YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND VOL. II. RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE END OF LAST CENTURY & Contribution to tfje SHstorg of Sfjeologg. By the Rev. JOHN HUNT, m.a. author of 'an essay on pantheism VOLUME I J. STRAHAN & CO., PUBLISHERS 56 LUDGATE HILL, LONDON 1871 TATLOB AND CO., PEINTEBS, LITTLE QUEEN STEEET, LINCOLN'S INN MELDS. PEEFACE. Iwwas 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 Reformation. 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 Avished 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 giving what an author says, or only drawing mv own inferences, but 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. Schemes of Comprehension The Church and the King .... Bishop Wilkins' scheme Zeal of the Commons against Nonconformists Controversies on toleration Nonconformists vindicated .... Thomas Tomkyns against toleration John Corbet advocates a Broad Church And pleads the moderation of Nonconformists Dr. Perrinchief answers John Corbet And shows that toleration only increases schismatics Herbert Thorndike answers John Corbet Archbishop Sheldon's patronage of the intolerant clergy Samuel Parker protests against the claims of conscience And shows the danger to the state from toleration . Bishop Croft's ' Naked Truth ' The Fathers not to be followed as authorities The Church should be built on a rock, and not on ceremonies John Wilson's ' Nehushtan' The Lord's Supper abused — why not abolished ? . Simon Patrick's ' Friendly Debate "... He forgets the lessons he learned at Cambridge Stillingfleet's ' Mischief of Separation ' and ' Irenicum Pago 1 2 3 44 5 5 677 89 9 1011111213 14 141516 16 x TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page Controversies on toleration — continued. Schism defined .... .... 17 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 Eeconciler ' 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 English 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 ' 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 Roman Catholic Controversy in the time of James IL— 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 ' EiScacy 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 Rule of Faith ' . . .43 Dry den's ' Hind and Panther' 44 A Roman Catholic monarch not compatible with the existence of the Church of England 45 Passive obedience 45 Samuel Johnson's ' Julian the Apostate' . . . .46 Was the Roman empire hereditary P 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. Pago 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 Nonjurors 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. xm The Nonjurors and Schism — continued. Leslie's views of episcopal authority Henry Dodwell The soul made immortal by episcopal baptism Dodwell consistently condemns the English Reformation The Church of England become schismatical The last of the Nonjurors Isaac Barrow . On the Creed . His theology . On the sacraments . His sermons ethical Makes religion appeal to the interests of men On the Pope's Supremacy St. Peter's supposed primacy St. Peter left no will Archbishop Leighton A Calvinist .... Opposed to oaths and impositions And to re-ordination Page 8485 85 86 , 86 87 90 09 9192 929394 9596 90 97 CHAPTER VIII. A new era in the history of the Church of England Archbishop Tillotson Importance of an acquaintance with his theology Decline of sacerdotalism, witchcraft, and Calvinism On the atonement On the moral constitution of man . On the influence of rewards and punishments Appeals to self-interest . The old theology struggles with the new Reason and faith Moral certainty of the truth of Christianity . Argument from miracles . • • • Inspiration ... 100 100101 102 103104104106107107 108 xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. Archbishop Tillotson — continued. The veracity of God the foundation of faith Natural religion more certain than revealed Archbishop Sharp On the Church .... On the truth of Christianity . On predestination .... Faith and reason .... On the Sabbath .... On the Eucharist .... Bishop Kidder The ' Demonstration of the Messias ' Against the Jews .... Prophecies of the Messias Was the Messias to work miracles ? Miracles a good testimony Evidence that Jesus wrought miracles The Messias was to suffer Jewish genealogies uncertain On the Pentateuch Bishop Patrick At Cambridge Becomes a Conformist On the Sacraments The Puritan doctrine of Sacraments Baptism explained as admission to a covenant ' Mensa Mystica ' . On the ' real presence ' . The sacrifice of the Supper . ' The Witnesses of Christianity ' Bishop Fowler .... On the Latitudinarians . The Christianity of Christ Christianity rational The Latitudinarians and doctrine The ' Design of Christianity ' Bishop Stillingfleet The ' Irenicum ' . . . The primitive Church a broad Church No church polity in the New Testament Page 109110 111 112113 114 114115 115 116116 117 , 117 118119 120 120121122123124125 125 126 126 127128128 129130 131131 132 133134135 135 136 136 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV Page Bishop Stillingfleet — continued. Origin and development of church government . . . 137 The ' Origines Sacrte * 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 P . . . 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 WUliam Sherlock 154 His ' Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ ' . .154 Denies the doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice . . 