Those Divines whom I have already imperfectly described, may be
characterized as High Anglicans. There remains for consideration, a
second class, whom I venture to denominate semi-Anglicans.
Sanderson’s fame as a theologian rests mainly upon his treatment of
casuistical questions, and upon his noble volume of sermons. The latter
compositions (1659–1674), which exhibit great vigour, compass, and
patience of thought, expressed in massive but tedious eloquence,--are
chiefly practical; but also, they here and there reveal doctrinal
opinions, and, together with the reports of his friends, and extracts
from his MSS., indicate some of the leading points in the preacher’s
system of divinity. He affords an instance of that change of opinion
which we find to have been so common at the time. In early life, having
adopted the sublapsarian scheme, he afterwards renounced it, “as well
as the supralapsarian, which he could never fancy.”[421] To use his
own words, “We must acknowledge the work of both (grace and free-will)
in the conversion of a sinner. And so, likewise, in all other events
the consistency of the infallibility of God’s foreknowledge at least
(though not with any absolute but conditional predestination), with
the liberty of man’s will and the contingency of inferior causes and
effects.”[422] He made strong objections to some leading points in
Twiss’ _Vindiciæ Gratiæ_, a book written against Arminius. But one
of the characteristic principles held by the Divines of the school, to
which Sanderson in earlier life belonged, he seems to have retained
to the last, for he expresses, in one of his sermons, published by
himself not long before his death, the following account of Christian
faith:--“The word faith is used to signify, that theological virtue or
gracious habit, whereby we embrace with our minds and affections the
Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God and alone Saviour of
the world, casting ourselves wholly upon the mercy of God through His
merits for remission and everlasting salvation. It is that which is
commonly called a lively or justifying faith; whereunto are ascribed
in Holy Writ those many gracious effects, of purifying the heart,
adoption, justification, life, joy, peace, salvation, &c. Not as to
their proper and primary cause, but as to the instrument, whereby we
apprehend and apply Christ, whose merits and Spirit are the true causes
of all those blessed effects.”[423]
The life of Sanderson requires us to consider him as sympathizing in
some respects with Anglican Divines, but their distinguishing dogmas
are not at all conspicuous in his sermons.
[Sidenote: HAMMOND.]
Hammond, the friend of Sanderson,[424]--associated with him scarcely
less in doctrinal opinions and ecclesiastical sympathies, than in the
closest intimacy and warmest affection,--has been described as one--
“Whose mild persuasive voice
Taught us in trials to rejoice
Most like a faithful dove,
That by some ruined homestead builds,
And pours to the forsaken fields
His wonted lay of love.”
And the calm, tender strain of his theology harmonizes with the spirit
which the poet has thus so touchingly characterized. Like Sanderson,
Hammond is more practical than scientific. Like Sanderson, he shines
with richer lustre as a Christian casuist, than as a systematic
Divine. In his _Practical Catechism_, however, he appears to advantage
both as an evangelical moralist and a doctrinal teacher: it contains
expositions of the Creed, of the Ten Commandments, and of the Sermon
on the Mount. Exhibitions of principle are skilfully interwoven with
the enforcement of precepts; moderation is blended with orthodoxy;
and in his conclusions touching the critical points of theology which
we have selected as tests for elucidating distinctive opinion, he
closely approaches his beloved companion Sanderson. With Hammond
faith is the _condition_ of justification; he scruples to call it the
_instrument_, lest he should ascribe to it any undue efficiency;[425]
but in faith he includes the germ of all Christian obedience, all
Christian virtue; he describes it as a cordial, sincere, giving up
oneself to God, particularly to Christ, firmly to rely on all His
promises, and faithfully to obey all His commands. Hammond broadly
distinguishes justification from sanctification,--defining the first
as God’s covering or pardoning our iniquities, His being so reconciled
unto us sinners, that He determines not to punish us eternally;--and
the second, as the infusion of holiness into our hearts, the turning
of the soul to Himself. Into the relation between the two blessings,
and the order of their bestowment--which of them is conferred first--he
enters, with a subtlety of analysis unusual in the Anglican school;
and whilst, with exemplary candour, he suggests what he allows to be
an orthodox rendering of the Puritan doctrine of justification before
sanctification, he himself prefers to place the latter first in the
order of time; yet, in doing this, he so qualifies his statement as not
to alarm even the Puritan, who ventures upon this abstruse, perplexing,
and not very profitable path of speculative inquiry. Hammond believed
that justification flows from the mediatorial priesthood of the Lord
Jesus; but he distinctly denied that the Redeemer’s active obedience is
imputed to men.[426]
[Sidenote: PEARSON.]
