Four eminent Divines, who have made a deep mark on English literature,
now claim attention, coming, as they do, from their complexion of
thought, and from their characteristic opinions, between the Anglicans
just reviewed, and the Latitudinarians who remain to be noticed.
William Chillingworth was one of those clever, hard-headed men in whom
the reasoning faculty predominates over imagination and sentiment, and
who are thoroughly at home in the exercises of logic, subjecting the
opinions of opponents to a subtle analysis, and entrenching themselves
behind carefully-constructed outworks of argumentative defence. The
skill which, as an engineer, he displayed at the siege of Gloucester,
in framing engines to storm the place, was of a piece with the skill
which he exhibited in attacking what he believed to be forms of error
and superstition.[456] He is best known by his great work, _The
Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation_; and it is evident
that he had derived advantages, as an assailant of the Roman Church,
from the acquaintance with it which he had formed during the period of
his connection with that community.
[Sidenote: LIBERAL ORTHODOX.--CHILLINGWORTH.]
His famous dictum, “The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of
Protestants”--the lever with which he sought to upheave and overthrow
the tenets of Popery--placed him in a theological position distinct
from that which was occupied by Anglicans; for, though they were
ready enough to appeal to Scripture against Rome, they also appealed
to Christian antiquity against Puritanism. Chillingworth’s method of
reasoning betrayed an absence of sympathy with High Church Divines in
their reverence for the early Fathers, and showed how he fixed his
religious opinions solely upon the basis of the written revelation,
as interpreted by reason. And at the same time, by largely insisting
upon the principle that the Apostles’ Creed contains all necessary
points of mere belief,[457] and by the disposition which he manifested
to recognize as little doctrinal meaning upon disputed points as
possible in the articles of that early Christian confession, he not
only separated himself from Anglicans, but he separated himself from
Puritans. He was reticent upon evangelical subjects, respecting which
the latter delighted to speak; and from his desire to comprehend people
of considerable dogmatic divergency within the pale of the Church, he
incurred reproaches from those last named, and was stigmatized by them,
not only as an Arminian, but as a Socinian. No definite idea of his
opinions upon some important parts of Divine truth can be gathered from
his writings. It is plain that he loved a large liberty in all kinds
of thinking, and set a higher value upon a religious temper, a devout
spirit, a Catholic disposition, and a moral life, than upon orthodoxy
of sentiment, or forms of worship, or methods of ecclesiastical
government and discipline.
Chillingworth, a native of the City, and an ornament of the University
of Oxford, died in 1644. Eight years afterwards, the English Church
lost another Divine, an ornament of the University of Cambridge, who,
though very different in many respects from Chillingworth, may be
classed with him in the same division of liberal Divines.
[Sidenote: LIBERAL ORTHODOX.--SMITH.]
John Smith possessed a mind in which the mystical element mingled
itself with an intense energy of reflection, a habit of calm thought,
and an imagination which employed itself, not in painting individual
objects, but in dyeing, with rich tints of colour, abstract and
immutable ideas. His mental training had been in the Greek Academy.
He had long sat as a loving disciple at the feet of Plato, and had
conversed with the earlier and later Platonists. The reader of
Smith’s works will, in every page, discover traces of his peculiar
culture, as well as of his peculiar endowments. His _Select
Discourses_, published in 1660, take a wide range, embracing the
true method of attaining Divine knowledge; the errors that grow up
beside it--superstition on the one hand, atheism on the other; the
immortality of the soul, which is the subject, and the existence and
nature of God, who is the Author and object of religion; and prophecy,
which Smith treats as the way whereby revealed truth is dispensed
and conveyed, rather than as a proof whereby it is established. The
discourses upon the difference between an evangelical and legal
righteousness, upon the excellency and nobleness of true religion, and
upon a Christian’s conflict with and conquest over Satan, exhibit the
author’s characteristic views of doctrinal, ethical, and experimental
Divinity. The first only requires particular notice here. “The law was
the ministry of death, and in itself an external and lifeless thing;
neither could it procure or beget that Divine life and spiritual form
of godliness, in the souls of men, which God expects from all the
heirs of glory, nor that glory which is only consequent upon a true
Divine life.” Whereas, on the other side, the Gospel is set forth “as
a mighty efflux and emanation of life and spirit, freely issuing forth
from an omnipotent source of grace and love, as that true, God-like,
vital influence whereby the Divinity derives itself into the souls
of men, enlivening and transforming them into its own likeness, and
strongly imprinting upon them a copy of its own beauty and goodness;
like the spermatical virtue of the heavens, which spreads itself
freely upon this lower world, and, subtily insinuating itself into
this benumbed, feeble, earthly matter, begets life and motion in
it. Briefly, it is that whereby God comes to dwell in us, and we in
Him.”[458]
Particular passages may mislead as to the general character of an
author’s teaching; but there is a ring in these words, indicating at
once the kind of metal of which Smith’s theology is made. It is of the
same substance throughout. “The righteousness of faith,” he says, “and
the righteousness of God, is a Christ-like nature in a man’s soul, or
Christ appearing in the minds of men by the mighty power of His Divine
Spirit, and thereby deriving a true participation of Himself to them.”