155 John Scott . . 156 On rational religion 15? On the ' Christian Life ' ¦ l57 Natural religion the foundation of revealed . . • -158 Dr. WiUiam Outram 158 On the sacrifice of Christ .... . . 158 Christ an expiatory victim ... ... 159 Dr. Daniel Whitby 16° 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 162 On original sin 1"" God's justice defended 164 Original sin and infant baptism 164 Sermon on reason .165 All parties assume the supremacy of reason .... 166 God knowable if revealed . . .... 167 The Scriptures the only rule of faith ... • 167 Christians to prove all things 168 Later creeds more obscure than the Apostles' Creed . . 169 Joseph GlanviU 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 Royal Society 174 Its history by Bishop Sprat 174 Christianity and phUosophy . . .... 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 ' 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 John Locke — continued. Cessation of being the natural result of Adam's sin . . 189 Locke's opponents 190 Sir Isaac Newton \q\ 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 r.ecessary 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 h TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page The great Trinitarian controversy — continued. Souths 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 Archaeologies Philosophical .... 223 His ' Theory of the Earth ' .223 No seas nor hiUs 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 ApoUonius ' . 226 Nathaniel Taylor replies to Blount's ' Oracles of Reason ' . 226 Revelation necessary because of the doctrine of satisfaction . 227 Charles Leslie's ' Short and Easy Method with the Deists ' . . 228 The impossibUity 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 Proves TUlotson to be a blasphemer, a Deist, and an Atheist 233 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page Charles Leslie — continued. ' The Growth of Deism ' . ' The Five Groans of the Church ' The Growth of Error ' . John Toland His ' Christianity not Mysterious Its object to defend Christianity He applies Bacon's method to the Scriptures Reason is above Fathers and Councils . Toland buUds on Locke's philosophy Revelation must agree with our natural ideas Nothing in the Gospel above reason No mystery in Christianity The Fathers on Toland's side Mysteries introduced into Christianity from the Pagans 'Christianity not Mysterious' presented by the Grand Jury of Middlesex .... Burned by order of the Irish Parliament Refuted by Oliver HU1 By Thomas Beconsall By John GaUhard . By Thomas Beverley By John Norris By Peter Browne, afterwards Bishop of Cork By Edward Synge, Archbishop of Tuam Toland the cause of the controversy between Stillingfleet Locke repudiates Toland's principles Toland's ' Letters to Serena ' . Toland generaUy supposed to be a Deist He writes the ' Life of MUton ' Ascribes ' Eikon Basilike' to Bishop Gaud'en . Dr. BlackhaU 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 MUton ' . . 253 Stephen Nye defends the canon of Scripture . . 253 Richardson's ' Canon of the New Testament Vindicated ' . 254 Jeremiah Jones vindicates the canon .... 255 b 2 Locke and 234 235235 236236 237 237 238 239 240 241 242242 243243 244245 245 245 245 246247 248 248 249 250251 251 252 XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. John Toland — continued. Toland publishes ' Nazarenus "... Maintains that the Ebionites were the Nazarenes Thomas Mangey answers ' Nazarenus ' Defends the GentUe Christians Thomas Brett on ' Nazarenus ' Paterson's ' Anti-Nazarenus '. Toland's character . His excessive vanity His ' Pantheisticon ' His epitaph for himself . Dr. South A Calvinist .... Yet his theology often rational His ' moral preaching ' . Religion profitable and ' safe ' Bishop Bull On justification The ' Harmonia Apostolica ' . Answers to it . ' Defence of tlie Nicene Faith ' Testimony of the Fathers ' The Judgment of the CathoUc Church Bishop Beveridge .... The theology of Calvin has the Fathers .... John Norris His theology from Malebranche The Logos in aU men John Ray Belongs to the Royal Society universal consent of the Page 256 257257258 , 259 . 259 . 259 , 260 . 261 . 262 . 262 . 263 . 263 . 264 . 265 . 265 . 266 . 266 . 267 . 267 . 268 . 268 . 269 270 271 271 271272 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 Royal 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 WiUiam 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 P 293 Creeds disparaged 294 Toleration advocated 295 Barclay's 'Apology' 295 The Quakers had no affection for Cromwell . . . .295 Their Divine Commission 296 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. xxiii Page Samuel Clark — continued. He proves it from Scripture itself 323 Maintains the Divine authority of the Hebrew points . 324 Changes among the Presbyterians . ... 324 Thomas Emlyn ... . . . 325 Teaches Arianism 326 Denies that Christ is the supreme God . . 327 Answered by Joseph Boyse .... . . 327 On the worship of Christ 328 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 . . . . . 