The term Latitudinarian, both as a term of praise and a term of
reproach, intended by friends to signify that a man was liberal,
intended by enemies to denote that he was heterodox, came to be applied
to thinkers holding very different opinions. Amongst the Divines, often
placed under the generic denomination, very considerable diversities of
sentiment existed. Indeed, the name is so loosely used as to be given
to some persons whose orthodoxy is above all just suspicion--to others
not only verging upon but deeply involved in considerable error. When
we examine the essence of Latitudinarianism, and find that it consisted
in the elevation of morals above dogmas, in the assertion of charity
against bigotry, in abstinence from a curious prying into mysteries,
yet in the culture of a spirit of free investigation, we see that
there might be lying concealed under much which is truly excellent,
elements of a different description. Scepticism might nestle under
all this virtue, and all this tolerance--under this love of what is
reasonable, and this habit of liberal inquiry. Faith, in that which is
most precious, might live in amicable alliance with the distinctive
Latitudinarian temper, or scepticism might secretly nestle beneath its
wings.
From the beginning of the movement, some who took part in it,
betrayed a want of sympathy in those strong Gospel convictions, which
are of supreme importance, and in connection with it there were
entertained, at an early period of its history, curious speculations
respecting the pre-existence of souls, the salvation of the heathen,
and the state of the body at the resurrection. Though some of these
speculations were only fanciful, and others were capable of an orthodox
construction, they certainly indicated a mental tendency very apt to
resent the restraints of the Church’s faith, and to run into devious,
if not dangerous paths. It was more than possible for this habit of
rational and free inquiry to slip from under the control of its better
principles, and to assume forms of even a disastrous kind.
[Sidenote: LATITUDINARIANISM.]
We cannot help recognizing in the movement, one wave amongst many then
foaming and breaking over the wide ocean of human thought. Resistance
to the strict Calvinistic theory appeared and increased in the French
Protestant Church. In the academy of Saumur speculations were rife,
undermining the doctrines of imputation and original sin, and pointing
to the idea of universal grace.[490] A similar tendency existed in
Switzerland, not so manifest but yet operative; for the _Formula
Consensus_ adopted in 1675 to exclude Divines, who were not sound
in the faith of Geneva, met with violent opposition, and had to be
softened down, and explained away. Against orthodox Lutheranism, as
expounded in its symbolical books, there had appeared in Germany,
in the first half of the century, a scheme in support of union and
toleration resting on the basis of the Apostles’ Creed, such a
proposal being pronounced by opponents to be _Syncretism_ or a
“_Lying medley_;” and in the second half of the same century may
be traced the rise of Pietism under Spener, who, although an orthodox
believer, exalted spiritual life above theological belief.[491]
Even the Roman Catholic Church throbbed with inquisitive impulses
perilous to the blind rule which it upheld. The theology of Jansenism,
whilst, under one aspect, it appears as an assertion of orthodox
Augustinianism,--under another aspect reveals itself as a protest
against authority; and the sentiment of Quietism, with its spiritual
ardour, tended to the depreciation of what is dogmatical. The Port
Royalists and Madame Guyon were, in fact, falling into a current which
they did not comprehend. Biblical criticism was looking the same
way. It carried in its bosom elements both of faith and scepticism.
Inquiries into the state of the sacred text alarmed many of the
learned and the good; and Hermeneutical Canons were being followed,
which, while soundly Protestant, imperilled ideas venerable for their
antiquity.[492] Historical criticism exposed ancient falsehoods. The
spuriousness of the Isidorian Decretals, for ages the stronghold of
Papal despotism, was demonstrated by the Protestant Controversialist
Blondel, and was acknowledged even by the Catholic Canonist Contius.
The abandonment of the scholastic method of reasoning, the triumph of
modern philosophy in the Universities of Europe, the formation of a
fresh secular literature, and the critical study of history in general,
with the explosion of old fables and superstitions, were all signs of
the times, conveying the impression that a new epoch was at hand in
the history of human intelligence.
Philosophy abroad placed itself at the head of these tendencies. Even
Descartes, the Christian, in seeking a basis for positive belief,
started with a doubt; Spinoza, the Jew, his disciple in some respects,
found his goal in pantheism.[493] The Malmesbury philosopher, Hobbes,
and, still earlier, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in their free-thinking
speculations, long before any great movement took place at Cambridge,
not only laid religion open to the inroads of infidelity, but aided and
abetted attacks upon its citadel: Herbert, by denying the necessity of
a Scripture revelation, Hobbes by representing Christianity as resting
on a foundation, which no reasonable man can tolerate for a moment.