And in accordance with this, and showing at the same time the author’s
shrinking from definite and precise forms of dogmatic statement, such
as may be found in Anglicans on the one side, and in Puritans on
the other, he observes that the Gospel “was not brought in, only to
refine some notions of truth that might formerly seem discoloured and
disfigured by a multitude of legal rites and ceremonies; it was not to
cast our opinions concerning the way of life and happiness only into a
new mould and shape in a pedagogical kind of way; it is not so much a
system and body of saving Divinity, but the spirit and vital influx of
it, spreading itself over all the powers of men’s souls, and quickening
them into a Divine life; it is not so properly a doctrine that is
wrapt up in ink and paper as it is _vitalis scientia_, a living
impression made upon the soul and spirit.”[459] Another name challenges
attention.
The ever-memorable John Hales, pronounced by Pearson to have had “as
great a sharpness, quickness, and subtlety of wit as ever this or
perhaps any nation bred,” had been a Calvinist; but he said, that at
the Synod of Dort, which he attended, he bid John Calvin good-night.
He had certainly what might be termed very broad views of Christian
faith; for he remarked, “The Church is like Amphiaraus, she hath no
device, no word in her shield; mark and essence with her are all one,
and she hath no other note but to be.”[460] This was a statement which
removed him to an equal distance from both Anglicans and Puritans; and
one sentence from a sermon by Hales is sufficient to show how widely
his teaching as to the way of salvation differed from all preachers
of the latter class. “The water of baptism, and the tears of true
repentance, creatures of themselves weak and contemptible, yet through
the wonderful operation of the grace of God annext unto them, are able,
were our sins as red as twice-dyed scarlet, to make them as white as
snow.”[461] Hales was as orthodox as a man could be on the subject of
the Trinity;[462] and, in his masterly sermon on Christian omnipotency,
plainly asserts the power and sufficiency of Divine grace.[463]
[Sidenote: LIBERAL ORTHODOX.--FARINDON.]
Hales died in 1656, and was followed to the grave two years afterwards
by his attached friend Anthony Farindon, both of them being members
of the University of Oxford. Farindon was far more evangelical than
Hales and Chillingworth. He had not the mystical turn of mind which
is so marked in John Smith, nor was he so manifestly a Platonist.
Altogether his habits of thought are much more on a level with common
understandings.
The distance which severed Farindon from the Anglicans comes out in
the following passage:--“And now, if we look into the Church, we shall
find that most men stand in need of a ‘yea, rather.’ ... _Felix
sacramentum!_ ‘Blessed sacrament of baptism!’ ... It is true; but
there is ... ‘Yea, rather; blessed are they that have put on Christ.’
‘Blessed sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.’ It is true; but, ‘Yea,
rather; blessed are they that dwell in Christ.’ ‘Blessed profession
of Christianity!’ ‘Yea, rather; blessed are they that are Christ’s.’
‘Blessed cross!’ The Fathers call it so. ‘Yea, rather; blessed are
they that have crucified their flesh, with the affections and lusts.’
‘Blessed Church!’ ‘Yea, rather; blessed are they who are members of
Christ.’ ‘Blessed Reformation!’ ‘Yea, rather; blessed are they that
reform themselves.’”[464]
Nor is the distinction between Farindon and the Puritans much less
visible, when he remarks, with regard to the act of justification,
“What mattereth it whether I believe or not believe, know or not
know, that our justification doth consist in one or more acts, so
that I certainly know and believe that it is the greatest blessing
that God can let fall upon His creature, and believe that by it I am
made acceptable in His sight, and, though I have broken the law,
yet shall be dealt with as if I had been just and righteous indeed?
whether it be done by pardoning all my sins, or imputing universal
obedience to me, or the active and passive obedience of Christ?”