332 CHAPTER XI. Natural religion Reason and revelation . Authority of Scripture . Nathaniel Culverwell ' The Light of Nature ' . No jarring between faith and reason Light of nature seen in the Pagan world Eternal law really God . . Extent of the law of nature . Human reason is divine . . . . The Scriptures the foundation of the Church WiUiam WoUaston His ' Religion of Nature Delineated ' Reason shows that there is a God . Objections to a special Providence 333 333334 334334334 335335336337338 338 338339340 XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. the consideration of their William WoUaston — continued. Human duties .... ' The Religion of Jesus Delineated ' From Christianity to Deism . Lord Shaftesbury Ridicule the test of religion . This liable to be misunderstood The Jews could not endure raillery The disposition of mind necessary for religion Morality eternal .... And not dependent on the word of God Right and wrong discernible by reason, and by sequences Rewards and punishments a security for virtue Deism not fairly inferred from Shaftesbury's doctrine of virtue Selfishness has a good as well as a bad sense ' Whatever is, is right ' . Pope's ' Essay on Man' Man's error in supposing himself the final tion The Author of nature studies the general good Individuals sacrificed for the general good Physical and moral evil serve the general good' Shaftesbury's theology follows Spinoza Pope follows Shaftesbury Relation of optimism to Christianity Foundation of Shaftesbury's Deism His treatment of miracles On the rule of faith Supremacy of reason Brown's ' Essay on the Characteristics Shows that anything may be ridiculed The unselfish philosophy reviewed Balguy's ' Letter to a Deist ' He maintains the necessity of rewards Anonymous replies to Shaftesbury A ' Letter not in Raillery ' Page 341311342342 343344345 cause of crea- 316 347 347348349349350 351352352 353354354355 356 357357 358 358 359360 361 361 362363361365 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXv Lord Shaftesbury — continued. e ' Bart'lemy Fair "... . ggc MandevUle's ' Fable of the Bees ' 365 He defends vice 3gg Bishop Butler on Shaftesbury 3gg Berkeley's 'Minute Philosopher' 367 On ridicule applied to test religion 368 Warburton on Shaftesbury 369 Anthony CoUins 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 ' Discourse of Free- thinking ' 373 Duty of free-thinking 374 ' Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles ' 375 1 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Anthony CoUins — continued The Messiah a sufferer The great kingdom The Son of man The seventy weeks . The ruler in Israel . He that was to come The rebmlding of the tabernacle of David The righteous servant Prophecies typical and allegorical . St. Matthew's quotations from the Old Testament accommodations Whiston's ' Literal Accomplishment of Scripture phecy' ...... He restores the true text of the prophecies Samuel Clarke replies to CoUins And Arthur Ashley Sykes Bishop Kidder gives up Isaiah vii. 14 Sykes recommends moderation Thomas Sherlock on prophecy Samuel Chandler and Dr. Lobb on prophecy CoUins's ' Literal Scheme ... Chandler's twelve Messianic prophecies considered ' Son of man ' the Roman empire . Zerubbabel ' the ruler in Israel ' CoUins's sincerity Thomas Woolston On the fulness of time .... ' The Old Apology for Christianity Revived ' Aristobulus ' ' Free Gifts to the Clergy ' Woolston scarcely sane .... His object .... Allegorical interpretations ' Discourses on the Miracles ' . Casting the traders out of the Temple only a parable The demoniacs of Gadara The transfiguration .... The woman with the issue of blood are merely Pro- Page 386 387 387 387 388388 388389389 389 390 391 391 392 393 394 394 395395 396397398 399 400 400400 401 401 402 403 404 404 405 406406 407 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxvn Thomas Woolston — continued. The woman with the spirit of infirmity The woman of Samaria . The cursing of the fig-tree The lame man at the pool of Bethesda The five porches are the five books of Moses . The man born blind The turning water into wine . The healing of the paralytic . The resurrection of Lazarus . Was Lazarus really dead ? Allegorical meaning of these miracles The resurrection of Jesus Woolston's opponents Nathanael Lardner on the miracles Simon Brown on miracles Bishop Smalbroke on miracles The Fathers did not deny the literal meaning A miracle defined .... False miracles .... Woolston's arguments frivolous The swine in Gadara .... The woman with the issue of blood The cursing of the fig-tree The man at the pool of Bethesda . The man born blind .... Arguments from omissions not valid Bishop Pearce on the miracles of Jesus . Objections to the resurrection of Jesus answered The disciples did not believe that He was to rise again Difficulties may sometimes be explained The time of figs . . • ¦ Sherlock's ' Trial of the Witnesses ' ProbabUity or possibility of miracles The resurrection of Jesus Character of Woolston's mind Matthew Tindal At Oxford High Church and Low Church Page 407 408408409 410410411412 412 413414 414 415 416 416417 418418 419 420 . 420 421 . 421 , 422 423 . 424 . 424 425426426 . 427 . 428 . 