Pearson’s _Exposition of the Creed_ (1659) is a well-known
theological treatise. He implicitly pursues an Anglican course, citing
the Fathers in support of his positions; but he nowhere distinctly
defines what authority he attaches to them, or, indeed, formally lays
down as a principle that they are his guides at all. Pearson must
have been moderate in his ecclesiastical views, or he could not have
pursued the course he did during the Commonwealth; and his position as
Lecturer at St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, and the association into which
he would necessarily be brought with his Puritan brethren, might have
the effect of widening his sympathies, and of preventing, in his case,
those controversial asperities which embitter the writings of extreme
Anglicans. In his article on the Church, he refers to its unity, its
perpetuity, its holiness, and its Catholicity, meaning apparently by
the Church the aggregate of Christian professors, whether they be
good or bad.[427] Under the last head, he touches upon the authority
of the Church in the following brief remark:--“They call the Church
of Christ the Catholic Church, because it teacheth all things which
are necessary for a Christian to know, whether they be things in
heaven or things in earth, whether they concern the condition of man
in this life, or in the life to come. As the Holy Ghost did lead the
Apostles into all truth, so did the Apostles leave all truth unto
the Church, which teaching all the same, may be well called Catholic
from the universality of necessary and saving truths retained in it.”
Even this scarcely amounts to an assertion of Church authority in
the Anglican sense; it might be explained consistently with Puritan
principles, it never would have satisfied Thorndike or Heylyn, or even
Bull. To baptism, however, Pearson attributes great efficacy, coupling
it, as Heylyn and others do, with the article on _Forgiveness of
Sins_, according to the teaching of the Nicene and other Creeds.
Unlike Thorndike, he does not propound any theory of justification in
connection with baptism; nor does he, any more than Heylyn, dwell on
the subject of justification in any way: he confines himself to the
idea of remitting sins, which perhaps, in his opinion, is equivalent
to justification. He uses strong expressions in speaking of the
Atonement,--referring to “the punishment which Christ, who was our
surety, endured,” as “a full satisfaction to the will and justice of
God.” “It was a price given to redeem”--something “laid down by way
of compensation.” “Although God be said to remit our sins by which
we were captivated, yet He is never said to remit the price, without
which we had never been redeemed, neither can He be said to have
remitted it, because He did require it and receive it.” A Calvinist
could scarcely have marked the point more strongly. Pearson also says
“that Christ did render God propitious unto us by His blood--that is,
His sufferings unto death--who before was offended with us for our
sins; and this propitiation amounted to reconciliation, that is, a
kindness after wrath. We must conceive that God was angry with mankind
before He determined to give our Saviour; we cannot imagine that God,
who is essentially just, should not abominate iniquity.” Pearson’s
definition of faith is very different from Thorndike’s. It is a habit
of the intellectual part of man, and therefore of itself invisible;
and to believe is a spiritual act, and consequently “immanent and
internal, and known to no man but him that believeth.” We find in
Pearson’s exposition none of those peculiarly High Church views in
which Thorndike and Heylyn so much delighted; and, what is very
remarkable, as far as I can find, he only in a cursory way mentions the
Lord’s Supper. Certainly he does not dwell upon it in any part of his
treatise.[428]
Pearson’s common sense, mastery of learning, clearness of thought,
perspicuity of style, and directness of reasoning, have secured and
will retain for him a high place amongst English theological teachers.
His orderly arrangement of topics, and his compact and forcible method
of expression, render him popular with all students of his school
of theology; and there are few points on which they can consult him
without finding what they want in a shape convenient for use. Those
who differ from him may read him with advantage; and they will discover
that, for the most part, his faults are only defects which may be
supplied by repairing to other sources of information.
[Sidenote: BARROW.]
Isaac Barrow devoted long years to the study of mathematics, for
which he has acquired high renown; and he travelled in Turkey, and
resided twelve months in Constantinople, where he read the whole of
Chrysostom’s works near the spot upon which many of his sermons were
delivered--a course of reading which must have been of immense service
to him as an expounder of Christian morality. His favourite scientific
studies left upon his mind a stamp of precision and order, apparent
in his writings; and his familiarity with Greek patristic eloquence
may be traced in the stately flow of his copious diction. His theology
lies close to the boundary line between Anglicanism and the Divinity
of the Cambridge school. After holding a mathematical professorship at
Cambridge, he devoted the remainder of his life to theology, in which
he achieved a reputation equal to that which he had won in the pursuit
of science.
In his sermons on the Creed, instead of confining himself, as Pearson
and Heylyn have done, to the exposition of Christian truth, he
carefully employs himself in constructing defences of the faith. He
begins his task with an exposure of the unreasonableness of infidelity,
and with an assertion of the perfectly rational nature of belief
in the Gospel. He afterwards dwells, at length, upon proofs of the
existence of God; upon the Divinity and excellence of the Christian
religion, as compared with the impiety and imposture of Paganism and
Mahometanism, and the imperfection of Judaism; and upon the evidence
that Jesus is the true Messias. Thus Barrow appears as a Christian
advocate. He habitually bases his arguments upon Scripture texts, but
he also habitually weaves into these arguments threads of reason, so
as to commend what he advances to the understanding of his readers,
ever avoiding what is mystical, or merely imaginative. Yet he does not
neglect the dogmas of revelation, but brings many of them out with a
clearness and precision which has been overlooked by some critics.
His disquisition upon the nature of faith is as exhaustive as that of
any Puritan, and will be found a wearisome piece of reading by some
modern students. He dwells much upon the difficulties of faith, and
upon the moral virtue involved in overcoming them; and when we compare
his opinions with those of Thorndike and Bull, we discover in him a
general similarity to them, in connection with shades of difference.