“And as in justification, so in the point of faith by which we are
justified, what profit is there so busily to inquire whether the nature
of faith consisteth in an obsequious assent, or in the appropriation
of the grace and mercy of God, or in a mere fiducial apprehension and
application of the merits of Christ?”[465] It would be difficult to
point out, in the writings of this theologian, a precise definition
either of justification or of faith, and equally difficult to point
out any statement adverse to those views of salvation by grace in
which all evangelic Christians agree. He finds fault with Augustine
for confounding justification with sanctification, and separates
himself from the Anglican, though not so widely as from the Romanist,
when he stigmatizes as “an unsavoury tenet” the doctrine, “that
justification is not a pronouncing, but a making one righteous; that
inherent holiness is the formal cause of justification; and that we
may redeem our sins, and purchase forgiveness, by fasting, almsdeeds,
and other good works.” Deficient in definiteness upon these points,
Farindon is clear in reference to the Trinity, the Incarnation, and
the Atonement. He expounds them in an orthodox way, yet he does not
dwell upon them so frequently, and at such length, as his Anglican
and Puritan contemporaries. He is no Calvinist; without entering into
lengthened controversy on the five points, he shows his great dislike
to Calvin’s views.[466] He holds decidedly that Christ died for all
men; and with caustic reasoning, shows that, when it is said, “God
so loved the world,” it cannot mean, He so loved the elect.[467] His
Arminianism is perhaps nearly, if not quite, as evangelical as that of
our Wesleyan brethren, but he lacks the fervour with which they set
forth the verities of Christianity in relation to the deepest wants of
man. Puritans could scarcely apply the moral lessons of the Gospel to
the hearts of men on grounds more evangelic than those presented by
Farindon; but we miss in his sermons a penetrating fire like that of
John Owen, and a melting pathos like that of Richard Baxter.
[Sidenote: CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL.]
The way is now open for viewing that division of thinkers who
distinguished themselves, after the Restoration, by the breadth of
their opinions. They followed in the steps of those whom we have now
described, but in some particulars they went far beyond them. In a
former volume I touched upon the Cambridge school of theologians; it
remains for me to trace the subsequent development and progress of
their peculiarities. They early received the name of Latitudinarians,
and in 1662 their name had passed into everybody’s mouth, although its
explicit meaning, it was said, remained as great a mystery as the order
of the Rosicrucians. Some spoke of them as holding dangerous opinions,
others defended them; but all which people in general knew seemed to be
that the new school of thinkers mostly belonged to the University of
Cambridge, and that they mostly followed the new philosophy.
A contemporary--one of their number--describes them in the first place
as attached to the liturgy of the Church of England; and as admiring
its solemnity, gravity, and primitive simplicity, together with its
freedom both from affected phrases, and from any mixture of vain
and doubtful opinions. They also, he says, believed “that it is the
greatest check to devotion which can be, to hear men mix their private
opinions with their public prayers,”--and they expressed themselves
strongly against extempore devotions. As for rites and ceremonies,
they approved what is called “the virtuous mediocrity of the Reformed
Episcopal Church,” between the “meretricious gaudiness” of Rome, and
“the squalid sluttery” of the fanatics. They contended that “so long as
we live in this region of mortality, we must make use of such external
helps” as the Church has thought fitted for the ends of worship.