429430 431431432433 XXV111 TABLE OF CONTENTS. God Matthew Tindal — continued. ' The Rights of the Christian Church ' ' Christianity as Old as Creation ' Does not depend on authority But by a revelation to reason The religion of nature The rational life a righteous life Punishment is for the good of the sinner Worship is for our benefit, not for God's Natural and revealed religion the same in essence Neglect of reason the cause of superstition Divine laws never arbitrary .... Positive religion less important than morality Superstition the enemy of religion . And often destructive of morality . Creeds and rites substituted for reUgion Reason infallible By reason we know that the Scriptures come from The Scriptures appeal to reason And can be tested by reason .... Internal evidence surer than external Tindal and Samuel Clarke .... Deism a consistent scheme before Christianity Yet insufficient Perplexity of the philosophers Uncertainty even under the Gospel Tindal calls himself a Christian Theist . Dr. Stebbing against Tindal .... He explains and defends Clarke's meaning Doctrines necessary to salvation What is Christianity P John Balguy against Tindal .... Explains Clarke And maintains the agreement of Christianity with natural religion Conybeare repUes to Tindal . Shows the necessity of revelation . And makes law to depend on the wUl of God What God does cannot be arbitrary Page 433434431435436437438 438439440441441 442 443443444444445 446446 447 447448 449 450 450451 451 452 453 454455 455456457 457 458 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxix Page Matthew Tindal — continued. Dr. Leland replies to Tindal 459 Object of positive commands 460 Insufficiency of reason 460 John Jackson replies to Tindal 461 Bishop Gibson and Tindal 462 APPENDIX. (A) Works on Practical Religion 463 (B) The Bishops from 1661 to 1720 467 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND VOL. II. CHAPTER VII. SCHEMES OP 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.J JAMES II. AND THE SEVEN BISHOPS. — SHERLOCK ON ALLEGIANCE. ANSWERS TO SHERLOCK. — THE NON-JUROBS. ISAAC BAEROW. ARCHBISHOP LEIGHTON. THE Act of Uniformity had passed the Commons by a 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- ^°mp rellen" terians ; that is to say, they belonged to the party which *Nealsaysl86againstl80. 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 ofthe 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 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND. CHAP. VII. bore that name, but who would have been satisfied with the scheme of 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 an e s' was regarded as identical with the nation, and with him the Church seemed 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- genee 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 ofthe 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 o™com™e™e 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. Eor 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 ' legal' 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 ' approval ' This was regarded as an unlawful ex- separationbetween them and the King. ercise of the dispensing power. It The Commons still showed great zeal was opposed out of hatred both 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 year 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 m 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 and 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, a,nd 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 yea,r, 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 Zeal of the Commons against Non conformists. * In 1672, the Kingagain published a ' Declaration of Indulgence,' which bad 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, they passed 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 1676, 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 tended to unite all Protest ants. CONTROVERSIES ON TOLERATION. 5 of compulsion in the time of the Long Parliament, but they CHAP. VII. had been so often sufferers that toleration for others had be gun to appear a necessity. Por a fair estimate of the tone ofthe 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 Nbnconform- called himself ' A Lover of Sincerity.' He described the cited"1 '" 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 a^^Tole- 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. Por 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. RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND. CHAP. "VTI. 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 Rector of Bramshot in Hampshire, before the Act of Uniformity. About the time of the Restoration 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 John Corbet advocates a Broad Church, * 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 "the great wasters, but mostly in the number of getters.' To meet the circumstances of the times, Corbet advocated an ' 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™-? Non- establishment. Those of narrow and rigid principles were conformists. to be persuaded to moderation. This union of Protestants was shown to "fee 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 ; f^ ™[s 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 Caelesius, 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 RELIGIOUS 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. Constantino experienced this when he complained that he could not go to war with Persia because of the heresy of Arius. Shows that S0 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, Ammianris Marcellinus, says that ' 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 Circumcelliones, 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. g 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 ^^ersJohn his arguments are generally obscure, and 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 pa4onage 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 t The ' Dolus an Virtus P ' did not the Discourse of Toleration ; or, In- deal in argument, its substance Was diligence not justified,' which con- expressed in the motto, Va vobis hy- tsiined also an answer to a tract CEilled pocrita ! IO RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND. Samuel Parker pro tests against the claims of conscience. 