In common with Thorndike, he resolutely opposes the idea that faith
consists in any belief of our being pardoned, or in any assurance of
salvation, or in any persuasion that a true Christian cannot fall
from grace. His representations of the virtuousness of evangelical
belief are obviously in harmony with that writer’s statements; and
he also, in accordance with them, associates faith and the baptismal
covenant, saying, “Faith is nothing else but a hearty embracing
Christianity, which first exerteth itself by open declaration and
avowal in baptism.”[429] Barrow, however, of all men, requires to be
judged, not by isolated expressions, but by a comparison of one part
of his teaching with another. Turning, then, to the following passage,
which is complete in itself, and which I quote as an example of his
diffuse and affluent style, we meet with an account of Christian faith,
such as would scarcely have satisfied the demands of Thorndike’s
baptismal theology:--“By this faith (as to the first and primary sense
thereof) is understood the being truly and firmly persuaded in our
minds that Jesus was what He professed Himself to be, and what the
Apostles testified Him to be, the Messias, by God designed, foretold,
and promised to be sent into the world, to redeem, govern, instruct,
and save mankind, our Redeemer and Saviour, our Lord and Master, our
King and Judge, the great High Priest, and Prophet of God--the being
assured of these and all other propositions connexed with these;
or, in short, the being thoroughly persuaded of the truth of that
Gospel which was revealed and taught by Jesus and His Apostles. That
this notion is true, those descriptions of this faith, and phrases
expressing it, do sufficiently show; the nature and reason of the
thing doth confirm the same, for that such a faith is, in its kind
and order, apt and sufficient to promote God’s design of saving us,
to render us capable of God’s favour, to purge our hearts, and work
that change of mind which is necessary in order to the obtaining God’s
favour, and enjoying happiness; to produce that obedience which God
requires of us, and without which we cannot be saved: these things
are the natural results of such a persuasion concerning those truths;
as natural as the desire and pursuit of any good doth arise from the
clear apprehension thereof, or as the shunning of any mischief doth
follow from the like apprehension; as a persuasion that wealth is to
be got thereby makes the merchant to undergo the dangers and pains of
a long voyage (verifying that, _Impiger extremos currit mercator ad
Indos, Per mare pauperiem fugiens, per saxa, per ignes_); as the
persuasion that health may thereby be recovered, engages a man not only
to take down the most unsavoury potions, but to endure cuttings and
burnings (_ut valeas, ferrum patieris et ignes_); as a persuasion
that refreshment is to be found in a place, doth effectually carry
the hungry person thither; so a strong persuasion that the Christian
religion is true, and the way of obtaining happiness, and of escaping
misery, doth naturally produce a subjection of heart and an obedience
thereto; and accordingly we see the highest of those effects, which the
Gospel offers or requires, are assigned to this faith, as results from
it, or adjuncts thereof.”[430]
[Sidenote: BARROW.]
The strong moral power attributed to faith places Barrow’s description
of it in nearly strict coincidence with the teaching of Bishop
Bull upon the same subject. Yet from Thorndike, and from other
Anglo-Catholic Divines, with exceptions already pointed out, Barrow
differs in his definite and sharp distinction between holiness and
justification. No Puritan could more precisely mark off the latter
from the former. Admitting, he says, that whoever is justified is also
endued with some measure of intrinsic righteousness--“avowing willingly
that such a righteousness doth ever accompany the justification St.
Paul speaketh of--yet that sort of righteousness doth not seem implied
by the word justification, according to St. Paul’s intent, in those
places where he discourseth about justification by faith, for that such
a sense of the word doth not well consist with the drift and efficacy
of his reasoning, nor with divers passages in his discourse.”[431] But
to the distinction he so clearly makes he attributes less importance
than many theologians are wont to do.
[Sidenote: BARROW.]
Although Barrow does not copiously discuss the doctrine of the
Atonement--although he dwells chiefly on the moral effects of
Christ’s death--yet he uses very strong expressions as to the effect
of our Lord’s sacrifice upon the Divine government, speaking of it
as “appeasing that wrath of God which He naturally beareth toward
iniquity, and reconciling God to men, who by sin were alienated
from Him, by procuring a favourable disposition and intentions of
grace toward us.” “Christ died, removing thereby that just hatred
and displeasure.” “The non-imputation of our sins is expressed as
a singular effect, an instance, an argument of His being in mind
reconciled and favourably disposed towards us.”[432]
In five sermons, entirely devoted to the subject, this Divine asserts
and explains the doctrine of universal redemption, saying that
salvation is made attainable, and is really tendered unto all, upon
feasible and equal conditions; and that a competency of grace is
imparted to every man, qualifying him to do what God requires.[433]
His account of the Divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit is the
same as is generally given by orthodox teachers. As to the work of the
third Person in the Trinity, Barrow’s line of thought coincides more
with Anglican than with Puritan writers. Besides much of a general
character upon the Spirit’s assistance, in the thirty-fourth sermon
on the Creed, Barrow remarks--“It hath been the doctrine constantly
with general consent delivered in and by the Catholic Church, that
to all persons by the holy mystery of baptism duly initiated into
Christianity, and admitted into the communion of Christ’s body, the
grace of the Holy Spirit is communicated, enabling them to perform the
conditions of piety and virtue which they undertake.”[434]
Barrow appears to have been a Low Churchman, and, in the fragment he
has left us upon “the holy Catholic Church,” omits those assertions
respecting ecclesiastical authority which were the joy of Thorndike and
Heylyn. He explains the different senses in which the word “Church”
is used in the New Testament; and, in its larger sense, applies to
it the epithets “holy” and “Catholic,” winding up all he has to say
with practical remarks which commend themselves to candid Christians
of all denominations.[435] It may be added that, in his discourse
concerning _The unity of the Church_, he opposes the idea of any
such ecclesiastical authority as is contended for either by Papists or
Anglo-Catholics.