According to the same authority, they were averse to Presbyterianism
and to Independency; and were decided supporters of Episcopal order. As
for the doctrines of the Church, the Latitudinarians cordially adhered
to the Thirty-nine Articles, to the three Creeds, and to any doctrine
held by the Church, “unless absolute reprobation be one, which they do
not think themselves bound to believe.” Great reverence is attributed
to them, for the genuine monuments of the ancient Fathers, those
especially of the first and purest age; and the writer then meets the
charge of their hearkening too much to reason. For reason, he says,
“is that faculty, whereby a man must judge of everything; nor can a
man believe anything except he have some reason for it, whether that
reason be a deduction from the light of nature, and those principles
which are the candle of the Lord, set up in the soul of every man that
hath not wilfully extinguished it, or a branch of Divine revelation
in the oracles of Holy Scripture; or the general interpretation of
genuine antiquity, or the proposal of our own Church consentaneous
thereto; or lastly, the result of some or all of these: for he that
will rightly make use of his reason, must take all that is reasonable
into consideration. And it is admirable to consider how the same
conclusions do naturally flow from all these several principles; and
what in the faithful use of the faculties that God hath given, men have
believed for true, doth excellently agree with that revelation that
God hath exhibited in the Scripture, and the doctrine of the ancient
Church with them both. Thus the freedom of our wills, the universal
intent of Christ’s death, and sufficiency of God’s grace, the condition
of justification, and many other points of the like nature, which have
been almost exploded in these latter degenerate ages of the world, do
again begin to obtain, though with different persons upon different
accounts: some embrace them for their evidence in Scripture, others
for the concurrent testimony of the primitive Church for above four
hundred years; others for the reasonableness of the things themselves,
and their agreement both with the Divine attributes, and the easy
suggestions of their own minds. Nor is there any point in Divinity,
where that which is most ancient doth not prove the most rational, and
the most rational the ancientest; for there is an eternal consanguinity
between all verity; and nothing is true in Divinity, which is false
in Philosophy, or on the contrary; and therefore what God hath joined
together, let no man put asunder.”[468]
[Sidenote: CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL.]
The account is that of a partizan, who evidently wishes to make
Latitudinarianism stand well in the estimation of all sorts of
Churchmen; and therefore he strives to paint its teachers in colours
of orthodoxy, and he charily remarks that they will be “generally
suspected to be for liberty of conscience.”
Baxter, in 1665, speaks of the same school, as Platonists, or
Cartesians, and of many of them as Arminians, with this addition, that
they had more charitable thoughts than others of the salvation of
heathens and infidels; and that some of them agreed in the opinions
of Origen, about the pre-existence of souls.[469] Burnet says that
they “read Episcopius much,”[470] respecting whose works Thorndike
affirmed, that in them “the faith of the Holy Trinity is made an
indifferent thing,” and the doctrine of original sin is “turned out of
doors,”[471]--a sweeping accusation which has been called in question,
yet it would be difficult to establish the orthodoxy of Episcopius
on the Trinity, in the sense attached to that term by writers like
Thorndike. No doubt there were heterodox tendencies in the writings
of Episcopius and his school; but in this respect some of the later
Remonstrants went beyond their master.
[Sidenote: FOWLER.]
The writer who most fully expounded the tenets of the Latitudinarians
as a whole was Edward Fowler, who hesitated to conform in 1662, but who
became afterwards Rector of Allhallows, Bread Street, and finally was
elevated to the see of Gloucester. In his work _On the Principles and
Practices of Certain Moderate Divines of the Church of England_,
published in 1679, he professes truly to represent and defend them, and
every page bears witness to the fact of their having been adopted by
this author. He strongly maintains the eternal and immutable grounds
of morality, against the pernicious principle which had been urged by
some Calvinists, that the entire basis of virtue is to be found in the
will of God, and vindicates the prominence given by the new teachers to
the reasonableness of Christianity. Though the supernatural origin of
the Gospel, and the Divine authority of its doctrines, are implied, and
even distinctly acknowledged in the volume, yet the impression given by
it altogether is such as to place the duty of accepting Christianity
mainly upon the ground of its being a rational system. The production
of faith is described as a process of reasoning, with regard to which
the inward testimony of the Spirit is resolved “ordinarily” into a
blessing on the use of means, _i.e._, the consideration of the
motives He hath given us to believe.[472]
Another passage may be quoted, indicating the view of the writer upon a
question which proves a touchstone of theological sentiment.
The Latitudinarians “are very careful so to handle the doctrine
of justifying faith, as not only to make obedience to follow it,
but likewise to include a hearty willingness to submit to all
Christ’s precepts in the nature of it; and to show the falsity and
defectiveness of some descriptions of faith, that have had too general
an entertainment, and still have. This they look upon themselves
as greatly obliged to do, as being well aware, of what dangerous
consequence some received notions of that grace are, and that not a few
that have imbibed them, have so well understood their true and natural
inferences, as to be thereby encouraged to let the reins loose to all
ungodliness.”[473]
Fowler affirms that those who are sincerely righteous, and from an
inward living principle allow themselves in no known sin, nor in
the neglect of any known duty, which is to be truly, evangelically
righteous, shall be dealt with and rewarded, in and through Christ,
as if they were perfectly and in a strict legal sense so. Entering
essentially into Fowler’s notion of faith is the idea of its being the
germ of Christian virtue: and, as it regards the connection between
faith and justification, he believes that the receiving of Christ
as Lord is a prerequisite to the obtaining of Christ as Redeemer.