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 may, 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- ™ ~~T monwealth is only to make so many occasions for public dis- danger to the turbance, religious factions being ever the most seditious. toferatiorTof Hobbes' doctrine, according to Parker, was injurious, be- different cause it denied the existence of Deity. But the civil magis- ° 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 Thorndike. 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- ',£$£? rafcor,' 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. VIL 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 Reformers being educated not to be fol- -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 Roman Catholics. It woiald 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 Irenseus — 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 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°lt on ° than meat. The substance is more than the shadow, rock and not Force, 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, t ' 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 The ' Animadversions on which Marvel does now. Naked Truth' were now made 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 he cannot Oxford, wrote against it 'Lex Talionis, treat with seriousness. It is conjeo- 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 Judas. He said to Episcopacy laity, on the same principle that some ' Hail, Master !' and then betrayed it. rulers provide public entertainments 14 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND. CHAP. VIL 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 Jseen 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 that 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 defiled 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 abused to not to be abolished, though it has been abused to supersti- superstition, ti0n. The brazen serpent was erected by command of God. lished ? 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 Lord's Supper THE 'FRIENDLY 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 a < ^n^iy 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 a.s 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 '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 schism. 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. He 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 6 ' 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 ^itf^thT 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. 11. c RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND. Baxter's answer to Stillingfleet. CHAP. VH. 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 Conformity made more difficult by the Act of Uniformity. BAXTER AND STILLINGFLEET. ig he could not be silent.' There were parishes in London CHAP. VII. with populations as largo 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- tera^th ' 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 RELIGIOUS 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 ' 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.* John Owen Owen's ' Vindication of the Nonconformists from the StuKnufleet. 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 book 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- , gom7Nc>n_ ter and Owen. The authors subjoined 'a scheme of union, conformists' or materials for a bill which would heal both parties.' Some stUUngfleet. 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 ' 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 arc 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 BroadNational 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.* * 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 Quality 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 scrupleB about con formity, and there were many people 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- STILLINGFLEET'S DEFENCE. 2j Stillingfleet answered his many adversaries in a long trea- CHAP. VII. tise, called ' The Unreasonableness of Separation.' What he stillingfleet said of his opponents seemed to be true on both sides : on the ' Un- ' They profess to bring water to quench the flames, but ness°oTsopa- 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 ^^ °P" 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 been 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 m 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 RELIGIOUS 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 'TheConform- noticed the author of several tracts called ' The Conformists' theS'Noncon-r Pleas for the Nonconformists' and Dr. Whitby, who wrote formists ' The Protestant Reconciler' under the name of ' A Weil- Wisher of the Church's Peace and a Lam enter 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. ' 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 ' 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 hoBt of urged for moderatioa 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 Pres- formists,' and in the same year ' An byterian was one who was for lay Apology for the Nonconformists' eiders, 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 ol' Lincoln, Croft of Here- asks that these be 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 x ' moderation and love of our common 'THE PROTESTANT RECONCILER.' 