The _Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy_, from the same pen--too
long to be described--places the author amongst the chief defenders
of Protestantism, and deserves the eulogium of Tillotson,--what “many
others have handled before, he hath exhausted.” The student can
find arguments against the assumptions of Rome nowhere so fully and
powerfully stated as on Barrow’s pages. Those arguments are, perhaps,
like Saul’s armour, too cumbrous for the Davids of the present day;
but there are in Barrow’s armoury stones from the brook for simple
shepherds, as well as spears and shields for veteran warriors.
The feeling of Barrow towards the Romish Church is plain from what
has now been said, and it is desirable, before we leave the opinions
of the Anglicans, to inquire what their feeling generally was upon
this subject; and also how they expressed themselves in reference to
Protestant communities.
[Sidenote: OPINIONS RESPECTING POPERY.]
Thorndike calls the Romish a true but corrupt Church, in which
salvation may be obtained, although it be clogged with difficulty. It
is not Antichrist. It is not formally idolatrous; yet, after referring
to its abuses, he says, “to live under them, and to yield conformity to
them, is a burden unsufferable for a Christian to undergo: to approve
them by being reconciled to the Church that maintains them is a scandal
incurable and irreparable.”[436]
Bishop Bull observes, referring to certain doctrines held by Romanists,
“I look upon it as a wonderful both just and wise providence of God,
that He hath suffered the Church of Rome to fall into such gross errors
(which otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits that
had not renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea and
their senses too, could be overtaken with), and to determine them for
articles of faith.”[437]
Heylyn concedes to Rome the character of a true Church; yet after
referring to the argument for image worship, he remarks:--“Though
perhaps some men of learning may be able to relieve themselves by
these distinctions; yet I can see no possibility how the common
people, who kneel and make their prayers directly to the image itself,
without being able to discern where the difference lieth between their
_proprie_ and _improprie_, or _per se_ and _per accidens_, can be
excused from palpable and downright _idolatry_.”[438]
The same writer, describing the Reformation, and contending for the
continuity of the English Church, reflects, by implication, severely
upon its previously Romanized state:--“Whereas, the case, if rightly
stated, is but like that of a sick and wounded man, that had long lain
weltering in his own blood, or languishing under a tedious burden
of diseases, and afterwards by God’s great mercy, and the skilful
diligence of honest chirurgeons and physicians, is at the last restored
to his former health.”[439]
Taylor is much more decided in his condemnation of Rome:--“Now let any
man judge whether it be not our duty, and a necessary work of charity,
and the proper office of our ministry, to persuade our charges from
the ‘immodesty of an evil heart,’ from having a ‘devilish spirit,’
from doing that ‘which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle,’ from
‘infidelity and pride;’ and, lastly, from that ‘eternal woe which is
denounced’ against them that add other words and doctrines than what
is contained in the Scriptures, and say, ‘_Dominus dixit_, the
Lord hath said it,’ and He hath not said it. If we had put these severe
censures upon the Popish doctrine of tradition, we should have been
thought uncharitable; but, because the holy fathers do so, we ought to
be charitable, and snatch our charges from the ambient flame.”[440]
Bramhall, whose Protestantism went further than that of Thorndike
or Heylyn, says:--“That Church which hath changed the apostolical
creed, the apostolical succession, the apostolical regiment, and
the apostolical communion, is no apostolical, orthodox, or Catholic
Church. But the Church of Rome hath changed the apostolical creed, the
apostolical succession, the apostolical regiment, and the apostolical
communion. Therefore the Church of Rome is no apostolical, orthodox, or
Catholic Church.”[441]
[Sidenote: RESPECTING UNEPISCOPAL CHURCHES.]