He defines justifying faith in these words:--“A grace of the Holy
Spirit, whereby a man being convinced of his sin and miserable estate
in regard of it, and an all-sufficiency in Christ to save from both,
receives Him as He is tendered in the Gospel, or according to his three
offices of Prophet, Priest, and King;” and,--which is important to
the understanding of Fowler’s views,--he adds, “That act of receiving
Christ as Lord, is to go before that of receiving Him as a Priest;
for we may not rely upon Him for salvation, till we are willing to
yield obedience to Him.”[474] In all this, and in much more, may
be recognized a striving after some way of thoroughly meeting the
two sides of that redemption from evil, which in the Gospel is ever
represented as one. Whilst some theologians made holiness the result
of faith in a Divine salvation, which salvation was treated by them
as identical with justification, and others considered holiness as
an essential part of it,--Fowler leaned in the direction of making
holiness the means of salvation; and the tendency to adopt a _via
media_ further appears in his attempt to steer a middle course
between Calvinism and Arminianism:--He remarks, “That there is such
a thing as distinguishing grace, whereby some persons are absolutely
elected, by virtue whereof they shall be (having potent and infallible
means prepared for them) irresistibly saved. But that others, that are
not in the number of those singular and special favourites, are not
at all in a desperate condition, but have sufficient means appointed
for them to qualify them for greater or less degrees of happiness, and
have sufficient grace offered to them some way or other, and some time
or other; and are in a capacity of salvation either greater or less,
through the merits of Jesus Christ; and that none of them are damned,
but those that wilfully refuse to co-operate with that grace of God,
and will not act in some moral suitableness to that power they have
received.”[475]
[Sidenote: FOWLER.]
Universal redemption,--by which is signified the universal
applicability of our Lord’s atoning sacrifice,--is strenuously
maintained by this Divine;[476] and he speaks hopefully of the future
state, through Christ, of virtuous heathens.
Passing to Church questions, the same writer expresses a preference
for Episcopacy, but does not unchurch unepiscopal societies; he
holds Erastian views of the power of the civil magistrate; and
strangely denies, that liberty of conscience forms a part of Christian
liberty. He would concede to every man liberty of opinion, but not
the liberty of persuading others to adopt his opinion; so that this
scheme, ecclesiastically considered, runs at last into the doctrine
of intolerance. Throughout Fowler’s works an anti-Puritan feeling
is predominant; and his allusions to Nonconformists are by no means
friendly.[477]
Wilkins, the moderate and liberal Bishop of Chester, belonged to
the same class with Fowler. Known chiefly by his scientific works,
he, nevertheless, deserves notice as one of the early defenders of
natural religion against the attacks and the innuendoes of sceptics
and infidels. The authors who have been just mentioned passed over
the evidences of religion and plunged at once into the discussion of
doctrines; but Wilkins saw that there is much outside Christianity
which needed defence, for the subsequent preservation of the palladium
of the faith. He is to be reckoned amongst the first to expound those
more general and fundamental truths which, in the next century,
occupied so much attention, and were esteemed bulwarks of revelation.
He wrote upon the principles and duties of natural religion; but
only twelve chapters of the book on the subject were completed by
himself; the rest being prepared from the Bishop’s MSS., by his
friend Tillotson. Cumberland’s _De legibus Naturæ Disquisitio
Philosophica_ (1672) is scarcely a theological treatise, it being a
pioneer in the dangerous region of utilitarian ethics; but Cumberland
may properly be reckoned as belonging to the Latitudinarians, for his
speculations are more or less intimately related to what is generally
regarded as the religion of nature in its alliance with the religion of
revelation.
[Sidenote: CUDWORTH.]
A chief--if not the very first place--amongst the opponents of atheism
and immorality, must be adjudged to Ralph Cudworth, whose learning
and ability have reflected so much lustre on the Cambridge school.