Thus widely, for good and for evil, free thought was at work in Europe.
Some saw in it a rising storm, which would tear every vessel from its
moorings; others believed it to be the breaking up of a winter’s frost,
and the melting down of icebergs, which had long chilled the whole
intellectual atmosphere. For my own part, I am convinced that there was
both evil and good in all this activity, of which the effect may be
traced in the history of intellectual inquiry ever since. It is felt
in the controversies of the present day; and he is the wise man who
strives to distinguish between the precious and the vile, to separate
the one from the other, and in the noble service of truth to abstain
from any alliance with error.
[Sidenote: MILTON’S OPINIONS.]
In this notice of the progress of free inquiry one great thinker should
be mentioned, whose fame as a poet has so eclipsed the reputation
of his genius in other respects, that he is rarely remembered in
the character of a theologian, although he really was one. In that
capacity he combined, perhaps, beyond any man of his age, peculiarities
drawn from two schools, with neither of which could he be identified.
In the very title of John Milton’s _Treatise on Christian Doctrine,
compiled from the Holy Scriptures alone_, there is a Puritan-like
renunciation of the Anglican doctrine of patristic authority: his
inquiry touches only what the Bible teaches, and he professes, as many
others have done, without allowing for educational and constitutional
influences, to draw all his conclusions immediately and impartially
from Holy Writ. He might free himself from Church trammels of all
kinds; nevertheless even he could not deliver his mind from all
predilections and prejudgments; and when in his old age he sat down to
read the Bible, Milton, no more than other men, could bring to it a
_tabula rasa_ ready to receive nothing but unbiassed impressions
from the Divine oracles.
The Latitudinarianism of Milton--how far influenced by the spirit
of free thought existing at Cambridge I cannot say--appears in his
doctrine of the Son of God; yet it modestly presents itself, and it
by no means reaches a Socinian conclusion. In contradiction to the
title of his Treatise he approaches this mysterious subject, through
the medium of certain metaphysical postulates, and teaches that the
Son, produced by generation, is neither co-eternal, nor co-essential,
and that His existence “was no less owing to the decree and will of
the Father, than His priesthood or kingly power, or His resuscitation
from the dead.” Milton overlooks, or virtually denies, the distinction
in the Nicene Creed, “begotten and not made;” when he says, “nothing
can be more evident than that God, of His own will, _created or
generated_, or produced the Son before all things;” and again,
whilst professing to discard reason in such matters, and to follow
the doctrine of Holy Scripture exclusively, he proceeds to insist
metaphysically upon the unity of God, and to confine that unity to
the nature of the Father. According to this idea, he interprets a
number of texts, respecting the union of Christ with the Father, as
meaning no more than that the Father and the Son are one in purpose.
Milton examines, _seriatim_, the texts adduced in proof of the
absolute Divinity of the Redeemer, and sets them aside one by one, with
a calmness only now and then ruffled by a slight breeze of anger--in
striking contrast with the Neptune-like storms of controversy which he
raises in most of his polemical works. The negative side of his theory
of the nature of the Son is sufficiently clear; not so the positive
side. He is not a Trinitarian. He is not a Socinian. Is he an Arian?
If so, he belongs to the class nearest to orthodoxy, for all which he
denies is the co-eternity, and the co-existence of the Son, whilst he
expressly attributes to Him, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence,
and universal Authority, as well as Divine works, and Divine honours.
His Editor, Dr. Sumner, remarks, that Milton ascribes to the Son
as high a share of Divinity as was compatible with the denial of
his self-existence, and eternal generation, his co-equality, and
co-essentiality with the Father.[494]
Milton devotes a chapter to the doctrine of predestination, which he
defines as being not particular but universal:--none are predestinated
or elected irrespectively of character (_e.g._, Peter is not
elected as Peter, or John as John, but inasmuch as they are believers,
and continue in their belief); and thus, he says, the general decree of
election becomes personally applicable to each particular believer,
and is ratified to all who remain steadfast in the faith.
[Sidenote: MILTON’S OPINIONS.]
Milton’s sympathy with Puritanism appears in his views of redemption,
regeneration, repentance, justification, and adoption. In his chapter
on saving faith he describes it as a full persuasion produced in us
through the gift of God, whereby we believe, on the sole authority
of the promise itself, that all things are ours, whatsoever he has
promised us in Christ, and especially the grace of eternal life.[495]
The spirit of free inquiry, at a later period, ran into decided
Arianism and Socinianism: at the time of which I am now speaking,
tendencies in that direction were at work in different quarters.