In reference to Protestant communities abroad, the same writer
expresses his opinion thus:--
“I cannot assent that either all or any considerable part of the
Episcopal Divines in England do unchurch either all or most part of
the Protestant Churches. No man is hurt but by himself. They unchurch
none at all, but leave them to stand or fall to their own master. They
do not unchurch the Swedish, Danish, Bohemian Churches, and many other
Churches in Polonia, Hungaria, and those parts of the world who have
an ordinary, uninterrupted succession of pastors--some by the names of
Bishops, others under the name of Seniors, unto this day. (I meddle
not with the Socinians.) They unchurch not the Lutheran Churches in
Germany, who both assert Episcopacy in their confessions, and have
actual superintendents in their practice, and would have Bishops, name
and thing, if it were in their power.... Episcopal Divines do not deny
those Churches to be true Churches, wherein salvation may be had. We
advise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect for themselves, and
not to put it to more question, whether they have ordination or not, or
desert the general practice of the Universal Church for nothing, when
they may clear it if they please. Their case is not the same with those
who labour under invincible necessity.... This mistake proceedeth from
not distinguishing between the true nature and essence of a Church,
which we do readily grant them, and the integrity or perfection of a
Church, which we cannot grant them, without swerving from the judgment
of the Catholic Church.”[442]
“Wheresoever, in the world,” observes Cosin, “Churches bearing the
name of Christ profess the true, ancient, and Catholic religion and
faith, and invocate and worship, with one mouth and heart, God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, if from actual communion
with them I am now debarred, either by the distance of regions, or
the dissensions of men, or any other obstacle; nevertheless, always
in my heart, and soul, and affection, I hold communion and unite with
them--that which I wish especially to be understood of the Protestant
and well-reformed Churches. For the foundations being safe, any
difference of opinion or of ceremonies--on points circumstantial, and
not essential, nor repugnant to the universal practice of the ancient
Church, in other Churches (over which we are not to rule)--we in a
friendly, placid, and peaceable spirit, may bear, and therefore ought
to bear.”[443]
Morley is cautious:--“Our Church is not so liberal of her anathemas
as [Rome] is. We are sure our Church is truly apostolical, and that
for government and discipline, as well as doctrine. Whether the
Christian congregations in other Protestant countries be so or no,
_Ætatem habent, respondeant pro semetipsis et Domino suo stent
vel cadent_. In the mean time our Church hath declared, that no
man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest or
Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to exercise any of those
sacred functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted
thereunto, according unto the form hereafter following; or unless he
had formerly Episcopal consecration, or ordination.”[444]
[Sidenote: RESPECTING UNEPISCOPAL CHURCHES.]
Of Nonconformists, Thorndike speaks in distinct and decided terms.
Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, are guilty of schism.
This he asserts over and over again; and of his opinion respecting
schism, he leaves us in no doubt. Schism may, indeed, be unjust on
both sides,--a favourite idea with Thorndike;--and it may be such as
that salvation may be had on both sides; but this lenient view of the
subject, he expresses only in relation to the differences between the
Eastern and the Western Churches, between the Church of England and
the Church of Rome. Schism, as committed by Nonconformists, he ever
represents in the darkest colours. Presbyterian baptism, he affirms, to
be no baptism. Their service is an imposture; in opposing Episcopacy,
and setting up their synods, they erect altar against altar. It is mere
equivocation to call their congregations Churches, and their ordinances
sacraments. It was unwarrantable, he maintains, under the Commonwealth,
to communicate with Presbyterians and Independents; although the moral
impossibility of communing with them could not justify communing with
Papists. The theory of the Independents he holds to be more suitable
to Christianity than that of the Presbyterians, but he says it is
impracticable, without Scriptural authority, and not less free from
schism.[445] He counts the doctrine of justification, as he supposed
it to be held by some Nonconformists, no other than a dreadful heresy,
worse even than the Romanist doctrine of justification. Yet we find, in
one place, this cold gleam of charity:--“I confess, as afore I allowed
the Church of Rome some excuse from the unreasonableness of their
adversaries; so here, considering the horrible scandals given by that
communion in standing so rigorously upon laws so visibly ruinous to the
service of God, and the advancement of Christianity, and the difficulty
of finding that mean in which the truth stands between the extremes
(as our Lord Christ between the thieves, saith Tertullian), I do not
proceed to give the salvation of poor souls for lost, that are carried
away with the pretence of reformation in the change that is made, even
to hate, and persecute, by word or by deed, those who cannot allow it.”
The book in which this passage occurs was published in 1659.
Anabaptists, Thorndike pronounces to be schismatics, if not
heretics:--“As for the ground of that opinion, which moves them
to break up the seal of God, marked upon those that are baptized
unto the hope of salvation upon the obligation of Christianity, by
baptizing them anew, to the hope of salvation, without the obligation
of Christianity; whether they are to be counted heretics therefore or
not, let who will dispute. This, I may justly infer, they take as sure
a course to murder the souls of those whom they baptize again, as of
those whom they let go out of the world unbaptized.”[446]
As Thorndike is more full and explicit in the statement of his
views respecting the schism which he believed to be involved in
Nonconformity, so also he goes beyond some other Anglicans in
denouncing its principles, and censuring its professors. Perhaps
certain writers of his class might think less unjustly, and more
charitably, of Dissenters; yet none of them, consistently with their
own Church notions, could regard Independent societies as Churches,
whatever favourable opinion they might entertain of individual members.
Anything like intercommunion with communities not Episcopalian,
seems, in the estimation of such a man as Thorndike, utterly out of
the question; and therefore by him, and by those who think with him,
the Episcopal Church of England is placed in an entirely isolated
position, in reference to the rest of Protestant Christendom, except
where Bishops are retained; such instances being few and doubtful.
