,1
Collection of his Principal Addresses delivered iir this Country. Edited by S. D. COLLKT.
Crown Svo, <Js.
UNIFORM WITH THE ABOVE,
LECTURES AND TRACTS. By KESIIUB CHUNDER SEN. Edited by
S. D. Collet. Crown 8vo, 5*.
COHTKNTS: — First Scries. — Jesus Christ: Europe and Asia. — Great Men.— Regenerating Faith. —
The Future Church. Second Series.— The Religious Importance of Mental Philosophy, I. and II.—
Religious and Social Reformation. — Prayer: True Faith. — A Voice from the Himalayas. — The
Theist's Prayer-Book.
"To Miss Collet, for her indefatigable labours in making the Brahmo Romaj properly known in
England, both India and England have much reason to be grateful. "—Spectator.
MEMORIALS OF CHARLES PARRY, Commando,-, Royal Navy. By
his Brother, the Right Rev. EDWARD PAKHT, D.D., Bishop Suffragan of Dover. Small svo, "..<"
"The Memorials of Charles Parry by his brother, the Suffragan Bishop of Dover, is a book i >
stand by the side of Hie life of lledley Vicars. Captain Parry did in the navy much what Captain
Vicars did in the army. He set a steady, quiet example of pious life, and lost no opportunity of
doing good to others. The biography is written in a simple and pleasing style." — Guurdi in.
EPISODES IN AN OBSCURE LIFE: A Curate's Experiences in tho
Tower Hamlets. Popular Edition. Crown Svo.
"We could not easily exhaust all the thoughts suggested by this interesting and valuable book."—
Spectator.
" These ' Episodes' unite the accuracy of the photograph with the strength and colour of a paint
ing. The author is anonymous, but whoever he is, his name is genius." — llluatrdted Ti»i>-.«.
"This is one of the few books that leave the critic no alternative but simply to heap together
words of eulogy. Its least and lowest merit is its literary workmanship, and yet we scarcely know
where we could look for more vivid pictures of accurate observation, of chaste simplicity, and unpre
tentious power. The large-hearted geniality, manly piety, and unwearied benevolence of the anony
mous writer inform his eye and guide his hand, throwing gleams of radiance, aspects of humour, and
visions of hope over the sad conditions of squalid misery which he deseribes without a particle of
Dickens's falsetto. ... If our recommendation could avail, it should carry this book into every rich
man's house and every comfortable homo in the land." — British Quarterly liecicic.
THE MIRACLES OF OUR LORD. By GKORGE MACDOXALD. Crown
8vp, 5s.
"It is not only exhilarating to come in contact with such frosh views of Scripture as we here re
ceive from Mr. MacDonald, it is blissful. . . . The method of his appeal is that of the poet, \M-apl m
the absorbing sweetness of spiritual contemplation; and in these days of overstrained intellectual
activity, when at the same time an imperative need is felt for human and intimate readings of Scrip,
ture mysteries, his manner of teaching is most effective." — Naiinnifurinixt.
" Everywhere marked by touches of true genius, by deep and acute reflection, by sober judgment,
and by a solemn and tender piety as valuable as it is rare." — Standard,
FAUST. A Tragedy by JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE. Translated in the
Original Metres by UAYAKD TAYLOR. '1 vols. post Svo, 21,t.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE NEW TESTA-
MENT. A Study for the present Crisis in the Church of England. By the Rev. G. A. JACOII
D.D., late Head Muster ot Christ's Hospital. Post Svo, \C>s.
" Dr. Jacob has for his object to direct the attention of English Churchmen to the really primitive
forms of Christian ordinances as they may be gathered from the New Testament itself. In the
course of seven chapters he reviews the Scriptural and earliest Patristic evidence on the points at
issue, and it should especially be pointed out how flimsy many of the superstitions claims he contro
verts are made to appear when, as a cool but ripe scholar, he ex;-.mines in the original the Scriptural
texts by which it is endeavoured to support them. The eighth chapter is entitled 'Application and
Conclusion,' and is very sensible and very temperate." — Westminster Review.
PEEPS AT THE FAR EAST. A Familiar Account of a Visit to India.
By NORMAN MACLEOD, D.D. With Numerous Illustrations. Small 4to, cloth, gilt extra, 21s.