When, under the Commonwealth, Philip Nye said that “to his knowledge
the denying of the Divinity of Christ was a growing opinion;”--when
Edwards said, it had found an entrance into some of the Independent
Churches;--when Owen said, “The evil is at the door, there is not a
city, a town, scarce a village in England wherein some of this poison
is not poured forth;”--these writers might be under the influence of
uncharitableness, or of false alarm--both are common in seasons of
excitement--but when Parliament resolved, in the year 1652, to seize
and burn all copies of the Racovian Catechism, that fact forces us to
conclude that the Catechism must have been in circulation, and that the
tenets which it expressed were being propagated.
John Biddle, who under the Commonwealth Government suffered much
in consequence of his opinions, may be considered the father of
Socinianism. Being a man of blameless life, the persecutions that he
underwent awaken our sympathy; and it is highly probable, that the
treatment which he received, although intended to reclaim him from
his errors, only served to drive him further from orthodoxy. He took
high ground as to free inquiry; but professed to exercise it simply
in getting at the meaning of Scripture; and he exhorted people “to
lay aside for a while, controversial writings, together with those
prejudicate opinions that have been instilled into the memory and
understanding, and closely to apply themselves to the search of the New
Testament.” At first he declared, “I believe, that our Saviour Jesus
Christ is truly God, by being truly, really, and properly united to
the only Person of the Infinite and Almighty Essence;”--this position,
instead of being employed by his opponents as an admission, sufficient
to keep him, if consistent, within the bounds of evangelical faith,
excited their suspicions, and led to fresh controversy, and fresh
persecution. Although he continued to use orthodox language, he made it
more and more a vehicle for conveying unorthodox ideas. His opinions
and modes of expression are equally peculiar.
For example, one of the positions which he lays down is this:--“I
believe that there is One principal Minister of God and Christ,
principally sent from heaven to sanctify the Church, who, by reason
of His eminency, and intimacy with God, is singled out of the number
of the other heavenly ministers, or angels, and comprised in the Holy
Trinity, being the third Person thereof, and that this Minister of God
and Christ is the Holy Spirit.” Further, he observes, “the Trinity
which the Apostle Paul believed, consisteth of One God, One Lord, and
One Spirit, but not of three Persons in One God.” And he proceeds
even to adduce the usual arguments for the personality of the Holy
Spirit:--a doctrine which he admits throughout a singular Tract,
published by him at an earlier period.
[Sidenote: BIDDLE.]
In another article of faith, he avers, “I believe that Jesus Christ,
to the intent He might be a brother, and have a fellow-feeling of our
infirmities, and so become the more ready to help us (the consideration
whereof is the greatest encouragement to piety that can be imagined),
hath no other than a human nature; and, therefore, in the very nature,
is not only a Person (since none but a human person can be our
brother), but also our Lord, yea, our God.”
His use of the word Trinity, which it seems he never dropped, he
explains by saying, that the Trinity which the Apostle Peter (Acts ii.
36) believed, consisteth of God the Father, of the Man Jesus Christ our
Lord, and of the Holy Spirit, the gift of God through our Lord Jesus
Christ.[496]
In Biddle’s Catechism, which John Owen couples with the Racovian,
and elaborately answers in his _Vindiciæ Evangelicæ_,[497] the
author so far from explaining away the language of Holy Writ, pushes
its literal interpretation, respecting one subject at least, in a
very bold, rude fashion, to such an extreme, that he attributes to
the Almighty, a bodily and visible shape, with human affections and
passions. Consequently, he objected to the terms _infinite and
incomprehensible_, as forms of speech not used in Scripture, and not
applicable to the Supreme Being. Tertullian, it may here be noticed,
ascribed corporeality to God, but he seems to have meant by it nothing
more than substance and personality.[498]
A very different man from Biddle,--one whom from his absurd manner
of talking, we should suspect had in him a touch of insanity,--was
Daniel Scargill, Fellow of Corpus Christi, Cambridge. In 1669, he
formally and publicly, before the University, recanted the following
opinions which he had formerly maintained: that all right of dominion
is founded only in power--that moral righteousness is based on the law
of the Magistrate--that the authority of Scripture rests on the same
foundation--that whatsoever the Civil Government commanded is to be
obeyed, although it may be contrary to Divine laws, and “that there is
a desirable glory in being, and in being reputed an Atheist--which I
implied when I expressly affirmed that I gloried to be an Hobbist and
an Atheist.” These retractions indicate the previous entertainment of
most extraordinary errors.
In the next chapter I shall examine the mysticism of the Quakers before
I proceed to the theology of the Puritans.