[Sidenote: THE PRAYER BOOK.]
Cosin, in his _Confession_, declares very strongly against
sectaries and fanatics, amongst whom he ranks “not only the
Separatists, the Anabaptists, and their followers, alas, too, too
many, but also the New Independents and Presbyterians of our country,
a kind of men hurried away with the spirit of malice, disobedience,
and sedition, who by a disloyal attempt (the like whereof was never
heard since the world began) have, of late, committed so many great
and execrable crimes, to the contempt and despite of religion, and the
Christian faith: which, how great they were, without horror cannot be
spoken or mentioned.”[447]
Connected with love for the Anglican Church, with dislike of the
Papacy, and with alienation from unepiscopal communities, there existed
a strong attachment to the formularies of faith, and of worship,
contained in the Book of Common Prayer. That Book was used in secret
during the Commonwealth; and before being reviewed in 1662--indeed
previously to the Restoration--it received comment and eulogy from the
pen of Hamon L’Estrange,--who published, in 1659, an elaborate and
learned work on _The Alliance of Divine Offices_, in which he
compared other Liturgies with that of the Church of England since the
Reformation. His book is based upon the study of Whitgift and Hooker,
who had answered Cartwright’s objections to the Anglican services, and
who had convinced the author that they did not lie open to the charge
of unlawfulness, but were of a nature to command obedience. L’Estrange
also studied the previous records, as he calls them, of the first six
centuries; the result being a conviction, that the noblest parts of
the Liturgy were used by the Primitive Church, before a Popish Mass
had ever been said; and that an admirable harmony obtained, even in
external rites, between the Church of England and the ancient Fathers.
This volume did not reach a second edition before the year 1690; but
until it was supplemented or superseded by later works, it continued
to be the chief authority on the subject, and has been, in our own
time, thought worthy of republication in the library of Anglo-Catholic
Theology.
A new publication appeared, partly in 1651, and partly in 1662, bearing
upon the Anglican controversy with Puritanism, of too important a
character to be passed over in silence. The first five books of
Hooker’s _Ecclesiastical Polity_, had long been the admiration
of Episcopalian Churchmen,--the rest of the treatise, supposed to
be lost, remaining to them an object of desire. At the periods now
mentioned, there came to light the last three books of this great work
as possessed by posterity.
[Sidenote: HOOKER’S WORKS.]
The sixth book, included in the part which issued from the press in
1651, is, according to the title, a disquisition upon ecclesiastical
power and the question of lay eldership; but the reader does not
proceed many pages before he finds the disquisition going off in a
tangent, from the subject of Church jurisdiction, to pursue inquiries
relative to the Popish dogmas of confession and penance. Such a method
of composition is so unlike that of “the judicious Hooker,” that there
can be no doubt his last accomplished Editor is right in concluding,
that we have here some compositions from the author’s pen not intended
for insertion in the _Ecclesiastical Polity_. Notes remain
showing that he had drawn up a plan for this department of his task,
which would have methodically and pertinently disposed of it, but no
MS. has been discovered filling up the carefully-digested outline. It
has been suspected that the Puritan relatives of the Church champion
in Elizabeth’s reign were guilty of foul play in this matter, and
that after destroying most of the genuine copy, they vamped up the
mutilated remainder with dissertations selected from other papers. Such
a thing may be possible, but certainly it is not proved. I can find
no satisfactory positive evidence in support of the suspicion,[448]
and it is quite unaccountable how, if the Puritan manglers of his MSS.
had made away with what related to lay eldership, they should leave in
existence a long Essay, containing a lengthened defence of Episcopal
order. This defence, which appeared in 1662, under the Editorship
of Gauden, who does not say where he obtained it, presents abundant
internal proof of its genuineness, showing nevertheless the absence
of that careful revision and correction, which the Author would have
bestowed, had he lived to complete his own publication. It forms the
seventh book.
In the fourth and fifth chapters there is a discussion of the main
point, “whence it hath grown that the Church is governed by Bishops.”
In the fifth, Hooker says:--
“It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian
world, that _Ecclesia est in Episcopo_, ‘the outward being of a
Church consisteth in the having of a Bishop.’ That where colleges of
presbyters were, there was at the first, equality amongst them, St.
Jerome thinketh it a matter clear: but when the rest were thus equal,
so that no one of them could command any other as inferior unto him,
they all were controllable by the Apostles, who had that Episcopal
authority abiding at the first in themselves, which they afterwards
derived unto others. The cause wherefore they under themselves
appointed such Bishops as were not every where at the first, is said to
have been those strifes and contentions, for remedy whereof, whether
the Apostles alone did conclude of such a regiment, or else they
together with the whole Church judging it a fit and a needful policy,
did agree to receive it for a custom; no doubt but being established
by them on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for
the ordering of Christ’s Church, it had either Divine appointment
beforehand, or Divine approbation afterwards, and is in that respect to
be acknowledged the ordinance of God, no less than that ancient Jewish
regiment, whereof though Jethro were the deviser, yet after that God
had allowed it, all men were subject unto it, as to the polity of God,
and not of Jethro.”