" It would be difficult to point out in our popular literature a book which in anything like the same
compass conveys so full or so instructive a knowledge of British India. With the same charm of
companionship which won his way to the hearts of every class, Dr. Macleod seems to carry us with
him, in a delightful round of travel and observation, through Madras and Calcutta to Benares,
Cawnpore, Lucknow, Agra, and Delhi. . . . His remarks deserre to be read with the attention due
to a mind of rare sagacity and candour, thoroughly versed in the knowledge of mankind, and
strengthened by wide experience, as well as by systematic and extensive reading. His work has thus
an inner depth and a philosophical value beyond that of a mere record of travel." — Saturday lie dew.
SHOEMAKERS' VILLAGE. By HENRY HOLBEACII. 2 vols. post Svo,
10*.
"A really clever book."— Satiir day Review.
" We must content ourselves with calling attention to this very simple yet delightful tale, overflow
ing with humour which is entirely its own." — Westminster Review.
" There are many scenes and bits of description in these volumes which arc worthy of Robert Brown
ing or Mrs. Oliphant, while the separate characterizations of the ' Shoemakers' Village' reveal real
power." — British Quarterly Review,
THE REIGN OF LAW. By the DUKE OF ARGYLL. People's Edition.
Crown Svo, limp cloth, 2s. M.
" There are lew books in which a thoughtful reader will find more that he will desire to remember."
— Times.
" Shows a breadth of thought, a freedom from prejudice, and a power of clear exposition rare in
all ages and all countries. It is as unanswerable as it is attractive." — Pall Mall Gazette.
"A masterly book. . . . Strong, sound, mature, able thought from its iirst page to its last." —
Spectator.
WALKS IN ROME. By AUGUSTUS J. C. HARE. 2 vols. crown Svo, 21.?.
" The best handbook of the city and environs of Rome ever published. . . . Cannot be too much
commended."— Pall Mall Gazette.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. Authorized Version, revised by HENRY
ALFORD, D.D., late Dean of Canterbury. Long Primer Edition, crown Svo, 6s. ; Brevier Edition,
leap. Svo, o*. (id, ; Nonpareil Edition, small 8vo, Is. Gd.
HEROES OF HEBREW; HISTORY. By SAMUEL \VILBERFORCE, D.D.,
Bishop of Winchester. New Edition, crown Svo.
"A rare intellectual treat."— The Times.
" All will welcome them as a new treasure." — The Guardian.
ESSAYS, THEOLOGICAL AND LITERARY. By R. H. HUTTON,
2 vols. post Svo, 2 Is.
" Well worth reading by all who value kindly sentiment and delicate appreciation of the literary and
theological tendencies of the age." — Pall Mall Gazette.
"These volumes will gain what they richly deserve — a high place in English literature." — British
" These volumes are the work of a very vigorous and independent thinker, who is deeply in earnest
in his search after truth, who is thoroughly aware of the critical nature of our times, their rapid
changes of opinion and feeling, and the important issues with -which they are pregnant. Both where
we agree nnd where we dili'ur from the writer, we feel that ho has done good service in a good
cause." — Guardian.
" We could not easily give too strong an expression to our admiration of these essays. Admiration,
indeed, is too cold a word ; the feeling with which we regard them is far deeper and warmer. Criti
cism of so high an order is a credit to our country." — Literary World.
THE COMPANIONS OF ST. PAUL. By J. S. HOWSON, D.D., Dean
of Chester. Crown Svo, 5s.
HALF HOURS IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH. By C. J. VAUGIIAN,
D.D., Master of the Temple. Small STO, 3«. M.
THE ENGLISH COLONIZATION OF AMERICA DURING
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. By EDWAUD D. NEILL, Consul of the United States of
America at Dublin. Demy Svo, 1 !.-•.
" Out of a long list of records and ancient memoranda Mr. Neill has, with infinite patience, produced
a history which, while it is essentially matter of fact, is thoroughly readable, tunl ought to commend
itself to all who are interested in the origin and early days of Transatlantic civilization." — Standard.
"A work of almost thrilling interest, which we doubt not will take its place, as it deserves to do,
amongst the standard histories of our day." — London Quarterly Rcrn-ir.
" An honest and singularly interesting book." — British Quarterly Rcrii'ir.
STRAHAN & CO., 50, LTJDGATE IIILL.
•'•>
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11