25 called the ' Articles of Religion' 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 rjr. Whitby's have been made a condition of communion. But once im- 'Protestant •iin t- iveconcuer. 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 'Irenicum;' adding, that perhaps Dr. Stillingfleet 'can now answer these arguments,' for, said Dr. Whitby, ' I am sure I cannot.' * Macaulay says, 'The House of King, more zealous for Episcopacy Commons was, during some years, than the Bishops/ —' History of Eng- more zealous for royalty than the land,' vol. i. p. 175. 26 RELIGIOUS 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 that ' Scripture is a perfect adequate and complete rule of ceremonies, as well as worship.' Dr. Whitby pronounces this ' a false assumption.' The rule is imperfect, and in fact prescribes nothing.* The last writer on this controversy whom it is necessary to mention is Henry Dodwell. His treatise on ' Separation from Episcopal Churches ' represents the view of a party which has at least the merit of being logically consistent. The Scrip tures not a rule for cere- Henry Dod well on ' Sepa ration from Episcopal Churches.' * The following curious recanta tion was imposed on "Whitby by his patron, Bishop "Ward. Of Whitby's sincerity in reading it we cannot speak. 'Oct. 9, 1683. I, Daniel Whitby, Doctor of Divinity, Chan cellor of the Church of Sarum and Rector of the parish Church of St. Edmund's in the city and diocese of Sarum, having been the author of a book called ' The Protestant Recon ciler,' which, through want of pru dence and deference to authority, I have caused to be printed arid published, am truly and heartily sorry for the same, and for any evil influence it hath had upon the Dissenters from the Church of England established by law or others ; and whereas it con- taineth several passages which I am convinced in my conscience are ob noxious to the canons and do reflect upon the governors of the said Church, 1 do hereby openly revoke and re nounce all irreverent and unmeet ex pressions contained therein, by which I have justly incurred the censure or displeasure of my superiors : and fur thermore, whereas these two proposi tions have been deduced and con cluded from the said book, viz. (1) That it is not lawful for superiors to impose anything in the worship of God that is not antecedently neces sary ; (2) The duty of not offending a weak brother is inconsistent with all human authority of making laws concerning indifferent things, I do hereby openly renounce both the said propositions, being false, erroneous, and schismatical, and do revoke and disclaim all tenets, positions, and as sertions in the said book from whence these positions can be inferred ; and wheresoever I have offended therein, I do humbly beg pardon of God and the Church for the same.' 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 thTchurch. 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 don6 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, bat 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 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND. Episcopal Sacraments necessary to salvation. 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 ealled ' A Collection of Cases and other Dis courses lately written to Recover 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, Claget, 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 ascribes 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 argument is that the Nonconformists should conform for the sake of unity, but that the Conformists should yield nothing. Dr. Williams quotes the 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 ' weak ' 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 was 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 Rom,^~ death struggle for existence. The open encouragement CathoUc con- which the king gave to the Roman Catholic religion,*™;6™/^ 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 ' A Preservative Against Gibson's Popery .'"f In the preface, Bishop Gibson says that the tiviT'8erva" 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 intelUgent and p. 110. candid Roman Catholic to deny that t 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 pletely 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. Dr. Stratford Following the order in Gibson's collection, the first trea- on ' The Ne- tige ig b Dr gtratford, afterwards Bishop of Chester. The csssrcy Ot UQ.6 *" _^ % rr\\ it 1 * Reformation.' 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. Continued by This subject was continued by Dr. Claget, preacher at r. aget. Q-ray's inn_ jje 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. 3 1 blame of his predecessors in the see of Canterbury, who did CHAP. VIL 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 Gilbert Salisbury, followed Dr. Claget on the same subject. He ¦Bumet' 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 England from Councils, and taught no doctrines that could not be proved sci1ism.rD 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 whioh 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 of England from the charge of novelty. He compared ^^"J^g Christianity to the pearl of great price, which the Church charge of of Rome had covered with heaps of rubbish. These were n