In the course of the entire argument respecting Episcopacy, Hooker
changes his standing again and again; sometimes taking higher,
and sometimes lower ground; now insisting upon the Divine origin
of Diocesan Bishops, and then, supposing their origin not to be
immediately Divine, attempting to show the inherent authority of the
Church to determine its own frame of government, and to establish the
sufficiency of such evidence as may be drawn from patristic sources.
[Sidenote: HOOKER’S WORKS.]
The eighth book treats of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical
matters, and is intended as a reply to certain Puritan objections
brought against the form of that supremacy as established by the laws
of the land. It is a curious circumstance that one chapter contains a
vindication of the title, “Supreme Head of the Church;”[449] although
this did not remain the parliamentary title of the sovereign, according
to the statute of supremacy in the first year of Elizabeth’s reign: and
such being the fact, it may be inferred, that Hooker used the title as
an equivalent to the statutable appellation of “Supreme Governor in all
spiritual and ecclesiastical causes.”
Hooker’s vindication of the Royal supremacy contains a course of
elaborate reasoning in support of the prerogative with regard to Church
assemblies, and Church legislation, the appointing of Bishops, and
the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts. Finally, he discusses the
Royal exemption from ecclesiastical censure, as well as from all other
kinds of judicial power. This topic is handled with much caution, and
some reticence, and the chapter in which it is considered remains
in an unfinished state. I have not lighted upon any controversial
publications arising out of the appearance of these recovered writings,
but I notice that Kennet says, Bishop Gauden “doth, with great
confidence, use diverse arguments to satisfy the world that the three
books joined to the five genuine books of the said Mr. Hooker are
genuine, and penned by him, notwithstanding those poisonous assertions
against the regal power, which are to be found therein.”[450] To what
in particular the closing words refer is not plain; they can scarcely
point to a fragment on the limits of obedience, which Gauden attached
to the eighth book, but which Keble transfers to an Appendix, since the
author there enforces subjection to civil governors as a conscientious
duty. It is not a little remarkable, that Thorndike makes no use either
of the earlier or later editions of the _Ecclesiastical Polity_.
The Anglican Divines included distinguished sermon writers. They
followed in the wake of Andrewes and Donne, whom they resembled in
their theology, from whom they differed in their style. Like the
Puritans after the Reformation, they were generally cut off from public
preaching during the Interregnum; but they wrote sermons, and some
abroad had liberty to preach,--as for example Cosin, who, at Paris,
during his exile, delivered several discourses, which are included in
his works. The chief of them were prepared for the festivals of the
Church, and treat of the Nativity, the Resurrection, and the Ascension:
subjects which are handled sometimes in a cold orthodox manner,
sometimes with forcible and original reasoning, and now and then with
strokes of vigorous eloquence. It is remarkable that we have no sermons
by Cosin, written after the Restoration; and indeed there is a general
paucity of homiletic literature by members of the Episcopal bench for
twenty years before the Revolution.
[Sidenote: ANGLICAN SERMON WRITERS.]
The Irish bench supplied one brilliant sermon-writer--whose
compositions in that department are above all praise. Jeremy Taylor’s
theology has been already considered, space here only permits the
remark that his theology appears in his sermons, that he is the
true Anglican throughout, and that all his opinions are there
arrayed in robes of bewitching grace and splendour. His practical
works,--for example _The Life of Christ_ and _Holy Living
and Dying_,--may be classed with his discourses; and abound in
rich specimens of that golden eloquence--stamped with an Anglican
mint-mark--which he was wont copiously to issue from the pulpit.
Sanderson’s sermons are exhaustive treatises, in which the homiletic
character sometimes fades, but orthodox doctrine is always implied;
the casuistry of Christian experience is handled sometimes in almost
a Puritan spirit, and Christian ethics are ever treated in a clear,
manly, incisive style. Barrow’s sermons are also treatises, many of
them most decidedly doctrinal, orthodox and argumentative. But, of all
these Divines, it may be said--not excepting Jeremy Taylor, who exerts
a charm of another kind--that they lack the evangelical unction, the
softness and fragrance of which is felt to be suffused over the Puritan
homilies.
Controversy tinges more or less most of the sermons of that period;
but, for invective, Dr. South has won an unenviable notoriety. No one
can admire more than I do, the good sense and masculine style of this
author. There are sermons of his which are perfect models of pulpit
address; but on reading others, who but must feel that perhaps there
never was another man who _could_ so well enforce the truths
of Christianity, who also _did_ so flagrantly violate their
spirit. He never misses, or rather, he never fails to make, when he
had any pretence for it, an opportunity of attacking his Puritan
contemporaries; although he must have lived on terms of civility with
them when at Oxford. As in a sermon by Chrysostom, preached at Antioch,
one scarcely ever gets to the end, without finding him rebuking
swearers, so South in his sermons preached at Westminster Abbey, and in
other places, rarely concludes without assailing English schismatics,
who were not less bad in his eyes, than were the most profane Syrians
in the eyes of the orator of the Eastern Church. Men destitute of
South’s power manifested a similar temper, vilifying the Nonconformists
“as far more dangerous enemies than the Papists;”[451] and thus,
in the treatment of opponents, they imitated and even exceeded the
worst polemical vices of such men as Vicars and Edwards, under the
Commonwealth.