His _Intellectual System_ is left unfinished, and reminds us of
costly preparations for palatial buildings which have never risen
above a few layers of marble blocks. With such a comparison, however,
a contrast is suggested; for whilst the substructions referred to, may
be monuments of the folly, condemned in the Gospel, of him who begins
to build and is not able to finish,--Cudworth’s treatise shows it was
from no want of power that he left his work incomplete. Of the five
chapters of the first and only book of the _Intellectual System_,
the fourth and fifth are by very far the longest, and these are devoted
to Theology. It comes not within my province to make an attempt at
deciding upon the place of honour due to Cudworth in the temple of
fame, to report his speculations, or to repeat his critical estimates
of different philosophers; my duty is simply to call attention to the
two chapters, in which he ventures to trace a resemblance between the
Trinity of Plato and the Trinity of Scripture, and argues also against
Atheism. Respecting the latter, Cudworth had stated in his second
chapter, the various reasonings of the ancient fatalists, whose system
he characterized as “a gigantical and titanical attempt to dethrone
the Deity,”--“Atheism openly swaggering under the glorious appearance
of wisdom and philosophy.” In the fourth chapter, where he speaks of
the Trinity, he explains Platonic ideas, attempting to show, that
notwithstanding the difference between them and the ideas in Scripture,
the three hypostases of the Platonists were Homoousian, Coessential,
and Consubstantial. He touches upon the opinions of the Fathers, and
expounds the views of Athanasius, who supposes that the three Divine
hypostases “make up one entire Divinity, after the same manner as the
fountain and the stream make up one entire river; or the root, and
the stock, and the branches, one entire tree.” Cudworth contends that
the Christian Trinity, though a mystery, is more agreeable to reason
than the Platonic; and that there is no absurdity at all in supposing
“the pure soul and body of the Messiah to be made a living temple or
Shechinah-image or statue of the Deity.”[478] The bent of the author’s
mind, and the tendency of the school to which he belonged, is seen
throughout this part of his design, which is not to place the doctrine
of the Trinity on a scriptural basis, but to establish and illustrate
its perfect reasonableness, and to point out coincidences between it
and some of the best guesses, or most satisfactory conclusions, of
thinkers who never enjoyed the advantages of revelation. In harmony
with this, is the fact of his noting, in the midst of his speculations,
the following errors:--“The first, of those who make Christianity
nothing but an Antinomian Plot against real righteousness, and, as
it were, a secret confederacy with the Devil. The second, of those
who turn that into matter of mere notion and opinion, dispute and
controversy, which was designed by God only as a contrivance, machine,
or engine to bring men effectually to a holy and godly life.”[479]
[Sidenote: CUDWORTH.]
The fifth chapter is devoted to “a particular confutation of all the
atheistic grounds,” which confutation covers 270 folio pages. The two
principal objections which he combats are, that, either men have no
idea of God at all, or else, none but such as is compounded and made up
of impossible and contradictory notions; whence these Atheists would
infer Him to be an inconceivable nothing, and that, as nothing could
come from nothing, it may be concluded, that whatever substantially
or really is, was from all eternity of itself unmade, or uncreated by
any Deity. The answering of these objections--in a course of argument
which combines great learning with metaphysical acuteness--leads
Cudworth to introduce proofs of the Divine existence drawn from final
causes, as in the subjoined passage, which is quoted as one of the
most familiar and popular forms of reasoning to be found in this
recondite treatise:--“It is no more possible, that the fortuitous
motion of dead and senseless matter, should ever from itself be taught
and necessitated to produce such an orderly and regular system as the
frame of this whole world is, together with the bodies of animals, and
constantly to continue the same; than that a man perfectly illiterate
and neither able to write nor read, taking up a pen into his hand, and
making all manner of scrawls, with ink upon paper, should at length be
taught and necessitated by the thing itself, to write a whole quire of
paper together, with such characters, as being decyphered by a certain
key, would all prove coherent philosophic sense.” Or to take another
instance:--“This is no more possible than that ten or a dozen persons,
altogether unskilled in music, having several instruments given them,
and striking the strings or keys thereof, any how as it happened,
should, after some time of discord and jarring, at length be taught and
necessitated, to fall into most exquisite harmony, and continue the
same uninterruptedly for several hours together.”[480]
Cudworth directed his studies chiefly to the foundations of religion
and morality. Neither from his published works, nor, it would appear,
from his unpublished MSS., in the British Museum, can any definite
system of Biblical doctrine be gathered. The general colouring of his
theological views, however, may be inferred from the very title of one
of his printed treatises: “_Deus Justificatus_; or the Divine
Goodness vindicated and cleared against the assertors of absolute and
inconditionate Reprobation.”
[Sidenote: CAMBRIDGE.--CRITICS.]
Edward Stillingfleet, who has claimed our attention both as a healer
and a stirrer up of strife, although not a doctrinal controversialist,
demands some notice as a writer on Christian evidences. His broad
and moderate churchmanship at the period of the Restoration, and
his sympathy also at that time with the Latitudinarian Divines of
Cambridge,--where he was educated and obtained a Fellowship at St.
John’s in 1653,--entitle him to a place amongst them in the early
part of his life.[481] It was in the year 1662, that he published his
“_Origines Sacræ_; or Rational Account of the Christian Faith,
as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scripture.” His learning,
acuteness, logical ability, and lawyer-like habit of thought eminently
fitted him for controversy, and these talents are signally displayed
in the book now mentioned. The first part is occupied with an exposure
of the obscurity, defect, and uncertainty of heathen histories, and of
heathen chronology. In the treatment of this subject, he so completely
undermines the credibility of all ancient history, except what is in
Scripture, that he unwittingly precludes the proper use of the former
in certain instances as a corroboration of the latter. He does not with
thorough care distinguish between insufficiency and a complete want of
authority. In the second book, he dwells on the knowledge, fidelity,
and integrity of Moses; and upon the proofs of a Divine inspiration of
the prophets from the fulfilment of their prophecies; but in this part
of his work, he does not so much anticipate the details of the modern
argument, as unfold the principles upon which he conceived the argument
should rest. The evidence from miracles is also exhibited. The third
book, to which the title of _Origines_ particularly points, treats
of the being of God, and the origin of the universe,--of evil--of the
nations of the earth--and of the Heathen Mythology. In connection with
the origin of nations, he vindicates the Scripture history of the
Deluge, and falls into harmony with modern geologists, by confessing
that he sees no necessity from Scripture, to assert, that the flood
spread itself over the whole surface of the earth.[482]
Before proceeding further with the current of theological opinion, let
me pause for a moment to mention the names of men who, in the service
of Biblical learning, may perhaps be justly classed with the Divines
now under review. Lightfoot, the Erastian, published, between 1644 and
1664, a Harmony of the Gospels, a Commentary upon the Acts, and Notes
upon St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, besides _Horæ
Hebraicæ, et Talmudicæ_, and other Exercitations of a similar kind.
All his books exhibit Rabbinical lore applied to the elucidation of the
Holy Scriptures; and he is not only the first of our English Divines to
break up new ground decidedly and extensively in this field, but he
actually tills the soil to such a degree, that none of his successors
in the same path of industry are equal to this master-workman. Besides
his own volumes, he has contributed to the interests of Biblical
scholarship, by largely assisting Walton in his Polyglott, and Poole in
his Synopsis.
Simon Patrick--numbered by Burnet among the Latitudinarians--wrote
Commentaries upon the Old Testament, as far as the Book of
Esther,--these were published between the years 1694 and 1705,--but at
an earlier date, between 1678 and 1681, he wrote Paraphrases of Job
and the Psalms, of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. He
united reverence with learning, and brevity with accuracy; and avoiding
the method of citing a number of opinions, which only perplex the
reader, he gives his own in a style which is clear, and with arguments
which are forcible.[483]
There is another person entitled to honourable mention, which perhaps
may be as fittingly introduced here as anywhere: for, though he cannot
be identified with the Latitudinarian school, neither can he in any
proper sense be pronounced either Anglican or Puritan. Dr. James Ussher
occupies a niche of his own in the temple of theological literature.
His broad sympathies seem to fix his place at least near to those
scholars who have just been described. As to time, his publications
take their place between the beginning of the works of Lightfoot and
the beginning of the works of Patrick. Ussher differed from them both.
He was far superior to the last in learning; but I should infer, from
what is said of him, that in some respects--certainly in the Rabbinical
department of study--he was inferior to Lightfoot as a Biblical critic.
In the learning which relates to sacred chronology he had no rival.
[Sidenote: CAMBRIDGE.--SCIENCE.]
At the close of this chapter, in which so much has been said respecting
the free thought of the Cambridge school, and just as we are on the
point of noticing its wider developments, I would seize the opportunity
of saying a few words in relation to views of science entertained by
more advanced theological inquirers. Aristotle remained a favourite
philosophical teacher with the supporters of old-fashioned orthodoxy.