[Sidenote: ANGLICAN CRITICS.]
Before the Restoration there appeared a book on practical piety, which
attained to an extraordinary degree of popularity. Every one has heard
of the _Whole Duty of Man_; and most people given to religious
reading have met with a treatise bearing that title; probably on
examination it has proved to be what is entitled, the _New Whole
Duty of Man_, a work proceeding on different principles from the
original treatise--only the name of which it bears, only the form
of which it imitates.[452] The original treatise, from the pen of
an anonymous author,[453] bears a commendatory letter, written by
Dr. Hammond, a circumstance which alone would suggest our ranking
it amongst the productions of the Anglican school of theology. Its
contents justify our doing so. It proceeds upon the theory, so largely
illustrated by Thorndike, that by baptism men are brought into a
gracious covenant with God; and that men become, not by merit, but by
mercy, entitled to the blessings promised in the Gospel. A Christian
life is the fulfilment of vows and obligations incurred in baptism.
The book recognizes the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of
our Lord, the Atonement, and other related truths under Anglican
forms of expression; but the stress of the work, indeed every page,
except a few at the beginning, consists in an inculcation of human
duty, considered under a threefold aspect--so common once in the
pulpits of the Establishment--our duty towards God, our duty towards
ourselves, and our duty towards one another. All the precepts of
devotion, of virtue, and of beneficence are ranged under these heads.
The great motives to godliness and goodness are not overlooked; but
the proportion in which they are exhibited is very small compared with
the space allotted to a prescriptive treatment of the subject. Of the
fulness and variety of the practical advice given no one can complain;
but the scanty reference to the distinctive doctrines of the Gospel,
will be acknowledged by most Divines as a serious defect. The defect
is explained, but not justified by the circumstance, that the book is
a reaction against a theological tendency, needing to be checked--“the
fanatics were shamefully regardless of good works, and preached up
faith as all-sufficient.”
The _Whole Duty of Man_ has been more condemned and more praised
than it deserves. It presents a large amount of moral advice, but it
lacks the main motive power which produces Christian virtue; and as
to style, it is hard and unattractive from beginning to end, utterly
lacking tenderness, and exhibiting practical religion only in a _dry
light_.
Some of the Anglican Divines zealously devoted themselves to Biblical
criticism. In the matter of exegesis, the Puritans achieved much; but
they looked with suspicion upon all attempts to amend the sacred text.
In this department, certain of their theological opponents laid their
own age and posterity under immense obligation. Bryan Walton, perhaps,
is not to be numbered with Anglicans; and amongst his most efficient
helpers, was Lightfoot, more of a Latitudinarian than an Anglican,--but
Castell and Pocock, Herbert Thorndike, and Alexander Huish, if not
Thomas Hyde and Samuel Clark,[454] all of them eminent scholars, were
more or less Anglican, certainly they were all Episcopalian, in their
views; and it is to them, assisted by Oliver Cromwell, who permitted
the paper for the purpose to be imported duty free, that we owe the
English Polyglott,--which competent judges have pronounced superior to
its more splendid predecessors, published on the Continent. Castell was
enthusiastically devoted to critical studies, to which he sacrificed
his property, his time, and his energies, with small reward, in the way
of Church preferment. His _Lexicon Heptaglotton_ is a monument of
astonishing learning, and worthy of being associated with his friend’s
Polyglott Bible.
After the Restoration, an idea was entertained of printing the famous
Alexandrian MS., which had been sent as a present to Charles I. from
the Greek Patriarch Cyrillus; and the editorship was to have been
entrusted to Dr. Smith, an Oxford scholar, to whom Charles II. promised
a Canonry at Windsor or Westminster for his labour; but the design was
abandoned. Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, published, in 1675, an
edition of the Greek New Testament, with various readings, taken from
Walton and others; his object being to show the substantial correctness
of the received text, and how little its integrity is affected by the
numerous lections accumulated by an industrious collation of MSS.
[Sidenote: ANGLICAN CRITICS.]
To these critics must be added the well-known commentator Dr. Hammond,
who, instead of following the Fathers and the Reformers in their
schemes of mystical interpretation, struck out a path for himself, and
sought to illustrate the grammatical sense of the sacred writings.
He studied the Hellenistic dialect, compared Greek MSS., examined
ancient manners and customs, and employed the opinions of the Gnostics
to elucidate references in the Epistles to early heresies. This is
very remarkable in an Anglican Divine, and it indicates what some
who sympathized with him in other respects might have regarded as
a rationalistic tendency--certainly they would have so regarded it
in any one not belonging to themselves. Hammond’s _Paraphrase and
Annotations_, published in 1659, may be taken as constituting
an epoch in the history of exegesis; the more so on account of his
influence, for his name stood so high with the Episcopalian clergy,
“that he naturally turned the tide of interpretation his own way.”[455]