The “new learning,” as the investigation of physical phenomena after
the Baconian method, came to be termed, inspired an immense degree of
suspicion in the minds of a large number of clergymen, who fancied
they could detect in it tendencies to Popery, or Socinianism,--they
scarcely knew which; and the infant Royal Society, then beginning “to
knock at the door where truth was to be found, although it was left for
Newton to force it open,”[484] expressed a good deal of indignation
on account of its supposed arrogance. It received such treatment as
falls to the lot of a pert and conceited child, and old people shook
their heads as they prognosticated the end of such folly after a little
experience. Gunning, Bishop of Ely, Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, and
South, when orator at the University of Oxford, denounced these new
studies as most mischievous; and Henry Stubbe, an intense admirer of
Aristotle, raved against the scientific associates with a violence
which was perfectly absurd.[485] That jealousy of science, which is
not yet extinguished, then burnt with greater fury than it does now;
and the Divines who united the inductive study of nature with the more
immediate duties of their profession, had to sustain the brunt of a
fierce battle. Seth Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, and Wilkins, Bishop
of Chester, whilst theologically at variance, were scientifically in
unison, and occupied the front rank in the clerical army on the side of
intellectual advancement. But the person most zealous and laborious in
the defence of the new philosophy was Joseph Glanvill, Rector of Bath,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to Charles II., a writer of great ability, who
had at his command a racy vigorous English style. It is amusing to find
him employing the doctrine of a pre-existence of souls as the key to
unlock the grand mysteries of Providence, and defending the possibility
and real existence of witches and apparitions; still more amusing to be
told by him that Adam needed neither spectacles nor telescope, for his
naked eyes saw as much of the celestial world as we can discover with
all the advantages of art.[486] Nevertheless the tone of his philosophy
on the whole was decidedly sceptical; more so than Descartes, more so
than Malebranche.
[Sidenote: CAMBRIDGE.--SCIENCE.]
Glanvill, who was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and acted as its
Secretary, described and vindicated its character and proceedings, as a
noble institution, vouchsafed to the modern world for the communication
and increase of knowledge, according to the pregnant suggestion of
Lord Bacon, that many heads and hands should unite in making and
recording scientific observations, thus gathering up the facts which
lie scattered in “the vast champaign of nature,” and bringing them
into a common store.[487] But a notice of the way in which Glanvill
defended the religious temper and tendencies of the experimental
philosophy is more to our purpose; and I may, therefore, state that
he executed his task in an ingenious and lively performance which is
well worth the attention of certain people in the present day. He shows
that God is to be praised in all His works--that His works are to be
studied by those that would praise Him for them--that the study of
nature in relation to God is very serviceable to religion--and that
the ministers and professors of religion ought not to discourage, but
promote the knowledge of the ways and works of its Author. He not only
points out the connection between science and natural religion, but
proves how true philosophy may be a friend of revelation, since it is
a maxim of reason, that whatsoever God saith is to be believed, though
we cannot apprehend the manner of it or tell how the thing should
be.[488] No heterodoxy lurked under the advocacy of this scientific
Divine, for he applied his principle to the Trinity and Incarnation,
as being defensible on the same grounds as the existence of matter
and motion. He moves nearer to the controversies of our own time, and
indeed takes up a position in the midst of existing strifes, when he
challenges the imputation, that philosophy teaches doctrines contrary
to the Word of God. He meets it by saying, philosophy teaches many
things which are not revealed in Scripture, for the design of Scripture
is to teach religion, not science; no tenet ought to be exploded
because some statements in the Divine oracles seem not to comport with
it, natural objects being popularly described in the Old Testament;
and the free experimental philosophy which the author pursued, and
undertook to recommend, ventured, he said, on no peremptory and
dogmatical assertions opposed to Divine authority, but confined itself
to probabilities, where religion and the Scriptures are not at all
concerned.[489] In many of his remarks, Glanvill anticipates the line
of defence adopted by modern religious philosophers; and whilst he
evinces a freedom of inquiry into natural phenomena which proves that
he had burst the trammels of ancient prejudices, he also indicates a
profound reverence for the Bible, and never allows his scepticism to
utter a syllable inconsistent with belief in Divine revelation. I may
add, that he published a discourse upon the agreement between reason
and religion, against infidelity, scepticism, and fanaticisms of all
sorts. It is apparent, from what he says, that he had no sympathy with
Puritanism, but he had a great respect for Richard Baxter.